Dr Debbie Smith from BRE gives evidence about testing standards, interpretation of Approved Document B, and understanding of combustible cladding regulations.
00:00:25 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:28 hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from dr smith so i'm going to ask dr smith to come back into the room please
00:00:45 good morning dr smith good morning we're ready to
00:00:48 ready to face another day yes thank you thank you very much yes sister morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning dr smith um can we revisit the transcript from yesterday please let's have that up on
00:00:59 yesterday please let's have that up on the screen at day 236 and i'd like to go to page 203
00:01:14 and on 203
00:01:20 if we go please to the very first line but i think we probably need the bottom of 202
00:01:32 where i asked you at 21 what was your own view about the scope and meaning of the new paragraph or the new words in the paragraph this is 12.7 you'll recall and at 25 you say well as i've already
00:01:44 and at 25 you say well as i've already said i think i mean my understanding was and the way it was conveyed was that it was the material that basically sat
00:01:53 sat between like two sandwich panels or two metal outer layers so actually would also capture what we now know as acm [Music]
00:02:02 [Music] you see that yes now you i think also said yesterday if you look down a little bit lower down
00:02:11 that
00:02:15 your understanding of diagram 40 was that only the core of a panel had to be of limited combustibility but not the surface which could remain class naught or euro class b
00:02:26 or euro class b uh yes yes can you tell us what what language what words in diagram 40 led you to that conclusion um
00:02:37 um you've basically got the shaded areas on the
00:02:42 the diagrams of the building if you like and the
00:02:46 and the um
00:02:48 um the classes that apply to those shaded so the presence of class nought yes right and the definition and class b yes or class b yes
00:03:02 now when you were told that by dr colwell because i think you told us yesterday your understanding of the word filler came from what she told you rather than from an analysis of the
00:03:13 rather than from an analysis of the language yes yes correct from discussions did you go back and look at diagram 40 just to see how it worked um
00:03:22 um i don't recall whether i specifically looked at diagram 40 at that moment in time i don't recall that
00:03:30 right can we look at diagram 40 as it stood
00:03:34 stood in
00:03:35 in that version which is the 2006 version which is at clg 1607
00:03:55 well if we can go to page 96 please
00:04:03 we can see the the reference to diagram 40 right at the top at the top of that page there within 12.6 and let's look at the diagram 40 itself at page
00:04:12 at page 97 there it is um
00:04:16 um let's have let's keep that on the screen but could we also have up at the same time please the previous version of this document which is clg one four zero seven four zero
00:04:36 this is in fact the 2000 version with the euro amendments in 2002
00:04:44 and if we can go in that document please to page 91
00:04:52 you can see them um so what i'm showing you here just to be up just to be clear is on the right hand side we've got the 2000 adb as amended in 2002 to insert the euro amendments which we've seen
00:05:03 the euro amendments which we've seen before
00:05:05 before and on the left hand side we've got diagram 40 as amended in 2006 now
00:05:11 now when you had your conversation with sarah colwell did you
00:05:16 did you examine diagram 40 and notice that the title
00:05:20 title of diagram 40 as it had stood before the amendment was provisions for external surfaces of walls
00:05:29 walls but in the 2006 amendment had turned into provisions for external surfaces
00:05:35 surfaces or
00:05:36 or walls did you notice that at the time i don't recall noticing that at the time no did anybody bring the fact of that change to your attention even if you didn't read it yourself on the page
00:05:48 yourself on the page um no
00:05:50 um no do you remember having any discussion about that change with anybody at the department or within the re no i don't
00:06:00 before i showed it to you a minute or two ago had you ever noticed that um difference
00:06:08 potentially after well the time i would did notice it was after the grenfell tower fire right and at that stage did anybody sorry and at that stage did anybody give you
00:06:19 and at that stage did anybody give you an explanation of the change no
00:06:23 no did you ask for one um not specifically no did you answer one in a non-specific way um no right
00:06:38 do you now sitting there have any insight into the reasons for that change no i don't
00:06:49 do you
00:06:52 remember any kind of conversation with brian martin or anybody else at the department about how 12.7 with the word filler in it as you understood it from your conversation with sarah colwell
00:07:03 with sarah colwell could sit consistently with diagram 40 on the left hand side of the screen no
00:07:14 and i ask you that because the title provisions for external surfaces or walls might very well suggest uh that after 2006
00:07:25 2006 diagram 40 would apply to the entire wall yes i can understand what you're saying did you ever consider the rationale
