Building Research Establishment Evidence - Tuesday 15th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr colwell of the bre but before we do that

00:00:40 but before we do that i better explain that mrs stefan unfortunately tested positive for kovid yesterday evening so she has remained at home and she'll follow the proceedings on the live

00:00:52 follow the proceedings on the live stream

00:00:53 stream uh

00:00:54 uh mr akbar and i both have tested negative for covid so we're still here and looking forward to the day's events so that is why i'm afraid that we're one person short

00:01:05 person short right would you ask dr colwill to come back in please

00:01:21 good morning dr colwell good morning now if you're what you weren't here when i explained to everyone watching why we've got an empty chair in front of you but just so that you know i'm afraid my sister fun tested positive for kovid

00:01:33 my sister fun tested positive for kovid last night so she is isolating and she won't be here for today and probably for a day or two um but mr hackmore and i have both tested negative so we're at the moment

00:01:44 tested negative so we're at the moment at least fairly safe all right thank you yes it's great yes thank you yes good morning dr colwell um we were mid-topic and we were discussing fire note 9 when we broke off yesterday

00:01:56 fire note 9 when we broke off yesterday evening and can we look at your witness statement please and i want to go to page 20 paragraph 129 and there you had been asked about discussions between the bre and the

00:02:07 discussions between the bre and the department at any stage during the development of fire note 9 and your answer was i'm not aware of the details of any discussions that took place although i assume that they did take place with

00:02:19 assume that they did take place with mhclg

00:02:21 mhclg as the work would have been undertaken as part of a contract to provide a benchmarking classification do you see that yes

00:02:29 that yes and at paragraph 130 you're asked about these discussions and you say i would presume that it would have involved tony morris peter field and representatives from mhclg now

00:02:39 now are you quite sure about that because you were the author of fire note 9 yes is it your evidence that you had no involvement at any time in discussions with the department about that document

00:02:51 with the department about that document i have no recollection of in in the in terms of developing why fire note 9 um was published um to replace fine note 3.

00:03:04 um to replace fine note 3. with the passenger time i'm sorry i have no recollections to what that hap why that

00:03:09 that step was taken i can i can see from the documentary evidence what changes were made and i can understand why those changes made but in terms of a conversation with the department or

00:03:21 conversation with the department or um

00:03:22 um about

00:03:23 about the the process by which that took place i've gotten i have no recollection of that and and as i say my assumption would be that the department asked for it to be completed

00:03:34 department asked for it to be completed through uh tony and peter and i was asked to do it and i did right okay now in july 2000 a revised edition of approved document b was published now can you remember

00:03:46 was published now can you remember whether you saw a draft of that 2000 edition of a pre-document be before it was published i have no recollection of seeing it no no um

00:03:56 um were you aware at the time of the publication of that new edition of the the approved document yes i would have been aware that it had been published right let's go to that edition of the approved document it's at

00:04:07 edition of the approved document it's at clg here it is one five zeros 12 and if we look this is page 89 which is in section this time it was section 13 that can't contain the guidance on external

00:04:19 can't contain the guidance on external walls and b4 and if we look at paragraph 13.5 there on the left hand side we can see it tells us the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in diagram 40

00:04:32 provisions in diagram 40 and then it says however the total amount of combustible material may be limited in practice by the provisions for space separation in section 14. and then below that

00:04:43 and then below that it says this note one alternative to meeting the provisions in diagram 40 could be

00:04:51 could be bre fire note 9 assessing the fire performance of external cladding systems a test method do you see that yes i do so we can see that fire note 9 was

00:05:02 so we can see that fire note 9 was introduced into that edition of the approved document not as a test that had to be complied with under that guidance still less a substitute for the class naught requirement

00:05:13 requirement as the select committee had recommended but it was simply referenced as an alternative yes yes i can see that were you aware at any time before that edition was published in july 2000

00:05:26 edition was published in july 2000 that fire note 9 was not going to replace

00:05:29 replace the testing to bs 476 part 6 and part 7 as recommended by diagram 40 and national class naught but that there would just be a passing mention of it in the text of the guidance as a possible

00:05:42 the text of the guidance as a possible alternative option no

00:05:44 no you weren't aware of that no as i say my my involvement in the drafting of the approved documents

00:05:52 documents was um

00:05:54 was um that was not an area i had any uh direct contact with right so was this a complete surprise to to you that it was only there as a note rather than actually as the main route to

00:06:05 than actually as the main route to compliance

00:06:15 my day-to-day work doesn't involve the approved document so as such

00:06:22 as such the decisions that were made around the inclusion of test methods or exclusion of test methods in the improved document was something that was discussed by those who had a close working knowledge of the

00:06:34 who had a close working knowledge of the of the documentation

00:06:38 if it had not been included then i would have assumed that there was consultation around that that was my understanding of how approved documents were drafted and that would have been the consensus that had gone forward so to to have an

00:06:50 had gone forward so to to have an opinion

00:06:51 opinion around that i was

00:06:55 i was i was not party to the to the wider discussions to understand the context that those statements were being made in right i'm not sure that quite answers my question i understand you're saying you weren't involved in those decisions but i'd like

00:07:06 involved in those decisions but i'd like to understand your reaction were you surprised

00:07:09 surprised you said you were aware of the select committee's recommendation that the the full-scale test should substitute what was in there previously ie diagram 14 class nord um

00:07:22 14 class nord um were you surprised when you realized that hadn't been implemented in that way

00:07:33 at that point i don't think i had a i don't think i had an opinion because i i presumed that whatever the route that had been taken had been

00:07:44 route that had been taken had been been addressed in

00:07:48 in a way that had met those requirements and recommendations i

00:07:55 i apologize if i'm if i'm not very clear with this but as i say the approved document wasn't a day-to-day working document so in that sense i'm not

00:08:06 sense i'm not [Music]

00:08:10 my my relationship with it and my understanding of it was that those that were working with that and developing it and consulting on it had taken on board what was asked of them

00:08:21 taken on board what was asked of them had consulted on that and therefore this was a solution that had been returned it wasn't something that i had a particular opinion

00:08:28 opinion around because i wasn't aware of the wider consultations or discussions that had taken place around it yes i see do you know anything about why it came about that this was the way fine note 9

00:08:39 about that this was the way fine note 9 was written up into the approved document i'm really sorry i don't i say i'm i'm not um i'm not partying that in that sense those conversations did you still have an expectation

00:08:51 an expectation that the full-scale test might replace um diagram 40 at some point in the future

00:08:59 my my understanding was that diagram 40 was there to enable systems that

00:09:07 were not as um as prescribed in the approved document um would have a method to uh uh to be tested right i see

00:09:19 right i see now yesterday um when i was asking you about um the approved document you said that

00:09:25 that your understanding had been of the approved document and we weren't clear exactly on when we were talking about was that all materials in the external wall had to be of limited combustibility

00:09:37 wall had to be of limited combustibility and the the class naught reference and the reference to external services was just about the paint or the surface coating yes now just looking at this version of approved document b this is

00:09:48 version of approved document b this is the 2000 version so it's before the 2006 version that's published in 2007 that we'll come to um what was your understanding about um

00:09:59 um what was your understanding about um what needed to be of limited combustibility in the external wall because

00:10:04 because if we look on the right hand side at 13.7

00:10:09 13.7 we can see it says the external envelope of a building should not be not should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials for cladding framework

00:10:21 for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overcladding or in ventilated cavities

00:10:27 cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external services in diagram 40 may have been satisfied and then it goes on in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground

00:10:38 story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall

00:10:49 apply to masonry cavity wall construction so that's how the approved document read at this time what was your understanding about what materials had to be of limited combustibility at this point

00:11:00 combustibility at this point i'd say i'm really sorry but my i was not in a role interpreting the approved document my i had worked to develop a method of test

00:11:12 a method of test that enabled systems to be assessed and if a client came to us and asked us to test to that we tested to it was not

00:11:23 to test to that we tested to it was not my role

00:11:24 my role at any point or bre's role at any point to

00:11:27 to to interpret the approved document in terms of whether or not um something needed to be um addressed it it's

00:11:38 it it's if somebody says we need a class o product

00:11:41 product then they will come to us and we will test that product for class so we don't we're not involved in interpreting where that should or shouldn't be used within an approved document right are you saying that no one at the bre was in a role that

00:11:54 one at the bre was in a role that required interpreting the approved document

00:11:57 document i wasn't working with anyone in that in that arena no right okay now can we go to the department's response to the committee's recommendations again which is at clg

00:12:08 recommendations again which is at clg one

00:12:09 one four

00:12:11 four and i want to look at paragraph nine on page three um

00:12:16 um paragraph nine explains that fire note 9 would be referenced as an alternative in the 2000 edition of the approved document which would soon be coming into force

00:12:27 force that's effectively what that paragraph says

00:12:29 says and then

00:12:30 and then if you look down at paragraph 11 it says this when the technical amendments to the document have been completed and it has been adopted as a british standard the department will amend the reference in the approved document

00:12:42 in the approved document to bre fire note 9 to reflect its status as a british standard we will also review whether the reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be

00:12:53 demonstrating compliance should be strengthened it is unlikely that any such changes will be made immediately the status of the test method is changed as such minor amendments to the approved document are difficult to promulgate to ensure that all users of

00:13:04 promulgate to ensure that all users of the document are made aware of the change

00:13:07 change however supplements to the approved document are planned to give guidance on the new harmonized european methods of test and the amendment would be included in this

00:13:16 in this now were you aware of this part of the response from the department at the time no

00:13:22 no is it was it correct for the department to have said in april 2000 that technical amendments were being made to fire note 9 that's what it said

00:13:33 that's what it said in the in the first few lines of that as i said in my uh statement and illustrated the comparison uh from um

00:13:45 that the methodology remained unchanged so in terms of technical changes they would be referencing those three revisions that were put in place

00:13:58 right i see were you aware in 2000 that the department had stated that it would review whether the reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be strengthened

00:14:10 should be strengthened no no can you help us on what that means strengthening the reference to the the method no you can't

00:14:24 did there come a time over the years from 2000 onwards when you realize that the select committee's recommendation was not going to be followed and that the 8414 full-scale test series

00:14:36 and that the 8414 full-scale test series would not replace the provisions in diagram 40 of approved document b did there become a time when you became aware of that

00:14:53 i can't put a date or a statement to it i don't think i made the connection going forward that it it hadn't in that form because as i just said

00:15:05 as i just said the

00:15:08 my understanding my expectation was that that consultation as a result of the um

00:15:15 um select committee um

00:15:17 um announcement was that that had been the solution that had been presented and and offered i've no way of understanding the whether that um

00:15:28 um how select committee recommendations operate whether they go back and say you didn't do what we asked you to do i don't know is that something that happens in practice i'm i'm not familiar with that right no i'm just seeking to

00:15:39 with that right no i'm just seeking to get to the bottom of whether you um

00:15:42 um became aware and you realized at some point after this time that the select committee's recommendation that um this full-scale test should substitute what was in the

00:15:53 test should substitute what was in the approved document was not going to be fulfilled

00:15:59 i yeah i i guess it in in that 2000 edition it it didn't and that sort of approach didn't alter

00:16:11 that sort of approach didn't alter after that no

00:16:14 no okay i want to turn some questions now about the contract for the review of br135

00:16:19 br135 with the department for which the bre bid in late 1999 following the fire at garnet court and the select committee inquiry

00:16:28 inquiry that became something known as the review of fire performance of external cladding systems and revision of bre report br 135 under contract cc 1924 yes yes

00:16:42 under contract cc 1924 yes yes now was it your understanding that that work came about as a result of the select committee inquiry yes

00:16:52 and um by way of context and in very brief terms is it right that the br bre's work under this contract included the following pieces of work a literature review

00:17:04 literature review yes

00:17:05 yes preparing and sending out survey questionnaires yes an analysis of the results of that survey yes an experimental testing program yes

00:17:16 experimental testing program yes a review of and revisions ii br135 which had first been published in 1988 and that led to a new edition the second edition of bl-135 published in 2003. yes

00:17:28 edition of bl-135 published in 2003. yes thank you

00:17:29 thank you now what was your role on this project the

00:17:33 the technical lead and at what stage did you become involved in the project right from its inception yes yeah

00:17:43 and you tell us in your witness statement no need to go to it page 30 paragraph 187 that you think the contract for cc 1924 with the department was let in 2000 yes around that time yes

00:17:55 was let in 2000 yes around that time yes did you have any involvement in preparing the bids the bre bids for the contract yes let's look at the signed bid for the project this appears at bre 3041833

00:18:08 we can see um from the front page that it's dated the 11th of november 1999 and it appears that there were two revised versions of the bid

00:18:19 revised versions of the bid after the 11th of november because there's a revision two if we could look at that document bre 3041836

00:18:29 this is the latest version in time it's dated the 23rd of december 1999 but it's unsigned are you able to assist us as to whether this was the final version of the bid

00:18:41 version of the bid sorry nikon okay um

00:18:46 um just staying with this um version this uh later version in terms of time in all the versions we can see from page one that you are the um project manager

00:18:59 that you are the um project manager that's right isn't it yes it says bre project manager sarah colwell and at the time you were reporting to debbie smith in the reaction to fire team is that right that's correct

00:19:10 team is that right that's correct now if we go to page nine of this document we can see under the heading project team you're listed at the top as project manager and leader of all tasks and then while we're on page nine we can

00:19:22 and then while we're on page nine we can also see that brian martin four names down

00:19:25 down is listed as being responsible for the survey building control and br135 redrafting is that right that's correct now we'll come back to this but in broad terms are those the aspects of the

00:19:37 terms are those the aspects of the projects which he did go on to work on is that did that actually materialize that those were the parts he did yes

00:19:46 was mr martin involved throughout the project from beginning to end yes and if we look at page 11 the sixth paragraph down

00:19:57 there's a heading

00:20:01 project organization and staffing towards the bottom of the page and we can see in the second line it says the project will be led by ms sarah colwell senior consultant center for reaction to fire under the supervision

00:20:13 reaction to fire under the supervision of dr smith as director of center for reaction to fire do you see that yes now your role as the leader of this cc 1924 project is not mentioned anywhere

00:20:25 1924 project is not mentioned anywhere in your witness statement can you help us why is that

00:20:37 sorry i don't understand that no we were just interested as to why you didn't mention anywhere in your statement to the inquiry that you had been

00:20:45 been the project lead for this particular project

00:20:54 i don't recall a question in in in the way that that would have there was there was no

00:21:01 was no sorry i i don't i don't i don't i don't um i think are you saying that you because there wasn't a direct question asking you about this that's why you did yes okay

00:21:12 okay um

00:21:13 um and how did it come to be decided that you would be the project lead at that time um tony morris was leading the business um retiring and

00:21:25 leading the business um retiring and i was the

00:21:27 i was the had the most experienced knowledge of the systems and and operations so it was natural next step um

00:21:33 um for me to take the day-to-day lead and running on that working with um [Music]

