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

Full transcript

00:00:24 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

00:00:40 right dr smith ready to continue yes thank you thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman dr smith i'd just like to revisit with you if i may um page 109 of this morning's transcript

00:00:52 page 109 of this morning's transcript and what you said at lines 4-13 can we just have that back up on the screen please for the witness this is page 109 in the raw transcript and so it'll appear eventually somewhere

00:01:03 and so it'll appear eventually somewhere else in the final version and on page 109

00:01:10 109. you can just have that up yes at line

00:01:15 line uh four i've asked you the question did you ask your colleagues what is it that tells me that 600 degrees is the limit for adequacy as opposed to 500 degrees and your answer was as follows okay so

00:01:26 and your answer was as follows okay so when you look at the body of evidence and i mean i'm i don't recall the precise discussion but they looked at lots the basic the outputs from the tests that were carried out and we're looking to specify the criteria that would ensure that products

00:01:39 criteria that would ensure that products that you didn't want to pass didn't pass and those that should have passed did pass

00:01:45 did pass first what was the source of the understanding that you've expressed there

00:01:52 um

00:01:56 so this was basically the understanding that was developed

00:02:01 developed during the course of the work and the discussions that would have been had with the project team and the department so project team sarah caldwell and brian

00:02:13 so project team sarah caldwell and brian martin

00:02:15 martin and and others that were part of the experimental team yes and the department anthony bird and tony edwards antony edwards and potentially um you know others

00:02:26 potentially um you know others that may have been there i can't remember when people like anthony ferguson would have been there right but are you saying yes to the names i've given you sarah colwell yes brian martin yes anthony bird yes yes okay yes but

00:02:38 yes anthony bird yes yes okay yes but maybe some others as well that's what i'm saying um

00:02:41 um was there a list of products that you didn't want to pass as you put it and a list of those that should have passed or at least tonight

00:02:52 or at least tonight notification of those sorry um so i mean the benchmark in terms of the test development would be

00:03:02 would be if you had a system potentially that was completely non-combustible or of limited combustibility then you know you would expect those

00:03:13 then you know you would expect those systems

00:03:14 systems to pass the test you wouldn't want to develop a test and set the criteria so that a system that was completely non-combustible or limited combustibility failed the test

00:03:27 limited combustibility failed the test when you say didn't the products that you didn't want to pass didn't pass but can you give us some examples perhaps of products that you didn't want to pass and those that you did want to pass

00:03:38 and those that you did want to pass um

00:03:40 um well i wouldn't have had a view on that i mean maybe that's clumsily expressed what do you mean

00:03:48 i mean i personally didn't have a preference for any products passing or any products failing but based on the tests that were carried out

00:03:59 tests that were carried out um

00:04:00 um you have to basically develop the criteria on the assumption that some products will pass and some products will fail

00:04:11 will pass and some products will fail you don't set the parameters so that everything passes and everything fails no i'm just trying to understand so the parameters of 600 were set at a point was is this right in the relative

00:04:23 was is this right in the relative likelihood of particular products to pass or fail well as i said i think prior to us breaking i mean the 600 degrees celsius

00:04:35 celsius temperature and the other criteria were basically initially conceived in the earlier fire note so

00:04:44 so all of that discussion would have been had and would have um occurred with

00:04:50 with predecessors yes that's not an answer to my question but so i mean that's the the point i mean i i said this morning i do not know the entire background and basis for these

00:05:02 for these well when you said this morning that you're looking to specify criteria that would ensure that products you didn't want to pass didn't pass in those that should have passed did pass

00:05:13 that should have passed did pass who set those who set that criteria who made that decision um well it would have been made in the precursor to i think i can't remember if it was finite nine or five note three i

00:05:24 it was finite nine or five note three i think it was finite nine when the criteria were first published did you ask yourself when you were examining the vr 135 and the criteria what would happen with a new product

00:05:37 product a new system well a new system or or product you use the word product in your answer

00:05:43 answer a new product comes along how would you know whether you did want to pass did want it to pass or whether it shouldn't pass or you wouldn't with a new product because the criteria would already be set right

00:05:57 so does this overall tell us that the criteria of 600 degrees was set by reference to a predetermined decision about which

00:06:08 about which product or classes of products you didn't want to pass and those which should well there has to be an element of that based around the perceived risk

00:06:18 risk and the safety criteria can you give us an example of a product that you

00:06:23 that you might want to pass no because i say it wasn't i wasn't speaking in in the context of me personally this is in a generic sense let's then go back to br135 and

00:06:35 let's then go back to br135 and mechanical performance and i want to ask you about some consultation responses can we go please to bre 3042039

00:06:48 this is a consultation response

00:06:53 from uracil which is mineral rule the uk mineral wood association dated the 23rd of august 2002 addressed to sarah colwell from jerry miller their general secretary

00:07:05 secretary and addressed also to larry cody as you can see now larry cody was a name familiar to you wasn't he because he'd been on the joint committee of the bsi considering 8414 wasn't he um yes and

00:07:16 considering 8414 wasn't he um yes and yes i know if we go to page two

00:07:19 two we can see that this is the response to the

00:07:22 the uh consultation as the letter on page one says and um if you look on page two you can see under page 17 assessment of performance it says um

00:07:33 it says um under mechanical failure whereas we must be content that failure criteria for fire spread has been transposed from the far note 9 test to the br 135 document without change

00:07:46 change it is disappointing that the opportunity to apply a failure criteria for mechanical failure has been missed it is appreciated that the test primarily examines the spread of fire upwards via the cladding system however there

00:07:57 the cladding system however there remains a danger from falling debris to those escaping from the building or attempting to fight the fire from below now the handwriting i think is is this yours um yes i think it is a handwriting

00:08:08 yours um yes i think it is a handwriting on the right simply says noted yes if we if we go then to bre 3042038 we can see the response to the br 135 consultation

00:08:21 and this one comes

00:08:26 from ian target copy to bill parler at the bsi

00:08:35 and in fact they're on the fire safety development group weren't they um yes apparently yes you could see that target is concerned and

00:08:45 and you've written or somebody's written who are they yeah that's not my right that's not you do you know who that is no i don't might it be brian martin's do you know i don't know you don't what do you know about ian target and bill

00:08:57 do you know about ian target and bill parler or the fire safety development group um i don't know ian target i don't i didn't know ian target i do know or did know bill palla right um

00:09:09 did know bill palla right um from the context of when he worked for rockwall i see now if we get if we go to page two and they see this document this is their response and if you look please at item 11

00:09:20 and if you look please at item 11 paragraph 11. they also make a comment about

00:09:24 about mechanical performance page 17 and they say this

00:09:28 say this we do not accept that no failure criteria have been set for mechanical performance that would suggest partial collapse could only be determined by close in italics scrutiny of the test report whereas it should be recorded up front

00:09:40 whereas it should be recorded up front as a potential hazard to firefighters etc as in bullet one page two we would suggest some form of impact kinetic energy limit would be appropriate and since the velocity equals gravity it

00:09:52 and since the velocity equals gravity it is only the maximum mass of the falling debris which is important either as a single piece or as a progressive collapse in several pieces now next to these commas there's a handwritten note which reads discuss with odpm

00:10:04 with odpm yes is that your handwriting um it looks like it yes right um

00:10:09 um do you know why it was considered that mr target and mr paula's comment regarding mechanical failure

00:10:17 failure criteria needed to be discussed with odpm

00:10:19 odpm um

00:10:21 um i can't recall at the time but sat here now i would suspect it was on the basis

00:10:29 the basis that there were two comments that related to the quantification of mechanical performance and that we needed to um raise that with odpm i think so there was now a weight

00:10:40 odpm i think so there was now a weight of a weight of response which now needed to be taken to government well two two responses yes yeah so yeah two being enough i think yes yeah do you know whether those responses were taken to government and discussed with

00:10:51 taken to government and discussed with them um i'm sure they would have been yes well uh yes but do you remember i don't i don't recall the do you know the dates or anything like that no do you remember whether those discussions that would have taken place as you recall it

00:11:03 would have taken place as you recall it um prevent any response from government or any input into the final version of br135 um no i don't and i mean the the it's very likely that this discussion

00:11:15 it's very likely that this discussion would have taken place with the project team so they would have had the discussion it wouldn't have been me personally that would have had the discussion at all events i think it's apparent from

00:11:26 at all events i think it's apparent from the final version of the document we've looked at

00:11:29 looked at that whatever discussions were had with government uh mechanical performance was not accepted as a correct or not inserted as a criteria no and as i said before lunch i think part of the issue there is

00:11:41 i think part of the issue there is whilst on in on paper it's a very simple thing to describe it's a very very difficult thing to actually measure and

00:11:48 and it's you know in a meaningful and consistent way that leads to a question do you know from your own knowledge whether it was the bre who advised the government

00:11:59 the bre who advised the government not to

00:12:00 not to accede to this invitation and have a mechanical performance criterion in br135 or whether bre recommended it but it was either ignored or or rejected by

00:12:12 it was either ignored or or rejected by the government no i don't know let's then turn to the industry understanding of bsa414 and br135 in your statement let's go to it um at

00:12:23 in your statement let's go to it um at page 10 please paragraph 34 this is bre 405624

00:12:30 you say this at paragraph 34

00:12:51 uh you say um an important point to note is that both bsa414 and br135 relate to testing complete cladding systems they do not relate to testing individual components

00:13:03 relate to testing individual components or materials and cannot be used for that purpose

00:13:06 purpose now um that is an important point to note as you say do you think that that important point was sufficiently understood by industry on publication of br135

00:13:16 br135 in 2003. i think they understood it in terms of the testing that they had to carry out

00:13:28 they had to construct a system they didn't just come and construct an element of a system

00:13:36 do you think it was understood

00:13:40 by industry well i'm sorry there's a prior point i should ask you in those two sentences are you not addressing the point that the results

00:13:51 the results from a bs 8414 test which passed the br 135 criteria could

00:13:58 could could only be used in a real-life system that exactly corresponded to the full-scale system as tested predominantly yes yes now do you think that was sufficiently understood by

00:14:10 that was sufficiently understood by industry from the time of the publication of the second edition our view was that it was and what was that view based on um

00:14:20 um discussions with um

00:14:23 um the industry did you never hear at any time after 2003 of any confusion or misunderstanding about that no not in those terms

00:14:37 did the bre take any particular steps to ensure that industry had a clear understanding that bs8414 was not only a system test

00:14:49 system test um but

00:14:51 um but but a test that couldn't tell you anything about individual components or products but only the performance of the system well insofar as the test sponsors were concerned

00:15:03 test sponsors were concerned i think it was as clear as we could make it that the results of the test and the classification report assuming that they met the criteria were only applicable there was a

00:15:15 were only applicable there was a physical statement in all of those reports that those results and that classification only applied to the system that had been tested there's nothing in the publication there is there in 2003

00:15:27 the publication there is there in 2003 to that effect um i i don't know take it from me there isn't right because it leads to a later question

00:15:34 question do you know about the department i mean having made reference to fire note 9 and then bs8414 within the text of approved document b as we saw

00:15:44 as we saw find out nine in the 2000 edition and then later in 2006 8414

00:15:52 did the department take any steps itself to your knowledge to educate the market on how the test could be used i don't know right did the bre do anything to monitor the

00:16:04 did the bre do anything to monitor the use of this new route to compliance in order to understand itself that it wasn't in turn understood by industry um

00:16:14 um not at the design end we had no

00:16:19 we had no root in to the design and construction sector per se i mean obviously people like sarah colwell and others would give

