Building Research Establishment Evidence - Tuesday 22nd February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:26 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:29 hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from dr smith of the bre so would you ask dr smith to come back in please thank you

00:00:44 good morning dr stress good morning that's it sit down make yourself comfortable thank you

00:00:52 ready to carry on yes good thank you yes first good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning dr smith last night we were looking at the topic overall of

00:01:03 we were looking at the topic overall of harmonization and we'd been examining the radar report from may 2000 and the working party minutes from may 2001. you'll recall that yes i'd like to turn next but in the same context please to

00:01:15 next but in the same context please to clg four zeros one one zero nine

00:01:26 now this is an email from wilf ball of brookman the british rigid urethane foam manufacturers association to anthony

00:01:37 manufacturers association to anthony bird at the then dated the 31st of january 2002. the subject is cpa fire group meeting to discuss the cpa response to the european supplement proposal for approved

00:01:49 supplement proposal for approved document b and if you um uh

00:01:54 um uh go down please to the last paragraph there

00:01:58 there you could see what he says before i ask you about that were you familiar with this organization bruhma yes they were a trade association and i think they were one of the partners in the radar project yes and i think

00:02:09 the radar project yes and i think they're now called the ima the insulation manufacturers association did you know that no right that may be true i don't know now looking at the paragraph

00:02:20 paragraph that starts furthermore it reads as follows i'll show it to you furthermore there are foil faced polyurethane products which obtain a class naught in the uk testing and therefore are available for internal linings of other

00:02:31 available for internal linings of other circulation spaces including the common areas of flats and masonettes that gave in the radar testing only a class d similarly a foil-faced phenolic product

00:02:42 similarly a foil-faced phenolic product with a class naught in the uk system only obtained a class c in the european classification so they would not be able to also be used in this classification which they have previously been accepted in

00:02:53 in so previously acceptable safe products would be prevented from continuing in their application and in other cases products that had been established as dangerous in that application before

00:03:04 dangerous in that application before would now be permitted unless some mechanism can be introduced to correct these anomalous situations i think you will agree this should not happen now first have you ever seen this email before now

00:03:15 before now um i don't recall it did anthony bird ever discuss this email or its contents with you um well insofar as this was apparent anyway

00:03:26 well insofar as this was apparent anyway from the radar project it would have been discussed at the radar meetings and and so on right did anybody ever tell you that although industry

00:03:35 industry knew very well that some foil faced p-u-r class naught product only scored c and d

00:03:41 and d its view industry's view is that raising the standard to be quotes should not happen um i guess it would have been yes i would have been aware of that from

00:03:52 would have been aware of that from discussions at the at the radar meetings was it your view that brookhaven's position that this should not happen was justified

00:04:01 justified um

00:04:04 not within the context of safety

00:04:08 safety no

00:04:09 no not within the context of safety but within the broader context of harmonization depending on the objectives i mean which would not be something that we would

00:04:20 would not be something that we would have a view on at all in relation to enabling the trade to you know that them to continue to trade if you like that that's a

00:04:31 you like that that's a a different decision for other people to be taking

00:04:36 it was it your view that in order to achieve harmonization across the board it was necessary or justified to allow some

00:04:47 some dangerous products in

00:04:54 it depends no i don't think i would have had that view at the time i'd what was done to stop that happening

00:05:05 stop that happening well i don't believe that in this context for example the

00:05:12 the classifications that were transposed into the approved document took any notice of this email for example

00:05:23 for example not the email specifically necessarily but as a matter of principle do you know what the government did in order to ensure that

00:05:33 that as the word say here products which had been established as

00:05:38 as safe

00:05:40 safe would be prevented from continuing their application because they didn't meet the tougher standards of the european testing regime no i don't know you don't can we move

00:05:52 no i don't know you don't can we move forward a year to 2002 and go to clg 50720 please

00:06:03 now this is the next meeting of the part b working party held on the 15th of april 2002 and you were present at that as was anthony bird yes yes as you can see

00:06:16 anthony bird yes yes as you can see and you can see from

00:06:18 from this minute uh that uh the

00:06:22 uh the uh

00:06:23 uh if you go to um the next page that it went through the minute of the previous meeting the 10th of may meeting uh and if we go to page three at paragraph 6.7

00:06:36 you can see that it says this paragraph 620 and this is 620 of the previous meeting note of the um of the 10th of may meeting and this

00:06:47 and this returns to the investigations that the bre had been asked to carry out in relation to the index figures for class naught

00:06:54 naught and it says this it has not been possible to conclusively answer the question over the index 1 or i rather criterion in diagram 45 of adb it was suggested that by stipulating

00:07:05 adb it was suggested that by stipulating an index value of not more than 20 the original authors of this requirement stroke guidance were attempting to exclude a certain type of material whose performance would have been on the performance side of 20. it is not clear

00:07:18 performance side of 20. it is not clear which type of material this would have been but it was likely to have been one used extensively in external cladding it was also acknowledged that much of the guidance straight regulation for external cladding developed as a result

00:07:30 external cladding developed as a result of the summerland fire august 1973. post-meeting note the fire propagation test has existed since 1963 and index one not more than 20 provision

00:07:41 and index one not more than 20 provision was first introduced into building regulations in 1972. the department no longer holds the brack stroke fap papers from around that time

00:07:53 stroke fap papers from around that time can we take it that your investigations into this question after the meeting in may 2001 had not been successful um yes i think that's probably correct and it was the effect of that that the

00:08:05 and it was the effect of that that the basis for the stipulation in diagram 40 that below 20 meters as it started but now below 18 meters a material with an index less than 20

00:08:15 than 20 should be used was unknown and could not be discovered um that certainly seems to be the case and it's right isn't it that this particular stipulation was nonetheless not amended in any way

00:08:27 not amended in any way when it came to the 2002 euro amendments um

00:08:33 um yes in terms of the requirement against the national test you mean yes yes yeah in fact i don't think it was amended in uh 2006 to seven either um i don't know

00:08:44 uh 2006 to seven either um i don't know without without looking as i say the context to all of that as we discussed yesterday was you know the expectation that these would all be removed from the

00:08:55 that these would all be removed from the approved document you know at some point anyway i see so it didn't concern you terribly because was it your view that this would all come out and be replaced at some [Music]

00:09:06 [Music] at some time in the future by the euro norms yes yes i see moving on with the minutes then of the meeting can we go please to page four paragraph ten

00:09:19 and at the top of the screen you see it says this anthony bird went on to make the very important point that at present ce marking is not mandatory underlined in the uk

00:09:28 in the uk the uk is one of five member states in the eu who have not made ce marking mandatory the others being ireland finland sweden and portugal the uk currently utilizes our own british standards mainly the bs-476 suite of

00:09:41 standards mainly the bs-476 suite of documents however these will eventually be withdrawn now looking at that is it right that it had been decided by then that the ce marking would not become mandatory in

00:09:52 marking would not become mandatory in the uk

00:09:54 the uk um

00:09:56 um it wasn't and wouldn't become i'm i'm not sure

00:09:59 not sure that that's the case i mean

00:10:03 i mean it was decided at that particular point but of course that was based upon my understanding was a legal interpretation of the construction products directive by

00:10:16 the construction products directive by the uk and these other countries and of course that then became the subject of potential legal action by the european commission and then led to the um what

00:10:27 commission and then led to the um what became the construction products regulation to ensure that it was mandatory across all member states i see at any rate we can see from this paragraph

00:10:36 paragraph uh that it says that the 476 suite of documents would eventually be withdrawn that was that decided at this meeting or was that simply recording an intention

00:10:47 was that simply recording an intention by government which had which predated this this meeting um

00:10:51 um my interpretation of that is that that was a statement of a decision that had been taken not at this meeting but was reflecting the government's right commitment you say your interpretation

00:11:02 commitment you say your interpretation that yeah

00:11:04 that yeah and that that was your standing yeah and that was my understanding as i say that there was an expectation that that's what was going to happen can we move two paragraphs down to paragraph 12 please which is at the bottom of your screen and we'll need to scroll up a little but

00:11:16 and we'll need to scroll up a little but it says this members asked whether it would be possible for construction products to be acceptable in the uk when they are deemed unacceptable in other member states it was confirmed that this is possible although that situation currently exists with individual

00:11:28 currently exists with individual national regimes in place

00:11:32 and then over the page the products must be shown to satisfy the building regulations of each member state whether the ce marking is affixed or not and let's just read on to the next two

00:11:43 and let's just read on to the next two paragraphs one member was concerned that although the ce marking is affixed to a product that product may not be acceptable in all member states if some states step set higher standards of performance in order to satisfy their own building regulations which could be

00:11:55 own building regulations which could be a technical barrier to trade it was explained that for the purposes of the construction product directive this would not be a technical barrier to trade the different standards of performance in each member states are a

00:12:06 performance in each member states are a commercial reality which would be for manufacturers to consider in light of this members expressed concern that if the uk were to continue by not making ce marking mandatory it would become a

00:12:17 marking mandatory it would become a dumping ground for inferior products that could not be sold in other member states anthony bird explained that this would be no different to the situation that exists today and that for example

00:12:28 that exists today and that for example the building regulations provide a means of control over materials and workmanship through regulation seven the construction products directive has brought about the first step in removing the complications faced by a

00:12:39 the complications faced by a manufacturer having to test to dif 15 different tests to be able to market their product through the 15 member states

00:12:47 states do you remember who expressed concern that the uk might become a dumping ground for inferior products if ce marking was not mandatory i don't know did you share that concern

00:12:59 i don't know did you share that concern yourself

00:13:00 yourself um

00:13:02 um i don't recall i don't you know i can't remember the context of this did you agree that in april 2002 it was the case that that would be no different to the situation

00:13:14 would be no different to the situation that exists today as in then um

00:13:18 then um yeah largely i would have agreed with that yes so was it the case that the uk was a dumping ground for inferior products that couldn't be sold in member states

00:13:27 states in 2002 no i don't believe that that to be the case i mean the the regulatory requirements were their pre the construction products directive and i think the point that's being made here

00:13:39 think the point that's being made here is that with the transposition the

00:13:43 the new european classes would ensure to a large extent that the same products would be used and it wouldn't open the door to lots of other

00:13:56 wouldn't open the door to lots of other lower classification products being able to come into the uk market would it not no well what about a french manufacturer of

00:14:05 of uh cladding panel for example um that couldn't sell its products uh in a country which required a1 or a2 it could come here do a 476 get class

00:14:17 it could come here do a 476 get class naught

00:14:18 naught and enter the uk market well at the time that was not the view that the

00:14:25 that the transposition to the european classifications which is what this is referring to would open the door so if there was a regulatory requirement in the guidance

00:14:37 regulatory requirement in the guidance for

00:14:38 for euro class b or class o then um you couldn't enter the market with a product that was class 3 or

00:14:49 class 3 or class d no indeed but you could that's the point that's being made here i see

00:14:56 well we can argue about what the text means i'm really after your recollection do you have an independent recollection of of um the of discussion along the lines of

00:15:07 of discussion along the lines of uk being a dumping ground for inferior products that couldn't be sold in other member states no i don't you don't let's go on then to the next meeting in may 2002 at clg

00:15:24 401462 and you can see the date you can see who was in attendance you were as was anthony bird again and if we go please to page 2 paragraph 6.1 we can see what you say there

00:15:38 and there's a paper being considered um

00:15:41 um i'm sorry can we scroll up just a little bit to

00:15:44 bit to a little bit higher up the page you can see there's a heading item for reaction to fire anthony bird introduced this paper and with debbie smith proceeded to talk members through the detail of its content and then if you look at 6.1

00:15:58 content and then if you look at 6.1 uh under

00:16:01 uh under a paragraph 7 which i think is a reference to paragraph 7 in the paper the note records you saying this debbie smith explained that the radar project is all we have but despite its

00:16:12 is all we have but despite its criticisms it is considerably more than most member states have undertaken the action proposed in the wp paper was agreed

00:16:21 agreed what were the criticisms of the radar project to which you were referring there

00:16:26 there i don't recall at this time i mean it could well have been um the distribution of

00:16:31 of products that had been submitted i mean we spoke yesterday or you asked the questions yesterday around um one of the points that had been made and it may be that that all linked

00:16:42 and it may be that that all linked together

00:16:44 together but i i don't recall first hand right um do you remember who made those criticisms no i don't were they internal to the working party do you recall or were they from industry or other experts yeah i i

00:16:57 from industry or other experts yeah i i i can't help on that i'm afraid did you share those criticisms did you espouse them yourself i i can't recall what what this point was really um no i i don't i don't

00:17:10 was really um no i i don't i don't recall

00:17:11 recall can we go please to page three paragraph 6.7 and there's a heading next to paragraph 42 plastisol and that says this anthony bird introduced this issue by reference to

00:17:22 introduced this issue by reference to the three letters from chorus formerly british steel he explained that what is being sought by chorus is a deemed to satisfy provision for plastisol products these products which may currently achieve

00:17:33 products which may currently achieve class naught under the relevant british standard test are showing that they will generally only achieve class c under the new european test the transpositions proposed for adb are for class b to be

00:17:44 proposed for adb are for class b to be substituted for class naught in time just pausing at that point we looked i think earlier at a set of minutes from the 10th of may meeting yesterday

00:17:56 the 10th of may meeting yesterday in which you had suggested to the working party just for our note at paragraph 6.8 that class naught should be replaced with euro class c d do you remember that it was b wasn't it

00:18:08 that it was b wasn't it well there's a reference to your class c which i don't think you could explain yes but it was the radar project that had suggested class c

00:18:18 the the proposal from um for the european supplement was to replace class o with class b i see so can you can you explain then the difference

00:18:32 in the reason i ask well let's go back to the set of minutes then because there may be some confusion let's keep this on the page and can we please go back to clg 407308

00:18:44 which is the minutes of the 10th of may meeting paragraph and i'd like to go please in that paragraph 6.8 on page 9 which is now on the screen in front of you

00:18:54 you um

00:18:55 um you see that all right okay you're talking about not not the main transposition in okay i understand what you're saying yes yes so so looking at that and i asked you about that yesterday yes i suggested to you

00:19:08 yesterday yes i suggested to you in an attempt to assist that might be a reference to the parts of the building in diagram 40 under 18 meters you didn't no i you didn't know so so my question is is between the 10th of may 2001 and the 2nd of may 2002 had anything changed

00:19:21 the 2nd of may 2002 had anything changed in your mind or or or generally perhaps to lead to a consensus that class b should become the appropriate replacement for class or um

00:19:31 um appropriate signifier for class naught rather than class c

00:19:38 would have been based upon the um correlation that she achieved with the radar

00:19:44 radar 2 project

00:19:45 2 project but we had work been done to push it up from c to b by your but by the working party