00:07:37 did you ever consider the rationale behind requiring the core of
00:07:40 of a composite panel at the rain screen to be of limited combustibility as you told us yesterday you had understood it after 2006 but allowing the surface to remain class
00:07:53 but allowing the surface to remain class naught only did i understand the rationale yes um
00:08:00 um well my understanding was i think as i explained yesterday that the um the class o requirement or class b was to
00:08:11 was to capture
00:08:12 capture coatings of materials
00:08:16 materials so you know it's very commonplace for different types of elements
00:08:25 elements the rain screen elements for example or indeed renders to have surface coatings applied to them for protection so you know that could be paints or whatever
00:08:37 paints or whatever plastic coatings whatever and
00:08:40 and you know what you want to ensure is that they do not rapidly spread flame over the entire surface of that external wall
00:08:51 external wall so you know it's a it's nevertheless an important parameter that also needs to be controlled what was the purpose
00:09:03 what was the purpose of requiring the core of a composite panel
00:09:06 panel to be of
00:09:07 to be of of limited combustibility or in
00:09:11 or in in the euro class regime a1 or a2 but the surface the coating as you you call it only to be class naught or class b
00:09:23 only to be class naught or class b under the euro class regime so i mean typically the surface coatings are very thin
00:09:29 very thin but can nevertheless spread the flame a distance
00:09:34 distance so then they don't contribute um significant amount of heat for unnecessarily a very long time but they can still allow a flame and a fire to spread from
00:09:47 allow a flame and a fire to spread from point a to point b yeah and so you know you want to prevent that they wouldn't necessarily be a long lasting fire that that would um you know sit there and
00:09:58 that would um you know sit there and burn for a very long time but you get this almost like you can get like an in the single burning item test you you can see
00:10:05 see a flash of flame across the surface of a material
00:10:10 material what was the logic of requiring the core to be of limited combustibility but allowing the coating to be of a lower combustibility standard all pretty much
00:10:22 all pretty much the protective coatings that you would apply to the surface of external walls are in their own right organic
00:10:33 right organic and have organic content within them
00:10:37 and the reality is uh that my understanding is that the reality is that there are very few external coatings that you would be able to apply
00:10:47 to apply that
00:10:48 that would indeed meet the limited combustibility criteria you know they paints
00:10:55 paints are
00:10:58 are they have
00:10:59 they have colored pigments in them etc which are generally organic based and
00:11:05 and therefore the risk associated with a thin sort of surface coating on a material is not considered to be as great provided you restricted in terms
00:11:16 great provided you restricted in terms of the
00:11:17 of the extent to which it can spread flame and fire
00:11:22 fire does that tell us that the rationale
00:11:26 for a lower standard of combustibility on the
00:11:31 on the external surface was not
00:11:36 was not the desirability of having a lower standard but simply the nature of the products to which class naught or class b would
00:11:44 b would uh
00:11:45 uh would be applied um i guess that's the the rationale because obviously that had existed and pre-existed for a long time and um
00:11:57 and um it was deemed to be commensurate with the risk and the types of behaviors that had been and were being um observed from the
00:12:08 from the um the statistics etc
00:12:14 but class naught didn't only apply to paint did it it it applied to all kinds of surfaces yes such as hpl aluminium steel well the outer coatings and
00:12:25 steel well the outer coatings and surfaces on those well
00:12:27 well yes
00:12:28 yes but with an acm panel specifically or an hpl panel specifically you've got an outer coating which isn't paint it's a material
00:12:38 material a solid material not an applied liquid so what i'm really trying to understand is is why class naught with thought was thought appropriate to continue to apply notwithstanding
00:12:50 notwithstanding the the core was of limited combustibility even in cases where the outer skin i can put it that way might be aluminium or hpl
00:13:01 hpl or some other kind of plastic so i mean as i say the the rationale as i've always understood it was that those
00:13:11 those materials um on the outer surface are generally a thin
00:13:19 a thin coating
00:13:20 coating that has the potential to spread the flame from point a to point b and what you're trying to do is control the speed with which it can do that and the extent
00:13:31 with which it can do that and the extent to which it can do that and that the class o or the class b classification for those surfaces is is how that is done
00:13:42 surfaces is is how that is done given the
00:13:43 given the views that you espoused as you told us about during the course of your evidence earlier about class naught as unsuitable as a classification and given