00:16:30 would give presentations around all of this on you know quite a regular basis in an attempt and you know to to make sure people did understand

00:16:42 to make sure people did understand yes and indeed i was going to ask you that very question phil clark told us day 95 page 44 uh lines uh 13 to 23 that there were presentations given by sarah colwell and

00:16:53 presentations given by sarah colwell and stephen howard and indeed by you dr smith in which it was made clear that this was a system test and could only be applied to in a in the real world to a cladding structure which

00:17:06 real world to a cladding structure which exactly corresponded to the system tested is that right well i wouldn't routinely give presentations on this subject no right but what about stephen howard and sarah colwell they did they did did you ever see those presentations

00:17:18 did did you ever see those presentations or slideshows um which they sent well they would have presented them they they wouldn't just send a document they would go and physically attend a conference seminar workshop or

00:17:29 attend a conference seminar workshop or whatever and present it did you ever see any of their slides um yes

00:17:36 um yes yes can you remember particularly slides that they put out to market participants spelling out the fact that the results of a bsa414 test on a particular system could only be

00:17:47 on a particular system could only be used in real life in a replicate of that i don't recall the content of their presentations but at the time you know what they were presenting

00:17:58 know what they were presenting was was correct as far as i was concerned yes i mean obviously you don't put everything on the slides either you you speak to the slides and then you have a discussion and you take questions

00:18:09 have a discussion and you take questions so there would be opportunity for anybody that misunderstood or wasn't sure to ask and then to have the the points clarified now let's go then to the third edition of br135

00:18:23 in 2013 that's at cel403364

00:18:31 and you can see that the authors are sarah colwell and tony baker this time now

00:18:37 now can we then go please to page 27

00:18:41 page 27 which is appendix a or part of appendix a

00:18:44 a which is the detail criteria for bs8414 part 1 the masonry test which starts two pages before on page 25. here on page 27 you can see in the left hand column

00:18:55 you can see in the left hand column under the three bullet points some text which says the classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification

00:19:06 classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application

00:19:18 end use application if we go to page 31 we can see exactly the same words used in appendix b for cladding systems over structural steel frames you see that i think under the bullet points in the right hand column second paragraph down

00:19:30 right hand column second paragraph down yes yes yes now did you understand that that principle there is articulated in that text was always to apply to a bs8414 test whether under part one or

00:19:42 bs8414 test whether under part one or part two as it was developed from 2005 from the very outset um yes yeah now if we go then back to the second edition

00:19:51 edition in 2003

00:19:53 in 2003 let's have this up at the same time but we can keep page 31 of the third edition which is of course annex b

00:20:02 um but if we go back then to the second edition of bre bre-405554

00:20:09 and go to page 22 have that up at the same time we can compare and contrast because there is no nxp is there in in the 2003 edition because the structural steel frame

00:20:20 steel frame test part two hasn't come in yet that's right that's published in two so but we are i think comparing light with like and if you cast your eye to the right hand part of the screen page 22 this is the 2003 second edition you can see the

00:20:32 the 2003 second edition you can see the three bullet points there under the performance criteria and classification method

00:20:37 method and there's nothing there at in

00:20:40 at in as there is in the 2013. now um

00:20:47 now um do you know first why the text which appeared in the 2013 edition on the left-hand side of your screen under the bullet points wasn't in the 2003 edition on the right-hand side of your screen under the

00:20:58 right-hand side of your screen under the three bullet points no i don't was there any discussion do you remember at the time

00:21:05 time of the publication of the 2003 edition about whether such a text should be put in to make it crystal clear i don't know you don't know i mean you don't know whether there was discussion but you're not party to this that that's correct right

00:21:17 that that's correct right do you know what it was then that prompted its inclusion in the third edition a decade later not definitively no even undefinitively even vaguely do you know all right well

00:21:28 even vaguely do you know all right well what i would suspect is that because this kind of text was then routine in the testing and classification reports it was seen as

00:21:39 classification reports it was seen as prudent to include it in here too had the bre come in the decade between 2003 and 2013 to the realization that industry had failed

00:21:50 the realization that industry had failed to understand that meeting the br 135 criteria on one build up tested under bs8414 could not be used

00:21:59 be used to justify the use of a different buildup i'm not aware of that no i mean this was more about certainly the text that's in the test

00:22:10 certainly the text that's in the test and classification report is about the field of application and the direct field of application and

00:22:17 and this is just i think uh adding consistency to what was already known and was already out there and included yeah yes i but why was it thought um important to add

00:22:30 why was it thought um important to add it to the text of the criteria itself which is of course a document referred to an approved document b as opposed to the individual classification reports

00:22:42 classification reports um

00:22:43 um well i suppose you could argue well why not

00:22:47 not if it's adding clarity and it's you know making things in our view even clearer and consist more consistent then why wouldn't you add it

00:22:58 why wouldn't you add it well indeed so why was there a need for greater clarity in 2013 than in 2003 in this respect i think it was just picking up

00:23:10 up the current state status and the best practice as it was do you remember any discussion about the addition of this text in 2013 no i don't

00:23:21 addition of this text in 2013 no i don't can i just show you what tony baker said in his evidence to the inquiry this is day 100

00:23:27 day 100 page one two two

00:23:38 and he says this at line nine

00:23:46 and he's asked about this and he says yes i think that the predecessor to this document

00:23:51 document which is the 2003 edition so he's talking about that edition it wasn't quite as clear as it could have been so we inserted those clauses just to clarify that situation in fact we

00:24:02 clarify that situation in fact we actually put that wording in the classification report as well i think what you're what you're saying is it tallies with that so the question i have for you is this on what basis had it been decided that

00:24:14 on what basis had it been decided that the second edition of br135 wasn't as he puts it quite clear enough

00:24:22 and needed to be clarified yeah i i don't know um i mean all i can say is you know you get different people that are involved and you know that may have been a

00:24:33 you know that may have been a contribution that tony actually picked up and made as to you know i think we can be clearer about this within the context of field of application different people with different um views

00:24:45 different people with different um views and if if that was felt that it was adding value to the document then

00:24:51 of course you would put it in let me show you what else he says if we go to line 15 there's a question was that also done because of a concern that the industry the construction industry wasn't fully appreciating that

00:25:03 industry wasn't fully appreciating that the classification only applied to the system as tested answer at line 19. yeah that had certainly we'd become aware of that although i personally i think if

00:25:14 that although i personally i think if the industry had thought about it a bit more they would have been aware anyway but clearly the message wasn't getting through previously so we felt that it was prudent to put that sort of wording in the br 135

00:25:27 in the br 135 do you agree with tony baker that as he says clearly the message wasn't getting through previously well i didn't have any first-hand experience of that so

00:25:36 i can't comment you can't you can't agree or disagree is that that's that's great do you know who made the decision to include that wording in the 2013 edition the third edition i would have expected that would have

00:25:48 i would have expected that would have been discussed between tony and sarah and they would have agreed right you don't know yourself no i don't right i want to ask you some questions next about the vre's relationship with government and i want to focus in that

00:26:01 government and i want to focus in that on how it worked in practice um we've seen a bre code of conduct and i'd like to show you that first it's a two bre 3035257

00:26:14 and we can see from the top right hand corner of page one that it's dated the first of september 2014.

00:26:21 2014. it was the same or similar code of conduct in existence before that um there would have been a code of conduct yes um well

00:26:29 um well it was there yes there would have been well was there i mean it's not a would-have question it's a was there a question um yes yeah if we look at the first few pages we can

00:26:41 if we look at the first few pages we can see

00:26:47 um yes page one and the core value is page two

00:26:52 two and if you look at page two our ethical principles you see halfway down the first one in italics right

00:26:59 right is honesty and integrity can you see that yes and then at the bottom of the page two excellence yes second bullet point now those principles of excellence are described as a a duty to ensure it

00:27:12 are described as a a duty to ensure it says that we acquire and use wisely and faithfully the knowledge that is relevant to the skills we need in the service of others we will it goes on

00:27:23 it goes on always act with care and competence and then over the page please so second bullet point but on page three at the top keep our knowledge and skills up to date

00:27:35 knowledge and skills up to date and then second bullet point not knowingly mislead or allow others to be misled you see that yes

00:27:42 yes and then third bullet point present and review evidence theory and interpretation honestly accurately and without bias yes and if we move down to page three further down the page go past the

00:27:55 further down the page go past the section respect for life law and the public good you can see a section headed expertise science and research yes yes and it says this we aspire to the highest standards

00:28:06 this we aspire to the highest standards of leadership and management

00:28:09 in the exploitation of knowledge communication and our people and will remember that we hold a privileged and trusted position in society and thus expect to demonstrate that we are

00:28:20 expect to demonstrate that we are seeking to serve wider society and be sensitive to public concerns demonstrate that we are aware of the issues that science and technology raise for society and listen to the aspirations and concerns of others

00:28:31 aspirations and concerns of others actively promote public awareness and understanding of the impact and benefits of our work and be objective and truthful in any statement made in our professional capacity yes

00:28:42 capacity yes now what is what is the privileged and trusted position in society to which this section refers um i mean i again i didn't write this um

00:28:54 um i mean i again i didn't write this um i would imagine it was the position that bre was seen to hold

00:29:03 hold within

00:29:04 within the sector why did it have such a position historically do you know um i think it was around the fact that

00:29:14 bre was independent and was able to act independently of external influences and any particular one

00:29:25 one sectoral

00:29:26 sectoral interest

00:29:28 interest and in that way even after privatization the

00:29:33 the industry were able to come to bre and felt able to come to bre because

00:29:41 because whether you made

00:29:44 i don't know say timber frame or concrete frame or steel frame for example it didn't matter the work was still carried out in the same manner but the um any

00:29:56 the um any um that there was no motivation to promote one type of approach over another so it was a very sort of independent and um

00:30:09 you know position basically independence is one thing but this says privileged and trusted position in society yeah which sounds like the bre was occupying a unique or at least rare

00:30:21 occupying a unique or at least rare position

00:30:22 position with regard to the public interest in this country can you explain what that was

00:30:27 was i don't understand what it means by privileged position not in 2014 um

00:30:36 um as i say trusted in the sense of that i've already discussed i've already just explained um i mean i wouldn't regard as to be privileged

00:30:47 privileged as in

00:30:48 as in um

00:30:51 as of 2014. really what i'm driving at is d do you agree that both before and after 2014 the bre

00:31:02 both before and after 2014 the bre held either a unique or a very rare position

00:31:05 position in

00:31:07 in in

00:31:08 in the society in the in this country because

00:31:14 because uh it was

00:31:15 uh it was because of the work that it did was of enormous importance in the public interest

00:31:21 interest and not just in its own private interests yes yes and i think that was valued and um and the connection to the bre trust was obviously central to that as well would

00:31:33 obviously central to that as well would it be right that the principles i've just read out to you would apply in all circumstances across all aspects of the bre work

00:31:40 bre work without regard for who the sponsors were whether it was government or whether it was

00:31:44 was commercial sponsors correct and how did the bre address any potential conflicts either commercially funded work or government-funded work between the interests of the paying client on the one hand and the duty to

00:31:56 client on the one hand and the duty to serve the public interest in this country on the other so um the public interest part um obviously depended on the the work that was being undertaken

00:32:07 was being undertaken um in terms of the commercial sort of testing type work which obviously was all undertaken predominantly for commercial customers

00:32:20 predominantly for commercial customers there were further

00:32:23 further rules around impartiality conflicts of interest

00:32:27 interest which were looked at they were declared and were managed through the local