00:21:39 [Music] the

00:21:40 the the team to deliver the project yeah and when did you first meet with or discuss the project with anthony bird or any other official from the department at the time the uh contracts were being

00:21:53 at the time the uh contracts were being let they would have been discussed with tony and and peter and then won the technical discussions came underway then i would have got involved at that point right yes and you remember having those discussions with anthony bird do you yes

00:22:05 discussions with anthony bird do you yes yeah

00:22:06 yeah now if we look at page 12 of this document in the middle of the page um

00:22:12 um we can see under project responsibilities just below the first stop bullet points it says all activity on the project shall be subject to the supervision and quality control of dr smith is that correct yes

00:22:25 smith is that correct yes and was it in fact the case that uh dr smith supervised all of the work on this project yes and provided quality control in respect of it yeah she she um

00:22:38 yeah she she um she would completely the authorization reviews yeah how how frequently would you meet to discuss this work with dr smith during the course of the project

00:22:49 the course of the project um

00:22:50 um frequently we were co-located so it was it was an open project right and when you say co-located you mean you were in the same office we were in the same office building yes

00:23:01 building yes and if we look at page three of the bid document

00:23:04 document we don't need to run through them all but we can see there's a heading project objectives which is set out there and um

00:23:12 and um do you agree that the objectives of the project are this to review the guidance contained within the approved documents that serve the building regulations with regard to external cladding systems on

00:23:23 regard to external cladding systems on multi-storey buildings in particular fire stopping between floors and surface spread of flame yes i agree that there's an objective set within that project yes

00:23:35 within that project yes and then to update and maintain the building regulations and associated guidance based on a series of experimental studies on new and existing cladding systems yes yes and to support the process of

00:23:46 and to support the process of regulations and harmonization with europe yes yes so looking back at that first bullet you were certainly involved at this point weren't you in reviewing the guidance contained within the approved document

00:24:01 no the the objective of the project was to review and to provide that information but it was not um

00:24:09 um to rewrite or to to present in my understanding of that role as was presented in the outputs from the project was to provide the data

00:24:20 project was to provide the data to enable those that were in the drafting process to undertake that work right it doesn't quite say that here though does it i appreciate it i appreciate as you say the wording in

00:24:31 appreciate as you say the wording in that document in in that sense but that was not

00:24:34 was not my understanding or my delivery of the project at that time because that was not something i was expert into to be able to deliver right

00:24:43 right did you ever raise that at the time and say um in respect of this i mean this is the signed bid sorry this is the bid by the bre and you said you were involved in it did you ever query

00:24:54 in it did you ever query that and say well if i'm going to be the project manager i don't have the expertise to do this and that was in part why brian was involved because that was part of their understanding and and work in that area

00:25:05 and and work in that area so um they were

00:25:09 as it says in the in the bid team involved in that that was with the knowledge for the surveys and the and the updates the information that the reports provided as outputs

00:25:21 provided as outputs were to enable those people who were involved in the guidance delivery to provi to present that bad information right

00:25:29 right did you attempt once this contract was underway to have a look at the guidance contained in the approved documents in relation to external walls it wasn't extensive guidance no

00:25:40 guidance no absolutely yes it was it was there i i was

00:25:44 was i was looking at that in terms of what it had said yes yes now underneath these three objectives we can see that there are a list of

00:25:55 can see that there are a list of detr

00:25:57 detr depart from the environment trade and the transport and the regions specific objectives for them which include if we look at the first bullet to carry out a survey of the existing high-rise building stock and a database

00:26:09 high-rise building stock and a database of the results in terms of cladding type application and market share yes yes and then the third bullet point was to review and update the existing guidance given in bre report br 135 yes yes if we

00:26:22 given in bre report br 135 yes yes if we go to the top of page four um

00:26:26 um it was also within that bullet point to give guidance with respect to fire stopping yes yes

00:26:33 yes yes um

00:26:34 um first bullet point on that page to complete an experimental program enabling the assessment of the fire performance of a range of both existing and new cladding systems within 12

00:26:45 and new cladding systems within 12 months of the start date yes yes now let's

00:26:50 let's we'll come back to that but note existing and new cladding systems there yes that's what the experimental program was looking at correct and then page four uh the second bullet

00:27:02 and then page four uh the second bullet point on page four to utilize the large-scale scenario-based test to determine the most appropriate method for specifying the fire performance requirements of cladding systems yes yes

00:27:15 cladding systems yes yes now did all of those particular objectives which are listed in this bid document remain in place and unchanged throughout the life of the project no

00:27:25 no what changed there were changes to the systems

00:27:32 systems that were selected there was changes

00:27:37 changes with regard to

00:27:41 the methodology

00:27:45 and when you say there's a change to the system selected what do you what do you mean by that part of the program was to work with industry and stakeholders to

00:27:56 work with industry and stakeholders to determine the systems that were going to be tested and the methodologies by which they were going to be tested and that developed during the course of the program right but did they remain under the banner of existing

00:28:07 they remain under the banner of existing and new cladding systems yes yes

00:28:11 yes yes so

00:28:12 so did these objectives these fundamental objectives change or was it just that some of the details changed details changed yeah now as part of this project an industry advisory group was established is that

00:28:23 advisory group was established is that correct yes um who decided that an industry advisory group known as the iag was to be set up the department right and did you

00:28:34 right and did you get an explanation of what the purpose was of this industry advisory group to provide the um support in determining the systems that we're going for test

00:28:45 the systems that we're going for test right was that to make sure that the systems that were tested were relevant and pertinent to the industry as

00:28:52 as we don't have day-to-day interaction with the construction industry it was um appropriate to take those views and

00:29:03 appropriate to take those views and those views on board and to bring together the people who were knowledgeable and understood what the systems were and what the trends were yes

00:29:11 yes but but

00:29:12 but but i'm going to ask my question again was that to make sure that the systems tested were relevant and pertinent to the industry yes yes

00:29:22 and did the iag have a role once the systems to be tested had been chosen did they have an ongoing role in terms of the project and what was that ongoing role in summary

00:29:34 role in summary they

00:29:35 they maintained a role through to the completion of the project they were updated as stakeholders in the program and their views were sought right now

00:29:45 now sorry and their views were sort about what kind of thing if there were questions around the selection of the materials if there were questions about the um

00:29:54 the um the types of designs then that they were consulted on that right things like how the the rigs would be constructed in reality yes to make sure that they were um replicating enu's

00:30:06 that they were um replicating enu's conditions as far as possible yes yeah now if we look at a document now bre four zeros one three nine two

00:30:25 and um if we go to the second page we can see that this is an annual yeah here this is an annual progress review

00:30:35 review on this project for the period the first of april 2000 to the 30th of april 2001 prepared by you for

00:30:44 you for anthony bird do you see that yes and we can see that this progress report was approved by dr smith on the 30th of april 2001 and if we go to page five

00:30:55 april 2001 and if we go to page five and look under the heading formation of the iag the industry advisory group we can see it tells us that 30 groups were invited to join the advisory group for this project and they

00:31:07 advisory group for this project and they included representatives from manufacturers specifiers and building owners and users yes yes and with manufacturers it's manufacturers of rain screen systems

00:31:18 manufacturers of rain screen systems rendered systems and built up systems yes yes do you know who chose the organizations that were invited to join the group

00:31:25 the group uh the

00:31:27 uh the department would have given us a list of the

00:31:30 the primary um contacts and we would have um also provided details of companies that we knew were

00:31:41 we knew were interested in in the activity as well right so it was a collaboration between you and the department yes and who at the department was um selecting some of these industry um partners uh

00:31:53 partners uh would have been anthony bird yeah

00:31:56 yeah and do you know what the basis was for selecting them were they just people who were seen to be important within the industry major players in the industry what was the criteria trade the trade associations um in the

00:32:09 trade the trade associations um in the main who had interest in those sectors would have um been asked to provide representatives who had knowledge and experience in that area

00:32:17 area right

00:32:19 right if we go to a document bre 3041847

00:32:26 we can see that on the 25th of february second email down 2000 you sent um anthony bird and mike payne who was mike payne

00:32:37 who was mike payne the departments um in this period we're using independent consultants to manage their contracts so um mike payne was representative of um

00:32:48 um mike payne was representative of um their

00:32:50 their um contract management right company and we can see that others are copied in including brideing martin and debbie smith and you say please find attached the proposed questionnaire covering letter and circulation list

00:33:03 covering letter and circulation list i've also enclosed the proposed membership of the iad for your comments yes yes do you know whether there were any comments on the proposed membership received from the department

00:33:14 received from the department i'm not aware of any no right and who had the final say about the membership of the department right and if we go back to the report

00:33:25 and if we go back to the report um at page five yes thank you under the bullet point list of those main groups we can see that it's reported in the text it says 27 representatives accepted

00:33:37 text it says 27 representatives accepted invitations to join the group their details are given in table one and then

00:33:44 and then if we go to page nine we can see table one

00:33:48 one and you can take it from me that of these 27 the list includes five members of bre staff including you debbie smith brian martin as well as dr jackman from the loss prevention council yes yes three

00:34:01 prevention council yes yes three government employees including anthony bird

00:34:06 three local authorities and then we also see representatives from the bba the cwct there's a mr peacock from the cwct

00:34:16 cwct who's there and then various manufacturers and industry associations yes yes

00:34:25 and was it envisaged that all aspects of the work on the project would be shared with this industry group yes

00:34:33 yes and can you help us in practice how was this industry group kept up to date with the work that was carried out uh

00:34:39 uh generally by email right

00:34:42 right and if we look back on to page eight and the first bullet point under the heading conclusions that reads it says the formation and inaugural meeting of the iag group has taken place the group has been advised

00:34:54 taken place the group has been advised of the generic experimental program and responses appear to be generally positive yes yes did you attend that meeting that inaugural meeting of the group yes and

00:35:06 inaugural meeting of the group yes and did dr smith and brian martin also attend

00:35:12 i i would imagine so i have no record to confirm whether they did or they didn't right

00:35:16 right and can you remember was anthony bird present

00:35:20 present again meetings of this type would have been set to ensure that people's diaries were

00:35:25 were um available to attend them so my expectation is he was present but i can't confirm and why is the experimental testing program described there as generic can you help us it says the group has been a

00:35:36 you help us it says the group has been a rise of the generic experimental program and is um the responses are positive what does that mean

00:35:46 it was the department's um approach when testing a product from market that the

00:35:55 the details of the actual

00:35:58 manufacturers and products were not made public

00:36:03 public so they were described in generic forms we didn't we didn't publicly name the system or the the components that were being um being tested i see okay so that's why

00:36:15 being tested i see okay so that's why the word generics used and do you know who made that decision at the department who was responsible for making that decision my experience had been that had been in place for many years right

00:36:29 and at this early stage were the group given details of the products and systems that were to be tested

00:36:37 sorry uh yes yes they were yeah

00:36:41 yeah now to meet the objectives for the project which we've discussed several reports were produced and i want to look at one of the first which is called fire spread and external cladding a literature review if we go to bre four

00:36:54 literature review if we go to bre four zeros one three five three here we see that literature review

00:37:01 and um

00:37:03 um we can see it's dated the 30th of march 2000 and it says that it's prepared by you

00:37:09 you jay foster and brian martin is that correct that's correct and it's approved by dr smith we can see her signature and and the date below that who was jay foster what what team were

00:37:21 who was jay foster what what team were they in they were part of the reaction to fire team at that time right junior to you or senior to you junior right

00:37:29 right and

00:37:32 if we um

00:37:38 if we just look briefly at your witness statement at page 23 question 37a just above above 152 you were asked in relation to the literature review when did any

00:37:50 literature review when did any discussions about the commissioning of this review begin and your response reads i do not

00:37:56 specifically recall when discussions began but it would have been after the 1999 select committee um and at the next question down b you were asked between whom did those discussions take place and you say

00:38:08 discussions take place and you say i believe the contractual discussions took place between tony morris as project lead peter field and anthony bird of mhclg now

00:38:17 now just help us with this why do you refer to tony morris there as the project lead weren't you the project leads at the time the con at the time the discussions were taking place posts the select

00:38:28 were taking place posts the select committee and the form then the general

00:38:31 general form that the um contract was going to take tony was still in place and taking that those conversations forward i see but are you saying that by the time the contract was actually bid for and let i do with the

00:38:42 actually bid for and let i do with the project leads i've taken that role yes so the the scoping and the initial discussions and the outline around that were taking place with um with tony right and the bid documents don't mention tony morris at all no he'd

00:38:54 don't mention tony morris at all no he'd moved out of the activities by that point yeah and if we look at um the very last line on um page 23 you were asked about your own role in any discussions and if we go

00:39:06 own role in any discussions and if we go over to the top of page 24 paragraph 1454 you say i provided a technical overview of the issues around fire spread of external cladding systems and input on

00:39:17 external cladding systems and input on the need to look more widely at both previous work in this area and at the research work that was being undertaken globally on this issue at that time now to whom did you provide this

00:39:29 time now to whom did you provide this technical overview that you're describing that's part of the drafting process of the literature review right i see

00:39:41 and what previous work did you consider needed to be looked at as part of this review

00:39:46 review the

00:39:47 the items are identified in the um

00:39:50 um in the review we would have undertaken a literature survey of work that had been undertaken involving the type of large-scale

00:40:01 testing we were we were working with right

00:40:05 right on page 24 at d you were asked why the review was commissioned of what its fundamental purpose was and you say i understood that the review was commissioned to provide a point of

00:40:16 was commissioned to provide a point of reference on the spread of fire and external cladding based on published information this is normal practice when any technical study is undertaken yes yes

00:40:26 yes um can you explain what you mean by a point of reference why was that needed

00:40:32 whenever research

00:40:36 research projects of this type are undertaken we always

00:40:40 we always go back and look at what information is already in the mark it already there what

00:40:46 what the views and development around that exist

00:40:51 exist and that gives a baseline for for moving forward right and in terms of how this literature review is drafted we're going to look at some sections of it together in a moment but if we look

00:41:02 it together in a moment but if we look at page 24 of your statement paragraph 157 it's it's on the page you say i cannot recall specific details of our roles myself brian martin and jay foster and

00:41:13 myself brian martin and jay foster and have not identified any documentation that would clarify this based on my general experience i expect that all of the authors would have taken topic areas within the brief and sought literature and published documents on these topics

00:41:24 and published documents on these topics the findings would then have been written up collated and collectively reviewed and cross-referenced and you tell us in the next paragraph that if any comments have been received from the department those would have

00:41:35 from the department those would have been reviewed and discussed before a final version was published yes yes um

00:41:42 um was there work on this project split fairly evenly between you or do you remember

00:41:47 remember one person doing perhaps more of the work than the others

00:41:56 my recollection would is is that as as said there would have been um

00:42:03 um those areas that each of us felt more most knowledgeable experience with would have gone through their literature um

00:42:15 access and uh reviewed based on that that knowledge and then shared back with the group so i wouldn't um i don't recall there being one heavy lift and others working for that and do

00:42:27 lift and others working for that and do you remember any particular topic areas that you took responsibility for i would

00:42:33 i would no not specifically but i would i would imagine it would be a review of previous experimental programs right if we can turn to page seven of the literature review go back to it say bre

00:42:44 literature review go back to it say bre four zeros yes thank you in the introduction at the top we're told in that top paragraph that the paper has been prepared um so in the second line it says this

00:42:56 um so in the second line it says this paper has been prepared to identify and summarize the types of external cladding systems currently in use the current requirements and guidance as given an approved document b 2000

00:43:07 given an approved document b 2000 revision yes yeah and the research previously undertaken on external fire spread in buildings is that right that's right now it's a 25-page report and i'm not going to go through it all but the first section i

00:43:19 through it all but the first section i want to ask you about is at page 13 in the middle of the page under the heading the building regulations you right there you say the 2000 edition of approved document b

00:43:30 of approved document b to the building regulations 1991 was published in january 2000 and will enter into force on the first of july 2000 to comply with the guidance in the

00:43:42 to comply with the guidance in the approved document external walls may need to have sufficient fire resistance to restrict fire spread across a site boundary that's space separation yes

00:43:56 uh yes and then it says the combustibility of the outer surface should be of a value that minimizes the danger of ignition

00:44:07 that minimizes the danger of ignition from an external source and the subsequent fire spread up the external face of the building do you see that there i do now the date of this literature review is march 2000

00:44:19 is march 2000 and it's clear then that before the 2000 edition of approved document b came into force in july um the authors of this report including you yes were familiar with the amended

00:44:30 you yes were familiar with the amended provisions in that guidance on external fire spread so that would as the project outline says would have have run from brian's knowledge and experience of that

00:44:41 brian's knowledge and experience of that right so

00:44:42 right so whilst that's contained within there it's at the outset it's not an area that i was expert or

00:44:50 expert or working towards so i would have taken brian's knowledge and understanding of that as being the position i see are you saying that brian martin wrote these passages as opposed to you writing

00:45:01 these passages as opposed to you writing them he would have been expert in that and would have written them yes right let's look at another passage on page 14.