00:19:54 work as in well they would have considered the information that was put to them

00:20:00 to them i mean they wouldn't have gone away and done sort of any experimental work i doubt and what was the rationale behind the decision i i don't recall do you remember whether there was any disagreement

00:20:12 disagreement no i i don't recall i would have thought if there had been it would have been recorded in the in the notes of the meeting do you remember what the views of anthony bird and the others from the department were

00:20:23 and the others from the department were um

00:20:25 um well they would have taken they would have taken the discussion that took place at the working party and would have gone with what they considered to be

00:20:32 be the consensus view and that was their ultimate decision was it

00:20:37 it um well you'd have to ask them but from your perspective that that was my understanding yes that they would go with um the consensus view in terms of what to go out

00:20:48 view in terms of what to go out in terms of consultation did you yourself personally agree personally professionally agree that class b was the appropriate replacement for class nought

00:20:59 replacement for class nought um

00:20:59 um yes

00:21:00 yes it opposed to class c yes as base class c yes but even in even in respect to class b did you have any reservations of any kind

00:21:09 any kind um

00:21:11 um no that the bulk of the data was supporting that despite the defects in the data that we looked at yesterday but also understanding that you know you're comparing you're not comparing like with like

00:21:23 like with like um can we then go back to the

00:21:26 to the minutes of the second of may 2002 meeting which we were on before under the plastisol heading it's now on your screen

00:21:36 clg401462 page three it says the working party members expressed some sympathy with chorus's concerns however they agree that there are many products that may not meet the proposed european

00:21:47 may not meet the proposed european classifications and to make exceptions for individual products could open the floodgates for a raft of manufacturers to request similar privileges the members also acknowledged that the period of coexistence would give the

00:21:59 period of coexistence would give the manufacturers time to re-engineer their products if they wanted to attain a higher european classification whilst continuing to specify in relation to the existing british british classification

00:22:10 existing british british classification until the co-existence ends the agreed action is not to make a special case for plastisol did you yourself share the sympathy expressed for chorus here

00:22:22 expressed for chorus here um

00:22:25 i don't recall whether i um whether i felt sympathetic or not i mean i understood the um

00:22:34 the um technical

00:22:36 technical reason why plaster soul was achieving the results that it was achieving um but i mean i i wouldn't have felt particularly

00:22:47 i wouldn't have felt particularly sympathetic or not i mean

00:22:50 i mean my role was not to to operate within that space no i understand that um would you uh accept looking at the minutes at least and doing the best you can with your recollection that the the members of the

00:23:02 recollection that the the members of the department present were very well aware that there were many products on the uk market at the time achieving class naught which would not be capable of achieving achieving class b

00:23:13 b classisol being one of them um

00:23:16 um well i would have been aware that some were when you know when they received letters and so on they wouldn't have been aware you know that there were very many um you you're only aware when that is

00:23:28 um you you're only aware when that is evidenced

00:23:29 evidenced and at this time there were not a huge amount of manufacturers actually carrying out testing to the european norms

00:23:36 norms so the body of evidence was fairly low but obviously was growing and would continue to grow over over time well just help me with that then because

00:23:47 well just help me with that then because you say in that last answer they wouldn't have been aware that there were very many

00:23:51 very many but the passage i've just read to you um

00:23:56 um says

00:23:58 in the second line however which is in the middle of the block of text however they agreed that there are many products that may not meet the proposed european classifications and to make exceptions for individual products could open the

00:24:10 for individual products could open the floodgates for a raft of manufacturers to request similar

00:24:15 similar privileges did not did that not indicate um that in fact this problem was not limited to a handful of products that achieved class naught but might not achieve the european

00:24:26 but might not achieve the european classifications but potentially a flood but this is in my my opinion anyway that this reads as a perception of the people that were sat around the table

00:24:37 table um it wasn't evidenced by a great big pile of um classification reports that showed that to be the case you know you could envisage that other

00:24:48 you know you could envisage that other products that had a thin plastic coating such as plastisol or whatever as on their surfaces may perform in the same way but the evidence wasn't there

00:25:01 same way but the evidence wasn't there at that time it was only those manufacturers that had done the testing that were able to put their case so for me this was more of a perception than a fact at that time i understand

00:25:12 than a fact at that time i understand that and uh but but from as a person present at the meeting was it your perception that the government understood although they haven't the precise numbers or products or

00:25:23 precise numbers or products or identification of manufacturers they were aware that there was a non-negligible risk that out there there were class north products that might very well not achieve the euro norms tests yes because

00:25:37 achieve the euro norms tests yes because there was already some evidence yes yes do you looking at the words um re-engineer re-engineer their products if they wanted to attain a higher european classification

00:25:48 classification do you know what that was a reference to what that meant

00:25:54 well the area that i'm aware that that was used

00:25:58 was used mainly was in the fire resistance area where

00:26:03 where the european norms were considered to be more severe in terms of the thermal

00:26:15 assault on the sample and so the performance of the products tended to be downgraded and in order to achieve say 30 minutes

00:26:27 and in order to achieve say 30 minutes fire resistance to the european um

00:26:31 um test standards for quite a few of the products that were tested in the radar one

00:26:37 one project

00:26:39 project they needed to be reinforced in some way to actually achieve the 30 minutes that they would need to still be placed on the market so you know fire doors right

00:26:53 the market so you know fire doors right i'm going to stop you because i i fear that you you and it may be my fault for not showing you the full document okay um but i thought i had if you go to the back to page two

00:27:02 page two you're we're dealing here without with a subject under item four which is reaction to fire yes and if you go please on to page three

00:27:14 at the foot of the page that's where you see the discussion about fire resistance okay so looking at the context of the expression re-engineering is it really right that it was about

00:27:25 really right that it was about resistance to fire and not reaction to fire well that but i mean maybe there was a discussion around that um under reaction to fire as well but i'm most familiar with the discussion around

00:27:36 most familiar with the discussion around fire resistance as i say where the performance was was generally lower across the board because the test method had changed

00:27:47 had changed but

00:27:48 but i suppose yes the same kind of concept would apply here if a manufacturer wanted to achieve a class b and they were only achieving a class c they would have to consider

00:28:00 have to consider what they needed to do to their product if they wish to sell it into you know a particular application yes and re-engineering might involve what adding different products putting facings on that were more

00:28:13 putting facings on that were more robust

00:28:14 robust what would that involve yeah i mean it's not for me to say i mean it would depend on the product um as to what they would need to do i mean and each manufacturer and sector are experts in

00:28:26 and sector are experts in in the performance of their products i mean that's not an expertise that i particularly have in terms of the manufacture of products it was the general thinking just tying all the threads together then

00:28:37 all the threads together then on this document and the earlier one that by transposing class naught to class b

00:28:41 class b after the transition period that might reduce the market for class naught products which only achieved c and d but that was acceptable because it would force manufacturers to adopt higher

00:28:52 force manufacturers to adopt higher standards of safety um yes i think that was the general consensus but during the transition period class naught products that only achieve classes c or d under the euro norms

00:29:03 norms could still be accepted in the united kingdom

00:29:06 kingdom um

00:29:07 um yes if they were still relying on their class

00:29:10 class naught classification now let's go to clg 401464

00:29:17 this is the final regulatory impact assessment on the proposed amendment of the building regulations approved document b adoption of harmonized european system of fire testing and you'll see a date at

00:29:28 of fire testing and you'll see a date at the very top of the document 30th of may 2002 so this is about

00:29:34 is about uh four weeks or so after the meeting uh that we've just been the minutes of which we've just been looking at and uh

00:29:43 and uh were you involved in drafting this document no i mean there were specialist people that that dealt with regulatory impact assessments did you see it before it was um published or promulgated

00:29:55 it was um published or promulgated um i don't recall right do you know who the br at the well do you know whether anybody at the bre had any role in this document i don't recall who were the specialist

00:30:08 i don't recall who were the specialist people that dealt with regulatory impact assessments um

00:30:13 um the department had people they had um guidelines in terms of the the issues that needed to be considered i mean i couldn't name individuals that were involved in that

00:30:24 individuals that were involved in that was brian martin involved in it he was still at the bre at this time of course yeah i don't know i would doubt it because it i mean it involved um sort of economic

00:30:33 economic considerations and so on let's go down to page 3 paragraph 15 and that deals with the stages in which changes will be introduced and it says this to assist manufacturers

00:30:46 and it says this to assist manufacturers from of construction project products in adapting to the new test methods in support of applying the ce marking the european commission proposes to introduce them in three stages one from a date to be decided all

00:30:58 one from a date to be decided all national fire regulations and supporting technical documents in this case part b must specify standards of fire performance in terms of the new tests while also retaining their existing national test specifications

00:31:09 national test specifications this is the start of the transitional period

00:31:13 period two

00:31:14 two a number of years after this conflicting national test methods in this case probably much of the bs 476 series must be withdrawn by the relevant national standards organization in this case the british standards institution and all

00:31:26 british standards institution and all new products will have to be tested to the new harmonized standards existing products with certificates can continue to be sold three a number of years after this there

00:31:37 three a number of years after this there will be a requirement that only products tested to the new harmonized standards can be placed on the market and then if you go over the page to paragraph 16 page four based upon the

00:31:48 paragraph 16 page four based upon the current available information it is felt that the most likely start date of the transition period will be 2002 stage one and that the transition period will have a duration of at least three years stage two

00:32:00 three years stage two in this transition period it will be possible to use products tested either by the existing british standards or by the new european harmonized fire test and therefore during this time both test methods must be covered by the approved

00:32:12 methods must be covered by the approved document now i've shown you that text at length but we can pick out some phrases such as a date to be decided and a number of years after this

00:32:23 after this do you know why the timing of these stages was still not definitive no i don't that would have been a policy matter you don't you were you involved in or do you

00:32:35 don't you were you involved in or do you know anything of any discussions about the possible dates for each stage and the period of transition no i don't is it right that the final decision on those matters would rest with the

00:32:46 those matters would rest with the department absolutely now looking at a paragraph 16 as we've seen

00:32:54 it it says the most likely tron the start date of the transition period would be 2002 and would last for three years at least three years yes yes do you remember who had suggested 2002

00:33:06 do you remember who had suggested 2002 as a start date um i guess that coincided with the intended publication of the european supplement right

00:33:18 and and do you remember when in 2002 that was

00:33:24 that was what the european supplement yes entered into form so that said it says to start the transition well it would have either been in the april or the october because i can't remember exactly but the documents

00:33:35 documents were published and then entered into force either in the april or october but it would have been october then given that the um that this document is dated may okay so that you are still considering it

00:33:45 it yeah

00:33:46 yeah do you do you remember who had suggested a period of at least three years for the transition no i don't or the rationale for it no i don't

00:33:58 did you consider at any stage that keeping both the national class and the european class side by side might cause confusion

00:34:09 well there was no evidence i think at that time that it was going to cause confusion um

00:34:18 there had been no feedback that i was aware of at that time can we agree that this transition plan as stated in this document was never implemented

00:34:30 um you presumably don't quarrel with that not formally no it wasn't enacted in the way that it's it's laid out here do you know why that was no i don't

00:34:41 know why that was no i don't do you know at what stage it was abandoned

00:34:43 abandoned no i don't or why it was abandoned no or whether any new plan was made no

00:34:50 no no i don't was industry and economic pressure a factor in

00:34:55 factor in do you know in not following a three-year transition plan as set out in this document i don't know that

00:35:07 having expressed the view in may 2001 that no direct equivalence between national and euro classes was possible did you ever later change your view

00:35:18 view well there was a direct correlation yes no

00:35:21 no did you ever ask anybody in the department what had happened to the original plan to have a transition period for three years running from 2002.

00:35:33 years running from 2002. i don't recall whether we ever had that explicit conversation now did you ever wonder why it was that

00:35:41 that at any stage there had been no end date to class naught and that the two regimes had been allowed to run in tandem

00:35:50 tandem from 2002

00:35:52 from 2002 until

00:35:53 until 2018 after the grenfell tower fire did you ever wonder um i mean various at various stages the department would explain

00:36:05 explain where they were in terms of you know the context of what was happening in the market at that time in relation to europe and the construction products directive then the

00:36:16 construction products directive then the construction products regulation and so on so um it's very difficult you know it was a an evolution if you like it wasn't uh

00:36:27 an evolution if you like it wasn't uh a specific discussion did anybody ever explain to you or did you ever ask what what had happened to the proposal to have a transition

00:36:40 to the proposal to have a transition period

00:36:41 period and why it had been replaced with a rolling postponement yeah i don't recall

00:36:49 recall that specific conversation did you ever seek it out well i i don't recall doing so no

00:37:02 now let's go to the approved document which is clg one four zeros seven four zero uh at ninety-one we go straight into it

00:37:14 uh at ninety-one we go straight into it um this is uh diagram 40 as amended by the european amendments that's clg one four zero seven four zero

00:37:27 that's clg one four zero seven four zero page ninety one

00:37:38 uh and uh

00:37:41 and uh i'm going to assume that this document is familiar to you and i just want to focus

00:37:46 focus on parts of it if we look please at the right hand side towards the bottom of the diagram you can see the middle box which relates to

00:37:58 which relates to parts of the building over 18 meters in the case of a building a thousand millimeters or more from the boundary or the head of the building if it's more than 80 meters if it's less than a thousand millimeters from the

00:38:10 than a thousand millimeters from the boundary

00:38:11 boundary so it's the middle box and it says class naught national class or class b s3 d2 or better european class yes yes and there's a disclaimer if you look

00:38:23 and there's a disclaimer if you look under the notes which says this the national classifications do not automatically equate with the equivalent european classifications

00:38:34 european classifications therefore products cannot typically assume

00:38:36 assume a european class unless they have been tested accordingly now were you involved in discussions about

00:38:45 about the amendment of diagram 40 to produce it in this form um

00:38:51 um yes and i was certainly involved in the note number one down there you were involved in it what was this extent of your involvement um i mean it was important i mean in drafting that the

00:39:03 important i mean in drafting that the discussions around that were to prevent manufacturers thinking well i'm euro class sorry i'm national class naught

00:39:15 sorry i'm national class naught and therefore i can simply claim that i am euro class b did you have any role in the actual drafting um

00:39:26 um well i would have seen it and and discussed it probably in um the meetings around the drafting of the european supplement that you you've been looking at those

00:39:37 at those notes right now let's that's the meetings so you would have discussed it in meetings around the drafting who had the pen

00:39:48 um well no one person has the pen well

00:39:54 well um who was ultimately responsible for deciding the language of that note um well i say somebody would produce an aunt sally if you like and then that

00:40:06 an aunt sally if you like and then that would be discussed and put to the working party who would then discuss it and decide if it made sense might do some word smithing and might