00:32:36 quality system so this is a higher level quality document for the bre group in an overarching way but then obviously there are documents that sit below this that

00:32:48 are documents that sit below this that that provide the other safeguards and the processes and the methodologies that were employed to to control those things was there any training provided for the bre staff

00:33:00 training provided for the bre staff who are particularly those who are client-facing on that particular aspect of the bre's work by which i mean the policies and procedures you've just described relating to conflicts of

00:33:12 described relating to conflicts of interest yes and to tell me a little bit about that training first of all to what level of employee was it delivered it was delivered to the entire um company

00:33:25 the entire um company it wasn't restricted to you know that you can't come or you can't come um it was basically um delivered by the quality and compliance

00:33:36 and compliance team

00:33:38 team at various points in time and through different routes

00:33:44 routes one in particular being every friday morning on in the testing and certification part of the business there was a

00:33:54 was a about a 45 minute to an hour's uh meeting every friday morning without fail

00:34:01 fail and

00:34:02 and part of that meeting would on occasions not every week of course but be taken up with um focused training sessions around these types of things did those focus training sessions

00:34:14 training sessions first when did they begin when are these friday mornings um probably again early as around 2006. right and when they started uh

00:34:28 how regularly were questions about bias and conflict of interest examined

00:34:37 examined um

00:34:40 yeah i don't know without going back and doing an audit trail but

00:34:46 but the compliance and quality manager would would deliver these training sessions and you know people were expected to

00:34:57 expected to either be in attendance or if they weren't in attendance then typically a member of their team would be in attendance and then that would be cascaded

00:35:06 cascaded right

00:35:07 right were there any case studies presented practical problems and what to do if

00:35:15 yes i think there probably were um i mean obviously different quality and compliance managers or directors had different approaches to this and would use their own material so

00:35:26 this and would use their own material so it you know it would be different examples

00:35:30 examples and

00:35:31 and from my

00:35:32 from my experience those sort of sessions continued and were continuing right up to you know the point at which i

00:35:43 you know the point at which i i retired

00:35:45 i retired during the period between 2006 and your retirement was there any uh

00:35:52 uh system by which the

00:35:54 the q and c team and their supervision of the delivery of this training was peer reviewed or independently reviewed and examined um from outside the organization

00:36:07 from outside the organization well i guess ucas would have um would have wanted to see some evidence of that but i can't be more definitive than that have you ever had any concerns at any stage of your career with the bre about

00:36:19 stage of your career with the bre about government influence on any aspect of the particular research or work that you were carrying out what in terms of influencing the results well any government influence

00:36:31 well any government influence over what you should do the direction in which you should be conducting your research the kinds of topics um you should be researching how you should carry out the tests and how you presented the results you tell me

00:36:43 presented the results you tell me so i mean in terms of the research that was actually carried out as after privatization um we were not in influential in terms of defining that

00:36:56 influential in terms of defining that that research so that would be as i said i think in some one of the earlier sessions um

00:37:04 um latterly tendered through government procurement portals and

00:37:10 and you basically respond to the project as tendered so

00:37:17 so now whether that covered the things that we thought ought to be covered all would have liked to have covered or as extensively as covered of course that's always open to debate and comment

00:37:29 always open to debate and comment um but the fact of the matter was that was it and you either bid for it or you didn't did you ever have any concerns more broadly about any issues or problems in terms of the governance of terms of bre's ability

00:37:41 the governance of terms of bre's ability to ensure that both the interests of its government as a client its government client and those of why the society were being served um

00:37:51 um i mean we would always there were always a long list of areas that we felt needed research

00:38:00 and we weren't necessarily um

00:38:05 we didn't keep that confidential from time to time those would be discussed

00:38:11 discussed but at the same time we had no no control over over what was funded and what the priorities were set um in the department so

00:38:22 um in the department so you know that was very much their role and their responsibility and we had to accept that do you remember whether there were any times any periods during which there were difficulties in the relationship

00:38:34 were difficulties in the relationship between the bre and central government um

00:38:39 um yes i think there probably were some times when the relationship was more difficult than others know i can think of several occasions where

00:38:49 where we tendered for the frameworks in particular i think at the second and the third framework

00:38:56 framework and

00:38:57 and you know in you bid into that you declare day rates and so on and financial pressures meant that you know they then approached bre and potentially other framework

00:39:08 bre and potentially other framework contractors and said you know we need you to shave 10 20 off your day rates and you know that's unrealistic

00:39:19 unrealistic yes i think dr crowder gave us some insights into that too let me show you a document which you may be able to help us with bre three is one four seven seven zero on this theme

00:39:31 seven zero on this theme and this is a powerful presentation with the bre stamp uh

00:39:36 uh uh

00:39:37 uh to be delivered i think by julie bregular and you dr smith yes yes and just to be clear julie briegler i think you've told us a bit about her she was the director of first sciences wasn't she when you became managing

00:39:49 wasn't she when you became managing director in 2016 yes yes and prior to that she was the director in the building technology group yeah which dealt with all the structural fiber um sorry not five

00:40:00 structural fiber um sorry not five performance the structural performance no no looking at this document i'm so sorry looking at this document we don't know the date of it but can you help on this um can i see the content of it that way yeah okay let's well let's go down

00:40:12 way yeah okay let's well let's go down to page two we can see a slide about the building regulations and that might help if we have that expanded a bit further please

00:40:21 we have it expanded any further than that yes that might help um uk building regulations and there on the right hand side you've got approved document a which looks like the 2004 edition incorporating amendments that's about

00:40:33 incorporating amendments that's about structure

00:40:35 structure and it's so that does that help with the dating of the document yeah so i mean it would have been around that sort of time i guess and i say this is the area that julie

00:40:44 julie um predominantly worked in it says bre worked on most parts in the past mostly when part of government for some parts of bre difficult relationship with

00:40:55 parts of bre difficult relationship with departments since privatization what parts of the bre had had a difficult relationship with the department in that period

00:41:07 the department in that period so i think this is referring to there were certain areas that

00:41:13 that basically government stopped funding research into not not part a and part b but in some of the other

00:41:22 the other the other parts but if we go down to page four we can see a list of the reasons why the partnership between the bre and government had been successful i think you can see that yes yes and um

00:41:36 you can see that yes yes and um the fourth bullet point or bullet dash i suppose is it says develops ideas and delivers subjective experimental research to support your policy objectives

00:41:47 policy objectives now just encapsulating that idea develops ideas and delivers objective experimental research to support your policy objectives was that right was that your

00:41:57 that your view that part of the role of bre's research work when sponsored by government was to support its policy objectives um well in so far as they only did experimental research where they had

00:42:11 experimental research where they had um

00:42:12 um you know a potential issue around their policy so

00:42:20 i'm thinking specifically about fire safety research what would happen in circumstances where the research or the evidential data wasn't aligned with particular government objectives policy

00:42:31 particular government objectives policy objectives or didn't support a particular government policy um it probably wouldn't have got funded

00:42:42 it wouldn't have got funded so the research wouldn't have happened

00:42:47 where it says develops ideas and delivers objective experimental research to support your policy objectives how is supporting the government's policy objectives consistent with the aspiration of robust independence that

00:42:59 aspiration of robust independence that we see from the ethics code admittedly in 2014. did things change no

00:43:05 no no they didn't and i i think this is written within the context that we would carry out the objective research because even in the

00:43:16 objective research because even in the first framework after privatization the work

00:43:21 the work was very much carried out under contract and the contracts were very clear about the scope of the work that needed to be undertaken so the expectation

00:43:33 so the expectation is was that the work would not be being undertaken if it wasn't in some way being considered within overall government policy but that's not a reason for not

00:43:44 policy but that's not a reason for not doing the research and delivering you know a technical outcomes to the questions that have been asked and posed nobody might be a reason mightn't it for not being as ruthless robust and independent in your

00:43:57 robust and independent in your interpretation of your data when presenting it to government that you might worry that it didn't support their policy objectives no that was never my experience anyway

00:44:08 no that was never my experience anyway let's go to page six please

00:44:13 if we can have that expanded vre strengths first bullet understands and respects the political dimension of the work what does that mean

00:44:26 my reading of that now

00:44:29 now is that

00:44:33 understanding that some of these areas would

00:44:38 would be sensitive and would need to be handled

00:44:43 handled by the department appropriately so that's where you come into the

00:44:51 into the introduction and use of industry stakeholder groups the need to report the work appropriately but it would only be released fully into the

00:45:03 would only be released fully into the public domain once it had been properly reviewed

00:45:07 reviewed it's all of those sorts of aspects that come in

00:45:11 come in and

00:45:12 and form part of understanding the space within which the department is operating it's not about crafting

00:45:21 crafting their policy for them well

00:45:25 well the answer you've just given tends to suggest that you're understanding your reading now as you say of that was matters of process but i'm

00:45:35 but i'm first i'm interested in what you meant by it at the time given that you were one of the authors of this yeah well like a slide yes yes but more importantly when you use the word

00:45:47 when you use the word words respects the political dimension of the work that's not about the process is it that that's about understanding that your work will be used for

00:45:58 that your work will be used for political or policy end isn't it um

00:46:03 um well

00:46:06 my understanding is that the work that we undertook it wasn't ever about and we never got involved in actually directing or setting a policy on behalf

00:46:17 directing or setting a policy on behalf of government that was never bre's role and to my knowledge we we we've never done that

00:46:25 done that it's always been about knowing the space within which government operates and the and the department operates and

00:46:38 the way that they have to do that so i mean it's naturally involves procedural elements within that it's perhaps you know not very well written

00:46:48 written but

00:46:49 but that's that's really what it is i mean bre's never been a policy maker in any way no but it did contribute didn't it to the drafting of approved document b

00:47:00 to the drafting of approved document b indeed

00:47:01 indeed you told us this morning that you had a direct hand in that well only insofar as um so like brian when he he has drafted some text when he was at bre

00:47:12 was at bre then

00:47:15 that is as a draft document for broader discussion and consultation with others so it's never you know bre are not the

00:47:27 you know bre are not the um

00:47:29 um provider of the material in isolation for the government and they never they never have been to my knowledge there's always been the process of discussion within

00:47:41 process of discussion within committees stakeholder groups whatever and then ultimately for changes to the approved documents it goes through brac and it always always goes out to public

00:47:52 and it always always goes out to public consultation always can we go to page seven of this document please a

00:48:00 a bre only organization successfully qualify for a range of disciplines and

00:48:06 and if you

00:48:10 look

00:48:24 if you can turn the page perhaps i think i've got the wrong page there if you turn the page please

00:48:32 uh no that's not it never mind um

00:48:37 did you understand at the time that manufacturers were seeking to exploit ambiguities in approved document b

00:48:45 b um i was not personally aware of that no you were not personally aware was it never brought to your attention that manufacturers uh

00:48:56 uh might be riding on the back or exploiting loopholes or elements of lack of clarity in approved document b for their own gain not not back at that time now of course

00:49:07 not not back at that time now of course with hindsight what we all know now um my view would be different can we go to page six of the document which is what i was trying to find it's underneath understands and respects

00:49:19 it's underneath understands and respects political dimension it's the next thing down conscious of commercial agendas and tactics of manufacturers test houses consultants what did you understand at the time about the tactics of manufacturers

00:49:32 about the tactics of manufacturers um that's probably referring to the earlier discussion that we had i think earlier yesterday where we were aware of the aggressive marketing etcetera that

00:49:44 the aggressive marketing etcetera that was going on in the insulation industry in particular yes and we saw the factions i think referred to is that what you're referring to yes yes