00:45:09 14. um in the first paragraph there we can see that in reviewing the requirements of the building regulations in respect of fire performance

00:45:19 it says irrespective of boundary distance

00:45:22 distance diagram 40 in adb restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings where the top floor is at least 18 meters above ground level

00:45:34 meters above ground level do you see that yes and then it says and those of the assembly and recreation purpose group to reduce the danger from far spread up the external face of the building

00:45:43 building now do you consider that statement to be accurate

00:45:51 i would have relied on and i still rely on brian

00:45:54 on brian having had knowledge and experience of working with the approved document to have made that as a as a statement yes so you didn't notice at the time that diagram 40 of the approved document

00:46:06 diagram 40 of the approved document doesn't restrict the combustibility of the external surfaces of walls of buildings with a story over 18 meters in height no

00:46:16 height no you didn't notice that and at the time it was only a requirement for class naught

00:46:21 naught um

00:46:22 um let's look at it just very briefly clg one five zeros 12 at page 90 we can see in that last diagram e any building that

00:46:33 that above 18 meters the black shading shows that it's to be just class naught this is before the b was introduced in 2002 yes

00:46:47 i yes if that's the correct version of the document i'm sorry i just don't have a working knowledge of the ids well enough to be able to right well you can take it from me this is diagram 40 as shown in the 2000 version of approved

00:46:59 shown in the 2000 version of approved document b and what we were interested in understanding is how the author in this literature review has said that diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls

00:47:11 of external walls i think it references in part to my point yesterday about this word combustibility and how it's it's a

00:47:19 it's a it's implied that

00:47:22 that we have definitions of non-combustible we have definitions of limited combustibility anything else is therefore combustible in in that in that context it's the degree of combustibility around that

00:47:34 degree of combustibility around that which

00:47:35 which i think class o is understood that there is a degree of combustion involved in the product

00:47:43 right but but the class naught tests don't

00:47:47 don't tell you detailed information about the combustibility of the product do they they tell you the rate of fire spread

00:47:56 across the surface across the surface right as i say there is there is no formal definition as such there are a number of definitions of combustible that are in place but they

00:48:07 that are in place but they are not used in in that way but you knew by this time didn't you or you knew from the work that dr connolly had done that a class

00:48:18 that dr connolly had done that a class naught product could nevertheless still

00:48:22 still burn quite significantly yes yes yeah

00:48:26 yeah so say class naught doesn't mean that it's not combustible quite so we're just seeking to understand how how the author has written that class

00:48:37 how the author has written that class that that diagram 40 is restricting the combustibility of external walls that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of

00:48:49 okay i think i think maybe um so

00:48:54 so class naught is um

00:48:58 is um there are a number of classes of fire spread within part seven so there is class one class two class three rates of fire spread class naught is taken from the lowest rate of fire

00:49:09 taken from the lowest rate of fire spread

00:49:11 spread so a class one or two product could not meet glass not

00:49:16 not no i understand that but that's about the rate of fire spread across a surface and it doesn't really tell you about the true performance of that product in a fully developed fire does it

00:49:29 in a fully developed fire does it no no no no no and dr connolly's work established that didn't it does colleagues reported that yes yes i apologize i've never missed the the

00:49:41 i apologize i've never missed the the point that you're seeking i'm sorry should we just go back and look at the passage in the document yes we can yes so page 14 of the literature review it's at the top of the page

00:49:53 at the top of the page it says irrespective of boundary distance diagram 40 in adb restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings

00:50:04 of external walls of high buildings to reduce the danger from fire spread up the external face of the buildings and we just wanted to understand why that language was used

00:50:15 why that language was used i'm sorry i i i can't come into that i don't and

00:50:19 don't and diagram 40 gives a number of different types of scenarios and a number of different

00:50:24 different characteristics well i think the point ms grange is asking you to consider is whether you would agree that diagram 40 does not

00:50:34 does not tell you anything about the combustibility of the exterior wall contrary to what is said in this part of the

00:50:44 the text

00:50:45 text okay sorry so if we return to diagram 40 if we could

00:50:58 it as you said i think i understand the point you make now it does not talk about non-combustible materials of limited combustibility in diagram 40. yes and the tests to achieve class naught

00:51:09 naught aren't telling you about the true fire performance of the product they're not they are not defining the uh non-combustible limited combustible nature of the product no no

00:51:21 nature of the product no no and dr connolly's work had established that it didn't tell you about the true perform for fire performance of that product and the extent to which it would pose a danger as an external clouding system exactly okay no i thank you i

00:51:34 system exactly okay no i thank you i apologize if i didn't understand the point now no no that's fine go back to the literature review now and to page 12 there's a heading um facade costs

00:51:45 there's a heading um facade costs and beneath that set out in tables one two and three are what are described um as um the typical costs associated with different cladding systems

00:51:57 with different cladding systems based on the figures given in the architect's journal in february 1998. do you see that there yes and we can see that below that different

00:52:08 and we can see that below that different cladding systems are set out yes now this is important so it's telling us that the typical costs associated with the different cladding systems as taken from the architect's journal

00:52:19 as taken from the architect's journal yes

00:52:21 yes and if we go down to page 13 and look at table three in the fourth row down we can see a cladding system that's described as follows composite panel of

00:52:34 described as follows composite panel of 0.5 millimeter stove lacquered aluminium three millimeter polyethylene core 0.5 millimeter mill finish aluminium with insulation and vapor barrier bonded

00:52:46 with insulation and vapor barrier bonded to rear face do you see that yes now that is a type of acm pe isn't it it's two skins of aluminium with a polyethylene core yes

00:52:58 polyethylene core yes were you aware before writing this report

00:53:02 report that acmpe panels were in use in the external wall arrangements of uk buildings

00:53:08 buildings no

00:53:09 no was this a surprise to you at the time that this type of panel was being picked up

00:53:16 up from the architect's journal as a you know typical cost associated with different cladding systems i had not come across the product

00:53:27 i had not come across the product so had

00:53:30 so had no experience of it at that time do you accept that from march 2000 when you signed off this report the bre and certainly you mr martin and debbie smith were aware

00:53:42 mr martin and debbie smith were aware that acm pe products were being used in typical cladding systems in the uk

00:53:51 as in as an infill panel they were available as a product yes yes and presumably you wouldn't be able to get costs from the architect's journal if they weren't

00:54:02 if they weren't in typical use in the uk correct did it concern you that such project products were in use on high-rise buildings at the time no

00:54:13 buildings at the time no at this point in march 2000 what did you know about the fire properties of polyethylene as a product is a combustible product

00:54:25 as a product is a combustible product yes

00:54:27 yes did you know quite how poorly that product performed in fire at this point

00:54:33 as an individual um product

00:54:36 product it it would be recognized as as combustible yes in is part of a composite panel i had no idea how it formed at that point no

00:54:49 i see did you did you have any thoughts about how it might perform if it had a polyethylene core with two very thin skins of aluminium

00:55:01 it it it's

00:55:04 it it's as a system it would be difficult to tell what its performance was likely to be hence the reason that we looked at performance tests i would not expect polyethylene to perform well no right

00:55:14 no right did it occur to you at the time and before you did the experimental work that the use of polyethylene at height might present a serious danger in the event of a fire

00:55:26 right prior to prior to this i wasn't aware that it was it was in place right was there any discussion about this within the bre at the time this literature review was put together do you remember

00:55:37 review was put together do you remember any discussion along the lines of oh we've realized that uh people are using a panel with a polyethylene core and that's interesting not at that point no did that fact

00:55:49 not at that point no did that fact strike you when you read the draft of this report no

00:56:00 so you don't recall any discussions either within the bre project team or with the department about this particular cladding product at this stage of the project no if we turn to page 27 the conclusions of

00:56:12 if we turn to page 27 the conclusions of the literature review are uh set out and the first one says there are many definitions for each type of cladding system and it is important to clearly and consistently define each system type

00:56:24 and consistently define each system type to avoid confusion yes yes

00:56:28 yes and

00:56:28 and and who was that directed to who needed to ensure that systems were defined clearly and consistently

00:56:42 it was a finding of the of the project so in that the project was being reported to the department it would be a a

00:56:50 a a point of reference for them right moving on to the second conclusion this reads the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of fire

00:57:02 way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external cladding systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified do you see that yes

00:57:15 do you see that yes now you were asked in your witness statement which issues specifically this version of the approved document went some way towards addressing and your response at paragraph 159 page

00:57:28 and your response at paragraph 159 page 25 was that the issues are those discussed in the report which relate to the inclusion of the large-scale test and associated classifications in br135 yes that was my understanding yes i see

00:57:40 yes that was my understanding yes i see do you mean that um there was a note now within adb we just looked at it which referenced the large-scale fire test and fire note 9.

00:57:53 my understanding was that 135 would have the classification systems to enable the um

00:58:00 um the british standard that was being published as a result of this to be to be included right

00:58:10 that was my my understanding of the position

00:58:14 position yes i mean what i'm seeking to understand is

00:58:17 is the extent to which well why the authors are saying that the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external cladding systems

00:58:31 performance of external cladding systems can you help us with that

00:58:36 it was the um the inclusion of the the full the full testing

00:58:43 testing method

00:58:45 method i see as a note as an alternative as reference to it yes right because you see we've done a comparison of the 1992 version of adb with the 2000

00:58:59 of the 1992 version of adb with the 2000 version of adb and i just want to run through some of the the changes um one of the differences was that the height

00:59:07 height um in diagram 40 was reduced from 20 meters to 18 meters between 1992 and 2000 do you recall that no no

00:59:18 no no for insulation the 1992 version of the approved document relied insulation in the external wall construction of buildings to be of limited combustibility

00:59:30 combustibility but it was only insulation in ventilated cavities that had to be of limited combustibility in the 2000 version do you remember that no

00:59:39 no but that's a worsening a reduction in the circumstances in which limited combustibility is required isn't it

00:59:47 isn't it and say i'm really sorry i'm i'm i'm fine

00:59:50 fine i don't have the working knowledge of the documents that you're you're discussing so i i'm trying to answer your questions to the best of my ability but i'm doing it

01:00:01 the best of my ability but i'm doing it a little bit from the information you're giving me i don't i don't have a position no it's just you're one of the authors of this report i i fully appreciate that and as

01:00:10 and as as we said the the auth the authorships as as i said for the knowledge and the understanding and the in in detail interpretation of that was taken from those that had that

01:00:23 that was taken from those that had that knowledge and experience right so are you saying that you wouldn't have understood at the time you read this and signed off on this report exactly what was meant by the 2000 revision of adb going some way

01:00:36 the 2000 revision of adb going some way towards addressing the issue of fire performance of external cladding and that the person that would have understood that and can be asked about that is what brian martin right brian may have a different understanding of

01:00:47 may have a different understanding of that interpretation my and as as my witness statement says i understood that statement to reflect the inclusion of um

01:00:58 um the

01:00:59 the large scale method with the review of 135 to help identify the changes in the systems that were that were being seen as part of this program

01:01:10 program and

01:01:12 and that that was the knowledge and and skill set of each of the individuals within that project team

01:01:20 right

01:01:25 i see

01:01:29 so when you asked in your witness statement if we go to page 25 paragraph 162 what the remaining issues were

01:01:40 issues were you tell you told us the remaining issues were carried forward into the revision of br135 which set out to discuss issues of cavity barriers and external war systems and the changing designs of cladding systems yes yes

01:01:53 designs of cladding systems yes yes so those were what you understood to be the remaining issues that that paragraph was referencing that was my that was my understanding of the items that would be taken into 135 that

01:02:05 items that would be taken into 135 that needed to be addressed yes right and what were the issues of cavity barriers and external cladding systems that still needed to be resolved in br135 what were those issues

01:02:18 br135 what were those issues there was um

01:02:22 work around understanding how cavity barriers actually um operated within the full system testing and there is a very detailed um description in the in

01:02:35 very detailed um description in the in the document around the design um and

01:02:41 um and issues and formation of cavities in facade and

01:02:47 external rendered systems when they're subjected to fire load right i see and um you also say there was work around the changing designs of cladding systems that still needed to be resolved

01:02:58 systems that still needed to be resolved what do you mean by that again uh the increasing use of thin skin renders

01:03:04 renders um

01:03:05 um and the type of insulation used in render systems right

01:03:16 um

01:03:20 during the course of the work on this literature review was any consideration given either within the bre or in discussion with the department to the select committee's recent recommendation that all external cladding systems

01:03:31 that all external cladding systems should be required either to be non-combustible or to be tested to full scale

01:03:37 scale was that ever discussed

01:03:40 i have no recollection of being discussed explicitly no my understanding was that the project was

01:03:47 was to be undertaken to develop the data sets to enable that work to to be presented right now i want to move on now to another part of the work on this project which

01:03:58 part of the work on this project which was a survey if we go back to the objectives of the project

01:04:03 project or thinking back to them the bre was required to undertake a survey of current stock and industry practice in relation to the high uh the cladding of high-rise buildings in the uk yes yes

01:04:16 high-rise buildings in the uk yes yes and that too had been specifically recommended by the select committee in december 1999 were you aware of that yes um if we look at the select committee's recommendation at cld 3019478

01:04:30 recommendation at cld 3019478 page 10.