00:40:17 some word smithing and might require some changes before it's then sent out to consultation to receive feedback and again it might then subsequently change did you well who was involved in the in

00:40:28 did you well who was involved in the in the process of deciding those words who sat around the table um

00:40:37 what i say would be the working party right um

00:40:42 um ultimately

00:40:47 did you consider that it was clear enough to the likely readership

00:40:55 um yes otherwise you know it wouldn't have uh it wouldn't have gone forward sign i would um suggest

00:41:04 suggest the likely readership was a range of people in the united kingdom including

00:41:10 including subcontractors working on refurbishment projects who might not have specialist fire safety or fire engineering background did you consider that

00:41:23 did you consider that not explicitly no um

00:41:26 um you know our our view my view and bre's view has has been around that that if somebody doesn't understand something or isn't clear

00:41:37 or isn't clear then you would expect them to go and find

00:41:41 find a professional that

00:41:43 that does understand and can advise them as to what something means not to say well i don't understand it or i'm confused by it but i'll just make it up as i go along i mean you would expect

00:41:55 up as i go along i mean you would expect people to

00:41:57 people to act professionally and um you know seek out support and that might involve going directly to the department for you know an explanation if they were unclear that's right could

00:42:09 if they were unclear that's right could say just to understand that do you think

00:42:14 is it your view that the department would be the ultimate authority on explaining the intended meaning behind any expression language or wording in approved document b yes absolutely did

00:42:26 approved document b yes absolutely did that view ever change no did you ever have any discussions with anybody in the department about that being your expect expectation of them

00:42:38 being your expect expectation of them um yes i mean it was always clear it was always clear that the only people that could actually give an official view

00:42:46 view as to what was meant would what what was them

00:42:50 them right

00:42:53 you mean the department yes yes sorry yes

00:42:56 yes looking at the language um the national classifications do not automatically equate what was the what did you understand the word automatically there to denote

00:43:08 i've never really thought about it did you say that i mean you could argue that's a bit of a redundant word really well it's not really adding very much well why is it in there then

00:43:20 well why is it in there then i say i've not really considered that

00:43:25 um in fact it's right isn't it that there was no equation at all automatic or otherwise between class naught and class b correct and indeed you'd said so yourself

00:43:37 did you not think at the time that that might introduce some confusion between some people but because some people might think that it was an achievable or there was an achievable equation between class naught

00:43:48 achievable equation between class naught and class b although not automatic no quite

00:43:51 quite the intention of this was quite the reverse was to remove that confusion

00:43:58 to prevent manufacturers automatically if you like um saying i've got a class o product product therefore i'm going to brand it

00:44:09 product therefore i'm going to brand it and

00:44:11 and market it as a as a european class b

00:44:17 looking at the word equivalent

00:44:20 what did you understand the word equivalent there to denote um

00:44:26 um what equivalent in terms of the transposition did you not think that some people might take from this note that the euro class b was

00:44:34 b was equivalent to class naught the equivalent european classification

00:44:43 no not at the time you can see can't you how

00:44:52 how some people might think well class zero or class naught lasso is equivalent to class b s three d naught but just not automatically

00:45:07 i've never read it that way but it can be read that way can't it um and to be honest i've i've i was never made aware that anybody was reading it that way nobody had ever

00:45:18 reading it that way nobody had ever raised that as an issue that i'm aware of with bre or you know

00:45:24 you know given the i'm sorry sorry i'm so sorry i can't cut across you given that the test methods the setups the measurements under each of the regimes were so extensively different as

00:45:35 regimes were so extensively different as you and i have agreed over the last day or so with any very slim areas of commonality do you know why that fact was not spelt

00:45:46 do you know why that fact was not spelt out in clear terms in diagram 40. i think the the view was that that's what that was doing or attempting to do

00:46:00 well if i've understood you if i've understood you correctly perhaps what it should have said is that the national classifications do not equate to any european classification

00:46:14 because they do there is no um

00:46:18 um equivalent at all is there there isn't equivalence um

00:46:24 i mean i think whatever way you present that you could equally have people that would misunderstand it

00:46:36 so

00:46:41 i mean what i would say is you know around these the publication of the 2000 and um two version and then 2006 version of

00:46:52 um two version and then 2006 version of the approved documents there were presentations that were given to industry and the industry also made around the radar project and and so on um in in an attempt to

00:47:05 um in in an attempt to basically disseminate this information and

00:47:09 and and try to make sure that it was clear to everybody and i say i was never aware personally that there was particular confusion around this point why not say to the reader

00:47:21 why not say to the reader your

00:47:22 your product for use on in this part of these buildings either had to be class naught or class b full stop

00:47:32 full stop what was wrong with that

00:47:36 well potentially that could have been seti as well yes what i'm suggesting to you is that the note introduces the confusion because people might think that there was a degree of

00:47:50 might think that there was a degree of equivalence or achievable equation between the two whereas in fact that was not the case

00:48:00 well as i say i wasn't aware of anything at the time that was confusing and this was discussed at length and also went out to consultation and at no point was it

00:48:12 consultation and at no point was it raised as a particular problem or you know anybody raised any concerns that it was unclear um you know i can't really add anything more than that

00:48:23 more than that no and and the reason it may not be uh have been seen as unclear is because people may well have thought that if it achieved class naught it could be treated as class b or if it

00:48:34 could be treated as class b or if it achieved class b it could be regarded as class naught you can see why can't you well no that's not my interpretation of that

00:48:44 now

00:48:50 you you told us yesterday i think as a result of looking at the 2001 tests and particularly test 3 the acmpe product under cc 1924.

00:49:02 the acmpe product under cc 1924. which had been terminated early and with the flames reaching 20 meters twice the height of the rig that that product achieved class naught but a euro rating of d

00:49:13 but a euro rating of d um

00:49:14 um is it right that you therefore knew and

00:49:19 and can we assume government also knew that if a builder opted for a class naught product

00:49:25 product for the external wool of a high-rise building above 18 meters which diagram 40 allowed them to do they might in fact be opting for a class d or e product

00:49:41 within the overall context of what we were doing at the time

00:49:47 yes that that was potentially possible um

00:49:51 um i mean i'm not aware that that was given or i gave that particular consideration at the time

00:50:00 specifically the point that you you're you're making there but it had been given consideration hadn't it in the course of the harmonization program that was one of the things that the that figure one or um table eight

00:50:11 the that figure one or um table eight which we looked at yesterday showed you that there were some products that could achieve class and openness yes no absolutely yes so so can you explain so do you accept i think that you went

00:50:23 so do you accept i think that you went forward

00:50:24 forward yourself personally and the government went forward with the retention of class naught or class b knowing that some class naught products

00:50:35 that some class naught products might achieve a european class significantly inferior to class b but would nonetheless be allowed on a uk building above 18 meters um yes and

00:50:45 and i mean obviously the radar reports were part of the consultation as well so

00:50:51 so you know that that was evident at the time

00:50:54 time but i think the premise from the departmentals the sorry the department's point of view and you would need to check this with them was that

00:51:04 was that the class o products were permissible at that time anyway was any consideration given to the risks the risks to life presented by leaving class naught in

00:51:16 presented by leaving class naught in diagram 40 in this way

00:51:20 not at that time i don't believe no did you see that this amendment to diagram 40 by giving an option created a full sense of equivalence

00:51:31 created a full sense of equivalence which the note didn't and indeed could never dispel well the option was there pre the european norms anyway

00:51:43 norms anyway and this was the chance there wasn't it either to get rid of it completely or at least to put it on a very short time fuse yes but i mean that as i said earlier that was a policy decision

00:51:54 earlier that was a policy decision that's not something that we would be involved in indeed but it was a policy decision are you would you accept which was fraught with risk and which the government and you knew existed

00:52:06 the government and you knew existed well say the the the situation was that prior to the 2002 amendment all of these products were permitted for use and they were already

00:52:19 permitted for use and they were already permitted for use

00:52:26 there was any thought given at this point when you were drafting these euro amendments to the recommendations made by the select

00:52:37 recommendations made by the select committee

00:52:38 committee on the 14th of december 2014.

00:52:43 um i december 2014. sorry this is 14th december 20 yeah sorry 14th of december 1999.

00:52:51 1999. um

00:52:52 um i don't recall i i don't recall that specifically now let's go to kin6060

00:53:04 and now this is a kingspan technical bulletin entitled new european fire classification system technical bulletin and then there's a big red stamp the plain facts

00:53:15 big red stamp the plain facts so these are presenting facts and

00:53:18 and it's dated may 2003 if you look at the very top right hand corner you can see that

00:53:23 that yes

00:53:26 do you remember ever seeing this document before i don't recall it right let's just see how we go can we go to page two please left hand side introduction

00:53:37 introduction um in bowl a new system of fire ratings the euro class system has been introduced by the eu and is set to eventually replace the bs-476 series that is currently recognized within the uk

00:53:50 and

00:53:52 then if you look down please at

00:53:59 page two left hand side there's a heading

00:54:05 sorry page three is a heading replacement of the current clark class naught system and the first paragraph says following the final adoption of the new classification scheme national fire

00:54:16 classification scheme national fire classifications will be phased out of use over a period of five to ten years

00:54:22 years and if you go then to page five sorry i'm so sorry can we just stick with this i'm sorry sorry there's something in the next paragraph the next paragraph uh explains class one

00:54:33 the next paragraph uh explains class one or class naught and then says this halfway through class naught correlates with euro class b in the new regime however there are a number of products that are class north based on bs476

00:54:44 that are class north based on bs476 tests that will not achieve a euro class b

00:54:47 b now you may you may not have seen this document at the time but is the sentence class naught correlates with the euro class b in the new regime reliable and accurate

00:55:00 reliable and accurate um from my perspective no no but you can see how industry was reading it even at this stage yes

00:55:07 yes you didn't at the time but you can see how they were now

00:55:14 let's then go to page five where you can see

00:55:17 see some text about delay and implementation

00:55:22 um this large red text in the left hand column which says existing national fire standards are not set to be withdrawn for five to ten years

00:55:30 years now this is may 2003 this document do you know are you able to explain uh what had happened between the transition between the decision about the transition plan in uh

00:55:43 decision about the transition plan in uh at the end of may 2002 and a year later may 2003

00:55:47 may 2003 to extend

00:55:49 to extend the

00:55:50 the period of transition from three years to five to ten no i can't did you know or had you heard

00:56:01 did you know or had you heard in around may or by may 2003 that the transition period had been extended in that way no i don't recall that if we look at the large red text in the right hand column

00:56:13 right hand column page five also it says furthermore hm government has stated that it will not implement the euro class system until the industry is ready to adopt it do you know

00:56:24 do you know anything about that decision no i don't do you know that it whether the government had made that statement as far as you are aware by maybe i'm not aware of it are you surprised you look surprised to

00:56:35 are you surprised you look surprised to see that now yes right have you any idea how or where or from where king span had picked up that idea no

00:56:46 did you ever have any discussion about it with any manufacturer such as those people who were by by now perhaps coming to the bre for tests

00:56:55 tests not that i'm aware or no moving on in time then to march 2004 i think it's right that you were chair by that stage of the bsi committee in relation to fsh 21. um probably around that sort of time i

00:57:08 um probably around that sort of time i don't remember exactly when yeah and that's reaction to fire isn't it it is yes yeah and i think 22 is resistance to fire that's correct yeah now can you tell us briefly

00:57:18 briefly what standards were covered by that committee by your fsh-21 committee yes so it predominantly covers the european norms so it mirrors the

00:57:29 norms so it mirrors the activities that are going on within sen tc127 so that includes the bsen

00:57:37 bsen iso 1716

00:57:41 similarly 1182 the single burning item test the 13823 and

00:57:49 and the small flame test the 11925 part two

00:57:55 part two also the

00:57:56 also the radiant panel flooring test which is the en

00:58:02 en iso 9239

00:58:06 part two i think it is now you didn't mention bs476 in that answer um

00:58:13 answer um bs476

00:58:15 bs476 sits

00:58:16 sits within um fsh-21 but it is and has been at standstill since the

00:58:25 since the 1990s

00:58:26 1990s at standstill is that the same as obsolescence in bsi speak um it means that because there are european norms either in development or already published

00:58:37 already published then you do not undertake any work to basically update the the standards for use within the context of ce marking and the european

00:58:48 context of ce marking and the european classification systems and the uk regulatory system so it sat within the committee but it was essentially frozen yes yes let's go to bre 40 7768

00:59:02 please now we've gone on to page three of that document i'm not sure there's much point showing you page one well there it is it's a milestone progress report dated the 15th of march uh sorry dated the

00:59:15 uh sorry dated the uh i'm not sure there is a date but it runs to the 15th of march 2004 and at the very foot of the page you'll see reaction to fire is task three and then if we turn to page three

00:59:26 then if we turn to page three there's a third square bullet point under the heading fsh21 this is what i want to show you and this is under the general heading reaction to fire tests and the meeting uh

00:59:40 you came in in march that year and the third bullet point says a commercial need was seen for continuing availability of the bs 476 standards in relation to business outside europe and this is being discussed with b

00:59:53 this is being discussed with b 12 fire coordination the preferred option being to declare them obsolescent in the case of part six the modification will be needed to replace asbestos board likely to be unavailable from the end of

01:00:04 likely to be unavailable from the end of 2004 any development work would need to be done by the test laboratories themselves and who had raised or have become aware of this commercial need so to speak

01:00:13 to speak um

01:00:15 um i think it was bsi themselves i mean they they were aware that um the bs 476

01:00:23 bs 476 standards in general not just reaction to fire were being used as part of the regulatory frameworks in a number of overseas countries

01:00:34 a number of overseas countries countries such as hong kong

01:00:38 malaysia and and there were quite a few that were um that were reliant upon these particular test methods did that include uh bs 476 parts six and seven yes it

01:00:50 uh bs 476 parts six and seven yes it would have done right and you say you think it was bsi themselves do you know who it was at the bsi who had identified this commercial need no i don't

01:01:01 need no i don't so does that tell us that this committee your committee believed that there was a need in those countries such as hong kong or malaysia for products to be able to be tested to ps476

01:01:12 ps476 yes because as i say our understanding was that their regulations as written called up

01:01:21 called up um be the bs 476 part 67 and other parts as the means to demonstrate the performance that they required within their

01:01:30 their buildings i see and what about within europe and within the uk was there a perceived

01:01:36 perceived commercial need for bs476 part six and seven to be retained here um

01:01:43 um i don't i don't think that was the driver for this no now as far as you were aware was the envisaged 2005 transition period end date still in

01:01:55 transition period end date still in place at this time which is march 2004 um i don't recall precisely

01:02:05 precisely you don't recall whether it had been extended or whether yeah

01:02:10 yeah now when it says declared obsolescent i think it's right that that was bsi language for no longer updated but would be retained for a long working life yes they have different categories of