00:13:53 given how that was proven both in the um connelly tests and indeed the cc 1924 tests that bre carried out in 2001
00:14:03 2001 [Music]
00:14:05 [Music] why would class not be acceptable at all on the surface given that the surface is more immediately prone to primary attack by fire
00:14:14 by fire so the comments made in relation to class o
00:14:19 class o previously were about the performance of the system and it was very clear that the class o in its own right was not controlling the hazard associated with
00:14:31 controlling the hazard associated with the whole of the external war maker i mean obviously what's in the approved document here is one particular aspect of
00:14:42 of a package of measures that are being applied to the external wall makeup that's my understanding
00:14:53 what was your understanding before 2006 about how class naught uh worked together with 12.7
00:15:02 12.7 i can't recall sat here right now was it your view before 12. before 2006 that as you put it um the entire external wall makeup was required to be
00:15:13 external wall makeup was required to be of limited combustibility um
00:15:16 um i would have to go back and look i can't remember what what what we discussed previously but we can do is that what the um approved document required
00:15:27 document required well we can look at it it's on the screen in fact on your right hand side and if you'd like to go back two pages to page 89 we can see yes okay the
00:15:37 wording uh
00:15:42 that's fine resistance page 90 i think is where we have
00:15:49 we have external surfaces under 3.5 external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in diagram 40 however the total amount of combustible material
00:16:00 material may be limited in practice by the provisions for space separation and then you've got the note as we saw before introducing the alternative route compliance which was compliance with br e589
00:16:15 and then you've got 13.6 the outer cladding of a wall of rain screen construction with the drained and ventilated cavity the surface of the outer cladding which
00:16:26 surface of the outer cladding which faces the cavity should also meet the provisions of diagram 40 and then 13.7 which became 12.7 in the next edition yes which you can see there
00:16:38 edition yes which you can see there yes it's the second sentence yes so i mean my understanding is based on would have been based on what was actually written here and that the limited combustibility criteria applies as described in the
00:16:51 criteria applies as described in the second paragraph of 13.7 yeah but to taking that second paragraph and looking at the provisions of this version as a whole what was your own understanding
00:17:03 what was your own understanding about whether or not the entire external wall buildup had to be comprised of materials of limited combustibility did it or didn't it to the best of your understanding at the time well i say i
00:17:15 understanding at the time well i say i can't recall exactly but reading this now i can't see why my view would have been that the whole wall needed to be made up of limited combustibility materials
00:17:29 we also see while we're on it let's pick this point up at 13.7 there's a prior paragraph which says this the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium
00:17:40 a building 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 for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overclouding or
00:17:51 thermal insulation as an overclouding or in ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 may have been satisfied what did you understand that
00:18:02 what did you understand that to be telling the reader that you need to comply with both isn't it telling you that even though you comply with diagram 40
00:18:13 you comply with diagram 40 the the presence of combustible thermal insulation either in the over cladding or in ventilated cavities may present a risk of fire spread yes and that you need to comply with the
00:18:24 yes and that you need to comply with the provisions in in both parts did there come a time when you
00:18:30 when you noticed that that part i've just read to you disappeared from a proof document be i don't recall i mean clearly i'm aware of that now but
00:18:42 i mean clearly i'm aware of that now but i don't recall at what point i was aware of that no
00:18:48 so can we just standing back from the detail then of these documents is your evidence to us that from 2006 or seven when you had this discussion with sarah colwell about the
00:18:59 discussion with sarah colwell about the the impact of the amendments to approve document b and the insertion of the word filler that you believed that the effect of adb as amended was to require a limited combustibility
00:19:11 was to require a limited combustibility core and a class naught coating yes
00:19:16 yes were you then
00:19:19 shocked to discover later that combustible materials were still being used in facades yes
00:19:26 yes when did you discover that when it all became apparent after the grenfell tower fire it became
00:19:33 it became apparent as to what had been going on and
00:19:39 and what the makeup of the external wall at grenfell tower was and it was one of absolute shock and
00:19:50 wondering how on earth that could have happened and that could have been
00:19:56 have been permitted and interpreted in the way that it clearly had been can we go to bre three zeroes one three two nine five please