01:04:38 clg three zeros one nine four seven eight page ten

01:04:48 if we look at paragraph twenty two and i just want to look at the bold text in the fourth line of that paragraph we could

01:04:57 could maybe expand that on the screen paragraph 22.

01:05:06 the bold text reads four lines down we recommend that detr and the housing corporation instruct local authorities and registered social landlords to undertake a review of their existing building stock with a view to us

01:05:18 building stock with a view to us ascertaining how many multi-story buildings are currently using external clouding systems and how many cladding systems are in use which while complying with the regulations in force at the time when they are installed do not

01:05:30 time when they are installed do not comply with current regulations and do you agree that's the likely source of the survey which the bre went on to carry out under this contract cc1924 yes

01:05:44 and just basing on the second part of the recommendation that i read regarding the compliance of the cladding systems did trying to establish anything about the compliance or otherwise

01:05:55 about the compliance or otherwise of the existing cladding systems on buildings form any part of the questionnaire that you prepared or sent out

01:06:02 out i don't recall

01:06:06 um well we know that the bre compiled a questionnaire for completion and it was um

01:06:12 um for completion by a selected number of relevant local authorities and we've got a copy of that questionnaire it's at bre 3041885

01:06:22 do you remember who prepared this questionnaire i would have drafted it and run it past

01:06:30 the colleagues and then it would have to have gone for um clearance by the department because all contr all surveying activities had to be

01:06:41 contr all surveying activities had to be um

01:06:42 um formally cleared by the department before they were issued and would brian martin have had a role in just reviewing this yes

01:06:49 this yes and if we scroll through it we can see the nature of the questions they're about the number of units over 18 meters high the age group of the buildings whether they've undergone refurbishment the types of cladding

01:07:01 the types of cladding and if we look on page four question nine

01:07:05 nine the bottom of the page we can see that respondents are asked about fire stopping and whether they're aware of the use of cavity barriers do you see that yes and on page five at question 11

01:07:20 we go over the page we can see there's a question have you had any incidents involving fire spread due to external clouding systems any details would be appreciated do you see

01:07:31 details would be appreciated do you see that yes now we know that the bre created an excel spreadsheet to record the responses to the survey if we could bring up this and i'll need the native version of it it's a bre

01:07:42 the native version of it it's a bre 3041886

01:08:26 okay

01:08:40 what i think i'll do is i'll just carry on and just summarize the information and you you can take it from me we've looked carefully at it um in the first tab it's an excel spreadsheet under the heading

01:08:50 heading introduction there's a record of the number of surveys that were distributed and how many responses were received do you remember that yes yeah it tells us that 45 surveys were distributed

01:09:03 that 45 surveys were distributed and that 17 responses were received of those three were nil returns one was still trying to find the data and 13 were full of returns

01:09:14 and 13 were full of returns now can you help us with this why were only 45 questionnaires sent out it would have been agreed with the department who they were sent to right was that decision cleared with anthony bird yes

01:09:25 bird yes and do you know who chose the list of recipients i

01:09:30 i i would imagine it would have been done through the department because we wouldn't bre wouldn't have had the contacts to to issue them right

01:09:37 right do you know on what basis the organizations were selected no and who was responsible for analyzing and collating the responses the bre

01:09:49 the bre but as project lee did you look at those responses to the survey uh brian martin did

01:09:55 did right so you never looked at the responses i i looked at them yes but the the you got it's asking about the analysis

01:10:00 analysis i see so brian martin did the analysis but you would have looked at the survey response i would have seen there are certain responses yes um

01:10:07 um in that spreadsheet there's a a tab that's headed survey responses and we see the responses of s atkins are recorded

01:10:18 s atkins are recorded um

01:10:18 um and they are recorded as a specifier um of cladding products yes yes so

01:10:26 so we've got ws atkins responding and in the excel spreadsheet in the column where their responses are inputted we see their response to question 11 about whether they'd ever

01:10:38 question 11 about whether they'd ever had any fire incidents involving fire spread due to external cladding and i'm just going to read out to you the answer i'll read it twice so because you haven't got it on the screen

01:10:49 screen there's a note in the cell which reads bre

01:10:53 bre spread of flames generally rapid due to loss of integrity of composite aluminium panels using combustible cores so the note said bre spread of flames

01:11:05 so the note said bre spread of flames generally rapid due to loss of integrity of composite aluminium panels using combustible cores so

01:11:14 so that appears to be a note of what was recorded in the w atkins survey response do you know whether anyone contacted ws atkins to find out

01:11:25 atkins to find out so it's now coming up on the page and to find out what the composite element aluminium panels using combustible cores were no i don't i don't recall whether that was done or not

01:11:37 was done or not did you have an idea already about what those combustible chords would be

01:11:50 at that point i've got no i have no re i've no recollection of of um of that particular um

01:11:58 um survey response right and how it was followed up no just to be clear it's under the tab at the bottom survey responses

01:12:07 and it was column c w is at atkins you can see top left of the page

01:12:14 the page and if you went down the page and you hovered over question 11 that's the the notes that came up which appeared to be the verbatim notes from there so if you go if we someone could go down the page

01:12:25 the page and hover at the bottom of column c hover over question 11.

01:12:33 sorry over the box that says yes there's a note that should come up sorry i think you need to be able to edit the document so you've got to get enable editing at the top

01:12:44 enable editing at the top and then if you hover over yes do you see it says spread of flames generally rapid due to loss of integrity of and it goes on composite aluminium panels using combustible cores

01:12:56 panels using combustible cores okay

01:12:57 okay do you know whether this spreadsheet was sent to the department or is this just an internal bre document it would have been provided to the department

01:13:08 department if we look at another document bre 3041887

01:13:14 there's a servery survey summary and options report

01:13:21 bre 3041887

01:13:37 here we have it it's in small text so detr framework project report survey summary and options report prepared for mr bird

01:13:49 and it outlined the results of the cladding survey and provide various options for the large-scale experimental studies yes yes and we can see that paid from page two that this report was prepared by you

01:14:04 go to page two

01:14:10 we can see prepared for mr a bird by you and it was approved by dr smith yes yes and if we go down to page six under the heading survey responses

01:14:21 it tells us that 45 questionnaires were issued of these 17 responses were received

01:14:27 received figure 1 summarize the categories and responses received and it says the number of responses received were less than expected yes and in fact we know that there are only

01:14:39 and in fact we know that there are only 13 full responses received that set out clearly in the excel spreadsheet you can take that from me why did the bre not issue further

01:14:50 why did the bre not issue further surveys to other organizations when it became apparent that the response rate was so low as i said at the outset the

01:15:01 list contacted was

01:15:05 agreed with the department so

01:15:10 so they um

01:15:11 they um we reported on the findings and they didn't ask us to go back and extend it beyond then but with only about a third of organizing organizations responding to this survey how could the bre and thus government

01:15:23 how could the bre and thus government gain a proper and comprehensive understanding of current industry practice in relation to the overcladding of the building stock in great britain we referred it back to the department to ask for them to to decide

01:15:35 ask for them to to decide what they wanted to do going forward we we commit we worked as far as we were able to with the information that we had at that point um and

01:15:46 um and reported on that and was we left with the department to decide whether they were going to take a greater survey through a different route and what was the department's response did they simply decide to proceed

01:15:58 did they simply decide to proceed without issuing further surveys yes right and were you given a reason for why that course of action was taken

01:16:08 no formal response was given to to that my understanding was that

01:16:15 with the industry advisory group on board they were happy to to talk with them beyond that right did you think that the number of responses provided a satisfactory basis no

01:16:26 no it's

01:16:28 it's i was assuming that the department would take it on and and deal with it in a different way maybe put a team on to actually follow it up themselves right

01:16:39 actually follow it up themselves right because if we look at page 10 of this report

01:16:42 report and we go to the third heading down survey conclusions in the first bullet point it says based on this survey it would appear that although the number of responses have been limited they provide sufficient data to form a consistent

01:16:54 sufficient data to form a consistent view of the types of external cladding systems used in the public housing sector

01:16:59 sector can you help us on what basis did you come to that conclusion we were talking about the public housing stock not the wider um the wider sector

01:17:11 the wider sector well how many responses had been received from local authorities do you remember

01:17:16 remember i think

01:17:17 i think the majority were from the local housing authority or from the public housing authorities right because if we go back to figure one on page seven of the

01:17:28 to figure one on page seven of the report

01:17:31 report or if we look at figure one on page seven

01:17:35 seven and if you look at the returned box um at the bottom in the table it looks like from this the only five local authorities in england return surveys

01:17:47 authorities in england return surveys and only three in scotland and one in wales that's a total of eight local authorities yes yes

01:17:56 so you nevertheless thought that was sufficient data to form a consistent view of the types of external cladding systems used in the public housing sector

01:18:05 sector for

01:18:05 for high-rise buildings yes right why did you reach that conclusion

01:18:12 a number of the returns when we'd up we spoke

01:18:16 spoke as it says on there were built um authorities that did not hold housing stock at that height

01:18:25 you also acknowledge within the report that some of that information you had collected might even have been duplicated if we look at the final paragraph on page seven of the report under the headings specifiers and suppliers

01:18:37 headings specifiers and suppliers so at the bottom of that page

01:18:41 we can see it says the suppliers and specifiers identified a total of 193 units but it's not been possible to quantify how many of these units are duplicates of those already provided by the local authorities

01:18:53 the local authorities would you agree with this that this is really quite far from the comprehensive survey of the uk building stock proposed in the bid for this contract isn't it

01:19:04 yes

01:19:06 and the department were aware of that

01:19:11 and what it was and they and they they they chose not to ask us to to revisit or to take any further actions on that which is why i was at the conclusion that they had decided to take an alternative approach

01:19:23 decided to take an alternative approach right

01:19:25 right mr chairman i'm mid topic but i don't think i'm going to finish this topic before the morning break so i think that's i think that'd be a good point yes all right well we'll take a break now in that case um dr cover will stop now we'll

01:19:36 now we'll resume please 25 to 12. and again while you're out of the room please don't discuss your evidence with anyone thank you thank you very much

01:19:54 thank you very much 25-12

01:36:02 would you ask dr coldwell to come back in please thank you

01:36:20 all right dude call will yes off we go then yes from scranton yes thank you yes so we were discussing the the survey that was carried out as part of this um 1924 work and um one of the other conclusions from the survey if we go

01:36:32 conclusions from the survey if we go back to the survey report at bre 3041887

01:36:38 we look at page 10

01:36:42 the second bullet point under the heading survey conclusions it says this whilst no one clear system was identified the majority of systems used by local authorities appears to be

01:36:53 used by local authorities appears to be the render-based systems with rain screen systems representing around 12 percent of the market do you see that yes now did you genuinely consider that conclusions based on such a limited data set

01:37:04 set some of which as we've seen might have actually duplicated themselves could have been considered to be representative or reliable to draw such conclusions it was a statement it was a statement of

01:37:16 it was a statement it was a statement of the information that we had and that was based and that was the basis on which those those comments were raised did you consider at the time that such a limited data set ought to provide the

01:37:27 limited data set ought to provide the basis for a government-funded experimental testing program which was of such importance to fire safety given that this formed part of that and the industry liaison group were there to

01:37:39 industry liaison group were there to also

01:37:40 also mitigate and provide a wider basis that

01:37:46 that that was the my understanding of the basis on which we were going to go forward with this

01:37:52 right i see if we look at the heading above the survey conclusions there's a heading in bold fire breaks and in the second sentence of that two lines down we can

01:38:03 sentence of that two lines down we can see it says this it says the use of fire barriers appears to be very sporadic and typical responses included only fitted when asked or unknown

01:38:13 unknown now did that cause you concern that that was the

01:38:17 was the um

01:38:18 um pattern of responses in terms of whether fire barriers were being fitted yes

01:38:24 yes it did cause concern yes at this point cavity barriers have been recommended for more than a decade in the approved documents were you aware of that

01:38:35 i couldn't tell you when when they were introduced but um cavity barriers form part of the the facade five systems yes do you

01:38:46 the the facade five systems yes do you know whether any discussions were held between the bre and the department about that particular aspect of the report and what it what this survey showed

01:38:59 it it was a finding of the report therefore it was discussed as this is one of the things that have been identified yeah and do you know whether any action was taken in response to that i'm not aware of any any direct action

01:39:10 i'm not aware of any any direct action that's taken no did the bre do anything to draw attention to that in its work going forward the 135 work um talks about fire barriers and the use of them yes right

01:39:23 barriers and the use of them yes right now um just last and then we'll move on to another aspect of the project can we turn to page 12 and the second paragraph under the heading procurement um

01:39:34 um where it said this it is evident that the insulation industry has a number of highly active lobbying groups the approach taken by the two main factions the mineral wall manufacturers and the polymeric core suppliers has been one of

01:39:47 polymeric core suppliers has been one of highly aggressive marketing against their opposition this has led to several articles in the construction press do you see that yes do you know what was the basis for these observations

01:40:00 the trade press was very active at that time with that type of marketing material um

01:40:10 um and

01:40:12 and the

01:40:13 the um

01:40:16 projects which had previously taken place

01:40:20 place involving um

01:40:24 some of the radar activities had also had very strong um support and lobbying from the insulation industries as part of that right

01:40:35 right um to which manufacturers were you referring specifically they're not named but who were they they the two main trade bodies from were were generally involved in those those

01:40:46 were generally involved in those those discussions so it would have been the mineral industry and the polymeric industry

01:40:53 it says the mineral wool manufacturers and the polymeric core suppliers has been one of highly aggressive marketing

01:41:01 marketing are you talking about specific companies there

01:41:06 in in the main it would have been companies um

01:41:12 that there were two main trade bodies who were the main lobbying groups one representing each of those those particular and who was there mineral

01:41:24 mineral mineral the trace group and the polymeric cores um

01:41:32 um people like um uh epic

01:41:36 uh epic right did you provide uh any further details to the department of the identity of the companies that this report was referring to in that section no they would have been aware right and if we look at the next paragraph below

01:41:47 if we look at the next paragraph below that it says should the department choose to partner these companies for the supply and installation of their products for this project they should be aware of this background experience suggests that the industry sector will wish to ensure the maximum publicity

01:42:00 wish to ensure the maximum publicity from this work to the detriment of their opposition and this may prove difficult to manage in addition it is important to ensure that the work is independent and free from undue commercial influence

01:42:11 free from undue commercial influence which is difficult to control when partnering with industry whilst we are happy to work with these organizations it may be more politically expedient to purchase the materials and service services on the open market in order to

01:42:23 services on the open market in order to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in the marketplace you see that there yes um

01:42:32 um what experience did the bre have that suggested the industry would seek to ensure maximum publicity from any partnership to the detriment of the opposition i'd say there have been previous pii