01:02:21 they have different categories of documents um and

01:02:24 and yes

01:02:26 yes and for whom was the preferred option as it says there to declare the bs 476 standards obsolescent that would have been bsi

01:02:35 been bsi and what was the alternative to the preferred option i think withdrawn withdrawn right i think that's the other one and why was the this option namely declared obsolescence the preferred option um

01:02:49 obsolescence the preferred option um i think there was some discussion around the perception of obsolescence as compared to withdrawn and potentially i mean it may be that

01:03:00 and potentially i mean it may be that bsi had had some discussions with some of the overseas users of these documents to um you know to determine

01:03:11 you know to determine how it would be perceived and whether it was you know what which was the best way to go with that i see so but was this a preferred obsolescence targeted at businesses outside europe where there

01:03:22 businesses outside europe where there was a commercial need as identified predominantly yes but what about the uk did anybody think that by declaring 476 part 6 and 7 obsolescent

01:03:33 declaring 476 part 6 and 7 obsolescent but not withdrawn that might also have an impact here

01:03:40 i mean the standards are literally that the british standards they are they are published and they are um

01:03:49 um technical standards and then in effect they are the tools that go in the toolbox for others to then call upon and use so you know the the task of the standards

01:04:01 you know the the task of the standards committee is one to maintain and make sure the standards are as good as possible it's not the task of the standards committee to tell people how or whether

01:04:14 committee to tell people how or whether they should use the standards or not was there any discussion with the department at the time or within face itself about declaring 476 part 6 and 7

01:04:25 itself about declaring 476 part 6 and 7 observation as opposed to withdrawn um

01:04:28 um i don't know

01:04:32 you don't know no you can't recall or you well i wasn't any i don't know i i don't recall

01:04:41 and obviously here this discussion is about the standards as opposed to the application of the standards in any particular jurisdiction correct is there a difference yes right so you

01:04:52 is there a difference yes right so you could have is this right you could continue to have the standards even though obsolescence for anybody in the world to use if they wanted to or their regulatory regime allowed it but it would be up to each

01:05:04 allowed it but it would be up to each individual regulatory regime to decide whether or not that standard should be applied in any particular context correct i see can we go to bre407802 please

01:05:16 page one this is a milestone progress report from the bre to the department

01:05:30 so rather similar to the last document we've seen we saw and it's july 2004 and the department at the time i think was the odpm and if you go to the very bottom of the page you can see that this project

01:05:44 page you can see that this project which has progressed against contracted program in the period was was a project managed by karine williams dr williams and approved by you dr smith date reported date report

01:05:55 dr smith date reported date report completed 15 july 2004 do you know to whom in the department that report was submitted

01:06:05 submitted um

01:06:06 um it would have been submitted via the research management contractors aea technology through their portal and

01:06:16 and was therefore available i guess for whoever in the department now let's just look at page 8 briefly and i think you'll tell us that at the bottom of the page this is about

01:06:28 bottom of the page this is about fsh22

01:06:31 you see that yes uh and

01:06:35 uh and in the middle of the page

01:06:40 uh and in fact i think we need to scroll up a little bit higher the progress of the april meeting

01:06:52 uh i'm so sorry to do this to you if we can we go back to page seven please uh foot of page seven you can see fsh-22 fire resistance tests i just want to make sure we've got

01:07:03 i just want to make sure we've got something clear and it talks about the progress of the september meeting and it says underneath that withdrawal of conflicting national standards unresolved meeting between odpm and bsi

01:07:14 unresolved meeting between odpm and bsi still to be arranged that was that about fire resistance and the fire resistance tests that you were talking about earlier as opposed to the reaction to fire tests um i don't know i mean if they were having

01:07:25 i don't know i mean if they were having a meeting it would possibly have covered all of the conflicting national standards do you know whether there was a meeting no i don't you know whether there was any discussion no i

01:07:36 whether there was any discussion no i don't right can we go to page nine then second paragraph or second set of bullet points please and

01:07:48 that sits under a heading from the previous page fsh 22 2 calculation methods and in the second paragraph

01:07:59 and in the second paragraph on

01:08:01 on page nine and the second set of bullet points there um

01:08:06 um it says

01:08:09 that in the march meeting application tables were made

01:08:14 were made and then if you

01:08:22 uh if you look

01:08:36 yes i'm so sorry page eight progress of the april meeting was as follows

01:08:41 follows the secretary agreed to explore the options available as alternatives to the outright withdrawal of bf476 um that's the april 2004 meeting of

01:08:52 um that's the april 2004 meeting of fsh22 i think isn't it um well i'm sorry i don't okay scroll back to

01:08:58 back to where i was we were before on page seven

01:09:05 it starts on page seven fsh 22 fire resistance tests and then on page eight if we go to that the first bullet point under fire resistance test the withdrawal of conflicting

01:09:16 conflicting there progress of the april meeting was as follows the secretary agreed to explore the options available as alternatives to the outright withdrawal of ps476

01:09:24 of ps476 right now that's i think the april 2004 meeting of fash-22 isn't it yes i believe did you attend you know no i don't believe i did do you know what the um do you know why the secretary agreed

01:09:35 um do you know why the secretary agreed to explore alternative options to withdrawal no i don't do you know whether they were talking about reaction to fire or resistance to fire tests well within this context it would have absolutely been fire resistance right can we then

01:09:47 been fire resistance right can we then go to clg one triple zero four two two nine please

01:09:58 this is an email starts on the bottom of page one

01:10:06 b clg one triple zero four two two nine

01:10:19 and if we go to the bottom of page one we can see an email from

01:10:24 from chun jin cho dated

01:10:27 dated 7th of december 2009 so this is some years later to anthony bird subject bs 476 and en13501

01:10:38 dear sir straight madam i am mr cho from the fire safety and shelter department singapore

01:10:44 singapore can i seek your assistance to clarify the equivalent standards of em 13501 and bs 476 if you are not the officer concerned to answer my questions my queries i would appreciate very much if you could direct the questions to the

01:10:55 you could direct the questions to the relevant officer currently singapore is adopting bs 476 part

01:11:01 part 4

01:11:03 4 11 and part 6 7 to check the non-combustibility and flame spread properties of material respectively there were many inquiries from suppliers on the use of en standards instead of bs for the relevant test

01:11:15 bs for the relevant test we have checked the relevant information from the website and found that there were many write up mentioning the equivalency we are getting this on our screens at the moment um we need to turn the page please can we

01:11:26 we need to turn the page please can we just do that thank you i'll read paragraph two again currently singapore is adopting bs 476 parts 4 and 11 and part 6 and 7 to check the non-combustibility and

01:11:38 to check the non-combustibility and flame spread properties of material respectively there were many inquiries from suppliers on the use of en standard instead of bs for the relevant test we have checked the relevant information from the website and found that there

01:11:49 from the website and found that there were many write up mentioning the equivalency of en and bs standard as follows

01:11:55 follows and then you have uk class euro class and you can see the equivalences

01:12:02 equivalency as he calls it and you can see there class naught and under euro class b or better yes yes then he goes on while we go through document b there is mentioned of euro

01:12:14 document b there is mentioned of euro class a1 and a2 considered as non-combustible and limited combustibility respectively but there is no mentioned in document b that euro class is equivalent to class naught ps476 part six and seven and euro class

01:12:28 ps476 part six and seven and euro class c is equivalent to class one and two i mean i seek your good self to clarify whether it is a regulation or mentioned in document b the following are equivalent and he sets out

01:12:39 equivalent and he sets out uk classes and euro classes there in his lists

01:12:42 lists thank you very much for your assistance on this matter

01:12:47 now just picking up where he says there's no mention

01:12:51 mention in document b that euro class b is equivalent to class naught parts of bs476 part six and seven you see that um if we then go up the chain please so

01:13:03 um if we then go up the chain please so the next email on page one [Music]

01:13:06 [Music] we see

01:13:09 anthony bird forwards this to you dr smith and to brian martin the same day a few hours later uh and uh

01:13:22 um there's then a response which comes back from you um do you know why anthony bird forwarded that email to you why was that for you to deal with um well i mean obviously he sent it

01:13:35 um well i mean obviously he sent it predominantly to brian who was

01:13:39 working to support him

01:13:42 him at the department on secondment several days a week and

01:13:48 and was presumably looking for for my input as well as with my background knowledge in this area why do you say predominantly to brian this is 2009

01:14:00 to brian this is 2009 and uh brian is in the department oh is he i beg your pardon yes he's sending you're the first named recipient yes of the email so why do you say he was sending it

01:14:11 so why do you say he was sending it predominantly to brian yeah i i didn't realize brian had moved at that point right um i would have thought you know because brian would have taken the lead had he still been you know a bre at that point

01:14:22 point um

01:14:25 i mean and obviously from the email at the top there was obviously a discussion which i guess was on the phone which brian would have probably called me about

01:14:38 probably called me about and then he obviously asked us asked me to to write up the basis of the discussion that we had

01:14:46 and we can see that well before we go on you you what was your involvement with the department at this stage i mean clearly you were the points person as i think you told us the key account manager yeah the key account manager at the bre

01:14:57 the bre would you regularly be at the point of contact for queries such as this at this time since late 2009. i mean i don't think they were that common so you know you say regularly i it was

01:15:08 so you know you say regularly i it was very occasional but when they came you would be the person they would ask um potentially um i mean i wouldn't it wouldn't always um sit with me to resolve them i mean it might be if it

01:15:19 resolve them i mean it might be if it was something to do with um sprinklers or something like that then obviously it would be

01:15:23 would be discussed with other colleagues now let's go to the the top email in the chain

01:15:31 chain we can see that on the 22nd of december 2009 you sent a draft response to brian martin

01:15:37 martin i'd say was no longer at the bre but within the department and reporting to anthony bird i think and you say please see a draft response as discussed happy christmas

01:15:46 christmas debbie

01:15:48 debbie um

01:15:50 um did you discuss mr cho's email with brian martin i assume i did yes based on what that email says and what were his views about how to

01:16:01 and what were his views about how to respond

01:16:02 respond i don't recall that did the subject of the abandoned transition period come up at all during your discussion with brian martin i i had no recollection of that i mean that any discussion would have been

01:16:14 that any discussion would have been focused i guess in terms of the questions that had been raised in the email well yes but one question one question might be why are we still having why are we still being asked

01:16:25 having why are we still being asked these questions

01:16:28 well i mean that i say my role was not one to

01:16:33 one to deal with the policy matters that that was for the department to deal with why were you drafting the response to him as opposed to anthony bird or brian martin

01:16:45 my guess is that brian probably asked me on the on on the phone to summarize the discussion that we'd had

01:16:55 was either brian martin or anthony bird not themselves clear on what diagram 40 said or meant and and that's why they had to come to you for advice

01:17:05 advice no i don't believe that why were they coming to you for advice do you know potentially um workload i mean i you you would have to ask them

01:17:18 ask them well i'm really asking you because you were the one who was asked to to to assist and your response was a draft response i'm just seeking to understand what your role was uh did they just back

01:17:30 what your role was uh did they just back this off to you without explanation i i don't recall at the time i mean right

01:17:36 right all i can see is what the outcome of this was

01:17:42 mr chairman we're going to come to the response as drafted but now it would be as convenient a moment would it yes all right we'll we'll have the break now then we'll stop we'll uh resume please at 25 to 12.

01:17:55 we'll uh resume please at 25 to 12. and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room okay thank you very much

01:18:13 thank you mr 25 to 12 please

01:35:52 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:36:06 right dr smith yes happy to carry on yes thank you thank you mr chairman dr smith let's go now then to the response that you drafted and sent to brian martin in the email we've just been looking at it

01:36:17 the email we've just been looking at it this is at clg one triple zero four two three zero

01:36:24 and it says dear mr cho read bs476 and en13501

01:36:29 en13501 thank you for your email regarding bs 476 and dn13501.1 there is no regulation that gives equivalency between bs 476 and en13501

01:36:40 equivalency between bs 476 and en13501 part 1.

01:36:41 part 1. the only way that a manufacturer can declare a performance class for reaction to fire or fire resistance for their product is based on test evidence therefore one a bs476 test can only be

01:36:53 therefore one a bs476 test can only be used to derive a bs476 class such as class naught one two or three a bsen 13501 part one classification a1 a2 bcde

01:37:05 a2 bcde can only be derived from test data in accordance with the appropriate em test methods ie en 1716 en 1182 en 13823 en

01:37:16 methods ie en 1716 en 1182 en 13823 en 1125 part 2. for example a manufacturer can only claim class naught if they have tested their product to bs 476 parts six and seven and met the class naught requirements they cannot then claim a

01:37:28 requirements they cannot then claim a european class b for their product without having tested it to en 13823 and en 11925 part 2 and achieve the specified criteria for class b

01:37:39 specified criteria for class b the concept of equivalency relates to the guidance that is provided in approved document b fire safety to the building regulations 2000 adb adb provides guidance on classes of

01:37:51 adb provides guidance on classes of reaction to fire fire resistance and external fire exposure of roofs performance that satisfy the requirements of the building regulations under the construction products directive european legislation the uk

01:38:03 directive european legislation the uk must accept products that have been classified in accordance with the en 13501 series of standards onto the uk market

01:38:11 market therefore for each specified bs 476 class in adb a european class is defined so that is also considered to have to satisfy the requirements of the building regulations

01:38:22 regulations this approach has also been adopted in relation to non-combustibility a1 and materials of limited combustibility a2

01:38:32 now do you know whether your response was ever sent to mr cho no i don't we don't have a record of it being sent you know i mean you don't know i wouldn't be copied in into that

01:38:46 in the light of mr cho's email did you consider that adb itself needed amending to make it clear that there was no equivalence between the european and national classes um

01:38:57 national classes um i don't know whether i did or not at that time probably not given that mr cho was from overseas

01:39:08 mr cho was from overseas it was probably a case of us explaining it in a more full way um due to sort of language barriers why would mr cho whose english seems to be

01:39:20 whose english seems to be certainly no worse than many uh

01:39:23 uh people in this country who communicated by email that we've seen be treated as different

01:39:31 different um well due to the nature and the detailed um questions that he was asking this

01:39:37 this was an answer to those points what was

01:39:42 well did you discuss this response with

01:39:47 with brian martin this draft well i can only assume that i did based on the email that you showed earlier which said you know further to our discussion so um my assumption is that

01:40:01 um my assumption is that we um we would have had a telephone conversation but of course i mean i don't i don't recollect that do you recollect that you were telling mr martin something that he didn't already understand full well no

01:40:14 already understand full well no no

01:40:17 was it your experience by this point that

01:40:19 that this question which mr cho had asked was one which was being asked commonly or with a degree at least of frequency within the uk construction industry

01:40:30 industry no

01:40:32 no well you were aware at any time and particularly around this time of manufacturers simply stating an equivalence between class norton class b without carrying out european testing no

01:40:47 so you weren't aware for example i wouldn't need to show you necessarily the document but the bbas are typical bba certificates uh

01:40:56 uh which stated in terms that because a product had achieved class b it may be regarded as class naught no you didn't know anything about that no

01:41:09 can we go please to clg one triple zero five zero nine two

01:41:16 this is uh another progress report dated 12th of december 2011 now and it's on the uk's representation on eu fire standards which is prepared by

01:41:28 eu fire standards which is prepared by the bre

01:41:29 the bre for the department which had now become the department for communities and local government if we go to page two we can see that the report

01:41:39 report was

01:41:40 was prepared by steve kelly uh sorry for steve kelly by dr karine williams and it was approved by you yes that day 12th of december 2011.