00:20:17 now i don't need to trouble you with the context of this other than to say that this appears to be an internal uh email exchange between a number of people within the brs
00:20:29 brs about
00:20:30 about a proposed meeting with the f management board and i think we need to examine the details of that what i'd like to ask you about is the top email on that first
00:20:41 about is the top email on that first page there which is from you to
00:20:46 to oliver
00:20:47 oliver novakovich deborah pullen nick jones and gary timmins copyright and kim lofting the subject is proposals for the nhbc foundation and it says
00:20:59 and it says debs
00:21:00 debs i think is deborah pullen because she's yes one of the people who originated the email chain we could put a proposal in on on building separation distances for fire safety related to increased compartment
00:21:12 safety related to increased compartment temperatures due to highly insulated buildings and combustible facades stroke roofs do you have a template for the outline or do you just need a paragraph perhaps we can discuss when we
00:21:23 paragraph perhaps we can discuss when we meet tomorrow morning now can you just explain what you mean there
00:21:28 there by your reference to combustible facades um
00:21:32 um yes i think this was referring to the increasing trend that we were seeing coming from the sustainability goals and so on that were being adopted within buildings we were starting to see green
00:21:45 buildings we were starting to see green roofs and starting to see green walls and of course highly insulated buildings and there was a concern that
00:21:56 we didn't know but i mean you think well what impact could this potentially have in terms of the guidance that is currently there so there's a document br 187 that relates
00:22:09 there's a document br 187 that relates to
00:22:10 to separation distances and
00:22:14 and we wanted to
00:22:17 be able to carry out some research to better understand the impact of these types of
00:22:23 types of developments that we were seeing within the within the built environment and
00:22:31 and the bit about the highly insulated buildings was what was the impact of that in terms of the internal compartment temperatures and so but without the research and without the
00:22:43 but without the research and without the funding to do that we couldn't carry out any sort of systematic analysis to better understand that and to understand the implications that that would have on
00:22:54 would have on on
00:22:55 on the guidance that was in br187 why are you even
00:22:59 you even discussing combustible facades in circumstances where your understanding was that there couldn't be any because of your reading of approved document b but somehow they were finding their way
00:23:10 their way into the market there are buildings with green walls so so how were they being utilized and developed so this was part of an overarching
00:23:22 so this was part of an overarching piece of research it wasn't just focused on combustible facades it's looking at the whole the whole package in the round and some of the trends that appeared to be um
00:23:36 be um occurring when did you first discover that combustible facades were finding their way into the market um i don't recall that i mean it would
00:23:47 um i don't recall that i mean it would have been based on what people were observing
00:23:51 observing you know in their walking around um
00:23:55 um walking around the streets so
00:23:58 so and you walked around the street yes of course and you would have observed did you that there were combustible facades out there notwithstanding the provisions of approved document b as you understood it
00:24:09 it yes i mean and i think um
00:24:11 um so like the green walls um we
00:24:17 we i think we actually had a um green wall that had been erected on site at bre in what was the innovation park
00:24:26 park and you know it was a point of discussion amongst the fire the fire group yes i mean what i'm really trying to understand is why it came as such a
00:24:37 understand is why it came as such a shock to you after the grantful tower fire to discover that there were combustible facades out there when you're now telling us based on this document that you've known that at least since 2012 it was
00:24:48 it was well
00:24:49 well in this context it was within a different
00:24:53 different scenario and by that i mean so combustible facades clearly if something has been submitted for test and has been classified to be r135 there may be some
00:25:06 r135 there may be some element of combustibility within that as as we know so render systems for example may have an encapsulated combustible element within them
00:25:19 and so it's referring in a very generic sense to the types of trends that were going on there so just
00:25:27 so just to try to find this down a bit what was it that you discovered in uh june 2017 after the grenfell tower fire and thereafter
00:25:38 fire and thereafter about combustible facades that you didn't know in 2012 when referring to combustible facades okay so the key the key thing in relation to the grenfell tower fire from
00:25:50 tower fire from my perspective and that of colleagues when we discussed it was
00:25:55 was centered around firstly you've got a