01:42:44 i'd say there have been previous pii projects

01:42:46 projects where

01:42:47 where there had been some difficulties controlling publication of data and information as a result of that right can you remember particular companies that were involved with that

01:42:58 involved with that uh again most of it was driven through the trade associations rather than through individual organizations right

01:43:06 right does this passage indicate that as early as 2000 you had valid reason to be skeptical

01:43:11 skeptical about the practices of manufacturers in the insulation industry yes

01:43:18 that being the case why were manufacturers included in the industry advisory group for this project because they were relevant sectors they had they had a role to play in that

01:43:30 they had they had a role to play in that process and it was highlighting that they needed to be managed correctly in that process did you or anyone else at the bre have any concerns that industry might seek to

01:43:41 any concerns that industry might seek to influence aspects of this work for their own purposes if they were involved

01:43:50 ultimately companies will only become involved if there is something for them to gain from that process so yes that was always a balance that we had to be very conscious of right i see

01:44:02 of right i see let's move then to the experimental testing programme on page 12 of this summary and options report

01:44:10 report two design options for the full scale test program are set out we can see there at the bottom of the page option one is called fine note 9 and what it says is from the information

01:44:21 and what it says is from the information provided in the survey and in order to address the trend towards increasing thermal and acoustic performance in the residential housing market the following experimental program is proposed this

01:44:32 experimental program is proposed this option does not provide any indication of the performance of built up systems or pre-formed insulation panels the test will be carried out in accordance with bre far note 9 using the test facility

01:44:44 bre far note 9 using the test facility at bre cardington and then underneath that essentially there are three sets of systems that are identified set one is said to be rendered systems

01:44:57 is said to be rendered systems and three tests are identified underneath that with different types of insulation including test three phenolic foam insulation if we go over the page

01:45:08 insulation if we go over the page set two

01:45:09 set two is ventilated rain screen systems with no fire barriers and different types of uh syringe screen systems are identified including

01:45:20 systems are identified including those that have uh past class naught do you see that in test three and four yes you see that and then it's talking about you could repeat those tests with fire barriers and the total of 11 tests the indicative

01:45:33 and the total of 11 tests the indicative costs

01:45:34 costs were 5 000 to 12 000 pounds per system yes yes so that was option one in this report

01:45:41 report um

01:45:43 um did you put together this proposed uh testing program as option one yes and

01:45:51 and who contributed to the discussions about around what was to be tested uh the

01:45:58 uh the uh

01:46:01 conversations with um stakeholders um around the types of materials and panels in in place and

01:46:12 their experience of that

01:46:17 i see so were you trying to get systems which were typically in use yes so it was a maximum value to government and to the industry more generally

01:46:28 and to the industry more generally absolutely yeah

01:46:31 and we'll come back to how you actually got hold of those components in a moment but if we look at option two below that you put forward a second option in this particular survey report

01:46:42 particular survey report and that's called modified modified fire note 9

01:46:45 note 9 and in the first paragraph it says during discussions it's become increasingly obvious that there are several issues relating to the use of builds built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels that should be addressed as part of this project

01:46:58 addressed as part of this project it should also be noted that the joint british standards committee working on fine note 9 test method is recommending that a part 2 of the standard be developed to address the testing of built up pre-formed insulation

01:47:09 built up pre-formed insulation where no masonry wall is present and curtain war systems we currently have no experience of their fire behavior in this scenario and

01:47:20 below that it says the major change between the existing test method and the second scenario is the influence of an internal masonry wall the existing test facility is designed with this internal walleye the masonry

01:47:32 with this internal walleye the masonry wall in place this is an inappropriate test scenario for the built up and pre-formed insulation systems that are installed in practice and then they're saying in order to you're saying in order to address this

01:47:43 you're saying in order to address this the test facility would need to be redesigned and then you go on beneath that so in short is what you're saying here that with these pre-formed systems that are like complete systems which don't have a

01:47:56 like complete systems which don't have a masonry wall as a backing you'd need to have a completely different test facility to test that yes um

01:48:03 um and that would be a wholly different project yes yes or an extension to the existing but it would need to be addressed in a different way yes i see

01:48:13 yes i see um and was that effectively the the precursor to bs 8414 part two yes and testing steel frame systems yes yes

01:48:24 testing steel frame systems yes yes um

01:48:25 um the paragraph the next paragraph begins from and it says from the work undertaken in the 1997 pit project we have some limited knowledge of the behavior of proprietary ventilated rain

01:48:37 behavior of proprietary ventilated rain screen systems and we're aware of some further work under a doe contract about that

01:48:43 that so is that the pit project is that partners in technology yes that's that's the second partners in technology project as i explained yesterday there were two elements to it and we had some

01:48:54 were two elements to it and we had some information on the ventilated rain screen but we didn't have the information on the renders because that wasn't

01:49:00 wasn't available to us through that contract right and that project um we can tell from the footnote which is on a different page but that it tells us that that's fire note 3 it's referring to is that correct that's correct yes so that

01:49:11 that correct that's correct yes so that was work that ran up to fire 503 yes what was your knowledge about the behavior of proprietary range ventilated rain screen systems at the time it says you've got some limited knowledge of it

01:49:23 you've got some limited knowledge of it in what way was that knowledge limited and what was known

01:49:27 known so it was the systems that the limited number of tests that were done for fire note 3. that was the knowledge we had of them at that time right and how did those systems behave in short

01:49:38 in short uh

01:49:40 uh some parts unfailed right there's a mixture

01:49:43 mixture mixed picture mixed picture yeah um

01:49:47 um and looking at the next paragraph on the final page it says accepting budgetary constraints associated with this project the large-scale experimental program may be better served by considering a modification to fire note 9 to allow

01:49:59 modification to fire note 9 to allow built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels to be tested and then it goes on and says in order to undertake this change in test scenario a new test facility would be required the construction of such a

01:50:10 be required the construction of such a facility would reduce the budget available for the purchase and supply of full-scale systems but would provide a good basis on which to expand the scope of the existing guidance in br135 to

01:50:21 of the existing guidance in br135 to cover the emerging market trends for which we currently have no data this data could also be used to support british standards activity

01:50:32 what were the budgetary constraints referred to in the first part of that if we just go back so you can see the paragraph

01:50:38 paragraph in the first lines you're talking about budgetary constraints there was a fixed budget available to undertake the work right

01:50:50 and did you push one option over the other option in discussions with the department did the bre have a preference as to which option the department should go down

01:51:01 go down uh

01:51:03 uh the preference was to to look to maximize the information we had available to us and given the ongoing trend then option two had been suggested because that's where

01:51:14 had been suggested because that's where we felt the market was uh was moving and we had no information about

01:51:18 about what that would look like so you'd have preferred to have gone with option two yeah yes option two was was the um was the preferred route right and if we look over the page if we just

01:51:29 and if we look over the page if we just look to the end of that back to the end of that on page 14. you say it's not possible to offer fixed budgetary figures for this option but the costing could be obtained yes yes

01:51:40 yes and was this option ever given any further consideration by the department at any stage yes and when was that um following on from the first stage of

01:51:51 following on from the first stage of this project right and and was that second project undertaken yes right now um it's right isn't it that the testing program which was eventually

01:52:02 testing program which was eventually undertaken and reported as part of this project was different from option one and from option two but it was slightly different from option one wasn't it yes it was a total of fourteen full-scale tests were

01:52:13 total of fourteen full-scale tests were carried out with a third set of tests on composite panel systems is that right that's correct

01:52:22 and were they all carried out on masonry substrates uh there was a mix a mix yes

01:52:30 a mix yes and how was that testing program that was eventually decided upon um how did how's that decision reached was that simply the department coming back to you and saying no this is what we want to do or was that joint discussions that was

01:52:42 or was that joint discussions that was discussions with the industry group with the department and with ourselves fundamentally it was the department's decision as to which route they wanted to take because they were um

01:52:53 um uh sourcing the products that were being tested right and what was the rationale behind the approach which was eventually taken to do these 14 tests including some on composite systems how did they explain that to you

01:53:05 explain that to you it was based on the information guidance they had about the types of systems that were

01:53:11 were in the marketplace and

01:53:16 needed to they needed to understand what those look like in practice on the large-scale test i see

01:53:24 did they have information which you didn't have about the types of systems that were in the marketplace and that they needed to understand or was there information all coming from you and the survey that you've done

01:53:37 you and the survey that you've done i

01:53:38 i i believe they were having their own discussions internally as well i would i would uh

01:53:44 would uh i would

01:53:46 i would i would suggest that they they were obviously taking their own um soundings i would expect them to have been doing that right

01:53:55 right and was the ultimate program decided before testing began or did it change as the experimental program was running

01:54:06 i my apologies i really don't remember i would not be surprised if there were variations towards the end of the project it would be quite normal to undertake the first

01:54:17 be quite normal to undertake the first series to review and then to reevaluate and and change but i i'm sorry i

01:54:24 sorry i no that's fine i can't remember the program let's look at an email that might help a little bit if we go to bre 40 6285 this is an email from you to anthony bird and mr payne copying in

01:54:37 anthony bird and mr payne copying in debbie smith and peter field on the 10th of august 2001 and it's for contract cc 1924 and we can see that you are proposing changes to the testing program sometime

01:54:50 changes to the testing program sometime after it's begun

01:54:53 we'll come back to this email but if you look at the last line on page two you say in order to keep the project online i'd like to arrange a meeting to review the project today and discuss

01:55:04 review the project today and discuss finances as soon as convenient to yourselves now

01:55:08 now during this experimental testing program and that phase of it how regularly were you in touch with anthony bird

01:55:17 there would be agreed regular reporting um in line with the contract that would be addressed with the

01:55:30 contract management company might through mike um mike payne and then um they would be fully aware of the testing programs and the dates they were taking place

01:55:41 place so they could attend if they wish to do so so there was a regular dialogue in place yeah and do you remember having a meeting to review the project and discuss finances with anthony bird around this

01:55:53 finances with anthony bird around this time so i would i yes i imagine that would have taken place i i don't recall a date or an exact time for it but that would be

01:56:01 would be um

01:56:03 um perfectly normal if we go back up to page one of the email

01:56:10 we can see here that you are um setting out in quite a lot of detail the tests that have been carried out by that stage and and giving him pretty detailed updates was that typical is this a

01:56:23 updates was that typical is this a fairly typical update email to him about the tests yes yes so the department understood this information and and we're getting information in a lot of detail about

01:56:34 information in a lot of detail about this work yes yes very much so yeah now in terms of the suggested options for the full-scale testing the rendered systems in set one

01:56:45 the rendered systems in set one they were not all repeated with fire barriers were they

01:56:54 i my approach is i don't have i don't recall the the the absolute details if if

01:56:59 if you have the data there the information we have um seems to suggest that not all of the render systems were repeated with fire barriers and the ventilated rain screen systems were not repeated with fire

01:57:11 systems were not repeated with fire barriers and we were just interested in why that was uh may well have been the the data suggested that there was um either no need to do that because they

01:57:22 either no need to do that because they had

01:57:23 had they

01:57:26 showed a form of performance that that didn't need to be further investigated right i see um and in fact of the 14 full-scale systems undertaken only two one a render

01:57:39 systems undertaken only two one a render system and one arranged screen system actually contain fire barriers do you remember that um

01:57:45 um if yes if that's the data i wouldn't um yeah well let's go to the analysis report it's at bre 3041882

01:57:55 we can see its headed analysis of iso 9705 european and british standard fire test data for br135 project and it's dated the 19th of september

01:58:07 and it's dated the 19th of september 2002

01:58:09 2002 on page two we can see the report was prepared by you and it was approved by dr smith

01:58:15 dr smith and if we go down to page five and look at the introduction section

01:58:22 section um in the second paragraph the report tells us it says as part of the review process 14 full-scale file tests were undertaken using the fine note 9 test

01:58:33 undertaken using the fine note 9 test methodology the results from this work are presented in bre report and then reports given the systems identified and tested at full scale were also assessed at intermediate and bench scale using the

01:58:44 intermediate and bench scale using the following test methods and then we can see that those tests are set out and we can see that those tests included the bs476 part six the fire

01:58:55 included the bs476 part six the fire propagation test and the part 476 part seven

01:58:59 seven surface spread of flame test yes yes together with other tests um the next one is a full scale room test for surface products the single burning item test was carried

01:59:11 the single burning item test was carried out you see that below that yes and then reaction to fire tests ignitability when subject to direct impingement of flames yes yes so what

01:59:22 impingement of flames yes yes so what they were looking at was the um

01:59:26 the um the dual coding that we talked about yesterday so the class 0 and the 13501.1 yes

01:59:34 and just for clarity if we go to page 10 and table 1 this summarizes the systems tested in intermediate and bench scale this only refers to 13 systems but we

01:59:47 this only refers to 13 systems but we think the reason for that is that um

01:59:51 um if we look at page 23 and look briefly at table 8 where the the summary of all the results are set out and we'll come back to this a number of times

02:00:02 a number of times it looks like the only difference between test three and four under set two render system is the provision or otherwise of fire barriers

02:00:12 barriers and that appears to explain why we only see 13 systems in the earlier table but 14 here can you help us with that

02:00:33 i think the point might be that fire barriers can't be incorporated into intermediate and bench scale tests yes

02:00:40 yes yes

02:00:42 now i want to start by looking at the 14 full-scale tests it appears from the documents we have that they were carried out at various times between the 31st of may 2001 and

02:00:54 times between the 31st of may 2001 and the 14th of november 2001 but on some occasions more than one test appears to be carried out within one day does that sound right yes were you present at all of the

02:01:06 were you present at all of the large-scale tests no can you remember which ones you attended

02:01:21 i was present for the rain screens and the competent panels

02:01:29 there were uh some of the renders that i wasn't present for okay thank you do you know who else from the bre attended the full-scale tests there would have been various staff

02:01:41 there would have been various staff involved in in the project who would have been present do you have a memory of brian martin and and dr smith attending some of these tests i couldn't tell you which tests they

02:01:52 i couldn't tell you which tests they attended but i would be they would have been present yes yeah did any officials from the department attend any of these tests yes they would they would have done were they always told about when the tests were happening

02:02:03 told about when the tests were happening yes

02:02:04 yes and you have a recollection of them sometimes attending do you i can i can recall them witnessing a test yes with a member of the department there yes and who was that uh anthony yeah actually bird anti-verdum uh mike payne

02:02:16 actually bird anti-verdum uh mike payne and what was mr martin's role in relation to this full-scale testing we saw earlier a description of his role um but we're not clear on what his role was in relation to this part of the

02:02:27 was in relation to this part of the project in this part of the project it was

02:02:29 was experience just so he had a knowledge of the of the testing he wasn't part of the actual delivery yeah i see um

02:02:40 um if we look at the bre's closing report for this project which is at bre 3041895

02:02:50 and go to page nine we see a list of the 14 full-scale tests which are carried out with the description of the main components of the systems used in each test