01:41:52 that day 12th of december 2011. can we go to page four

01:41:56 on page four we see fsh-21 reaction to fire tests met on 11th october 2011

01:42:04 and then if you look at the first bullet point below that it says this the issue regarding the withdrawal of bs 476 series of standards is still unresolved within bsi

01:42:16 is still unresolved within bsi a number of years ago it was agreed by fs fhs 21 and fsh-22 the bs476 series of standards should be should not be withdrawn because they are widely used outside of the uk and europe

01:42:28 widely used outside of the uk and europe for example far east based on this it was agreed with bsi that they would be retained but it would need to be made very clear in the forward or scope of each standard that they could not be used for ce marking

01:42:40 they could not be used for ce marking purposes frustration was expressed that several years on this matter remains still remains unresolved sorry unsolved and now there is new danger that the standards will be withdrawn which will be very detrimental for british industry

01:42:52 be very detrimental for british industry and the use of bs standards in other parts of the world why was the withdrawal of the bs 476 series of standards still unresolved in 2011 some 10 years after their withdrawal was initially considered and

01:43:05 withdrawal was initially considered and six years after the 2004 meetings

01:43:09 meetings yeah i mean my my recollection of that is it was a matter that was being discussed within bsi as to how to address this within the context of the construction products directive etc i

01:43:22 construction products directive etc i mean from a very simplistic point of view where um

01:43:26 um you know the members of fsh 21 sat and probably fsh-22 um i think the frustration that's being expressed there was one that

01:43:38 expressed there was one that from our um perception it sim it needed just some simple

01:43:44 simple statement adding into the forward that would just make it clear that um

01:43:50 um you know they couldn't be used for sea marking purposes but there was some um

01:43:57 um behind-the-scenes discussions within bsi that became for whatever reason very protracted and um that's why the matter remained unresolved

01:44:11 it i mean it says unresolved or unsolved within

01:44:15 within bsi

01:44:16 bsi why was that not a matter for government at least in relation to the content of the approved document um

01:44:25 um sorry i'm not sure i follow

01:44:29 well why wasn't the government at this point looking to so far as you can assist us with the answer at

01:44:39 at putting an end date on the transition period

01:44:42 period using this as a prompt yeah i i don't know

01:44:47 what were the factors which were stopping the matter from being resolved within the bsi do you know no i don't know

01:44:58 what was your role in the decision at the time to retain those standards or in advising either the bsi or the department on whether they should be retained um well as chair you are there to chair

01:45:10 um well as chair you are there to chair the meeting and to try to achieve consensus around the committee table so

01:45:17 that's the role of a chairman but wha what was your part in the actual substantive decision making about retaining those standards i mean for example did you agree they should be retained or did you say they shouldn't

01:45:28 retained or did you say they shouldn't that you have a say um as chairman not particularly no i mean you you you facilitate the discussion and you take the views of everybody and then you

01:45:39 take the views of everybody and then you distill that down into the consensus view

01:45:42 view i mean there's chairman you don't have the the you know you can't say well that's all very nice thank you very much i'll i'll decide to do something completely different i understand that what was your view

01:45:53 understand that what was your view um

01:45:55 um i think that there was um evidence provided that there was a need for these to be retained for use outside of europe and i understood that

01:46:07 europe and i understood that and what impacted the continued retention of bs 476 standards within the uk

01:46:12 uk have on the decision to retain them

01:46:16 but that that was a separate matter and a separate discussion it was not something that was particularly discussed within the technical standards committee

01:46:28 the technical standards committee who had decided at this stage that each bs-476 standard should contain a caveat that they could not be used for ce market marking purposes um i don't think it had been decided

01:46:40 decided who was frustrated as it says here that the matter stood unresolved i think it was the

01:46:46 was the committee in general did you go to government over it um well this was sent to government which was sent to the department yeah sorry by which i mean did you you yourself take it up with either anthony

01:46:58 yourself take it up with either anthony bird or brian martin um i don't recall and whether i would have discussed this with with them or not if there had been the opportunity potentially i would have done but you know equally as i say the report was

01:47:11 you know equally as i say the report was such that that would be provided to them and and it would be clear analyzing the last sentence or last part of the last sentence it says there's a new danger that the standards will be withdrawn which will be very detrimental for

01:47:23 which will be very detrimental for british industry and the use of bs standards in other parts of the world was the danger to british industry one of reduction of the possibility of export for use in those parts of the

01:47:34 export for use in those parts of the world which continued to use ps476 part six and seven that's my understanding yes and what about um intra

01:47:43 um intra uk

01:47:44 uk was there a sense that the new the new danger posed by the risks of withdrawal might be detrimental for british industry and selling within the united kingdom no that wasn't a consideration or was it no

01:47:57 that wasn't a consideration or was it no i don't believe it was because as i said before the expectation was they were going to be withdrawn and they were not going to be permitted for use

01:48:05 for use and by this time in october 2011 we were very close to having the construction products regulation in place which

01:48:16 products regulation in place which you know it was evident to everybody that

01:48:19 that um see marking would be mandatory from that point on now at this stage this is now

01:48:25 now late 2011. sorry

01:48:28 sorry yes

01:48:29 yes 2012 i'm sorry this is 2012. did this discussion here not prompt a wider discussion between you and the department about the end of the

01:48:40 department about the end of the termination period for harmonization

01:48:44 the end of the um the period during which equivalence could be maintained um

01:48:51 um not specifically no

01:48:53 no why is that um as i say that the context to this is that in fact in 2012 the construction product regulation was published

01:49:05 product regulation was published and

01:49:08 it made ce marking mandatory so if you wanted to place a product on the market that was covered by a harmonized european standard then you had to

01:49:20 european standard then you had to comply with the requirements of that standard and do the en

01:49:25 classification for those products so the the route

01:49:31 the route um

01:49:32 um for using the bs476 series was you know

01:49:37 you know um you you wouldn't be placing your product on the market at that point based on 476 testing

01:49:48 testing but by now there had not only been the 2006 amendments to adb but the 2010 amendments to adb why was class not still in diagram 40

01:49:59 still in diagram 40 well

01:50:00 well i can't comment on that i don't know well

01:50:04 well was there a prompted discussion about that question prompted by this discussion namely the withdrawal or potential withdrawal of bs-476 not that

01:50:16 potential withdrawal of bs-476 not that i can recollect and why is that why was the connection not made well as i say i think the context was different in 2012

01:50:29 was it your view i'm trying to understand your evidence that the arrival of the construction products regulation essentially did away with class naught

01:50:39 for new products coming onto the market yes

01:50:47 right but what about old products well and that's where the gov the government the department had to make their policy decision as to how long they wanted

01:50:58 decision as to how long they wanted um products already had classification and would deem to remain unchanged um to continue to claim classo performance for

01:51:10 claim classo performance for well you say that's where the government had to make their policy decision my question is was there any discussion that you can remember about the government actually making that policy decision and getting

01:51:23 making that policy decision and getting on and imposing at long last and an end to the transition period that had been discussed back in 2002 i don't know i wasn't involved in any that's all i

01:51:35 i wasn't involved in any that's all i can say

01:51:36 can say i'm sure the government officials would be able to help you with that i want to ask you about fire note 9 now a different topic we looked earlier in your evidence some of the recommendations made by the select

01:51:49 recommendations made by the select committee this december 1999 and you'll recall i think and this is in your statement the the recommendation was that that br 135 should be revised to reflect the

01:52:01 135 should be revised to reflect the types of products and cladding systems then in use and that a large-scale fire test standard should be published by the british standards institute what i've just put to you is paragraph 29 of your statement dr smith now just

01:52:15 29 of your statement dr smith now just running through the chronology it's right i think that br135 was published in its first edition in 1988. yes and in 1999 when the select committee made its recommendations i think fire

01:52:26 made its recommendations i think fire note 9 had already been submitted to the bsi for adoption as a british standard hadn't it um it may well have been i i couldn't uh confirm that sat here now i think we have that noted in fact in the

01:52:39 think we have that noted in fact in the uh

01:52:39 uh in the select committee's recommendations of paragraph 20. okay take that from me at clg three zero is one nine four seven eight page nine do you know when it had been submitted to the bsi

01:52:49 the bsi no i don't do you know when it had first been suggested that what had been fire note 9 should become a british standard no i don't do you know who made that suggestion

01:53:01 suggestion no i don't have there been any discussions between the department the bsi and the bre before the bre's large-scale test method was submitted um

01:53:12 um i don't know you don't know you don't know whether they were or they weren't you you weren't no i'd like no i wasn't you you went up who was involved with the bre about that um well i don't know i don't know if those discussions took place

01:53:24 know if those discussions took place well there must have been some discussion surely at least between the bre and the bsi

01:53:30 bsi um

01:53:32 um i don't know i mean it's possible that a discussion took place between the department and bsi

01:53:39 and bsi given the imperative that had been placed on it by the

01:53:44 by the parliamentary select committee but that wouldn't necessarily mean that bre was directly involved in that discussion in simple terms what

01:53:55 in simple terms what is or what's the effect of a test being adopted as a british standard what is it what does that status bring um

01:54:04 um it's basically a publicly published document

01:54:09 document that

01:54:12 is standardized in the way that goes through the standardization process and then that makes it available to anybody else to pick it up and use it

01:54:23 anybody else to pick it up and use it it does away with any um potential issues to do with copyright and and so on and so forth so its adoption by the bsi was a eventually as it was was a positive

01:54:35 eventually as it was was a positive development um well it gave it a different status and the positive development because it meant that there was no longer necessarily at least reliance on small-scale testing

01:54:46 small-scale testing uh with all of its disadvantages and defects correct yes do you know what the department's view was at the time about the adoption of fire note 9 as a british standard was it what was it did it

01:54:59 standard was it what was it did it welcome it or did it oppose it or was it neutral do you know um i don't know now what about the bre uh we've established that the bru had been privatized in 1997. did you yourself

01:55:11 privatized in 1997. did you yourself view the impending adoption of fire note 9 as a british standard as a positive development um

01:55:21 um i think my view would have been um yes that it was a positive development for the bre and in general and in general but why for the bre particularly um

01:55:33 for the bre particularly um well of course it meant that well we were already doing testing in that area so in that respect it didn't really make a significant difference but

01:55:44 yes it's a positive development in the sense that it's um opening

01:55:50 opening um the opportunities up for other laboratories um to to to set up and do the test as well if they wish and indeed some some did and indeed to expand the bre's own

01:56:02 did and indeed to expand the bre's own testing program vis-a-vis clients well insofar as some clients although not a vast number were already testing to fire note 9 i don't think

01:56:14 to fire note 9 i don't think it was going to make a truly dramatic difference to the work that was already ongoing do you know what the views of industry were on the publication of bsa414 part 1

01:56:27 were on the publication of bsa414 part 1 in 2002

01:56:29 in 2002 um

01:56:31 um no

01:56:32 no was there any resistance or or objections to the test methodology in finite nine becoming a british standard i don't recall any but then i might not have been aware of that anyway

01:56:45 have been aware of that anyway now you say in your statement again it's paragraph 29 that fire note 9 was the initial methodology used as the basis for bsa414 yes yes who who was it who created bs8414 out of fire note 9

01:56:59 bs8414 out of fire note 9 um

01:57:01 um well i usually what happens is um the document would be submitted and would be considered by the committee that that was set up to deal

01:57:12 committee that that was set up to deal with the standardization process and they would have attached to them an editor

01:57:19 editor a bsi editor that would then basically converted into the standard format

01:57:28 within the requirements of a british standard

01:57:31 standard so that kind of editorial process and so on is done by professional editors within

01:57:36 within bsi right

01:57:38 bsi right but before that was there any development work done on far note 9 to convert it into the document that was then submitted to the bsi for them to edit

01:57:49 edit um

01:57:51 um i doubt that i don't know it's the answer no i don't who carried out the

01:57:56 the uh consultation was there a consultation on that uh yes there would have been and who carried that out it would be bsi they have a standardized process that all standards go through

01:58:07 all standards go through and is it right that at least one of the bsi committees considering the test method in 2000 was fsh-21 um

01:58:16 um reaction to fire yes the um actual work was done

01:58:21 was done by a joint working group of two subcommittees that sat under fsh 21 and fsh-22 so

01:58:32 that sat under fsh 21 and fsh-22 so there were the basically the experts that sat on the subcommittee that did the work

01:58:39 the work um

01:58:40 um were drawn from the entire membership of fsh 21 and the entire membership of fsh22 so all it was open to whoever was interested to participate basically

01:58:52 was interested to participate basically right which were these two subcommittees what were they called i think it was fsh 21 7 which dealt with intermediate and large-scale test methods

01:59:04 methods and there was a similar analogue committee within fsh-22 as well but i don't remember the number of that and who was on committee those committees who was on those committees

01:59:16 committees who was on those committees gosh i i can't i can't recall i think you were a member of fh 21 at that time weren't you um in

01:59:24 um in 2000 between 2000 and between 2000 and 2002. um probably was a member of 21 was any other bre person

01:59:36 bre person a member of fa's h21 um i don't recall was any fbre person on either of these subcommittees

01:59:47 subcommittees um

01:59:48 um yes

01:59:49 yes yes there would have been right who was that um so i think fsh 21 7 at the time um

01:59:56 um had a representative dr ken shaw from

02:00:01 from bre

02:00:02 bre right anybody else um but then when the call would go out for membership i mean for the joint working group um

02:00:11 group um dr sarah caldwell would have um

02:00:14 um been the

02:00:15 been the the choice for that right for that task i see and let's go to um bsi five zeros two 215 please

02:00:26 two 215 please this is a

02:00:29 this is a a minute

02:00:30 a minute of a meeting of the 14th of february 2000

02:00:36 we see that from the top right hand corner of this document and this is a minute of or unconfirmed minute of both of these subcommittees fsh 21 7 and 22 7