00:25:59 a combustible insulation in combination with acm with a combustible core
00:26:07 core now
00:26:08 now according to the guidance and our understanding of the guidance that was in adb in the 2006 version that did not comply with
00:26:20 with any of the guidance that is included in 12.6 to 12.9
00:26:27 12.9 therefore
00:26:28 therefore that should have been tested and classified in accordance with br135 before it had been permitted for use on the tower
00:26:39 the tower and
00:26:41 and we at that time were not aware and had not seen any evidence certainly nothing that we had done at bre of course it was always possible
00:26:52 at bre of course it was always possible right that that some testing might have been done elsewhere but there was nothing that we had the evidenced and supported the use of that system
00:27:03 that system on the tower right
00:27:05 right and that's what that you know that's really what that related to let's see well let me just see if i can get it one more time this way in and after 2012 and we see your reference there to
00:27:17 and we see your reference there to combustible facades what kinds of combustible facades do you think
00:27:21 think did comply and what kinds of combustible facades did you think didn't comply the only combustible facades that did comply or could comply would be those
00:27:33 comply or could comply would be those that had been tested and classified to br 135
00:27:42 then why would they be a concern such as would warrant increased
00:27:51 a proposal about fire safety related to increased compartment temperatures due to combustible facades why would that be a problem
00:27:58 a problem well we didn't know that that's why you do the research you think there could potentially be a problem and i say and it also related to the growing use of green walls
00:28:09 green walls and what were the potential implications of
00:28:12 of for example one of the discussions with colleagues was a green wall becoming a brown wall because it's no longer maintained and you know the vegetation dies and so on
00:28:23 you know the vegetation dies and so on and that was certainly something that was being looked at as well in the context of roofs what i'm really seeking to get from you is what you what you thought was out there in the built environment did you think that what was out there
00:28:35 did you think that what was out there was
00:28:36 was combustible facades which
00:28:40 which didn't comply with the linear route but did comply with 8414 and the br135 or did you think that there were combustible facades out there which complied with neither
00:28:52 complied with neither no there was not a belief that there were combustible facades out there that complied with neither so therefore your reference here can only be is this right to combustible facades which have passed an 8414 test to br 135 was that what you
00:29:04 an 8414 test to br 135 was that what you thought well with the exception of the one that i've just referenced specifically in green walls you know we have never carried out to my knowledge a bs8414 test on a green wall
00:29:17 bs8414 test on a green wall so knowing that there was actually some of that
00:29:22 of that starting to appear out there in the built environment then as
00:29:27 as in terms of looking and wanting to better understand these things and carry out research so that the understanding is there that that's the purpose of that so you're trying to
00:29:39 the purpose of that so you're trying to deal with things before they become a significant issue
00:29:44 issue and also make sure that the guidance that is provided in terms of a bre document br 187 is still
00:29:55 a bre document br 187 is still robust and and relevant that was the purpose of this proposal right or this um yeah i mean a proposal i think did go in but it wasn't successful
00:30:11 when you were presented when somebody or if somebody had come along to you and presented you with a piece of acm with a polyethylene core
00:30:22 acm with a polyethylene core how would you test it to make sure that it complied with diagram 40. what would you do you would have to test it
00:30:33 you would have to test it either to the through the bs 476 part 6 and 7 route or through the european
00:30:40 european um classification route to and you would test it using um small flame test and the single burning item test what would you be testing exactly the sample as provided i mean in the
00:30:53 the sample as provided i mean in the context of the european tests in particular you would want you would have to understand a little bit about its end use application or intended end-use application because you have to include
00:31:07 application because you have to include that information within the classification report and under bs476 part six
00:31:14 part six manufacturer comes along to you or the builder comes along to you and says i'm about to buy a lot of this acm with a pe core to put on a tall building
00:31:25 building i just want today what it is i have to test to get class naught please what do i do
00:31:30 i do what would you tell them what would you have told them in 2007 well i mean i i wouldn't have been involved in anything but the expert in this sort of thing um my colleagues i think would have said um
00:31:43 my colleagues i think would have said um you you need to do bs 476 part 6 and part 7.