02:03:01 test now can you help us why are the specific products not identified by reference to the product name and manufacturer as

02:03:09 as we

02:03:11 we spoke

02:03:12 spoke earlier the department chose not to um

02:03:19 put the actual manufacturing details uh or the full specifications into these types of reports right but what's that information separately provided to the department so they didn't know what

02:03:30 department so they didn't know what these products were yes how was that provided um that that would have been as part of the procurement of the products they would have been advised of the the systems that were being tested right are

02:03:41 systems that were being tested right are you able to help us about why that information doesn't now seem to exist the inquiry has asked for information as to specifically what products form part of these systems but we've

02:03:52 form part of these systems but we've been told that that information is not available do you know why the

02:03:58 the the the passage of time the the final reports have been held but the actual um individual uh test record files are no longer in place right and no one thought that

02:04:09 in place right and no one thought that it might be important to keep um a separate record of the specific products that were um used in these tests as say

02:04:21 as say when when we we went to look for those those records they were they were no longer held in place right

02:04:28 right and can you help who funded the large-scale testing were all of these tests funded by the department yes

02:04:35 yes were the manufacturers or industry organizations involved in funding any of these tests no did you purchase the products which were incorporated into the tests from the open market as you had suggested ought

02:04:47 open market as you had suggested ought to happen in the survey summary and options report a consultant was employed to do that and and

02:04:57 and and who was that consultant

02:05:05 uh it was a

02:05:08 an an individual um uh company um who were uh cladding installation who were working in the cladding installation uh field right i see but

02:05:20 installation uh field right i see but someone with no interest in these particular systems no they they were in they were installers um of these types of systems and and knew how

02:05:30 how how to specify what needed to be purchased and right and how to install and

02:05:37 did any manufacturers or industry organizations supply any of the components in these in these systems no if we look at an email now bre 4063

02:05:50 this is an email from you to debbie smith on the 15th of march 2002 and it appears that you're asking debbie smith to check the email that you drafted to send to mike payne

02:06:01 drafted to send to mike payne and you've told us what mike payne's role was um your draft email to mr payne reads below that you say further to our telephone conversation please find below confirmation of the position with regard

02:06:12 confirmation of the position with regard to the provision and testing of the remaining external cladding systems the provision of material for this project lies outside the framework agreement and from the outset we've undertaken to procure and supply the materials for this project on an at cost

02:06:25 materials for this project on an at cost basis

02:06:26 basis the initial materials estimates applied to you as the best estimate available at the time when the project was being developed as the project's gone on we've continued to procure the materials and services required to complete this project while passing all invoices to

02:06:37 project while passing all invoices to yourselves directly to date the invoices received and forwarded to you total 117 570 pounds this covers all material supplied installed and tested to date to

02:06:49 supplied installed and tested to date to meet the requirements of this contract this covers all full-scale tests but only the rain screen and composite panel systems at small scale and iso room and then you're asking and then last paragraph for another twenty four

02:07:01 paragraph for another twenty four thousand pounds to complete the small scale and rune corner tests on the render systems and you say without these tests we won't have the information available

02:07:11 available now

02:07:12 now this email appears to make it clear that it was the bre who sourced all the materials for testing yes we we um

02:07:23 we were asked as as part of the contract to um [Music]

02:07:29 [Music] to undertake the procurement on behalf of the department and the as it says in there and provide those back to the invoices back to the department the procurement was through the

02:07:40 procurement was through the um contractor right to ensure the independence of the process

02:07:46 process right so we didn't go to the market and purchase no yes i see

02:07:53 yes i see um

02:07:55 um and had you taken the components and configuration of each full-scale test to debbie smith for her sign off is that the level of oversight she had on each each of these tests

02:08:09 the procurement would have gone through um through ws so she would know exactly what you were ordering for each test um and at what cost she would know the costs

02:08:21 she would know the costs but wouldn't necessarily be aware of the the system buildups in in in fine detail though okay but in broad terms she'd be aware of it yes yes um and what about anthony bird

02:08:32 yes yes um and what about anthony bird on the department more generally was approval from the department required for the makeup of each of the tests that was agreed that was agreed as part of the test program hence the email exchanges going forward so yes they were

02:08:44 exchanges going forward so yes they were fully aware of what was being tested yeah

02:08:46 yeah and who designed the test rigs for the full scale tests the consultants right and who approved the designs did you the bre approved those designs um

02:08:57 um we we confirmed that they would be they they would fit onto the rig and they were suitable for for the rig but the actual um

02:09:05 actual um how um

02:09:07 how um appropriate they were we had to rely on their knowledge and skill set for and did the third party contractor actually build the systems onto the rigs yes i did but did someone from the bre supervisor oversee that

02:09:19 supervisor oversee that yeah we were present during the construction yeah so you knew how the build up worked in practice you watched it happen we watched it yeah um

02:09:28 um now if we go to bre 30419

02:09:36 we see a tabulated summary of the full-scale test including the results of each test

02:09:42 each test now this is an internal bre document would this have gone to the department

02:09:50 i think what we need to do is go right to the left hand side so in the in the scroll bar and the bottom right that's it

02:09:58 that's it thank you if we go right to the left so would this kind of information have gone to the department yes this is the tape this is the table that

02:10:09 table that went into the report yeah and the 14 test tested systems are listed through from columns a to c and the overall results from each are in

02:10:20 and the overall results from each are in column s yes whether it's a pass or a fail yes and that was to the method in fine note 9. yes and we can see that from column s that four of the 14 tests resulted in a

02:10:32 that four of the 14 tests resulted in a pass

02:10:33 pass with all of the others failing yes yes three of the systems which passed were in set one that was the render systems yes yes

02:10:43 yes yes there was one pass from set three in the composite panels at the bottom yes and none of the rain screen panels in set two none of those passed did they

02:10:54 in set two none of those passed did they no

02:10:56 no and then if we go back to the bre's closing report for the department at bre 3041895

02:11:04 page nine i just want to ask you some more questions about some of the systems which were tested we see in table one there under rain screen systems item five refers to aluminium sheets mounted

02:11:17 five refers to aluminium sheets mounted on aluminium rails no fire barriers do you have that yes what was the name of the aluminium sheet product

02:11:24 product atm

02:11:25 atm and who is the manufacturer of that product i don't know you don't know i don't know well can i just ask you um you say the product was

02:11:36 you say the product was called acm is that right no it was

02:11:40 no it was it was an acm product we described it as an aluminium sheet product yeah but what i'm interested to know is what was it was it was simply a sheet of aluminium or was it no no it wasn't it was an acm

02:11:51 or was it no no it wasn't it was an acm product

02:11:52 product it was an acm panel yeah thank you i think we'll come to some other documents just in a moment that give us a little bit more detail about this but this is how these panels were reported

02:12:04 this is how these panels were reported yes and i will come back to this point in the final report they're just described as aluminium sheets aren't they they are now i think you've confirmed that these panels were in fact aluminium panels

02:12:15 panels were in fact aluminium panels with a polyethylene core yes yes and these are one of the types of panels referred to in that literature review which we've already looked at yes yes taken from typical costs of cladding systems set out in the architect's

02:12:27 systems set out in the architect's journal yes if we look at bre um bre 304188 this is the bre's analysis report and on page 10 table 1

02:12:41 and on page 10 table 1 if we go down to item 5 under the heading range screen here the system is described differently it says aluminium polyethylene core sheets on aluminium railing do you see that yes

02:12:56 on aluminium railing do you see that yes and in another document if we go to bre 3041909

02:13:02 this is a blank tabulated summary for all the testing results

02:13:08 results in the final row under the heading rain screen

02:13:11 screen we can see the description aluminium polyethylene core sheets on aluminium railing yes yes now were you present during that test

02:13:26 i don't recall being i don't recall being present for the small-scale tests no doing this full-scale test for full-scale tests yeah yes we sorry i'm not clear and i can see that's a

02:13:38 i'm not clear and i can see that's a tabulated summary for the small-scale tests i was just getting the description from that

02:13:42 from that but i'm talking about the large scale test the far note 9 test that was done with this aluminium composite panel were you present for that yes i was and who else was present can you help us

02:13:53 and who else was present can you help us do you have a memory of it

02:14:01 i'm sorry no i can't that the the normal um bre team would have been there but i i can't think of any i can't if you're asking where other visitors present i don't recall them

02:14:12 visitors present i don't recall them being visited being present no well we were interested to know who was present both in the bre and the department um do you remember anything about that i don't remember anyone from the department being present no right do you

02:14:24 department being present no right do you remember any of the in with the were the industry advisory group invited to witness these tests they were um and i don't i don't believe anyone was present for that particular test right

02:14:36 test right now this test is noteworthy in terms of fire performance and in particular the early early manual termination time before six minutes yes yes

02:14:47 if we look at the tabulated summary again bre three zeros four one nine one two

02:15:02 sorry we need the native version of that again

02:15:08 if we go um it's in row

02:15:17 row five under the rain screen systems

02:15:22 we can see um

02:15:24 um sorry it's in row 15 under the range screen systems we can see in column r that this one failed at

02:15:32 at 5.75 do you see that yes and it says fail externally plus and internally in column s yes yes

02:15:44 now can you explain why in many of the documents reporting on this project you've referred to these panels simply as aluminium panels or aluminium sheets

02:15:57 it was it was used as a generic description we talked about steel sheets and we talk about thin screen screen renders it was

02:16:11 screen screen renders it was it was just a generic description of the of the product can we agree it's an inaccurate description of the product it doesn't tell the reader what they need to know about that product

02:16:24 it could it could have been described differently yes as

02:16:28 as as as a as a generic grouping yes it could have done well i appreciate it could have been described differently i'm going to put the question again it's an inaccurate description of the product isn't it it doesn't tell the reader what

02:16:39 isn't it it doesn't tell the reader what they need to know about that product that it's an acm aluminium composite material product with a polyethylene core

02:16:49 in yeah yes in in the same way as the composites could have been described differently and the renders could have been described differently yes but you accept it's inaccurate

02:17:00 accept it's inaccurate it doesn't give a full description i would accept that yes and it's apt to mislead isn't it because as per the chairman's questions earlier someone might read that and think that an aluminium sheet was a solid aluminium

02:17:11 aluminium sheet was a solid aluminium sheet yes i yes i accept that why did you choose acm pe as one of the products to be tested in this program can you explain the rationale behind that

02:17:22 that it would have been offered to us as part of the

02:17:25 of the in industry interest and and industry use yeah was there any particular discussion between you and others working on the project about the inclusion of that particular product no

02:17:37 particular product no was it included on the basis of the typical costs for cladding systems that were reported in the architects journal was that one of the reasons why it was selected as per the literature review

02:17:48 selected as per the literature review i don't believe so no so

02:17:51 so what was the reason

02:17:55 my my understanding is that it was offered to the project as being a product of interest did you understand it to be a product that was typically in use within the market at this time

02:18:07 market at this time i understood it was a product that that was available to the market and and therefore it was of interest whether it was current in current use or um

02:18:16 um for future use i i wasn't aware and what do you remember now about that test on the system incorporating acm pe panels

02:18:29 it was it was a test that um failed failed in very early stages yes if we look more closely at the results of the testing for this if we go back to

02:18:40 of the testing for this if we go back to page 23 of bre 3041882

02:18:46 to the results table for the full tests it's row 5 under the heading rain screen systems

02:18:53 systems do you agree that this system reached the far note 9 failure criteria extremely rapidly yes it did

02:19:01 what was your reaction at the time to it doing so

02:19:05 doing so shocked

02:19:06 shocked so we can see it gets to the external time within three minutes and the internal time within 434 is that correct that's correct

02:19:17 434 is that correct that's correct so you were shocked i was shocked at the speed it took off yes can you remember the reaction of any others who were present at the test we were all surprised

02:19:29 and the test we know was manually terminated at five minutes 75 which is why the test time is given at 5.75 yes that's correct

02:19:40 5.75 yes that's correct why was it terminated at 5.75 can you remember

02:19:44 remember the

02:19:45 the extent to the fire spread meant that it was

02:19:50 it couldn't continue so it was it was terminated was it because allowing it to continue would have been dangerous

02:19:59 within within the facility we use it

02:20:02 use it it was um

02:20:04 it was um appropriate point to to intervene because there was no point in allowing it to continue to burn so yes

02:20:11 you wouldn't have wouldn't have continued with it

02:20:15 for no for no good reason yeah can we agree that in very simple terms this was an inferno wasn't it

02:20:24 it was a very rapid very large fire growth yes yeah i mean there is a distinction isn't there between just letting it burn itself out absolutely and having to stop it because

02:20:35 absolutely and having to stop it because it is creating a danger to the surrounding building or whatever yeah within that environment it it was um

02:20:46 um it it was a significant fire yes it's dangerous is that what you're telling me for the facility for this the large aircraft hangar we're working no it wasn't dangerous it could have burnt

02:20:57 wasn't dangerous it could have burnt itself out but in in that context it it was a large fire and we intervened at that point but i say that's given the context of that large building in which that test was undertaken

02:21:09 was undertaken right thank you and this was a product which achieved national class naught in the bre smaller scale testing yes when we tested it it achieved class zero yes yes so it uh

02:21:20 achieved class zero yes yes so it uh we'll come back to that in a moment if we can go to page three of bre here we go yes these are the detailed observations from the pe called aluminium rain screen cladding test can

02:21:32 aluminium rain screen cladding test can you help us who recorded these observations during the test would have been one of the experimental team i don't remember who else who was doing that on that day right

02:21:43 doing that on that day right we can see that at three minutes five seconds

02:21:47 seconds halfway down that table molten aluminium was dropping from the front face of the panel yes yes do you remember witnessing that do you remember seeing that molten aluminium

02:21:58 remember seeing that molten aluminium drop dripping dropping from the front face

02:22:02 face i remember watching the rapid fire propagation of the um

02:22:06 um of the system yes

02:22:11 and at four minutes 20 seconds the flames had reached the top of the rig yes yes

02:22:17 yes yes and then just 40 seconds later at five minutes it says the flames were approximately twice the height of the rig 20 meters yes yes you got 20 meter

02:22:28 rig 20 meters yes yes you got 20 meter flaming is that right

02:22:32 this was a catastrophic escalation wasn't it it was a very rapid fire growth yes and this result was alarming surely to those who were present and witnessing the tests yes as i said we

02:22:43 witnessing the tests yes as i said we were quite shocked at that rate of growth

02:22:45 growth was there a sense of alarm at the bre in the wake of this test

02:22:51 we were very surprised by that by that performance yes what about the department who were aware of it who either witnessed it or saw the test results do you remember them expressing

02:23:02 expressing alarm at the catastrophic escalation of this test

02:23:07 this test yes they

02:23:09 yes they we we were all um we were all concerned at that performance of the product and whatever else you might have concluded from this project did you consider after this test

02:23:20 consider after this test that the use of acm panels on a high-rise building would present nothing other than a grave risk to occupants in the event of fire