00:49:55 referring to yes yes so what one faction dissembling about the fire safety of the others yes

00:50:05 anything else any tactics of manufacturers to state over generously perhaps the test results of a particular product so as to get it out into the market

00:50:16 get it out into the market were you aware of that at this time um no i don't think i was right no you became aware of that presumably at some point well obviously i'm aware of it now but yeah i can't remember

00:50:27 yeah i can't remember um at what point that would have been right

00:50:29 right i'd like to turn them to a new topic which is the investigation of real fires project from which we've heard some evidence about from previous witnesses particularly dr crowder it's right to

00:50:41 particularly dr crowder it's right to think that that project started in 1988 didn't it um i believe so can we go to bre 401054

00:50:50 this is the investigation of real fires report prepared by the bre for the period april 2003 afraid it's absolutely minuscule can we please expand it april 2003 to march 2004

00:51:02 2004 and the date of the document as you can see on the page there is the second of april 2004 and this version was prepared among by among others brian martin yes we were still at the bre at that stage okay i i don't know i can't see well if

00:51:14 okay i i don't know i can't see well if we go to page two i think we can see that

00:51:17 that um and it was uh prepared for uh anthony bird can you see that actually yes yes i can now yes yes uh and uh it was approved by peter field

00:51:29 uh and uh it was approved by peter field and if we go to page three we can see that one of the objectives of the project under the executive summary uh in the second paragraph there

00:51:40 uh in the second paragraph there was to inform approved document b and let's read it together it says the information gathered is primarily used to inform approved document b for england and wales with occasional input to the regulatory documents in scotland

00:51:52 to the regulatory documents in scotland and northern ireland this information must offer effective solutions to real fire problems which can only be done by examining information from real fires positive feedback is provided where guidance has helped to minimize fire

00:52:03 guidance has helped to minimize fire spread and threat to life now did you yourself first of all did you yourself see this document when it was first produced and sent to government no nevertheless did you understand

00:52:15 nevertheless did you understand that that paragraph there to encapsulate the principal purpose of the real first project uh no no

00:52:22 no no i wouldn't i wasn't involved in the fire investigation project at that time did you have any understanding about its purpose

00:52:30 purpose um

00:52:31 um only very vaguely what was the extent of your involvement in the real fast project um at that time none at that time none did there come to be involvement in the real first project

00:52:44 involvement in the real first project not actually an involvement in it but it the fire investigation team moved into an area that i was managing probably [Music]

00:52:55 [Music] around

00:53:00 2007 2006 2007. i follow let's see how we go with this then because maybe you can help us rather more um can we go please to tom

00:53:11 rather more um can we go please to tom lennon's witness statement this is a bre 30 43688

00:53:16 30 43688 page nine

00:53:17 page nine paragraph 48

00:53:21 he says well i'll show you the question and then his answer the question that um

00:53:28 um can we scroll up please to the a little bit higher up the screen yes question d in the period during which you had any involvement with these reports

00:53:37 who was ultimately responsible for the content of reports produced under the investigation of real fires project contract

00:53:45 contract and then he says debbie smith had ultimate responsibility for the content of the reports but day-to-day responsibility would have been either with martinship or latterly dave crowder

00:53:56 dave crowder is he right that you had ultimate responsibility for the content of the investigation of real fires reports well only in so far as i was the manager of the area but that responsibility was

00:54:07 the area but that responsibility was delegated to to others so

00:54:12 so you know very many of the fire investigation reports i didn't see i didn't review right they were reviewed by others who had the delegated responsibility to do

00:54:24 had the delegated responsibility to do that as manager of the area did you not read these reports not all of them though

00:54:30 though i mean you just you know when you have a responsibility for 120 people which i would have done at that time you cannot read every report that those

00:54:41 cannot read every report that those individuals are preparing can we please look at what chara holland says about this this is bre 3043829

00:54:52 page 10 please paragraph 33 she says on the basis of the above debbie smith had overall responsibility for the contract and therefore the content of the reports

00:55:04 the reports the majority of the reports produced were approved by corinne williams acting on behalf of debbie smith however each report also underwent separate technical checks or peer review prior to being sent to dr williams and

00:55:15 prior to being sent to dr williams and or dr smith for approval

00:55:21 it is what she says there so far as it involves you correct um yes around what i've just said i mean overall

00:55:31 overall i was responsible for the contract as i was for

00:55:35 was for a number of contracts however in order to manage and to deliver etc effectively those responsibilities get delegated to people that are acting on your behalf

00:55:47 people that are acting on your behalf and that you trust professionally and have demonstrated their competence to do so now tom lennon says in his statement we don't need to get back to it but it's a paragraph 47 on page nine

00:55:58 a paragraph 47 on page nine that he and i'm quoting did not undertake any specific training or qualifications unquote in relation to the fire investigations project is that right

00:56:07 right um i don't know corrine williams says the same thing in effect at paragraph 34 of her statement she said she never received any specific training or qualifications because she's not a specialist fire

00:56:18 because she's not a specialist fire investigator and does not usually attend fire scenes again is that right um if that's what corin said then yes i must assume that is correct can you explain why bre staff who had no training if they're right about that or

00:56:30 training if they're right about that or qualifications if they're right about that in relation to fire investigations were allocated to carry out work on this project for the government well i personally had no fire investigation qualification either

00:56:42 qualification either and in order to review and authorize reports as i've i think we've discussed previously you can't be an expert in everything and

00:56:53 you can't be an expert in everything and that is where you rely on the people that are experts to peer review the work of their

00:57:00 of their of their team of the people that um that have undertaken the work is

00:57:05 is reviewing the work of this team um obviously they don't mark their own homework

00:57:12 homework so if david crowder had undertaken some work then martin ship would have reviewed it and then vice versa but but you know you

00:57:23 but but you know you you just cannot be an expert in in absolutely everything no but given that they were deputed to do this government project why didn't they have any training on

00:57:34 why didn't they have any training on the subject on which they were working well they would have at least had briefings and discussed the work if they were going to do a site investigation in the case of tom lennon with martin shipp

00:57:46 the case of tom lennon with martin shipp and or david crowder they wouldn't be deployed i would suggest to just go and do whatever they felt like doing they would be given guidelines and um

00:58:01 would be given guidelines and um as to what they needed to do when they were there what we were looking to to get out of an investigation and they wouldn't i don't think anyway have gone in you know in isolation without somebody such as

00:58:13 isolation without somebody such as martinship or david crowder with them you know the first few times that they went out

00:58:21 went out um

00:58:22 um you know that a lot of the the work that was done um in the fire investigation area in that sense so in the case of tom lennon he would have been brought into the fire

00:58:33 he would have been brought into the fire investigation team for his specific professional and technical expertise so the fire investigation team would have felt they needed his input

00:58:44 have felt they needed his input on a particular structural aspect

00:58:49 aspect of the fire and that's why he would have been called in if they knew that there was a particular structural issue associated with that fire that they were investigating

00:59:01 they were investigating so

00:59:02 so it's about you know making sure that you have the right technical makeup of the team

00:59:08 team um and then the work is um guided and peer reviewed and i mean i don't believe for one minute as i said that somebody like tom lennon would have

00:59:19 that somebody like tom lennon would have just been

00:59:20 just been phoned up and told can you go and investigate this fire without any um briefing knowledge background or without anybody having been there with him in the first few instances

00:59:33 him in the first few instances can we then look please at the [Music]

00:59:36 [Music] bre's investigation of real files framework from 2012 which is a bre 50951

00:59:52 and this is dated the first of october 2012 as you can see prepared by martin shipp

01:00:00 shipp uh if you go please to page two you'll see that it's prepared for brian martin who's now in government has and had been i think for four years by martian ship and approved by you yes yes yes and if

01:00:11 and approved by you yes yes yes and if we go to page four we can see from the second paragraph that the proposal was submitted for a contract to run for three years between november 2012 and march 2015.

01:00:23 between november 2012 and march 2015. yes

01:00:24 yes uh yes

01:00:26 uh yes yes

01:00:29 yes and this proposal was i think accepted to cut a long story short and the contract was let to the bre wasn't it uh yes this was not under a framework this was a um outside of the framework so a

01:00:40 was a um outside of the framework so a proper um it was tended through through one of the government portals yeah right and um sticking with page four if we can you can list you can see the overarching objectives of the project and then

01:00:51 objectives of the project and then there's a long list of build points uh and if you look at the third bullet point

01:00:56 point it includes or is provide dclg with an unbiased robust and independent evidence stroke information to enable the dclg to take a proactive approach in ensuring that policies and

01:01:08 approach in ensuring that policies and guidance remain proportionate to the risk and continue to be fit for purpose but also to support the continued review of general policies in order to identify and or remove

01:01:20 and or remove stroke simplify existing regulations that have the potential to unnecessarily impede growth you see that yes

01:01:32 yes uh

01:01:33 uh and then

01:01:35 and then underneath that two down to monitor the effectiveness of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in adb in achieving fire safety in real buildings in england

01:01:46 fire safety in real buildings in england and in providing protection for firefighters similarly monitor the impact of british european and international standards on building products and systems which have a consequence on real incidents in england

01:01:57 consequence on real incidents in england and then i think 10 bullet point 10 down at the bottom it's penultimate bullet to identify and indicate areas for research or for potential changes to

01:02:08 for research or for potential changes to part b adb arising from specific problems highlighted in fire investigations now just keeping those three bullets i've read to you in mind can we then go please to page 51.

01:02:22 page 51 middle of the page all reports will if we can just have that expanded and if you see that it says all reports will yes you see that yes and then it goes third bullet point not contain any

01:02:35 goes third bullet point not contain any policy recommendations all reports produced by bre for this project will not contain any proposed text for revision to an approved document or supporting guidance with the agreement of or at the request

01:02:46 with the agreement of or at the request of dclg such material will only be provided in a separate policy implications report as and when necessary and following the format of a type 3 report as this will typically need to be published separately

01:02:58 need to be published separately now that was a contractual requirement wasn't it yes you were bound by contract the your reports

01:03:07 reports must not contain any policy recommendations or proposals for revisions to approve document b yes yes yes

01:03:15 yes yes um how how do you reconcile that requirement with the objectives we've just looked at and in particular the state's name of identifying and indicating areas for research or potential changes to part b

01:03:26 research or potential changes to part b or adb

01:03:28 or adb um

01:03:29 um so this is talking about the reports produced by bre i mean alongside all of this there were day-to-day interactions between the project teams

01:03:40 between the project teams and

01:03:42 and the department i mean it was necessary because

01:03:45 because um to attend um an on-site investigation there would have to be a discussion and an agreement with the department um that

01:03:56 um that that that was a fire worthy of um visiting and to be included so um

01:04:02 um [Music]

01:04:04 [Music] it didn't preclude those sorts of issues being flagged up but clearly what they were asking is that you don't put that in in the

01:04:15 that you don't put that in in the reports per se oh i see so did it work like this

01:04:19 like this that you were expected to in fact you were bound to assist government in identifying and indicating areas for research or potential changes to part b

01:04:30 research or potential changes to part b and approve document b but you couldn't do that in a report you had to do it informally or through discussion is that how it worked well i'm not entirely sure because i

01:04:41 well i'm not entirely sure because i mean having said that then of course there were some small research projects that were carried out so clearly there was a discussion around those that led to the research

01:04:52 to the research that was conducted on the back of those and

01:04:56 and reports of that research as such were were written so um

01:05:01 um but i suppose in terms of the actual policy recommendations then they asked those were not recorded within these reports