02:00:47 22 7 21 7 being large and intermediate scale tests

02:00:52 tests and uh in fact the meeting itself have happened on the 24th of january 2000 but this is the date of the minute 14th of february okay and there's the list of people who attended and at the very bottom three up

02:01:04 attended and at the very bottom three up from the bottom is your name yes yes and we can also see other names janet morrell from warrington larry cody from eurosole familiar name

02:01:15 larry cody from eurosole familiar name stephen ledbetter from the university of bar cwct fame and others

02:01:23 and you can see the various industry groups yes uh

02:01:28 uh now eurocell i think was the uk mineral wool association wasn't it um yes i think it was at the time now january 2000 was obviously some time ago do you have any recollection of this

02:01:39 do you have any recollection of this meeting

02:01:40 meeting um

02:01:41 um no not until you've put those minutes up obviously

02:01:46 obviously i would guess this was the first meeting [Music]

02:01:52 [Music] and

02:01:53 and i also note that it's being chaired by tony edwards who was actually detr at the time yes yes thank you now let's see if the minutes can assist your recollection can

02:02:04 minutes can assist your recollection can we go please to page two and look at the heading two test method

02:02:10 and underneath it that underneath that it says this the chairman explained

02:02:16 that the frs test method was referred to in the revised adb which was why detr had requested that it should be converted into a british standard

02:02:25 standard the first report of the house of commons environment transport and regional affairs subcommittee had recommended compliance with this test method the secretary added that she had received

02:02:36 secretary added that she had received correspondence from the house of commons subcommittee inquiring about the progress of the document now just putting that in its context of course this is a january meeting 2000

02:02:47 course this is a january meeting 2000 and the report of the select committee had come out five or six weeks before that on the 14th of december 1999. so that's where we are in the chronology

02:02:58 so that's where we are in the chronology and if we go then down to page three paragraph 2.1 um you can see comments

02:03:07 on the dpc dr tala introduced the comments from chilton international fire which had suggested that curtin walling should be deleted from the scope of the bre test

02:03:19 deleted from the scope of the bre test and that it should be clearly stated that the test only applied to residential buildings he had also suggested that the concept of mechanical response should be deleted mr morris said that the scope should cover facades

02:03:30 said that the scope should cover facades and not external cladding systems mr bromley said that the test would not apply to glazed systems as glazing industry looked at fire resistance from inside out mr morris explained that the bre test covered external fire spread

02:03:42 bre test covered external fire spread which could start from the inside or the outside it was not a fire resistance test

02:03:48 test mr bromley expressed his concern that if all systems were required to be tested to the new bs then a whole industry could disappear mr edwards explained that alternative

02:03:59 mr edwards explained that alternative methods were available at present for the systems not covered by the bre test however the house of common subcommittee had recommended a single method for all types and that it should be a

02:04:10 types and that it should be a stand-alone document now dr taula he i think was chairman of fsh22 wasn't he um

02:04:19 um he was at some point but i'm not sure he was at that point if we go back to page one of the document i think it tells us that okay

02:04:28 that okay [Music]

02:04:32 he was the chairman of the subcommittee fsh22

02:04:38 fsh22 7. thank you yes you're quite right um and then if we you also see from the list of those present that mr bromley was from the association of fire resistant glass and glazed systems yes yes who was mr morris was that tony

02:04:51 yes who was mr morris was that tony morris um

02:04:52 morris um yes i believe so i can't see another mr morris so yes it would be uh yes

02:04:59 uh yes he's he's two names above yours w.a morris fire research station do you recall the discussion now no i don't

02:05:07 don't do you recall the concern expressed by mr bromley that if all systems were required to be tested to the new bs then a whole industry could disappear as i've read to you um i don't recall that i mean i do do recall there being some

02:05:21 mean i do do recall there being some issues around glazing and glazed systems you do yes did you understand him and i know it's a long time ago but do you understand him to be referring to the

02:05:32 understand him to be referring to the glazing industry or the cladding industry more generally we would well i would have expected him to be referring to the glazing industry because that's the sector that he was representing yes

02:05:43 the sector that he was representing yes as far as you were were aware and can recall was that particular concern expressed by others from other segments of the industry i don't recall that stuff

02:05:53 stuff no

02:05:55 no i say was mr bromley alone in his concern

02:05:58 concern um

02:06:00 um well i can only go by what the minutes are saying here and i would have thought if others had expressed concerns around other types of systems then that would have been um recorded now as i say it's

02:06:11 have been um recorded now as i say it's a long time ago but do you recall having at least the impression that there were some in the facades industry who were resistant to the concept of full-scale fire testing

02:06:22 fire testing being made as a a requirement or a sole requirement um it appears so yes yes it appears so certainly from this but do you have a recollection yourself of that um even an impressionistic one not i

02:06:34 um even an impressionistic one not i wasn't particularly aware of it

02:06:38 right not not within the uk scenario um just just help me with this my understanding was that uh these discussions were about um

02:06:50 these discussions were about um a test method that eventually became bs8414

02:06:53 bs8414 yes it's just a method yes so why are people getting excited about

02:06:58 about whether it should be made mandatory for all

02:07:01 all uh planning systems that would be a matter for the government to decide not for the bsi to decide surely yeah absolutely but i guess

02:07:10 i guess they were directed predominantly at the chairman of the committee who of course was a representative of detr

02:07:19 yes right thank you

02:07:26 would we be right in reading mr bromley's concerns as based on the commercial industries of his sector of the industry yes he would be be representing their interests yes was

02:07:37 be representing their interests yes was there any discussion that you can recall either during this meeting or or any other time about the balance of priorities between industries commercial interests

02:07:46 interests in this respect and public safety no

02:07:51 no it didn't come up at all not that not not that i was party too no can we then go down to page four of the minutes

02:07:59 minutes and the first line on that page please

02:08:06 and it says there the issue where the curtain walling should be deleted from the scope as discussed but no agreement was reached do you know or remember how that

02:08:17 do you know or remember how that question came to be resolved

02:08:24 not specifically um

02:08:27 um i suspect

02:08:29 i suspect kevin towler

02:08:32 through the work that he was doing with the glazing industry and curtin walling the development of the fire resistance tests

02:08:41 would have contributed to that discussion if we move down page four we can see in the next paragraph it says this the question was raised whether all new

02:08:52 question was raised whether all new systems would have to be tested to the new bs

02:08:55 new bs the chairman explained that if the new bs proved to be a burden to industry then the situation would be reviewed he suggested that the bre document should be published as a bs in its current state and then submitted to tc127 for

02:09:08 state and then submitted to tc127 for development into an en do you know who it was at the meeting who raised that question

02:09:16 no i don't it's not answered in the minutes do you know whether an answer was given

02:09:21 was given no i don't was there an answer at that time january 2000 um i don't know did you know at that stage whether or not testing to full scale would become a requirement

02:09:33 become a requirement um i don't recall do you remember what your reaction was to the comment that the situation would be reviewed if the new british standard test proved to be a burden to industry as it says

02:09:44 as it says i don't recall don't recall that no

02:09:50 what would burden to industry be cost

02:09:54 cost presumably i presume that would be what um mr edwards was talking about did you

02:10:04 did you did you ask could you investigate what this

02:10:08 this involved

02:10:09 involved not specifically no i mean it may have been clearer within the context of the meeting but the you know the minutes are just not clear on that particular point but i i don't recall this as you said

02:10:20 but i i don't recall this as you said earlier it's a very long time ago right and you said i think before but just humor me

02:10:28 humor me answer it again is it right that safety wasn't discussed as a balancing factor to be considered alongside

02:10:35 alongside the various industry segments commercial interests

02:10:38 interests um

02:10:39 um not explicitly because the task was to develop the test methodology and produce that as the british standard and i think as i alluded to earlier the

02:10:51 as i alluded to earlier the matters around how the tools in the toolbox are used is dealt with elsewhere it's not dealt with within the british standard technical

02:11:02 within the british standard technical standards area

02:11:06 in light of that and perhaps anywhere let's turn to br135 and let's just see if we can be clear about this so bsa414 parts one and two are test methodologies aren't they yes they are

02:11:19 methodologies aren't they yes they are uh and bre-135 br135 contains the performance criteria against which a test

02:11:24 test carried out bs4

02:11:27 bs4 8414 is assessed yes correct yes now what why is that and by which i mean why did br 135 not itself become a british standard in the same way that fire note 9 did

02:11:40 fire note 9 did i don't recollect the sort of background to that other than of course the contract that was issued that required us to

02:11:48 us to to do that so the contract that we spoke about i think it was cc um was it 1924 the contract we discussed yesterday

02:11:59 yesterday um

02:12:01 um part of that was to develop the criteria within vr135 but i i don't know what the

02:12:10 what the prelude to that was in terms of why that route was decided did you ever take it on yourself to investigate why it was that the test methodology became

02:12:21 it was that the test methodology became standardized through the bsi but the criteria by which it would be assessed did not

02:12:26 did not um not at the time no any at any time um

02:12:31 um well i mean latterly

02:12:36 so by that i mean probably a year or well more than a year ago now probably 18 months two years ago i approached bsi

02:12:48 i approached bsi and the department to say that in my view it did need to be adopted and you know taken over by bsi

02:12:59 you know taken over by bsi but why not then back in 2002 or three when it was published i don't recollect i mean as i as i said i mean the contract had already been issued in

02:13:10 the contract had already been issued in terms of the tender document and discussions would have taken place between others not me as to why that was the approach that wanted to be adopted and followed

02:13:25 and the tender document was what a tender document for the contract for the production of br 135 yes yes yes did you have any role to play in that no right did you see the contract before it went out

02:13:36 out no

02:13:38 no who was involved in that on the vre's side well it would have been

02:13:42 been peter field as the framework manager and

02:13:48 and i suspect tony morris as the

02:13:51 as the lead

02:13:53 lead researcher in that area you don't know you can't offer us a reason sitting there now why it was that br 135 did not as bs 8414 had became become a standard no i don't know what

02:14:04 become a standard no i don't know what the precursor to that was no

02:14:10 um now the process of reviewing br135 which

02:14:15 which had originally been published in 1988 came about i think is this right as a direct result of the 1999 select committee recommendation that we that we've looked at that's my understanding and that

02:14:26 that's my understanding and that recommendation i think was that br 135 should reflect the types of products and cladding systems then in use that's what you say in your statement yes that's my understanding and that's

02:14:37 yes that's my understanding and that's paragraph 29 was the purpose of the survey

02:14:40 survey the literature review and the 2001 testing program cc 1924 um

02:14:49 um to inform

02:14:50 to inform uh what became br 135 um that's my understanding yes is it right that the work on drafting the new

02:14:59 the new second edition of br135 eventually published in 2003 was carried out by brian martin and sarah colwell that's my understanding yes they in fact were the authors yes

02:15:10 authors yes brian martin was still at the bre at this time wasn't he um yes he was in fact there i think until 2008. right yes and what was his role at that time within the bre um i think we touched on this

02:15:24 bre um i think we touched on this previously basically i think brian was recruited by

02:15:30 other colleagues of mine to because of his building control background and to [Music]

02:15:38 [Music] basically provide the real world interpretation of the application of the building regulations and the approved documents so he was a building control

02:15:49 so he was a building control professional by training

02:15:52 training and

02:15:53 and the

02:15:54 the person that had been fulfilling that role was

02:15:58 role was approaching retirement so i think there was probably a period of overlap between brian and his predecessor um at which point he then took on took on that role

02:16:10 took on that role were you his line manager no who was um back in 2002

02:16:19 i don't know for certain but brian actually worked within a different center to my center so his center head would have been nigel smithey's

02:16:31 smithey's now whether nigel smithers was his direct line manager i'm not sure there may have been somebody you know between between him did anybody supervise their work on the revisions to

02:16:43 supervise their work on the revisions to br 135

02:16:45 br 135 within the second edition um well yes the the

02:16:49 the the their line manager his line manager would have done so and um obviously nigel smithey's was also um would have also played his role as well right how would you describe your own

02:17:00 how would you describe your own knowledge of the contents of the first edition of br135 the 1988 version at the time um were you very familiar with it not very familiar with it no right

02:17:11 it no right um now sarah colwell in her statement says i'll just show this to you this is a bre 3047571

02:17:20 page 30.

02:17:26 paragraph 192 she says as part of the development of the second edition brian martin and i together with mhclg agreed that the first edition could be

02:17:37 agreed that the first edition could be used as

02:17:38 used as a suitable basis for the second edition um

02:17:44 um first

02:17:45 first we know that sarah colwell was involved in creating that second edition and indeed was one of the authors who supervised her work um in that respect so i mean

02:17:56 so i mean in relation to the cladding work up until his retirement that was tony morris

02:18:05 and obviously in relation to the contribution to the parliamentary select committee that would have been peter field

02:18:17 and then beyond that i started to take more of a a sort of line management role and oversight role

02:18:28 oversight role in terms of her work at what point from from that point onwards i think it was probably at the time of the contract which we've already reviewed i think yesterday the cc 1924

02:18:42 think yesterday the cc 1924 contract being awarded right so that's i think that's 2 000. um something like that yeah so from that time until publication you were supervising sarah colwell's work on br135 were you um

02:18:55 br135 were you um well amongst others i mean if she wanted to go and talk to somebody else about the content of it and and you know discuss it then clearly she would have done so you know if it was tony morris

02:19:06 done so you know if it was tony morris or

02:19:07 or peter field or richard reed then you know that that clearly would have happened but yes if she wanted to yes but my question was were you supervising sarah colwell's

02:19:19 were you supervising sarah colwell's work on br135 whoever else she talked to were you the one with responsibility for supervising her work on pr135 between 2000 also and

02:19:30 2000 also and to a point i mean i would not be um as i said previously you wouldn't i would not be repeating all of the work that they were undertaking um the role of the supervisor is to

02:19:43 um the role of the supervisor is to ensure that they are at least following the right protocols and procedures and

02:19:53 and to be there again to discuss things if and when there is a need to do so but by that time i mean sarah was one of

02:20:04 the leading experts in bre on this particular subject area so in

02:20:11 in in brief she knew a lot more about cladding cladding testing and cladding systems than than i did were you involved in the discussions and the agreement to use the first edition

02:20:23 the agreement to use the first edition the 1988 edition as the basis for the second edition no i wasn't do you know whether the department or who it was from the department who was involved in that decision no i don't do you know

02:20:34 that decision no i don't do you know what factors were considered when assessing whether the first edition of br135 1988 could be used as a suitable basis for the second edition no i don't did you agree at the time that it was a suitable basis

02:20:46 suitable basis no i don't recall having had that discussion at all you didn't know it was a basis though didn't you given that you were supervising sarah colwell's work at the very least um potentially but um i'll say i wasn't