02:23:30 i i i genuinely yes i i couldn't see the acm would be a an appropriate product to for use in that application so you can does it is it fair to say

02:23:41 so you can does it is it fair to say that you didn't consider pe called acm to be

02:23:46 to be suitable for external clouding applications in high-rise buildings correct

02:23:51 correct and what about others were there any discussions with the department about whether this was a suitable product that could be used to clad high-rise buildings i

02:24:03 i i

02:24:05 i don't believe anyone felt that it was appropriate did anyone consider alerting industry or local authorities or building control or other

02:24:16 authorities or building control or other building owners to this result and to the obvious dangers posed by these panels

02:24:25 how the department chose to uh transmit that i don't i don't know were you aware of anyone discussing that there might be a need to alert

02:24:37 that there might be a need to alert those kind of third parties to this result and the obvious dangers you'd identified

02:24:45 we we had made oh i had made the department aware of of the outcomes and and what was occurring with that

02:24:52 with that and

02:24:54 and [Music]

02:24:55 [Music] they were obviously um then in a position to take the dissemination route that that they would would do with that is the answer that no one within the bre

02:25:06 is the answer that no one within the bre thought about doing that in the light of this test

02:25:10 this test wouldn't we would not go out um

02:25:14 um we would not go out and make make coming around around that no why not

02:25:21 we were on

02:25:23 on delivering this to the department for them to take forward and make the

02:25:32 necessary statements provisions and changes arising from that was not something we we would do um [Music]

02:25:45 from um from the type of contract work we were involved with but that's not quite right is it because you were also reviewing and revising br135 that's what this work is leading up to yes

02:25:58 is leading up to yes so in talking about and and within the context of 135 that's what the information is being placed placed into the into the document around

02:26:09 placed into the into the document around what the large-scale test is there to do yes but but we'll we'll come to it in due course nowhere within the second edition of br135 do we see a very clear warning about the use of this kind of product do we

02:26:22 that wasn't the aim to

02:26:28 the aim was to discuss how the large-scale test was to be used to identify products that might behave in this way did you have an expectation that the department would notify relevant third

02:26:40 department would notify relevant third parties about the results of this test and their shock and their alarm well it was after this point there's this test and and there's the findings from the whole program

02:26:51 findings from the whole program it's not just the um the acm in in isolation there are there are findings across the across the piece and that's was the expectation that they would um

02:27:04 use that information to alert the

02:27:09 alert the industry to to the needs for not only this particular product but the others that were identified in that in that program right did you ever become aware of a time when the department

02:27:20 aware of a time when the department took action to alert third parties to the risks involved with using this kind of product on tall buildings did you ever become aware of that action at having taken place

02:27:33 i was no i'm i was never made aware that they they'd spoken directly to anyone around that no no and were you concerned about that at the time

02:27:45 in retrospect yes but at the time um i wasn't aware that they hadn't so therefore

02:27:52 therefore um i

02:27:55 um i i'm still i'm still shocked that it

02:28:00 that it is and was used so um

02:28:03 um yes i

02:28:05 yes i with uh reflection i am shocked that they didn't follow it up at that time yeah when you say i'm still shocked that it is and was used this product's been selected it's been

02:28:18 this product's been selected it's been selected partly because industry have told you we're really interested in this um so it's clearly relevant to industry surely then you would understand that it might be in

02:28:30 you would understand that it might be in use

02:28:33 my understanding at this point is that we had identified that there was an issue and that that was going forward

02:28:45 with the department taking the actions arising from the program to take the necessary steps to to alert and identify right

02:28:53 right but i think you've made it clear that you never became aware of them having done that

02:28:57 done that i wasn't made aware that they'd spoken to industry but then i wouldn't necessarily be aware that they were spoken to industry because i don't have that

02:29:04 that that that interaction with them

02:29:07 with them did anyone discuss um the possibility of trying to ascertain how many buildings had already been cladding this material was that a conversation that anybody had either within the bre or with the department

02:29:20 within the bre or with the department no you consider advising government that that step was a step that ought to be taken you need to now identify any buildings that are clad in this stuff

02:29:31 buildings that are clad in this stuff particularly high-rise buildings because this has been a disastrous test

02:29:37 we reported the survey as we had at that time

02:29:41 time as you have said it was a very limited snapshot

02:29:45 snapshot what actions they took after that to determine what was on the wider selection of buildings and how that was being addressed was something dealt with within the department not something that

02:29:56 within the department not something that we were asked to to engage with yeah i think he said as you have said it was a very limited snapshot not sure i've said that did you have any expectation that it might perform differently if you reran the test

02:30:09 sorry i think we've said well you're saying it's a snapshot it might have been a rogue result no i was referring to the survey that we spoke about earlier oh i see so

02:30:20 that we spoke about earlier oh i see so that was just a snapshot of it was in use then why would you think it was any less in use than it was at the time of the survey

02:30:35 the survey was a a small piece of work as we discussed earlier

02:30:44 the extent to which this was in use and therefore

02:30:49 therefore the

02:30:50 the implications and um

02:30:53 um wider section on that was a discussion that i believe was with the department to understand how that

02:31:03 how that was going forward we had identified this particular process we have made them aware that there was an issue around this product and

02:31:13 and how they then went to the market to identify that with them was something that was left with the department to identify it was not something that was in my

02:31:27 room it under the contract to take forward i'd identified that with them i'd made them aware of that and um the course of action that they chose to take around that was something

02:31:38 chose to take around that was something i wasn't party to any discussions around whether they talked about it internally i don't know okay let's look at some of the other full-scale tests that were carried out if we could go back to bre

02:31:50 if we could go back to bre 3041882 at page 23 that table under the heading render systems in the middle of the page there are references to phenolic insulation and polyurethane insulation

02:32:02 insulation and polyurethane insulation at items one and two respectively do you see that yes what was the name of the polyurethane insulation product can you remember and who was the manufacturer

02:32:14 who was the manufacturer uh no i don't have i don't remember the the name of the the the in uh insulation product what about the phenolic insulation product can you remember that

02:32:26 i'm sorry no i don't looking further down the table under the head in composite systems there are references to polyisocyanurate cord panels and polyurethane cord panels items one and

02:32:37 polyurethane cord panels items one and two there

02:32:39 two there can you help us with the identity of those products or the manufacturer no there are there were a number of manufacturers um that they that any of those products could have come from yeah why is only

02:32:51 could have come from yeah why is only the core of these composite panels described in this table

02:33:05 sorry i don't know can you help why the core of these panels isn't described that they're said to be composite panel systems

02:33:16 systems and we're told that they're cored with certain material but we don't know anything about those composite systems anything further can you explain why we don't see that in the

02:33:27 you explain why we don't see that in the description they would have been generically generically referred to as sandwich panels right we understand them to have involved steel those panels is that correct

02:33:37 correct as as a

02:33:40 as as a sandwich panel they would they would typically yes they would have been still faced

02:33:45 faced so why not just say that in their data isn't that very helpful for the reader of this data to to understand composite panels are by their nature sandwich panels and i'd say the

02:33:57 i'd say the generic description is um i set

02:34:01 um i set a pi pir composite panel right neither of those panels achieved class nor national class nor in the testing did they

02:34:09 they i don't know well we would totally say sorry i haven't i don't have the data right well you can take it from me that they didn't achieve national class nought just staying with

02:34:20 just staying with page 323 for the moment both the tests on the pir chord composite panel on the pur chord panel failed the full scale test due to flame penetration yes yes

02:34:34 did this concern you at the time that you've got these sandwich panel products

02:34:44 they're achieving national class naught but they are failing the large-scale test

02:34:50 test yes as um i was saying there were a number of a number of failures in this program

02:34:56 program and were with was the number of failures a surprise both in respect of the um the composite systems and the fact we know none of the rain screen test

02:35:07 know none of the rain screen test systems passed was that also a surprise yes

02:35:13 um in terms of cavity barriers we've touched on the fact that only two of the 14 systems tested included fire barriers and and you can't help us as to why that was no

02:35:24 was no as i said the the systems that um

02:35:30 um contain contain the barriers um

02:35:35 appear to have um

02:35:40 uh not met the the requirements so it was um looking at the most effective additional information we could gain

02:35:52 information we could gain around the programs because we looked at it earlier one of the stated objectives of this contract was to understand the contribution of any fire stopping present within the cladding system yes do you remember it

02:36:03 cladding system yes do you remember it was at the top of the page um but if we go back to the analysis report submitted to the department this is at bre 3041882

02:36:12 and page three paragraph seven of this executive summary at the bottom of the page it says the full-scale test was the only method which satisfactorily assessed the system performance

02:36:23 assessed the system performance including detailing such as fire barriers

02:36:26 barriers so that's one of the conclusions from this project yes yes how did the full-scale test method satisfactorily assess detailing such as fire barriers when only two of the full-scale tests

02:36:38 only two of the full-scale tests actually contain cavity barriers because the systems that were actually tested with with the barriers that failed it was the failing mechanisms associated with the barriers that were actually

02:36:49 barriers that were actually raising the questions but did you think that was a statistically significant enough data pool to reach that conclusion given the evidence and the statistical

02:37:00 given the evidence and the statistical uh pool that we had available to us yes

02:37:04 you thought that was satisfactory did you it indicated that we could look at the performance of barriers as part of that process and we did for two of them and they showed that they

02:37:16 two of them and they showed that they were challenged by the fire test right but

02:37:20 right but none of the intermediate or bench scale tests allowed the performance of cavity barriers to be assessed did it it doesn't allow for their influence to be impacted at all no did you consider that the test program as carried out was in

02:37:32 the test program as carried out was in fact capable of informing questions about the influence of cavity barriers in these tests it allowed us to understand how the fire was propagating and to understand whether

02:37:43 to understand whether the fire barriers were likely to have remained in place during the test

02:38:00 now

02:38:03 did this tell you anything about the provisions which existed in the addition of approved the approved document which it was in force at the time those were the products used on the external surfaces of buildings with a

02:38:15 external surfaces of buildings with a story over 18 meters which were to achieve class naught yes

02:38:27 sorry so

02:38:29 so i'll put it another way given that you're saying in conclusion seven that the full-scale test method was the only method which satisfactorily assessed the system performance including detailing

02:38:41 system performance including detailing such as fire barriers how was the current version of approved document b satisfactory given that that large-scale test was only there in a note and as an

02:38:54 test was only there in a note and as an alternative to the provisions that we've seen set out for example in diagram 40.

02:39:05 um i i

02:39:08 i i apologize i miss misunder under understand but um

02:39:14 um seven

02:39:15 seven is saying that it was the only

02:39:20 only test method which allowed us to fully assess the fire performance of the system yes it

02:39:28 that was the comment that was was being drawn in seven yes so it wasn't that showing that there was a problem with approved document b because approved document b wasn't saying was it at this time the only way

02:39:41 saying was it at this time the only way you can assess satisfactorily assess the system performance is with a full-scale fire test it gave fire note 9 as an option but it didn't say that was the only way

02:39:52 but it didn't say that was the only way you could assess fire performance of these systems did it no it didn't no so it was flagging up a big problem with approved document b yes yes

02:40:02 yes on the intimate intermediate and bench scale tests now um were you present at any of those

02:40:10 i would have been present for some of them

02:40:12 them if we look at the analysis report at page 11

02:40:18 page 11 now this analysis report

02:40:23 under the heading bs 476 part 6 and 7 at the top there it tells us the results from bs 476 part 6 and 7 are presented in table 2. the results from these tests were not as

02:40:35 results from these tests were not as expected with only four of the eleven products achieving class naught all the materials tested were believed to be class naught products when purchased for this product project

02:40:49 purchased for this product project um

02:40:50 um now can you help us with this what was the basis for the br bre's belief that these

02:40:55 these products were all national class naught when the products were purchased our understanding what of the um the specification

02:41:06 the specification to the to the program was that they were classo

02:41:09 classo um

02:41:10 um products

02:41:11 products do you know um did you ask your third party um contractor who supplied these panels did you ask them to check that they were manufactured and ma that they

02:41:22 they were manufactured and ma that they were marketed as class naught products yes yeah

02:41:28 so it was not as expected um that so many of them wouldn't in fact achieve national class nor when subjected to this testing correct if we look at table 2 on page 12 of this

02:41:41 if we look at table 2 on page 12 of this report we can see the data that reflects that in the final column with yes and no y and n for whether or not they did or not

02:41:51 um apart from these results being unexpected didn't this tell you that one possibility was that seven out of the 11 companies were lying about their product

02:42:03 companies were lying about their product classification

02:42:08 there was obviously a discrepancy yes yes

02:42:11 yes so that was one possibility wasn't it that the the manufacturers were simply lying about whether they met national class north

02:42:22 yeah as say yes if that if they place the product on the market as as a class product yeah one other potential explanation might be that there were potentially serious

02:42:34 that there were potentially serious problems with reproducing test results to bs 476 part six and part seven yes that they weren't reliable was that ever considered

02:42:45 the the the two the two possibilities are as

02:42:51 are as as you say a test is a snapshot in time and therefore there is

02:42:57 there is um

02:42:58 um no control to know whether it was still manufactured to the same specification as it was at the time of test

02:43:04 test or that they were unclear with the products that have been placed on the market yeah either of those possibilities would surely have been of serious concern to the bre

02:43:17 yes if we look at page 19 and the first paragraph headed class naught you've written in the this report results from bs 476 part six and seven

02:43:28 results from bs 476 part six and seven tests were expected to confirm the class naught performance of the products used in this project as the results show all the materials achieved the required performance levels in the fire propagation test 476 part 6 but a significant number did

02:43:41 476 part 6 but a significant number did not achieve the required surface spread of flame classifications there does not appear to be any one reason for this lack of performance now can you help us what what what were the list of reasons

02:43:53 list of reasons for this potential lack of performance

02:43:57 with the period passage of time no i can't i

02:44:00 can't i i don't know what the differing performances were at that time was there any reaction to this from the department when this

02:44:11 when this information was presented to them no

02:44:15 7 out of 11 products is a worrying number in terms of failing to meet the claimed reaction to fire classifications can we agree that yes did you have any reason to think that this situation might not be being

02:44:26 this situation might not be being replicated across the market

02:44:30 there there is always um always a concern around a a

02:44:37 a a single point test report did you have any discussions with the department about the potential implications of these test results

02:44:47 in in the context in the wider context of test reports in isolation as opposed to

02:44:53 to certification that was an ongoing conversation that had been in place for for many years help me with what you mean by that do you mean that um the whole the whole issue around a test

02:45:06 the whole the whole issue around a test report

02:45:07 report and its provenance in relation to the product is placed on market is one that has been um recognized for a long period i see do you mean that the department was well aware

02:45:18 was well aware before this time that there was often a discrepancy between what manufacturers were marketing their product as achieving and what in fact the products achieved the the possibility for that existed yes

02:45:31 the possibility for that existed yes but this is no longer a possibility was it because you've got seven out of 11 products where you've purchased it it's said to be class naught and you've proven with the test it doesn't satisfy it so it's no longer a possibility is it