01:05:13 recorded within these reports we've seen that you approved this contract yes so you essentially had the ultimate signing power didn't you and that's you were the one who signed this off of the bre as we understand it um the proposal yes

01:05:24 the proposal yes this is what this was a proposal and can we take it from that you read it and read it carefully before you signed it yes yeah so so when you did that did you not ask yourself how the bre could

01:05:37 you not ask yourself how the bre could hope to achieve the policy objective identified earlier on in the document identifying areas for research or potential changes to part b or adb whilst at the same time

01:05:48 whilst at the same time being bound not to make any policy recommendations in its report how is that going to work well do you think it was going but how did you think it was going to work long time

01:05:56 time i mean i would have um discussed this with martin shipp and he would have um you know

01:06:03 you know basically um convinced me of the way that this was going to operate but as i say that there were regular dialogue um ongoing between the project team

01:06:14 um ongoing between the project team and the department around this contract once it had been let i mean that's that there had to be so coming back to my my question is this is this how you understood it to work

01:06:25 is this how you understood it to work that your reports couldn't contain any policy recommendations it was forbidden by contract but you would have discussions meetings

01:06:38 outside the reports which you would use to indicate areas for research or potential change to the regulations or the approved document yes i mean that clearly

01:06:49 document yes i mean that clearly happened because there were these small research projects that occurred you know during the course of the of the project

01:06:57 project what did you think the point of that was why not why bind yourself not to put anything in to your reports that have been the subject of discussions and these small projects but this wasn't up for debate this wasn't

01:07:09 for debate this wasn't a tender that you could debate with the department it was something that was done through the procurement portal and was handled by procurement officials

01:07:20 by procurement officials at government level and it was competitive so maybe but my question isn't that my question is what did you think the point was what was the government trying to achieve you must have had a view about

01:07:32 achieve you must have had a view about that

01:07:33 that i don't know what the government were trying to achieve would it be right that any policy implications reports would only be provided

01:07:41 provided or written at the request of the department that's what they were instructing yes and those reports i think were subject to review amendment and ultimate approval by the department as well weren't they yes

01:07:52 now in this section of the proposal we can see um here

01:07:57 here that it refers to policy implications reports needing to be published separately that's um

01:08:03 that's um the third line fourth line of the third bullet point there as you can see yes um were policy implications reports ever released into the public domain so far as you were aware

01:08:15 as you were aware um

01:08:17 um i don't recall they may have been when reviews of the approved document were coming up right as far as you were aware sorry sorry you started to answer again

01:08:29 sorry sorry you started to answer again you don't recall no as far as you were aware did the bre ever write or submit to the department any policy implications reports on the subject of external fire spread

01:08:40 subject of external fire spread not that i'm aware of did the bre ever ask or offer to prepare a policy implications report on any aspect of the building's building regulations or guidance on external fire

01:08:52 regulations or guidance on external fire spread

01:08:53 spread not that i'm aware of

01:08:59 were those reports that were written um intended to be published or were they uh confidential to the department and

01:09:10 uh confidential to the department and only to be published with the consent of the department um well all reports were only published with consent of the department were any reports such reports published do you know

01:09:21 know um

01:09:22 um in the context of the annual reports or well the the the fire investigation reports um [Music]

01:09:31 [Music] i don't know mr chairman we're mid-topic not very mid but again yeah

01:09:40 yeah yes it keeps happening i'm afraid but we are going to turn to a different document at least we should we take a break at that point yes do that i think we'll have the break now before we get stuck into some other documents so we'll stop now we'll um

01:09:53 documents so we'll stop now we'll um come back please at half past three okay and uh again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out thank you very much [Music]

01:10:10 thank you very much for watching

01:26:38 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:26:52 right ready to carry on dr smith yes thank you thank you very much yes mr miller

01:26:58 miller um can i ask you turning back to the real first project please to go to uh martin ship's witness statement at bre

01:27:06 3047594 please this is his second statement to the inquiry page 27 paragraph 134

01:27:19 and i just want to ask you about the second part of that paragraph

01:27:27 i want page 27 paragraph

01:27:40 right

01:27:43 it doesn't look right to me um

01:27:49 no this is the wrong witness statement um what we want i can see why we want bre three zeros four seven five nine four please sorry when that's what just brace

01:28:03 right

01:28:43 yes thank you very much page 27 paragraph 134

01:28:49 and the first part of that paragraph relates to publications of the real fires reports

01:29:00 real fires reports but then he goes on [Music]

01:29:03 [Music] to save three lines up from the bottom secondly the findings from any particular investigation would always be a one-off and it's important to be reasonably assured that the findings are generally applicable or if not then

01:29:14 generally applicable or if not then sufficiently significant in themselves do you agree with that dr smith

01:29:21 um i mean i guess what martin is referring to here is that if a particular fire was an outlier in some way then you

01:29:33 was an outlier in some way then you would not make wholesale changes based on

01:29:38 based on a particular outlier

01:29:44 so you do agree with him well if that's the context that he he means there then um

01:29:49 um i i would be inclined to agree with that yes on what basis would the bre be able to conclude that the findings would always

01:29:56 always be a one-off

01:29:59 um no i don't know why he would say that would always be a one-off i mean obviously they might build up a pattern over a number of fire investigations so they wouldn't always necessarily be a

01:30:11 they wouldn't always necessarily be a one-off

01:30:13 one-off the context for this is is the reasons for not publishing the fire investigation reports and one of the reasons

01:30:19 reasons is that the findings from any particular investigation would always be a one-off do you agree with him would they always be a one-off well they would always be specific to a particular occurrence

01:30:32 particular occurrence but that doesn't mean that there might not be patterns um in terms of what what was seen yes and it wasn't part of the purpose of carrying out these investigations

01:30:43 these investigations to find out whether or not the contributing factors of the various fires were one-offs in other words only negligibly likely to be repeated elsewhere or whether there was some systemic issue or emerging

01:30:55 was some systemic issue or emerging trend that was my understanding right and who would be responsible within the bre for establishing whether or not any findings from these reports were generally applicable as he puts it um

01:31:07 um martin and the fire investigation team so not your team well not you particularly no no and who was responsible for deciding whether any particular findings were sufficiently significant in themselves

01:31:18 sufficiently significant in themselves um

01:31:19 um well i would expect them to report them as they found them so they would if they started to see trends they would report those trends and then ultimately would be for the

01:31:30 and then ultimately would be for the department to decide if it was sufficiently significant

01:31:37 so it was the department can we go to page one three five page what sorry paragraph 135 on page 28.

01:31:45 where mr ship goes on to tell us this he says it is perhaps also worth pointing out that findings from fire investigations by themselves very seldom led

01:31:55 led sorry very seldom lead to propose changes to government guidance i think he means lead but specifically adb even rarer would they lead directly to propose changes to the

01:32:08 lead directly to propose changes to the building regulations bre's findings from fire investigations are nearly always just the start of a more formal process leading to changes in the building regulations or adb or british standards

01:32:19 regulations or adb or british standards or other codes which involves a carefully formulated research project under stakeholder guidance and wide consultation do you agree with that um

01:32:29 um i've not really thought about it within that context before but that probably is true

01:32:34 true because generally if you spot a trend it's

01:32:37 it's more than likely that you would want to then carry out some further research to further understand what the trend was and then how how that might be um

01:32:46 um [Music]

01:32:47 [Music] you know better quantified or whatever the the

01:32:51 the the issue was what was the point of it all if it wasn't going to lead to some changes at least to the approved document if not the building regulation well what he's saying here it didn't directly lead

01:33:02 he's saying here it didn't directly lead to those

01:33:04 to those but it might have been a step on the way to leading to changes so i think one example that martin himself was involved in was car park

01:33:15 himself was involved in was car park fires

01:33:16 fires where

01:33:17 where there was a trend of car park fires and that then led to some research to better quantify

01:33:28 what was going on

01:33:31 finally on this topic i just want to ask you some questions about overall findings can we go to bre 50s 939 and this is i'm using this as an example

01:33:42 and this is i'm using this as an example this is the investigation of real fires report for the period april 2008 to march 2009 that year bre 5-0 is 939.

01:34:04 prepared for brian martin if we can go to the page two please you can see that uh it's

01:34:13 uh it's prepared by martin shipp and david crowder among others and approved on behalf of the bre by dr williams corrine williams dated the 24th of march 2009. and if we go to

01:34:24 go to page

01:34:26 page three

01:34:28 three and i'd like just to scroll through page three

01:34:31 three page four you can see a list long list of files page four

01:34:37 page four lots of

01:34:38 lots of flats houses page five

01:34:44 page six

01:34:49 page seven page eight

01:34:54 if you just scroll forward please page seven there page eight next page nine

01:35:03 there are a huge number of fires aren't there

01:35:06 there yes

01:35:07 yes and

01:35:08 and is it fair to say that i'm thinking this is an example this number of fires is fairly typical of those covered in a 12-month period by reports in this project at this time

01:35:19 project at this time don't know for sure but i would expect this to be the case yeah and if we look at page 14

01:35:31 uh you can see at the top of the screen synopsis of findings the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and and adb in providing the safety of life in the event of fire

01:35:43 safety of life in the event of fire and most of the significant issues that have been identified during this study fall outside the scope of the regulations now just looking at that are you aware that each and every final report for

01:35:54 that each and every final report for each of the bre's investigations of real fires projects for the government between 2001 and 2015

01:36:02 2015 had reached exactly the same conclusion using exactly the same wording no i wasn't you weren't aware of that no do you know who approved that wording or drafted it no i don't did have you ever

01:36:14 drafted it no i don't did have you ever had a chance to consider or opportunity to consider whether that statement was true and accurate on each and every occasion

01:36:23 occasion that this report was given to government no

01:36:27 no is it genuinely the case that in that 14-year period the findings from these investigation of real fires reports covering hundreds and hundreds of fires reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of

01:36:39 reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and approved document b and providing for life safety i don't know it can't possibly be right can it uh

01:36:49 uh given the inadequacy of small-scale testing as a means of controlling the potential hazards of fire at least in relation to external cladding system yeah i i don't know and that one particular inadequacy that

01:37:01 and that one particular inadequacy that you and i have been discussing for some days now and you told us about during the first day of your evidence was directly relevant wasn't it to the effectiveness of the guidance in a proof document b

01:37:12 the unreliability of the bs 476 part six and seven tests small-scale tests and intermediate tests well i guess they would have only picked that up if there had been a fire where

01:37:23 that up if there had been a fire where that had been shown to be inadequate

01:37:28 did you at any time suggest that the bre prepare a separate policy implications report on

01:37:34 report on the adequacy and safety of continuing to keep class naught in diagram 40 in approved document b no not to my recollection why is that

01:37:46 no not to my recollection why is that um

01:37:50 it would not have been um appropriate to do so i mean that was a matter of ongoing discussion with the department and

01:37:59 and an issue that they were well aware of

01:38:05 the conclusion therefore that

01:38:09 that the the findings from this period reaffirm the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and the proof document be in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire

01:38:20 it was not only meaningless i would suggest to you but self-evidently false would you accept that i don't know without looking at this in in great detail i mean i'm assuming that

01:38:32 mean i'm assuming that very competent individuals who were very professional about their work would have considered this within the context of the report they were writing and it wouldn't be right for me to sit

01:38:44 and it wouldn't be right for me to sit here now

01:38:45 here now and um

01:38:47 and um you know make some statement without having had the opportunity to go back and and revisit all and review that how many of these reports do you think you saw during the period 2001 to 2015.