02:20:58 potentially but um i'll say i wasn't involved in this detailed decision you were involved in supervising her work as you've told us did you have a view at the time about whether it was suitable to use the 1988 edition as the basis for the 2003

02:21:09 edition as the basis for the 2003 edition i don't recall right let's um go up to paragraph 190. she says there brian martin and i conducted the review of the first edition as part of

02:21:20 of the first edition as part of developing the second edition did you com did you contribute in any way to that review uh no i don't believe i did did you discuss the conclusions of that review with brian martin or sarah caldwell um

02:21:32 caldwell um potentially if they were producing um progress reports or you know outputs during the course of that then i would have seen those right um were

02:21:43 would have seen those right um were there progress reports or outputs during the course of that i don't recall do you recall seeing any i i can't remember i i don't recall did you play any part in checking the draft

02:21:55 you play any part in checking the draft second edition before it was published against the 1988 edition um i played a role in reviewing um the second edition as indeed a number of other people would

02:22:06 as indeed a number of other people would have done as well did you play any part in deciding which parts of the 1988 edition should be retained and which parts discarded in the forthcoming condition

02:22:16 i would always have had the opportunity to comment and to question or to query um content yes did you of course did you take the

02:22:27 yes did you of course did you take the opportunity and actually ask i don't recall interrogate the discards yeah no i i don't recall i mean i'd have to see versions

02:22:38 versions with comments on them too to understand to understand that today sat here now yes let's look at the 1988 first edition bre

02:22:49 bre one zero seven seven

02:22:55 now there's the first page of it you can see the identity of the authors there

02:23:01 and if we gave these to page four

02:23:09 what i wanted to show you in fact we can we just pan out please and i can show you the whole of page four and then we can focus back in on regulatory aspects that's the context under the introduction and you can see

02:23:21 under the introduction and you can see the various walls and all systems and then under regulatory aspects if we have that blown up now please it says this control

02:23:30 control over the external surface of walls of buildings particularly those of multi-story flats to avoid ignition and flame spread which might endanger the lives of residents above by breaking down effective compartmentation

02:23:43 down effective compartmentation and there's an asterisk there and if you look below could we scroll down a little bit please i want to show you what the asterisk says

02:23:53 says compartmentation implies the confining of a fire to a given space by the provision of fire resisting walls and floors

02:24:01 floors then if we go back to the text i think you can see it compartmentation is currently controlled by reference to tests specified in bs476 parts six and seven

02:24:12 parts six and seven however these tests only provide information on surface fire behavior the overall fire performance of a ventilated cladding system or insulated assembly incorporating independently supported

02:24:23 incorporating independently supported weathering finishes and complicated reveal details can only be investigated under actual fire conditions on a full-scale building facade

02:24:34 now it was is this right it was still the case in 2000 that those matters were still controlled by reference to bs 476 part six and seven tests

02:24:45 seven tests um that's my understanding when i say those matters i mean control over the external surface of walls and buildings to be clear yes and in 2003 was that still the case

02:24:58 um yes yes so

02:25:02 so does it follow then that by 2003 to the best of your knowledge a decision had been taken not to follow the select committee's

02:25:13 not to follow the select committee's recommendation to substitute the full-scale test diagram in for diagram 40 but instead to provide for a full system

02:25:24 but instead to provide for a full system test as an alternative option um

02:25:29 um when i'm sorry i can't remember when the reference to the full scale method went into the approved document it went in in july 2000 right

02:25:42 in in july 2000 right so obviously it was an option at that point um and the british standard part one i think was published in 2002 so it wouldn't have been possible to

02:25:53 so it wouldn't have been possible to have referred to that until until after 2002. and

02:25:59 and i think we can take it then that

02:26:02 that the the by this stage by the time of publication of the second edition is this right that a decision had been taken not to follow the select

02:26:13 taken not to follow the select committee's recommendation to replace diagram 40 and reference to class naught with the alternate with with the full scale test um as the route to compliance yeah i don't know you don't know

02:26:25 yeah i don't know you don't know now take it from me that this paragraph under regulatory aspects

02:26:31 aspects does not appear and nor does anything similar to it appear in the 2003 second edition of br135 do you know why that was no i don't do you know who would have decided to

02:26:43 you know who would have decided to remove it no i don't was it a matter you noticed at the time i don't recall was it a matter you discussed with sarah colwell or brian martin at the time i don't recall that

02:26:56 do you know have you any clue about why this section which refers to the limitations of testing to bs 476 parts six and seven in accordance with what what you've told us as your own opinions

02:27:07 as your own opinions um was omitted from the second edition no i don't was it not to draw a tent was it so as not to draw attention to those limitations um i think that's unlikely

02:27:19 um i think that's unlikely it may have been associated with the expectation that those parts were going to disappear do you know but no i don't know now the second edition of br135 was also

02:27:30 now the second edition of br135 was also the subject of consultation wasn't it yes and sarah colwell tells us in her statement it's paragraph 197 of page 32 but we don't need to see it is that she and brian martin

02:27:42 see it is that she and brian martin together managed that process and addressed the feedback that was received is that correct uh yes i believe so did you yourself have any involvement in the consultation process um

02:27:54 consultation process um i wouldn't have been involved in the questionnaires and the collation of the

02:27:59 the comments

02:28:01 comments i may have been involved in reviewing

02:28:05 reviewing the comments as part of a panel who was on the panel i i don't recall was it a bre panel or did the panel have government on it um

02:28:16 did the panel have government on it um no i don't know did you read any of the consultation responses or advice on how they should be addressed um i may have been asked for my view my opinion

02:28:25 opinion if they weren't obvious i mean if they are just an editorial correction of course there would be no need to to discuss but it's possible that if they were a bit more meaty than that then there may have been a discussion

02:28:36 then there may have been a discussion around them so they would fall into various categories basically some would be

02:28:41 be i say editorial and then some would be more

02:28:45 more discussive right and given that this was not going to be a bsi document but just a bre publication did the bre alone run the consultation

02:28:57 did the bre alone run the consultation um

02:29:01 in the sense that i mean it wouldn't have gone out via bsi if that's what you want exactly no it did the bre alone run the consultation um well probably with input

02:29:12 consultation um well probably with input and

02:29:14 and assistance from the department because anything that you do in that regard you have to get their agreement

02:29:20 agreement if you go out to survey or to consult given on behalf on their behalf basically

02:29:28 basically where were you consulting people on behalf of the department um

02:29:33 um yes in so far as the contract was one with the department to draft the second edition of br135 what role did the department play in the

02:29:44 what role did the department play in the consultation

02:29:48 they would have been aware of it they would have potentially contributed to um or had the opportunity to contribute and to um

02:29:58 and to um consider

02:30:00 consider the comments and the feedback if we you know if it was appropriate i mean we wouldn't want to say we wouldn't worry them with editorial

02:30:09 editorial corrections and following consultation who had final say or final sign off in relation to the content of the second edition as published um that would probably have been the

02:30:22 um that would probably have been the managing director of um the bre fire and security team and who was that

02:30:28 was that um this was in about 2003 um

02:30:36 it would either have been dr jeremy hodge or dr farshad alamdari

02:30:44 did the consultation process as best you can recall it reveal concerns or resistance on the part of industry

02:30:54 um i don't recollect anything as i'm sat here today let me take you to one particular consultation response then uh on this draft edition this is at bre 3042031

02:31:09 it's a letter to sarah coyle dr sarah colwell from the cwct alan keeler author from the university of bath dated the 15th of august 2002

02:31:22 and in the first line he says dr ledbetter has asked me to respond to your letter concerning the above now have you seen this letter before um

02:31:33 well that looks like my writing down the left-hand side well i'm trying to ask you that yes so you saw this at the time well

02:31:39 well clearly yes yes okay now um do you know what alan keeler's role was at the time no was he somebody you knew you knew professionally no what about dr ledbetter

02:31:51 what about dr ledbetter no well we saw i think that he was a member of the joint bsi committee considering the draft of bsa414 yes were you not familiar with him well not particularly no right let's look at the

02:32:03 particularly no right let's look at the second paragraph it says this ventilated rain screens are a cost-effective form of construction used widely throughout europe the generic data supporting the revision of br135

02:32:14 revision of br135 show that all the rain screen systems tested failed to meet the test criteria we are concerned that use of the proposed test will lead to the abandonment of this method of construction without any guarantee that

02:32:26 construction without any guarantee that alternative forms of construction are available particularly for multi-story buildings where weight is an important consideration if this occurs there could be economic consequences for the building industry

02:32:37 consequences for the building industry and the uk as a whole it was emphasized at the outset of the work of the bsi committee that it is necessary to take account of the needs of industry and use of energy in buildings

02:32:50 is that right had it been emphasized at the outset of the work of the bsi committee

02:32:55 committee that it was necessary to take account of needs of industry um

02:33:02 um well all i can recollect is the notes that you showed earlier so um and the the points that um tony edward edwards made at that

02:33:14 edwards made at that that were recorded at that meeting mr bromley i think as well yes yes

02:33:22 and on the left hand side of the letter we can see what i think you've now identified as your handwritten comment which reads p28 revised text to make clear that appropriate fire barriers could improve performance

02:33:34 now we've already seen that of the ventilated systems tested in the previous year you'll recall it cc 1924 testing program in 2001

02:33:45 1924 testing program in 2001 four of the five systems tested at full scale had no fire barriers and all four failed yes the fifth system tested did incorporate fire barriers and also failed didn't it

02:33:56 fire barriers and also failed didn't it yes yeah and the light of that on what basis was it considered that a revision a revision to the text to the effect that appropriate fire barriers could improve performance should be made

02:34:07 should be made i don't know the context to that statement it doesn't appear to relate to the content of this letter so um

02:34:20 yeah i'm i'm a bit puzzled as to why that is um written in the context of this letter well there's a as a p28 and an arrow

02:34:31 well there's a as a p28 and an arrow presumably p28 is the area in the draft which you wanted to have revised yes well that that will refer to page 28.

02:34:41 yes of whatever the document was that went out for consultation i guess yeah and there's an arrow pointing to the sentence rain screen systems test criteria i don't think that is

02:34:53 test criteria i don't think that is pointing to that particular point i mean i often use an arrow for the continuation i mean that's that's how you do it yes all right but it's right isn't it that that in fact

02:35:05 it's right isn't it that that in fact your statement there appropriate fire barriers could improve performance what wasn't based on any evidential data from the experimental test program carried out the previous year was it um

02:35:17 carried out the previous year was it um not that in isolation but as i've said earlier in in my evidence i mean there was a growing body of information we already had the information that had been carried out in the previous work as

02:35:28 been carried out in the previous work as well

02:35:29 well so it was you know it was a general um view

02:35:34 view that

02:35:35 that properly designed fire barriers could potentially improve performance what is the body of information that you're referring to the work that um dr connolly had done previously

02:35:48 but but i thought dr connolly had said that the fire barriers made no difference or negligible difference no i mean we we had evidence that they were

02:35:59 we had evidence that they were potentially making a difference and they were required anyway to be incorporated within the systems

02:36:07 systems at the lines of compartmentation well that's certainly the case isn't it because that is what approved document b said and had said for a long time before that but

02:36:16 that but you had more recent test evidence 14 tests

02:36:22 14 tests which

02:36:23 which would not support your statement here and tests moreover done for the very purpose

02:36:28 purpose of research which would back up the r135 in this edition yes

02:36:36 well as as i say my my understanding and my view at the time and it remains to date that fire barriers can improve the performance of the system

02:36:48 the system but you're evident i'm putting to you that the empirical basis for that statement

02:36:52 statement was unreliable not complete out of date and superseded by the testing for the specific purpose okay i mean it might not have been um as expansive and as extensive as we

02:37:03 as expansive and as extensive as we would have liked but there was evidence available otherwise we would not be saying that was this suggestion a sop to industry

02:37:16 no because if people wanted to achieve

02:37:20 achieve classification to br 135 they clearly had to

02:37:24 had to test

02:37:26 test to the bs8414 and achieve the classification so i mean it's not it's not telling people

02:37:33 people it's not sop to industry in the sense that it's giving them an easy an easy ride or

02:37:39 ride or saying you don't need to test these just do that

02:37:43 do that it's just

02:37:45 it's just i i don't understand what you mean to industry really in this context well it's an encouragement isn't it that that

02:37:55 that that if you didn't pass then fire barriers might help an encouragement well i mean you should be incorporating fire barriers anyways we've just established so

02:38:07 established so let's move to the edition itself um i'm going to assume is this right is it fair that you were at the time familiar with br135 in its second edition

02:38:19 its second edition at which time 2003. um well i would have seen it in its draft yes now let's go to that document it's a bre four zeros five five five four

02:38:34 we need page two for the first

02:38:38 page there it is and if we go to the second page you can see the authors sarah caldwell and brian martin can we go please to page 22

02:38:53 and the heading on page 22 is performance criteria and classification method

02:38:58 method see that yes and in the first indent just above the three bullet points it says the performance of the system under investigation is evaluated against three criteria external fire spread internal

02:39:11 criteria external fire spread internal fire spread mechanical performance now i think it's right that those criteria match those that we'd seen in whanau three remember that um yes i mean i can show

02:39:22 remember that um yes i mean i can show that to you if you like no i let's take that out for our purposes it's bre405868 page nine paragraph 10.1 um but if we look at page 23 you can see

02:39:33 um but if we look at page 23 you can see the failure criteria set out and if we have them expanded a little bit please you can see there are criteria for external fire spread which is um

02:39:44 which is um adjudged if an external thermocouple at level two exceeds 600 degrees for a period of at least 30 seconds or more within 15 minutes of the start of the test

02:39:55 of the test internal fire spread and you have failure if an internal thermocouple at level 2 exceeds 600 degrees centigrade for 30 seconds or more within 15 minutes of the start of the test and then mechanical performance

02:40:08 the test and then mechanical performance no failure criteria have been set for mechanical performance however details of any system collapse spalling delamination or flaming debris should be included in the test report

02:40:19 should be included in the test report the nature of the mechanical failure should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment when specifying the system see for example figure a7 and then there's a an image below that after the test

02:40:31 an image below that after the test now before we look at some questions about failure criteria um what was the purpose in general terms of br 135

02:40:40 br 135 and my question is directed at the second and then the third editions in 2013

02:40:45 2013 what was it for um for passing for giving a pass fail um

02:40:52 um [Music]

02:40:54 [Music] pass fail criteria for um

02:40:56 for um [Music]

02:40:58 [Music] associated with the bs8414 test measurements what what risks was it addressing external fire spread up the outside of a

02:41:09 external fire spread up the outside of a building

02:41:10 building spread

02:41:11 spread of the fire back within

02:41:14 within the system that could potentially then also spread vertically and um