02:45:43 it so it's no longer a possibility is it no no i say that they are and were aware that that was an occurrence

02:45:51 did you or anyone else at the bre contact the manufacturers of these seven products

02:45:56 products in order to inform them that they hadn't met the 476 part 6 and part 7 test no did you or anyone else at the bre contact training trading standards or the advertising standards authority

02:46:07 the advertising standards authority about these products no why not we had made the department aware at that point and

02:46:15 point and allowing them to take the actions resulting from that but did you understand that they were actually going to take any action i believe they were yes and and what did you believe they were going to do i

02:46:26 you believe they were going to do i believed that they were going to review the position and take the actions that needed to be to follow up on the on the findings and the results from this but what does that mean what did you actually think they were going to do

02:46:37 actually think they were going to do about it

02:46:39 about it in terms of being able to do anything about the the actual results themselves i don't know what course of action was available to them to to do that

02:46:51 but in terms of the the wider implications and the regulations then yes they were aware of what of the issues around using a test report and not a certified product were

02:47:03 right but do you think they were aware specifically in relation to national class nor that this product this problem uh

02:47:11 uh existed

02:47:15 from the findings of this report yes right

02:47:18 right going back to the aluminium and the acm pe panel

02:47:21 pe panel we know that one of the four products which did achieve class naught was the acm pe that we've been discussing if we go to page 11 of this report and the first paragraph under rain

02:47:33 and the first paragraph under rain screen panels it says the aluminium cladding panels achieved a class naught performance when tested to bs four seven six part six and seven both their performance in the fire propagation test and the surface spread of flame test

02:47:44 and the surface spread of flame test showed they fully met the requirements of this classification yes yes did that particular feature of the testing of this product surprise you that it had fully met the national class

02:47:56 that it had fully met the national class naught

02:47:57 naught tests

02:47:58 tests but um

02:48:00 but um had performed so disastrously in the large scale test yes

02:48:05 yes if we scroll down to page 14 and the last paragraph under the heading range screen panels we can see it says there the aluminium system generated high rates of fire

02:48:16 system generated high rates of fire growth and in both cases was extinguished early due to excessive temperatures and fire growth this is reflected in the indicative classification of d s 2 d naught do you see that yes so in the is this right in

02:48:29 see that yes so in the is this right in the single burning item test that you did you worked out that in terms of european classifications that product would be getting a d yes that's correct

02:48:41 getting a d yes that's correct and on page 19 if we look at the penultimate paragraph on the page in relation to european reaction to fire performance we can see a small paragraph that reads the aluminium sheeting system achieve the

02:48:54 aluminium sheeting system achieve the poorest classification in both tests although it was the only system to achieve class nor in the british standard tests that's correct did these results suggest to you in very

02:49:05 did these results suggest to you in very clear terms that it would be seriously irresponsible for anyone to continue to allow class naught to be used as a standard for assessing the fire performance on high-rise buildings

02:49:19 it wasn't yes it wasn't appropriate as a single method of addressing it yes

02:49:33 were you aware that the product could be used on high-rise buildings in compliance with the provisions of approved document b at the time

02:49:46 my my understanding as i say

02:49:50 as i say my interpretation was that it couldn't but um that that was um and and that was what was being addressed with the the use of the the

02:50:02 addressed with the the use of the the test

02:50:03 test to confirm the if if these type of products were to be used that they were were to be tested right we looked earlier at the 2000 version of approved document b together do you remember it was section 13 of approved document b

02:50:15 was section 13 of approved document b what was it within that approved document

02:50:18 document that gave guidance that this kind of product could not be used do you recall it wasn't um limited combustibility but as we looked it said that only

02:50:30 but as we looked it said that only insulation in ventilated cavities needed to be of limited combustibility there was nothing saying your external panel needs to be of limited combustibility was there in that guidance as i say

02:50:43 i can provide the test evidence to enable these to move forward i'm not um and i was not working in in terms of interpreting that

02:50:55 working in in terms of interpreting that in in this environment so the the use of class o in isolation

02:51:04 isolation was not my

02:51:09 not my understanding of an appropriate method right did you consider at any stage of this project or thereafter recommending to government that the national reaction to fire classifications ought to be withdrawn from use completely in

02:51:22 withdrawn from use completely in relation to the external wall of high-rise buildings

02:51:27 so in the conclusions to this report we we made clear that there was um

02:51:33 um a difference that needed to be addressed and

02:51:40 on that basis and the evidence provided my understanding was that they would review the guidance accordingly right

02:51:50 right i've got some questions now about the bs british standards institute joint committee and the industry advisory group if we could go to bre 30 42045

02:52:01 we can see that this is a document had a generic data supporting the revision of br135 yes yes it was prepared for by the bre for the industry advisory group and the joint working group of bsi technical

02:52:14 the joint working group of bsi technical committees fsh 21 and fsh 22 yes yes and if we look at pages one and two we can see unlike in other reports the names of those who prepared and approved

02:52:26 names of those who prepared and approved this document are not given um can you help us with who was involved in writing this report it would have been drafted by

02:52:38 myself or one of my the colleagues in the uh working on the project yeah and do you remember approving this report before it was released um i've yes i remember checking and was

02:52:51 um i've yes i remember checking and was this report approved by the department before it was presented to the iag and the to the bsi joint committee yes it would not have been released without there

02:53:02 and would that have been anthony bird who approved this yes

02:53:07 and we talked a little before about the role of the iag what was the role of the joint working group of the bsi committees in this project what role did they have

02:53:17 they have uh

02:53:18 uh again there was the development of the british standard that was going on at that that time so it was to inform and support their uh understanding of the the data that was coming from the test right and were you chair of that committee working

02:53:30 you chair of that committee working group at the time um

02:53:35 if this was prior to the publication of the first

02:53:39 the first standard then no following the publication of the um

02:53:44 um part one then yes right and is it right that alongside this report a draft of the second edition of br135 was provided to the industry advisory group and the british standard joint committee for

02:53:56 british standard joint committee for their comment uh yes i i believe they were and we understand that thereafter the second edition of br135 was released more widely

02:54:07 more widely as part of the consultation on revisions to bl 135 yes and we'll come back to that

02:54:14 that was this document the generic data released more widely as part of a consultation on the revisions to be r135 can you help us with that i

02:54:24 i don't believe it was no if we go to page two we can see we've got it there that the draft is marked commercial in confidence um and it says it shouldn't be

02:54:35 um and it says it shouldn't be circulated copied or referenced in any form

02:54:38 form and if we go to page three we can see a list of the systems tested this lists only 10 of the 14 tests the composite systems are omitted altogether why is that

02:54:52 um i believe this was in relation to the part one

02:54:56 part one test

02:54:57 test so it

02:54:58 so it it formed the the first part of the testing scenario is not the the second part i see if we go on to page five there's a table of the generic test data for the ventilated cavity and the rain

02:55:10 for the ventilated cavity and the rain screen systems in this table on page five the pe called aluminium panels we've been discussing are item three under the heading ventilated cavity and

02:55:21 under the heading ventilated cavity and they are simply referred to as aluminium yes yes

02:55:26 yes yes and at page eight we can see under system three at the top of the page they're just described as aluminium-based cladding panels yes yes

02:55:38 panels yes yes i think you agreed earlier that that description is misleading yes

02:55:44 yes it's it it doesn't give the full description of the panel no no did it occur to you at the time that the description given so this is going to industry and to the bsi joint committee

02:55:55 industry and to the bsi joint committee might lead a reader to conclude that the cladding described was pure aluminium i didn't consider that at the time no but do you agree that in order to make any proper assessment or comparison of

02:56:06 any proper assessment or comparison of the performance of the systems those reading the report would need to know that the aluminium-based panels in fact had a polyethylene core the purpose of the data was to show the

02:56:17 the purpose of the data was to show the type of

02:56:19 type of information and responses that were gained it wasn't to

02:56:23 to talk about the types of systems that were being tested why not

02:56:28 why not this was talking about the test methodology we weren't talking about identification of particular systems as part of that right were any members of the iag other than government or the bsi

02:56:39 the iag other than government or the bsi joint committee actually told that these panels were acm with a polyethylene core

02:56:47 i don't know forgive my asking but if you're going to discuss the method you don't need to have any information about the constituents of the

02:56:58 about the constituents of the test do you no so

02:57:01 so it doesn't really make sense to say well this was any concern with the method it was concerned with the method as it had been applied to certain specific products is that not

02:57:12 to certain specific products is that not right

02:57:13 right it

02:57:13 it it was it was to look at the the type of data that was collected whether it could differentiate between different types of materials and systems

02:57:25 different types of materials and systems and

02:57:27 whether those how those were identified generically was the the rationale behind the way the information was given it wasn't given in

02:57:38 information was given it wasn't given in terms of setting a particular type of product we could have called them systems a b c d e all right thank you but i think you told us earlier that the role of the iag was

02:57:49 us earlier that the role of the iag was to advise on the systems being tested yes so in that in that regard they would have been aware at the outset of the the systems that were being tested yes do you recall there being any discussion

02:58:01 do you recall there being any discussion about how these panels were described in this document no i don't they say it at the time there was no discussion around this it was

02:58:13 discussion around this it was the data was presented everybody understood that those particular panels had performed very badly and that was it was moved on from that the the reference at that time and and the relationship with acm was not one

02:58:25 the relationship with acm was not one that was discussed did anyone um raise any concerns about the performance of the aluminium-based product did anyone say hang on a minute if this is just aluminium why is it performing like this

02:58:36 performing like this no

02:58:38 no let's move to the conclusions from the testing program um mr chairman i'll be grateful if i can just finish this topic it may take us just a couple of minutes over one o'clock

02:58:47 o'clock um so if we look at the conclusions and recommendations section of the report go back to the the analysis report which is at bre

02:58:56 at bre 3041882 and look at page 24.

02:59:06 bre 3041882 page 24. this head this is called conclusions and recommendations and i'm interested in understanding why it doesn't appear that we have

02:59:18 why it doesn't appear that we have actually any solid recommendations in this section um

02:59:26 do you were there recommendations set out in a in a separate report i mean this appears to set out conclusions but it doesn't actually contain any recommendations as far as we can tell can you help us with that

02:59:47 in so far as they they set out the findings from from the programme and

02:59:54 and therefore

02:59:56 therefore the

02:59:57 the um

02:59:59 um pres present that the small scale tests did not identify the full scale performance then

03:00:11 that that would be the the

03:00:15 the recommendation from the from the process i agree it's not written in in one line right

03:00:20 right if we go back to the closing report that was prepared for anthony bird at the opdm this is at bre 3041895 and go to page 13.

03:00:40 here we've got the conclusion and recommendations uh in this report and at paragraph five we can read it says the aluminium sheet product satisfy class naught requirements but in the full scale intermediate scale and

03:00:51 scale intermediate scale and single-bearing item test proved to be one of the worst performing products as the current guidance in approved document b asks for class naught performance in diagram 40 these issues may require further

03:01:03 these issues may require further consideration do you see that yes so that's it that's all that's said they may require further consideration um

03:01:14 um how can that be right why isn't there a stronger recommendation coming from the bre

03:01:19 bre in the light of the test results and in the light of what's clearly understood about approved document b in that paragraph

03:01:31 because that's the style in which those types of recommendations to the department are made

03:01:40 what does that mean it means we flag this to you you nee you you may wish to consider this further are you suggesting that you couldn't have made a stronger recommendation no

03:01:52 have made a stronger recommendation no that is that is the style in which those types of recommendation would have been made why

03:01:56 made why how do you know that because that's the type of statement that and the style of those types of reports it's it's flagging that there was an issue

03:02:06 issue and they may wish to consider that further

03:02:09 further and and where had you got that style from was that just house style was it just convention within the bre i think it was convention within the discussions between the department and the

03:02:20 the um

03:02:23 the group in terms of how this information was presented to them and how it was received did you ever find out whether the department was going to give that matter further consideration did you ever follow up on this

03:02:36 as say my my understanding was that all of the information flowing from this piece of work was then being taken by the department to review where they were with

03:02:47 to review where they were with this

03:02:48 this their guidance on this so it formed part of those those ongoing discussions

03:02:56 do you accept that this project demonstrated to you and to the bre team more widely and to government that the national reaction to fire classification system in general and

03:03:07 classification system in general and national class naught in particular was not able to detect the fire hazard associated with the use of some apparently common combustible rain screen padding products yes

03:03:18 screen padding products yes and that despite it being able to achieve a national class naught reaction to fire classification pe called acm presented a clear external fire spread hazard yes

03:03:29 hazard yes a pe called aluminium rain screen cladding product was likely to present a very real danger with respect to external fire spread on high-rise buildings

03:03:37 buildings yes

03:03:38 yes and fire safety compliance testing was either flawed or not reproducible or technical loopholes were being exploited by manufacturers or manufacturers were simply making

03:03:50 or manufacturers were simply making false claims about fire safety yes

03:03:55 the the yeah the white the wider use of the test reports was not always clear can you help us with this the detailed reports and the data from this project

03:04:06 reports and the data from this project have never before this inquiry began being released into the public domain why is that the work was completed for the department and it was for the department

03:04:17 department and it was for the department to decide how it was disseminated did the bre ever give serious consideration to ensuring that this important information was disseminated to industry

03:04:29 to industry this is one of many projects that are completed for for industry for government and it has always been that that route through which dissemination has taken place did you

03:04:41 dissemination has taken place did you ever give any consideration at any time before the grenfell tower fire to revisiting this test data or to a need to warn industry and others about the dangers in the use of acmpe

03:05:00 i gen i genuinely underst understood the guidance to mean that it couldn't be used and it's only

03:05:11 that it couldn't be used and it's only in the revisiting of this that i i am being made aware that that was not how it was being interpreted yes and it clearly wasn't being interpreted that way as we can see by paragraph five on the page yes

03:05:25 that in my opinion full scale testing is the only way to actually assess how these products behave well no because it says as the current guidance in approved document b asks for class naught performance in diagram 40 these issues

03:05:38 performance in diagram 40 these issues may require further consideration and those issues are that the aluminium product is performing as one of the worst performing products yes it is one of the worst performing products yes

03:05:49 products yes mr chairman thank you for letting me go on slightly longer that's quite right just help me one small thing um we've seen we see reference in paragraph five here to aluminium sheet product and

03:06:01 here to aluminium sheet product and we've seen references elsewhere to aluminium product that

03:06:05 that was the acronym acm one that you were familiar with at this stage no you hadn't heard about it no but you had heard of pe cord composite panels i was

03:06:16 heard of pe cord composite panels i was made aware of pe composite panels as part of this project right

03:06:21 right so the the use of the phrase acm at that time was not one i was i was familiar with

03:06:27 with right

03:06:28 right thank you very much thank you well that's probably a good point to stop isn't it yes it is yeah we'll break at that point then dr coldwell we'll resume at five past two please

03:06:38 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much

03:06:55 thank you fine positive please okay

03:07:23 you