01:38:58 you saw during the period 2001 to 2015. very few but of those that you did did you not notice that the wording i've just read to you under synopsis of findings was identical in every single report you didn't no

01:39:10 you didn't no i say i i saw so few that the pattern would not have been evident

01:39:16 evident well even comparing two would identify a cut and paste from one to the other wouldn't it yes but you don't tend to compare

01:39:25 compare a report that's produced five years ago with one that's produced today and that's come to you for approval that's true but is this the sort of document that ought to be subject to a cut and paste approach

01:39:36 cut and paste approach or a copy and move on approach sorry in the sense of well i mean the impression that i have from the last few

01:39:47 few answers you've given is that um this paragraph has just been repeated because the word processor enables you to

01:39:55 to retain it from the previous document

01:39:58 document it suggests that the mind has not been applied to what is being said because if it had been it might have been expressed in a slightly different way or

01:40:09 yes i mean i i don't know whether it was a cut and paste into every report i'm just basing that on what mr millet has said

01:40:18 has said and i'm surprised that it is repeated in that way

01:40:25 from 2001. i mean does it yes and does it not

01:40:28 it not come as a surprise to you to learn that a close examination by apparently qualified and trained people over hundreds if not thousands of fires in the united kingdom over a period of

01:40:39 in the united kingdom over a period of some 14 years led to no trends at all emerging with the result that the authors could on each and every occasion conclude that

01:40:51 on each and every occasion conclude that the building regulations and approved document b were overall effective in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire um

01:40:59 um did not strike you as surprising well not at the time because as i say i didn't review these reports so i would have had no knowledge around that

01:41:10 i would have expected [Music]

01:41:15 [Music] others to have considered this and i think there were issues that emerged certainly for example you know the car park work which i understood came on the back

01:41:28 work which i understood came on the back of

01:41:30 basically for investigations of car park fires

01:41:37 did to your knowledge was there any process in compiling these documents whereby you as in the bre and the teams do doing

01:41:50 you as in the bre and the teams do doing the work would contact the

01:41:54 the 48 or so fire and rescue services across the country and just ask them for their significant incident reports um i don't know i'm not familiar with

01:42:06 um i don't know i'm not familiar with the exact process that was undergone i do know that when the contracts were originally let there was always a communication with the fire and rescue services across the country to say that this project was

01:42:19 the country to say that this project was ongoing and you know they were looking for

01:42:23 for [Music]

01:42:24 [Music] contacts and so on to flag up particular fires particular issues to sort of basically open the lines of communication

01:42:36 communication and that went to i think all of the chief fire officers throughout the united kingdom from your knowledge as the manager in charge of this group from 2007 was there an open line of communication between the

01:42:49 open line of communication between the bre and the chief fire officers at each of the frs areas whereby the frs in each case could send you their significant incident report so that you

01:43:00 significant incident report so that you knew

01:43:01 knew what what fires the frs at least considered to be significant and which indicated emerging trends i i mean i can't speak from first-hand experience but i'm sure

01:43:13 experience but i'm sure or i

01:43:15 or i would

01:43:15 would believe that if such an incident was flagged with us from a fire and rescue service then it would have been given due care and consideration yes but that's not my

01:43:27 consideration yes but that's not my question my question was was there a system

01:43:30 system was there a conduit whereby fire and rescue services each year would be required to send you their significance there was no requirement why is that um

01:43:40 um we relied on the cooperation the voluntary cooperation of the fire and rescue services we had no authority over them apart from reaching out to them and

01:43:52 them apart from reaching out to them and you know asking for their cooperation basically and if they chose to not engage

01:43:58 engage then there would be very little that that we could do about that

01:44:05 did they never come a time in that 14-year period 2001 to 2015 when you yourself thought of asking

01:44:16 asking the fire safety department for example at the london fire brigade the question have you come across anything recently which would tend to question the overall effectiveness

01:44:28 question the overall effectiveness of the building regulations or approve document b in providing for life safety i personally did not but there were ongoing discussions with london fire brigade but did anybody i think to take

01:44:40 brigade but did anybody i think to take all these reports all 14 of them annually and put them together look at the identically repeated statement that we see there under synopsis and findings and just test it with say the lfb or

01:44:54 and just test it with say the lfb or manchester frame rescue or another area where there are where there's significant housing density just ask the question i don't know let's turn to a different topic 2005

01:45:05 let's turn to a different topic 2005 and the consultation for the 2006 to 7 changes to adb

01:45:12 can we start with bre

01:45:16 bre bre401953 please now this is a document entitled proposal support for the revision of the approved document b and procedural guide prepared for odpm dated 23rd march 2004

01:45:31 prepared for odpm dated 23rd march 2004 and if we look please at page two that we can see that it was prepared by brian martin

01:45:36 martin and signed off by the before the bre by peter field who at that stage was the fire safety framework service manager um was he on partial secondment uh was brian martin on partial

01:45:47 uh was brian martin on partial secondment to the dclg during this period um i think he was i mean to be clear he says in his statement that he was embedded within the department for two to three days a week in support of its permanent

01:45:59 days a week in support of its permanent technical officers tony edwards and anthony bird that's what he says in his statement of paragraph six can you confirm that i i have no reason to disagree with that right so

01:46:10 right so he was as it were on both sides of the exercise was he he was preparing this document for the bre but at the same time sitting in the department for whom it was prepared um i think there were probably different

01:46:21 um i think there were probably different aspects to the work that was going on you were the deputy fire safety framework manager at the time weren't you

01:46:29 you um

01:46:30 um this is 2000 and well this is march 2004 um so i was um 2004. this was the second framework so yes i was basically yeah peter's

01:46:42 so yes i was basically yeah peter's deputy

01:46:44 deputy for when he wasn't there and um he wasn't contactable yeah yes i mean certainly that is peter field's own recollection of paragraph 4 of his statement and by the end of this project i think you had taken over from peter

01:46:55 i think you had taken over from peter field and you had become the fire safety framework manager i took over um when peter field retired which i think was pretty close to the end of this particular framework

01:47:06 particular framework and the new framework i think began in 2008 so that's really when um

01:47:13 um when i took on the uh framework safety fire safety sorry framework can you tell us more precisely when you took over from peter field and became the fire safety framework manager um

01:47:24 safety framework manager um it would have been when peter retired yes can you give us a date i can't off the top of my head no can you give us a year um it was probably 2007. right now in march 2007 excuse me

01:47:37 now in march 2007 excuse me you approved the closing report for this project

01:47:39 project okay and do you remember doing that not

01:47:43 not um as i'm sat here now no well let me just put a document yeah to you then bre three zeros one zero nine nine nine

01:47:56 um there is the closing report prepared for anthony bird and if you go please to page two you can see your name there approving the document yes yes 30th of march 2007.

01:48:09 yes yes 30th of march 2007. and if we go well we may go into it but we will in a second but did you have any practical involvement in the in any aspect of this contract

01:48:18 contract um not to my recollection no right if we go to page eight we can see the objectives of the work are set out on that page there

01:48:32 page eight that's a list of deliverables

01:48:43 um and

01:48:46 uh in fact i'm i'm i think i'm showing you

01:48:49 you the closing report which is not what i need to show you i need to show you the proposal forgive me br e401953

01:48:59 yes and if we go to page eight there which we now have under project objectives uh you can see what the objectives are and specifically the first is to conduct a forward look exercise yes

01:49:12 a forward look exercise yes and the second is to collate all the responses into a report yes that's under task one and there's task two

01:49:19 task two uh which um is and

01:49:22 and has two parts to it an analysis of the relevant fire safety aspects of local acts in england and wales and then recommendations at the bottom

01:49:31 bottom um on possible provisions that may need to be to be placed with a within a revised approved document be in those that could be repealed with a minimal impact

01:49:39 impact and if we look at page nine uh you can see that the task

01:49:47 the task there

01:49:48 there involved

01:49:50 involved uh if you look at task three

01:49:55 three yeah you can see uh that that involved among other things do you see it says the provisional of technical support to officials in the drafting issue for consultation of responses and further drafting

01:50:08 responses and further drafting of the new adb including associated diagrams other documents that require drafting a draft regulatory impact assessment riaa to accompany the adb consultation and a full ria together with a small

01:50:21 and a full ria together with a small business

01:50:22 business litmus test to accompany the revised a.d in addition the support would include the provision of technical secretariat to cover all the various brac part b working party meetings including the preparation of the technical papers and

01:50:33 preparation of the technical papers and minutes of meetings required to facilitate the effective revision of adb and if we go to page 21 we can see that there's a table on that page

01:50:43 and looking at that you can see that b martin is the team member with responsibility as project manager and sarah colwell at line eight is the technical expert yes yes yes and uh down to page 23 look at

01:50:57 yes yes and uh down to page 23 look at the resource table for year two task three you see that yes task 3a 3c task 3a is the task we've just looked at we see brian martin and

01:51:08 just looked at we see brian martin and sarah colwill listed there yes yes um did you still not have direct oversight of sarah colwell's work at this time sarah caldwell says you did um i was

01:51:21 um i was i was more than likely her project her line manager sorry not project manager line manager yes yes now quite a a number of bre employees were involved in this project

01:51:33 were involved in this project were you kept up to speed with what was happening on it and in particular in relation to potential changes to adb um not on a

01:51:42 not on a you know regular basis no but on a regular basis presumably um i wasn't involved in the work whilst it was ongoing i would have only looked at it

01:51:53 it when it came to me at the end of the project i mean peter field was very much overseeing this work

01:52:01 this work now we'll come back to the edge okay sorry we'll come back to adb in a moment but i want to ask you about the edge fire in manchester on the 6th of january 2005.

01:52:10 2005. do you remember that far do you know anything about that fire no i don't um let me just tell you about it it was a fire

01:52:17 fire uh on the external face of a partially occupied block of flats known as the edge in salford in manchester on the 6th of january 2005. now that therefore was during the period of the

01:52:29 therefore was during the period of the operation of this of the contract to support the department in relation to the revisions to adb wasn't it as a matter of chronology um it sounds like it yes

01:52:40 when was the first time you became aware of that fire um i wasn't specifically aware of it at all

01:52:48 at all not at all no i mean i've just mentioned it but yes of course yes but is that is now the first time you've heard of it um i think i've heard of it since the grenfell tower

01:52:59 heard of it since the grenfell tower fire okay it's been mentioned now the inquiry has heard evidence that an investigation into that fire was carried out by the fire investigation team

01:53:08 team for the investigation of real fires under that contract between the bre and government did you know that at the time um no i don't recall that the fire was in fact the subject of an

01:53:19 the fire was in fact the subject of an investigation report written by sam greenwood and sarah colwell dated 18th of january 2005. let me show that to you to see if it's familiar bre 30 is 35368.

01:53:38 and there it is files of special interest

01:53:41 interest there's the date of the fire at the top 6 january 2005 and there's the address and there are the fire investigators sam greenwood and sarah colwell report completed 18th january 2005.

01:53:52 report completed 18th january 2005. and then there's some details of the fire at the bottom of this of the page there

01:53:56 there is that a familiar document to you no and who is sam greenwood sam greenwood i think worked for

01:54:07 i think worked for brian directly i think he was recruited and worked directly for brian and what was his role um

01:54:14 um i don't know what his full job description was but i mean he was there to support brian in

01:54:20 brian in all of the activities that he was undertaking right now there's a second report which was a client report dated the 31st of march 2005 and that is at clg 3019455.