02:41:21 and um obviously the the mechanical performance one is looking at um

02:41:27 um materials falling off of the wall so that's looking at the potential for i mean you wouldn't want that happening over an escape route for example

02:41:38 for example and what was the objective of a large-scale test done under 8414 to these criteria um

02:41:49 um what was the objective of the test well what was the objective of the criteria

02:41:54 criteria um

02:41:55 um to manage the risk can we agree against those rather general answers that br 135 and the large-scale testing

02:42:06 that br 135 and the large-scale testing to which it refers are addressing a generic risk of flame spread across the surface of the external wall of a building

02:42:18 of the external wall of a building and through cavities but leaves it to the competent professional to assess the nature and the acceptability of the risk of flame spread in any particular

02:42:30 risk of flame spread in any particular fire safety strategy um

02:42:37 well it does within the context of mechanical performance but obviously the external fire spread and internal fire spread criteria as i understand them anyway are pass fails

02:42:49 understand them anyway are pass fails if you don't satisfy that then it's it's a fail and you won't get a br 135 classification and a failure means what um that you've exceeded the temperature

02:43:01 um that you've exceeded the temperature criteria yeah clearly what what what's the

02:43:05 the in lay terms what does that mean to the man in the street um

02:43:10 um okay so it's time time bound and

02:43:16 and what you're doing is you're measuring the advancement of the temperature either upside up the outside or within within the the system

02:43:27 within the the system and saying that you cannot spread faster than

02:43:34 the time bound criteria

02:43:38 in terms of the flame spread

02:43:41 can you explain why these particular performance criteria we see under external fire spread and internal fire spread were chosen i don't know the full background to that no do you know what those performance

02:43:53 no do you know what those performance criteria represented or deemed to represent

02:43:57 represent um

02:43:59 no i don't you don't know why 600 degrees for example or why 30 seconds you don't know um well i think the 30 seconds is so that you go beyond the point of just an

02:44:10 go beyond the point of just an intermittent flash of flame i mean that would be my my view on that you want you know something the flame to be there for a period of time

02:44:23 the the temperature no i don't know specifically why 600 degrees was chosen but as you said that dated back to the earlier versions of

02:44:36 earlier versions of the fire notes and what's the rationale behind the failure criteria for external and internal fire spread

02:44:45 seconds 15 minutes what what's the what's the rationale yeah i i don't fully know i mean it's been spoken about anecdotally that 15 minutes was associated with um

02:44:57 associated with um the fire brigade attendance times but i don't know whether that is [Music]

02:45:03 [Music] correct or not just how could you oversee dr colwell's work to the limits you described and oversee the consultation process without

02:45:15 the consultation process without knowing what the performance criteria are supposed to represent or what their rationale is how could you do that well it was on the basis of

02:45:24 basis of discussions that were taking place with other

02:45:28 other bre members of staff that had led to this

02:45:32 this and i had no reason to believe that the criteria that they had already

02:45:39 already largely established were were not performing the function that had been agreed and there had been as i say extensive work and extensive consultation that had gone on to this

02:45:50 consultation that had gone on to this point yes and i was not an expert in this particular subject area given that it came across your desk

02:45:58 your desk did you not think just to ask the basic questions

02:46:01 questions well just help me why 600 degrees why 30 seconds why 15 minutes what's it doing just just just educate me why didn't you ask brian martin or sarah

02:46:12 why didn't you ask brian martin or sarah caldwell to do that so that you could understand what was being published well i'm

02:46:15 i'm i don't recall the nature of the specific discussions that took place at the time but i'm sure there was some discussion around some of these points but if there had been you would understand it and be able to answer my

02:46:26 understand it and be able to answer my question why 600 well that's what i'm trying to explain to you that basically anecdotally my understanding is that 15 minutes comes from the fire brigade attendance

02:46:37 attendance but i've never seen that written down as such um

02:46:41 such um and that the uh period of 30 seconds relates to you know the the duration of the flaming can i just ask do you happen to know whether the criteria

02:46:53 whether the criteria in the first edition were actively reviewed for the purposes of drafting the second edition because time had passed yes people's

02:47:04 because time had passed yes people's understanding might have changed and the criteria perhaps were to you for reconsideration yeah i don't think there were any criteria in the first edition of br135

02:47:15 of br135 i think the criteria appeared in fire note

02:47:19 note three well that's even older or fine like nine i'd well exactly same question yeah um

02:47:27 um and i'm sure there was a review um

02:47:30 um and a discussion um i'd say with tony morris and people like that about where they had come from and and why they were chosen and i mean sarah in providing that

02:47:42 and i mean sarah in providing that continuity through through the work um you know would have had those discussions

02:47:54 do you know why the pass fail criteria in br135 in this and indeed the next edition later 10 years on weren't specifically and expressly linked to the

02:48:07 and expressly linked to the issues addressed in the main bot the main body of the document which i haven't shown you but i'm assuming you're familiar with or the requirements of the building regulations and approved document b

02:48:19 and approved document b um what you mean in terms of repeating text and and so on um

02:48:24 um well again this is in effect a classification document in the same way that i suppose you could argue the en 13501

02:48:36 the en 13501 series r classification document and again

02:48:40 and again they are tools um it's for others to define the context within which those tools are used so you'd expect adb

02:48:52 so you'd expect adb to

02:48:53 to pass comment or you know

02:48:57 you know if they wish to change these or they they wish to refer to them in a different way then that is up to adb to do so

02:49:04 do so you wouldn't expect to find all of that provided for in br 135 itself no that's not really my question let me try it slightly differently

02:49:15 did you understand at the time that

02:49:19 that these criteria here on the screen which would result in a pass or a fail

02:49:28 were designed to test uh whether the

02:49:34 the surface of an external wall in the full system as tested would adequately resist the spread of fire over the surface of the walls in accordance with the functional requirement b41

02:49:46 functional requirement b41 that was my understanding as to what it was intended to be guiding and assisting right now on what basis did you have that understanding based on discussions that

02:49:57 understanding based on discussions that i would have had with colleagues did you ask your colleagues what is it that tells me that 600 degrees

02:50:05 degrees is the limit for adequacy as opposed to 500 degrees okay so i mean when you look at the body of evidence and

02:50:15 and i mean i'm i don't recall this precise discussion um but they looked at lots the the basic the outputs from the tests that were

02:50:27 the outputs from the tests that were carried out and were looking to specify the criteria that would ensure that

02:50:35 that products

02:50:36 products that you didn't want to pass didn't pass and those that

02:50:43 should have passed did pass but in order to do that you would need to know what adequacy meant yes yes but then that would have been down to the discussion with

02:50:54 down to the discussion with um the department and the discussions that would have gone on alongside that and so an agreement in terms of the interpretation of adequacy

02:51:05 adequacy would have been informed by the department you see

02:51:09 you see in 1992

02:51:11 in 1992 which of course post-dated the first edition the word adequate wasn't present in the functional requirement it came in in 2000

02:51:18 in 2000 as we saw yes given that change did you not think or did anybody at the bre not think under the contract to go to government and say well we're designing you a full-scale

02:51:30 well we're designing you a full-scale test

02:51:31 test but we need to know what you understand or propose by the word adequate in the functional requirement so that we can design a test that meets your parameters did you do that

02:51:42 did you do that i personally didn't do that did anybody in the bre well i find it difficult to um

02:51:47 um [Music]

02:51:48 [Music] to consider that that would not have taken place because the department were fully behind this and it would have been implicit if not explicit in in in the context of the

02:52:01 explicit in in in the context of the discussions that would have taken place well i i think most people would agree with you that it's difficult to consider that that would not have taken place my question is did it take place i can't answer that and who can i don't know um

02:52:15 answer that and who can i don't know um did you know ryan brian martin may be able to answer that right okay you might but but when you were conducting your supervision of this work

02:52:26 conducting your supervision of this work and the consultation process itself did you not yourself ask the question either of brian martin or of sarah colwell or of anthony bird

02:52:37 or of sarah colwell or of anthony bird who was in the department what are let me know so i can understand whether this document is fit for purpose what are the criteria representing adequacy from the department's perspective no i don't recall asking that

02:52:53 is it your understanding that during an 8414 test a fire directly capable of penetrating the fire compartment above

02:53:04 the fire compartment above could take hold on the facade and then spread vertically but the system being tested could still pass the test if the temperatures didn't reach a certain level namely 600 degrees um

02:53:16 um so you're saying the fire could spread say three stories but without the temperature reaching 600 yes that's not possible that's not possible

02:53:27 possible that's not possible so you you say is this right you say do you and thought at the time that these criteria if

02:53:37 if met

02:53:39 met all of them met meant that there was no challenge to the underlying assumptions inherent in a state put policy in a high-rise building

02:53:50 policy in a high-rise building i wouldn't have considered these within that context i mean that would have been for others to have considered i was not a building designer and i've

02:54:01 i was not a building designer and i've never been involved in building design you you know other people would be considering this but isn't the whole point of this test to make sure that um whatever fire takes hold in a

02:54:14 that um whatever fire takes hold in a cladding system it doesn't undermine the fundamental assumptions inherent in a state but policy in place in a high-rise residential building

02:54:24 well i say that's for others to consider do you know why it is that this and indeed

02:54:31 indeed the third edition ten years later focus almost entirely on the threat of fire propagation through cavities and say very little about the potential for flames spread

02:54:42 for flames spread through or on the external cladding system itself um i don't think it focuses entirely on fire spread through cavities it deals with

02:54:53 it deals with externally rendered systems also and there are no cavities in many of the externally rendered systems well i may be wrong about this and i can be corrected but the only direct

02:55:04 be corrected but the only direct reference to the potential for flame spread through the panels themselves comprising the outer skin of a high-rise building is in the 2013 edition at paragraph 6.4.1 and we can look at

02:55:15 at paragraph 6.4.1 and we can look at that

02:55:16 that if you want to but should we look at that um i don't recall it without all right right

02:55:23 right do you know how if we're right about that and on the assumption that we're right about that do you know how it can be justified given what the bre knew about the circumstances of the fire and the fire spread at nasally heights in 1991

02:55:34 1991 or at garlic or the edge in salford in 2005.

02:55:41 sorry could you ask the question again yes do you know why it was that the focus was not on fires in cladding systems put it simply cladding systems on fire

02:55:52 cladding systems on fire given what the bre knew by this time 2003

02:55:56 2003 about the fire at nosley in 1991 and the fire at garnet caught in irvine in 1999.

02:56:04 in 1999. well my understanding is it does address fires in cladding systems do you know why there's no methodology or list of considerations for determining or assessing the risk posed

02:56:15 determining or assessing the risk posed by

02:56:16 by external panels for example class naught external panels insofar as what is an individual element yes

02:56:28 yes that's not the objective of bs8414 to look at the individual elements within the cladding system it's to look at the entire makeup of the cladding system

02:56:42 entire makeup of the cladding system of the external wall there's no attempt in here is there to measure flame velocity

02:56:47 velocity uh or

02:56:48 uh or heating or flame or heating length as part of the large-scale testing method is there well i would disagree with that to some degree

02:56:58 degree the very fact you are using a consistent temperature measurement as in 600 degrees c and you are um

02:57:09 and you are um controlling it bounding it um in terms of time you are

02:57:16 you are in effect

02:57:18 in effect okay you're not declaring a flame spread velocity

02:57:22 velocity but you are setting a parameter beyond which

02:57:25 which flame the velocity of flame spread is not acceptable what useful information for a fire engineer assessing the performance of an external wall system in the in

02:57:37 in the in in terms of external fire spread would an 8414 test provide okay so i don't think you'll find really any of the test standards or

02:57:48 find really any of the test standards or test methods that are used in terms of classifying products that are designed to give engineering data that can be used in calculation methods

02:58:00 that can be used in calculation methods so i think you're talking about different things if as a fire engineer you want to do an engineering analysis then these might not be the right tools for you

02:58:12 for you do you know why there is no classification system or failure criteria given at all in relation to the third performance requirement mechanical performance

02:58:23 requirement mechanical performance i don't know for certain no you don't was consideration ever given to having openings as part of an 8414 test so that you could at least make visual observations

02:58:34 visual observations of the propensity of the particular structure under test to have compartmentation failure

02:58:42 what you mean having windows that look through the cladding system for example um

02:58:49 um i don't know whether consideration was given to that but that may have been explored in the sort of early early um

02:58:57 early um experiments that were done i mean there's always been a debate and that debate is going on now within europe as well as to to what extent you want to put openings into these types of

02:59:09 want to put openings into these types of systems

02:59:10 systems because you then run into the discussion as to any failure that occurs around those openings is that really a failure of the cladding system or is it a failure of

02:59:21 cladding system or is it a failure of the

02:59:22 the system that you've used to close the the opening that you've introduced into the cladding system so is it a real test of what you're trying to do and there's there's an ongoing

02:59:33 to do and there's there's an ongoing debate around that as we speak now right how would an 8414 test provide you with any information for example about the capacity of aluminium successfully

02:59:45 successfully uh

02:59:45 uh to to to

02:59:48 to to to cover

02:59:49 cover an acm panel by which i mean how would this kind of test give you any information about how an acm panel with a pe core would perform

03:00:00 in the sense that if it had been tested you mean

03:00:03 you mean if it has been our system yes um

03:00:07 um well it would have rapidly spread fire as we've seen since um

03:00:14 um we did the um seven tests for dclg

03:00:19 dclg in 2017.

03:00:21 in 2017. yes well that may be the answer and how does this test tell you how an aluminium an acm panel with a pe core

03:00:28 core would perform in relation to its aluminium in other words what it's aluminium

03:00:33 aluminium facing would do well it won't tell you in isolation but it's telling you as part of the system in which it's incorporated but without mechanical performance criteria uh you don't know whether the aluminium

03:00:44 uh you don't know whether the aluminium is peeling off or denominating too soon and therefore dangerously or late later on and therefore safely do you well but you you're required to provide observations

03:00:57 observations no there are no criteria

03:01:01 i mean my guess is that and i think there has been discussion around this point as well and it's now also being addressed in in the european um context

03:01:12 um context it's an incredibly difficult parameter to quantify and to measure and there is no simple way of doing that and

03:01:23 and you know other than carrying recording the observations as to what happens in terms of the performance and i think there's a lot of time and effort being invested in that

03:01:35 effort being invested in that um

03:01:36 um you know the same thing has applied to the development during the single burning item test when um

03:01:43 um you know the the there was a need or a desire to try to quantify

03:01:48 quantify these parameters and even on an intermediate scale it's it's a very difficult

03:01:54 difficult thing to do and to do consistently mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll break there so we can all have some lunch dr

03:02:05 there so we can all have some lunch dr smith we'll resume at five past two please

03:02:08 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you very much

03:02:22 thank you very much mr millet 542 please thank you

03:02:33 you