01:54:32 let's look at that let's see if that's familiar to you

01:54:41 prepared for anthony bird 31st march 2005

01:54:45 2005 looking at the second page there age two

01:54:50 age two by martin shipp carol rook rock and sam greenwood approved by peter field

01:54:58 field is that a document you've seen before do you think um i don't recall it no right let's look at page 76 and we'll see the report on the edge fire and i can give you a quick summary of it the reason i'm doing this notwithstanding your lack of familiarity

01:55:10 notwithstanding your lack of familiarity with this document is that this provides background to some questions i've got for you

01:55:15 for you on the amendments but um you can see the details there but i'm going to summarize the building was a 19 story building clad in sandwich panels made of an expanded polystyrene core with

01:55:26 an expanded polystyrene core with aluminium skins the fire started in the balcony area of the second floor the sandwich panels then delaminated and exposed the polystyrene core to the fire and after that the spread of the fibers

01:55:38 and after that the spread of the fibers quotes extremely fast as it says this fifth line up from the bottom of that long paragraph spreading up 17 floors in less than 10 minutes and also unusual downward fire spread had occurred now i've summarized

01:55:51 had occurred now i've summarized that

01:55:53 that at the end of paragraph at the end of the paragraph on that same page it says it was not possible to establish if the cladding system had been installed complete with cavity barriers at floor level in accordance with

01:56:05 at floor level in accordance with approved document b but fire and rescue service sources believe that this was the case

01:56:09 the case however the fact that the fire burned so readily through the core of this type of sandwich panel means that even if the construction complied with current guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be restricted as such the fire

01:56:21 would not be restricted as such the fire and rescue services have grave concerns that when the building becomes fully occupied a fire of this nature could quickly become out of control and put the lives of occupants at risk

01:56:32 now were you aware even generally of the fire and rescue services concerns grave concerns at this time no i was not

01:56:44 [Applause]

01:56:53 then let's send look at peter field's quarterly report to the department from april 2006

01:57:01 2006 this is a bre-301078

01:57:10 one double zero seven eight

01:57:18 this is the the report prepared on the 20th of april 2006 for the adpm and if we go to page two we can see that it was written by peter field

01:57:30 peter field for sylvia burns and approved by peter field curiously and uh if you go please to page five and the second bullet under the heading the edge development you can see that there

01:57:42 edge development you can see that there in the middle of the page um starting at the second paragraph of that section it says the sandwich panels were fixed to the building leaving a cavity barrier between the panels and the structural walls it was

01:57:55 panels and the structural walls it was evident that there was no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels

01:57:58 panels and us as such fire spread through the panels themselves was not restricted current guidance in adb warns against the use of combustible materials but more specific guidance refers only to

01:58:09 more specific guidance refers only to insulation underlined used in ventilated cavities in the case of this building however the polystyrene core was not primarily used for its insulating properties but as a low-cost filler to

01:58:21 properties but as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding it is conceivable that the designers may have taken the view that this restriction was not applicable it has been suggested to adpm

01:58:32 applicable it has been suggested to adpm that they revisit the current guidance and consider if less prescriptive guidance could be given to avoid any confusion in the future now just focusing on that final sentence

01:58:43 now just focusing on that final sentence there were you yourself aware at the time that that suggestion had been made to the department by the bre not that i can recall no were you completely unaware

01:58:54 were you completely unaware as far as i can recall i was not aware of this

01:58:59 of this and just leaving aside the issue of fire barriers within the core of a panel and how that might work do you agree looking at it now that this paragraph identifies a fundamental problem with the guidance on external fire spread in

01:59:11 the guidance on external fire spread in what was then the 2002 edition of approved document b um it's flagging up that there could be a potential issue yes yes and that that issue disagree with me on this there was that

01:59:22 disagree with me on this there was that the restriction on the combustibility of insulation under what was i think paragraph 13.7 applied only to insulation and didn't apply to all significant elements of the

01:59:33 apply to all significant elements of the external wall build up over 18 meters including external facings that's my reading of that yes yeah

01:59:42 and i think is this right you were well aware i think that at least by 2005 that bs 476 tests for class naught were particularly unsuitable as you've

01:59:53 were particularly unsuitable as you've told us as a means of assessing or controlling fire hazard in the case of composite products um yes

02:00:01 um yes yes yeah

02:00:02 yes yeah and and in part that's because although the surface of a composite product might be class naught thus allowing the product as a whole to be class naught the core could be highly combustible yes correct

02:00:15 yes correct do you well perhaps you don't but but what does less giving less prescriptive guidance

02:00:23 mean in this context how would less prescriptive guidance work yeah i i don't know right now we don't need to go to it but anthony bird in his witness statement tells us in his paragraph 13 on page 31

02:00:37 tells us in his paragraph 13 on page 31 on page 13 that it was in response to this advice this report which he says was given to him by brian martin

02:00:44 martin that the amendments were made to what became 12.7 in the 2006 7 edition of approved document b and

02:00:55 and what

02:00:57 what gave rise to the words or the introduction of the words filler material

02:01:02 material etc

02:01:03 etc within 12.7 were you aware of that at the time no i wasn't were you at all involved in the discussions or the advice given to anthony bird

02:01:14 anthony bird by brian martin no i wasn't as far as you're aware was any specific consideration given at this time to use this opportunity to raise concerns within the department about the

02:01:25 within the department about the continued

02:01:26 continued reliance on class naught and therefore small-scale testing within diagram 40. not that i can recall no let's then turn to the text

02:01:38 let's then turn to the text of

02:01:39 of the 2006 edition of approved document b we find that at clg1607

02:01:46 there's the first page 2006 edition and if we go to page 96 please we can see paragraph 12.7 and let's look at the title first and then we'll look at the text

02:01:58 then we'll look at the text the title says insulation materials stroke products and the text says this in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including

02:02:11 product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility c appendix a this restriction does not apply to

02:02:22 this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now can we take it that you are familiar with that

02:02:32 with that paragraph

02:02:34 paragraph yes i am can we take it that you were familiar with it upon its entry into uh the 2006 edition um i would have been at some point after the publication of the 2006 edition

02:02:46 the 2006 edition when do you think you first

02:02:49 you first read that paragraph which contained the words

02:02:53 words filler material dot dot dot etc yeah i i don't recall i don't recall when that would have been can we agree that the previous wording

02:03:05 can we agree that the previous wording the wording of the equivalent provision in the approved documents proof document b that this replaced applied to uh

02:03:16 applied to uh insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction that's my understanding yes

02:03:26 and you say you first became aware of the inclusion of these amendments to paragraph 12.7 sometime after 2007 is that right yes when you

02:03:37 when you um

02:03:40 so were you aware of i mean presumably you weren't aware of this change before it was introduced no i wasn't

02:03:50 when you did become aware of it how did you become aware of it um

02:03:55 um i mean i do recall discussion around um

02:04:00 um what this actually meant

02:04:04 and

02:04:06 it was explained and i took that at face value that the filler material covered by this was intended to be

02:04:17 intended to be the material that is placed between um you know within the sandwich panels or whatever that is not there for the purpose of insulation just let's just break that answer up if

02:04:28 just let's just break that answer up if we can please you say you do recall discussion around what this actually meant first of all when was that discussion yeah i don't that's what i don't recall is exactly it would have been around the time that i i first became aware of this

02:04:41 time that i i first became aware of this right and i don't remember when that was who did you have that discussion with it would have been predominantly sarah and who else um

02:04:51 um depending on when it was it might have involved brian but more likely sarah and you say it was explained who who gave you the explanation that you've

02:05:02 gave you the explanation that you've just referred to well it would have been sarah

02:05:07 sarah do you recall a conversation in which sarah colwell told you that the filler material covered by this was intended to be

02:05:14 the core of an external panel yes i do you do do you recall any wider conversation about the general import the the whole purpose of 12.7

02:05:27 import the the whole purpose of 12.7 um

02:05:28 um [Music]

02:05:30 [Music] no i'm not sure i understand really what you're asking was the conversation specifically directed to the core of an external panel rain screen panel or

02:05:39 or did she tell you that in fact the purpose of adding the word filler there was to

02:05:46 provide that all products or materials in the external wall

02:05:52 wall make up including external facings were to be materials of limited combustibility um no this was within the context i think of filler right how did the how did the context arise what gave rise to

02:06:04 did the context arise what gave rise to the discussion um

02:06:07 um clarification on on what the intended uh meaning of this was did you ask did you seek clarification from her or did she come to you and give it to you i don't recall which way around that would

02:06:18 don't recall which way around that would have been right can you remember what the trigger for that was

02:06:22 that was i'm i don't no i don't remember was it you first reading it and asking what does that mean and then going to her or is it a client no it would it wouldn't have been a

02:06:33 no it would it wouldn't have been a client

02:06:34 client i wasn't involved in client discussions

02:06:41 was there any discussion that you were involved in about what impact that interpretation of the word filler within 12.7

02:06:54 the word filler within 12.7 had on the provisions of paragraph 12.6 and diagram 40.

02:07:03 um

02:07:05 again i'm not quite sure i fully understand what you're asking well when discussing 12.7 and the purpose of the inclusion of the words

02:07:16 purpose of the inclusion of the words filler material etc was there also a discussion about what knock-on effect that might have if any on

02:07:23 any on diagram 40 which remained unamended um

02:07:27 um i don't recall one specifically now sarah colwell tells us in her witness statement let's show it to you bre 3047571

02:07:41 let's show it to you bre 3047571 page 56 paragraph 359

02:08:05 thank you um

02:08:08 um and i think i need the whole of the page please if we can have the heard of the page because there is there is a series of questions and it's question g and this is addressed to sarah colbert

02:08:19 and this is addressed to sarah colbert did you ever discuss any of the matters contained within paragraph 12.7 or the inclusion of that paragraph in approved document b with any of the following and then your name is a d at the foot of the page she says this as

02:08:31 the foot of the page she says this as part of general conversation within the fire safety group of bre i would have had conversa i would have had discussions with debbie smith and other colleagues related to the proposed

02:08:42 colleagues related to the proposed changes to approve document b however i have no recollections of specific discussions do you recall any discussions with her about the proposed changes in other words there's pre-publication yeah no i

02:08:55 words there's pre-publication yeah no i don't you don't can you say she's wrong about that or do you just not recall one way or the other i don't recall any um i say i i don't recall particularly looking at

02:09:07 i don't recall particularly looking at that clause until after the document was published

02:09:11 published and i

02:09:15 i don't think we would have seen the pre-consultation document

02:09:21 document when you did first read 12.7

02:09:26 did you have any understanding of what it meant or what it was meant to mean

02:09:32 or did you simply rely on sarah colwell to tell you do you have your own independent thoughts about it

02:09:41 i mean it would depend how it cropped up i really don't recall [Music]

02:09:47 [Music] i don't recall whether i asked because i wasn't clear or whether it was just as sarah's suggesting you know maybe volunteered information in a in a broader

02:09:58 broader in a broader context but i i don't um i don't recall did what was your own view

02:10:07 view about the scope and meaning of the new paragraph or the new words in the paragraph

02:10:13 paragraph um in terms of the filler specifically yes um well as i've already said i think i mean my understanding was and the way it was um

02:10:23 it was um conveyed was that it was the material that basically sat between like two sandwich panels or two metal outer layers so actually it would

02:10:35 metal outer layers so actually it would also capture um

02:10:38 um what we now know as acm let me see if i can get this slightly differently was your understanding of the meaning and purpose of the words filler material etc derived from the language

02:10:51 material etc derived from the language alone

02:10:52 alone of

02:10:53 of paragraph 12.7 and its heading set in its context or was it derived from what sarah colwell told you um it was derived from the discussions that took place so not

02:11:05 the discussions that took place so not your exercise of reading and understanding but what you were told yes i believe so yes i see did you once you were told by sarah

02:11:16 did you once you were told by sarah colwell what was it was intended to mean or do did you consider that the wording of 12.7 was clear and unambiguous um

02:11:26 i don't think i would have had a particular view on that insofar as the whole

02:11:37 wording and the document and so on would be discussed by the working party and then the full brac and you would expect that others

02:11:48 and you would expect that others who have a much greater knowledge of construction products in general in terms of like cladding and so on would know what the terminology and the correct terminology

02:12:01 terminology and the correct terminology that would be understood out there in the wider world was and would be appropriate to use and

02:12:09 you know that's where i would have imagined that that terminology would have come from well in that answer you've used expressions like i don't think i would have and you would have imagined

02:12:21 you would have imagined but what i would like to understand is did you have an understanding of your own about what filler meant um no i wouldn't have done did you and did you think at the time that it was clear what it meant

02:12:34 clear what it meant um

02:12:36 only when it was explained only when it was explained did you think at the time that it was that there was a particular industry understanding of the word filler said although you weren't an

02:12:48 filler said although you weren't an expert in cladding or matters of that nature it was crystal clear to the participants in the cladding industry what it meant well i wouldn't have had a direct

02:12:56 direct view of that at the time but i say the background to that would have been that you know that there would have been consultation that would have gone on around this and

02:13:07 around this and you know people will would have defined it in a means that was clear and crystal even if it wasn't to me as a non-expert in in the cladding sector

02:13:20 do you know why the word filler or the phrase filler material etc

02:13:25 etc was not defined no i don't what was what was what did etc mean i don't know did you ask um i don't recall asking no does it not strike you as a peculiarly vague little

02:13:37 strike you as a peculiarly vague little abbreviation or latinism um no not particularly

02:13:46 what did you think that planning subcontractors and picking up approved document b as no doubt they routinely did would take from the word etc

02:13:58 etc i don't think i would have given it that degree of forensic examination

02:14:05 so i don't have any recollection of thinking about that at the time did you ask sarah colwell what does etc mean um i i have no recollection of that do you ever have a discussion with brian

02:14:16 you ever have a discussion with brian martin about this phrase or the constituent elements of this phrase not that i can recollect no right

02:14:25 right [Applause]

02:14:31 were you aware that in march 2016 many years later 10 years later to be precise brian martin told members of the cwct fire group that he accepted that

02:14:43 cwct fire group that he accepted that this wording was quotes poorly written quotes open to interpretation and quotes misleading no i wouldn't have known that at the time

02:14:54 and you wouldn't ever have thought that of this provision yourself um

02:15:00 um i was not working with that on a on a daily basis so i would have had little reason to revisit it do you know why this term appeared under

02:15:11 do you know why this term appeared under the heading insulation materials stroke products if it was intended to apply to materials

02:15:16 materials which were not insulation no i don't did you ever ask that question i don't recall why not

02:15:25 why not what why don't i recall no not why don't you recall can you can you give us a reason why you never asked well i don't recall if i asked or not i see

02:15:45 after the publication of the 2006 edition of the approved document did you become aware at any point before the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 of any question or debate within any

02:15:58 of any question or debate within any part of industry about the meaning of the word filler material etc

02:16:03 etc or the scope of that amendment to paragraph 12.7 of approved document b um

02:16:09 um not that i can recall

02:16:13 when was the first time well

02:16:17 well did you ever become aware of that the existence of such a debate before the grenfell tower fire um

02:16:25 um i say not that i can recall obviously

02:16:29 obviously after the grenfell tower fire then that's when all of these discussions came to the fore and um became

02:16:37 became apparent in in in the media and various other fora at the time it was

02:16:44 it was my absolute view that the wording in not just paragraph 12.7 but in 12.5 to 12.9 um was

02:16:57 um was um

02:16:58 um was clear and i had no reason to to doubt that because you know nobody had uh raised

02:17:05 uh raised particular issues with me personally to say that it wasn't clear clear in saying what dr smith in terms of the uh provisions that it

02:17:16 of the uh provisions that it it laid out what did it clearly say you say it was clear yeah it said clearly what clearly saying what that basically the external wool makeup should be made of components that are of limited

02:17:28 components that are of limited combustibility or you need to comply with the requirements laid out in um 12.5 to

02:17:35 12.5 to 12.

02:17:37 12. 9 i think it is or 12

02:17:39 or 12 yeah i can't remember the claws with great respect that you just said doesn't work at all i'm sorry that doesn't work because insulation had to be materials of limiting combustibility unless it was going to go through an 8414 test yes yes

02:17:52 going to go through an 8414 test yes yes so what you've just said just isn't right

02:17:55 right so let's just let's just take it in stages clear in what respect what was twelve point nine seven or twelve point six to twelve point nine clearly telling

02:18:06 clearly telling the building owner yeah so if you didn't have materials within the system that were all of limited combustibility then you followed the guidance as in 12.6

02:18:19 to 12.9 i think it is isn't it well that's that's not right is it twelve point six says you have to is the

02:18:30 twelve point six says you have to is the linear route for example we call it up and then i continue yes specifically rather than trying to do this from memory i'm sorry it may be my fault for assuming too much but let's look at it

02:18:42 assuming too much but let's look at it which is at clg-1607

02:18:58 clg1607

02:19:02 and let's go to page 95.

02:19:06 let's see if we can work this through together

02:19:10 clg one six zero seven

02:19:15 now the heading is construction of external walls let's pick it up on the right hand side in the column towards the bottom of the page external wall construction 12.5

02:19:27 12.5 the external envelope of a building yes should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials in the cladding and extensive cavities may

02:19:38 cladding and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings external walls should either meet the guidance given in 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in

02:19:50 meet the performance criteria given in the in bre 135 for shorthand yes the idea that we need the rest and then you have 12.6 to 12.9 12.6 external surfaces the external surfaces of wool

02:20:03 surfaces the external surfaces of wool should meet turn the page please the provisions in diagram 40 let's quickly turn to diagram 40 which is on page 97

02:20:15 yes and there it is class naught or b

02:20:19 or b three s three d two or better and we've seen that already yes yes um back a page please to 96 so that's what you have to do for external walls

02:20:30 external walls insulation materials products 12.7 in a building with a story 80 meters or more above ground level in the insulation product full of material not including gasket sealants and similar etc used in the external wool

02:20:42 etc used in the external wool construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a a

02:20:49 12 point there's the restriction exception for masonry cavity walls cavity barriers 12.8 and something in 12.9 which we really don't need to get into at all yeah uh

02:21:02 need to get into at all yeah uh now

02:21:03 now you can see how the scheme here can't chew

02:21:05 chew it's linear roots under 12.6 in diagram 40 for the external walls 12.7 is insulation uh including filler whatever that means or alternatively you

02:21:16 whatever that means or alternatively you can go the 8414br135 route yes yes right uh and the only reference there to the requirement for for materials and limited combustibility is in 12.7 isn't it yes not in 12.6 yes yes

02:21:30 it yes not in 12.6 yes yes unless the base is to be fair to you unless the basis for your class naught achievement for your external panel happens to be that it's composed throughout the material limiting combustibility

02:21:42 material limiting combustibility yes because that's what paragraph 13 of appendix a says yes yes yes now what was what is the clear message from everything i've just shown you what do you think that was clearly telling the

02:21:54 you think that was clearly telling the reader

02:21:58 it was providing them with two options two routes for demonstrating compliance and leaving aside the alternative route eight four one four and one three five

02:22:11 eight four one four and one three five the first route is what which i think many people have called the linear route yes

02:22:17 yes yeah i don't know you've never heard that expression no

02:22:23 no uh right um but if you're not following the 8414 route then 12.6 in diagram 40 told you what you had to do for the external war yes yes and 12.7 told you what you

02:22:36 war yes yes and 12.7 told you what you had to do for insulation materials straight products as

02:22:42 as required in the text putting those two together what was your understanding about what those two paragraphs were clearly telling the reader

02:22:53 telling the reader dr smith well based on the um my understanding of the term filler material

02:23:01 material i mean and this is where obviously the confusion arises and has arisen and that's now self-evident since the grenfell tower fire that

02:23:11 that that too within a sandwich panel should be of limited combustibility but clearly that is not the way that people had interpreted that guidance

02:23:26 now if that's the case if that is how you understood it you say it was clear to you can you explain why you didn't give any thought to what that would mean

02:23:37 thought to what that would mean for diagram 40 12.6 in diagram 40. how would the two sit together

02:23:44 well diagram 40 is about the external surface so you could still have a sandwich panel

02:23:54 for example as a rain screen element that had a limited combustibility filler in it but had a combustible coating

02:24:04 coating such as we we spoke earlier about um plastisol

02:24:09 plastisol in the context of these steel sheets

02:24:14 sheets and the radar project

02:24:18 how would class naught work then as the was one of the two options as we've seen in diagram 40

02:24:27 did it was that that was restriction restricting the extent of

02:24:34 extent of to which the surface coating that you would put onto say a sandwich panel can spread

02:24:40 spread the fire can spread the flames so class naught is putting a constraint on that as opposed to saying well it's it can be class one or class

02:24:52 well it's it can be class one or class three in which case you know you could permit a greater extent excuse me of fire spread blame spread on these uh on the surface

02:25:03 these uh on the surface i see

02:25:04 i see and that's how you at the time did you actually at the time reconcile you're reading a 12.7 and

02:25:12 and the reference to class naught in diagram 40 in that way that was my understanding and who gave you that understanding um

02:25:24 in terms of diagram 40 or overall i mean as i said the the issue of filler was discussed with colleagues but that was my understanding in

02:25:36 but that was my understanding in relation to diagram 40. so was your understanding that

02:25:42 that the

02:25:43 the surface

02:25:45 surface had to be of limited combustibility or

02:25:49 or not

02:25:50 not the surface the surface of the external wall above 18 meters did that have to be of limited combustibility um no not according to diagram 14 right so therefore did was your understanding

02:26:01 therefore did was your understanding that not all elements of the external wall build up had to be of limited combustibility not if you followed this alternative route you know i

02:26:13 this alternative route you know i thought you said earlier that you did that all significant elements to your way of understanding after the introduction of the word filler of the external wall builder had to be made of materials of limiting

02:26:24 made of materials of limiting combustibility is that not right no no i mean this is the understanding you say this is the understanding that we've just discussed now that was my understanding

02:26:35 understanding let me be clear your understanding is this right was that by the introduction of the word filler

02:26:44 only the the core of a combus of a composite panel had to be a material of limited combustibility but not the surface correct

02:26:54 correct and that understanding where was that derived from

02:26:59 diagram 40.

02:27:11 mr chairman we may need to revisit that we will need to revisit that and continue this very fascinating debate tomorrow morning if we're coming back to it i will not ask a question that is going to be well we are

02:27:22 question that is going to be well we are i think we are going to come back to it but

02:27:25 but no that's that's all right i just exercise degree yes i'm somewhere from the end of this topic so this is certainly a good place to break well we've reached the end of the afternoon and i'm sure it's gone on long

02:27:36 afternoon and i'm sure it's gone on long enough for you as well as for others so we'll break there for the day i'm sorry i've got to ask you to come back for some more questions tomorrow i hope you've been more into that yes yes

02:27:48 you've been more into that yes yes um so we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're away from the room okay all right thank you very much thank you would you give the usher please

02:28:08 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please