00:31:49 part 7. again you would have a discussion with them about whether the intended use involved an air gap behind the product or not because you test it accordingly with an air gap
00:32:00 with an air gap directly behind it or against a substrate and depending upon the type of substrate you there are several options for those standard options that are used
00:32:11 for those standard options that are used with those and
00:32:14 and and that's basically the the discussion that you would have i mean it's very unlikely that um the scenario that you described would actually happen where somebody would come and say i'm going to buy a lot of
00:32:25 come and say i'm going to buy a lot of this and i'm going to use it in this way yes of course i'm really putting to you a a a theory to you as a scientist now
00:32:36 to you as a scientist now if that were to happen you and you were presented with a composite product composite rain screen product of the kind i've just described to you what is it that you would be testing to be s476 part six and seven in order to
00:32:50 be s476 part six and seven in order to obtain class nord yes it's the product the whole thing yes including its core yes but of course class naught doesn't apply to the core does it
00:33:01 to the core does it well
00:33:02 well only in so far as you are that the whole sandwich if you like is in the sample holder and
00:33:12 and is
00:33:13 is exposed behind the aluminium sheet to um to the heat source during the test so the extent to which it contributes to
00:33:25 the extent to which it contributes to the classification is dependent upon the way that the sandwich in its entirety performs within the within the test yes but the test is not to test the core
00:33:37 but the test is not to test the core it's to test the surface because that's what diagram 40 requires isn't it but it's a product that is being placed on the market as a product so you don't strip it apart and test the individual elements so was it
00:33:49 test the individual elements so was it your understanding that there was such a thing as a class naught product um
00:33:56 um yes i mean for a high pressure laminate for example that equally is a product
00:34:02 product but of course what you're exposing is the external surface
00:34:07 surface does it make sense to refer to a composite panel with a pe core as a class naught product
00:34:18 um well
00:34:21 well i'm not sure you would refer to it as a class nor product would you not i mean what what the test reports and the classifications say
00:34:32 say they will describe the product that was tested and how it was tested and they will say that the classification applies to that that product
00:34:43 that product but the classification by definition only applies to the surface according to paragraph 13 of appendix a and class naught well it does apply to the surface because that is really what is being
00:34:55 because that is really what is being tested but equally i think as we spoke about earlier if you had a product that came to you that had a very thin
00:35:04 surface and during the course of the part 7 test for example the
00:35:11 the fire burnt through that thin surface then
00:35:16 then you inevitably are testing the the substrate or the the other component of that product that sits behind it
00:35:28 you don't stop the test and say well we don't need to we don't need to continue with this so if something burnt off the surface very quickly
00:35:39 very quickly and then expose something behind and then you got spread a flame on that component within the product behind you would still continue with the test
00:35:51 you would still continue with the test and that would form part of the classification
00:35:56 right so in fact what gets classified is a composite product the surface of which has been tested to class naught yes
00:36:06 yes do you think that's plain from the language of adb did you always think that that was plain from the language of adb it's not something that i'd specifically
00:36:17 it's not something that i'd specifically considered i
00:36:22 to me it was always clear what what the tests were doing and i don't recall having had any discussions with with anybody about
00:36:35 with anybody about confusion around that let's um let's see how we go into the history of this because we'll come back to this topic in due course when we see some later documents can we
00:36:46 some later documents can we um go to january 2014 uh dr smith the inquiries heard some evidence from earlier witnesses that a meeting took place on the 30th of january 2014 between sarah colwell tony
00:36:58 january 2014 between sarah colwell tony baker and brian martin and by january 2014 brian martin was the department's principal construction professional that was his title by then i think
00:37:08 i think and we've been told that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 of approved document b my first question is do you know anything about that meeting
00:37:20 do you know anything about that meeting other than what's been said in the inquiry no i don't did you not know about it at the time not that i can recall no did sarah caldwell not report back to you about it not that i can recall no what about tony
00:37:32 not that i can recall no what about tony baker did he no not that i can recall right
00:37:39 now there were some correspondence which led to the meeting in january being arranged january 2014 between the bre and brian martin and that happened in november 2013
00:37:50 november 2013 uh your colleagues tony baker sarah colwell and stephen howard were all copied into that correspondence again did you you didn't see that correspondence did you not that i'm aware of no let's take a look at it um and just to
00:38:02 let's take a look at it um and just to see if it prompts a recollection it's clg one triple zero five eight nine five
00:38:10 and if we scroll down in the email run please to page two we can see that there's an email of the 25th of november at the bottom of the screen from tony baker to brian martin copied to sarah colwell and stephen howard
00:38:21 colwell and stephen howard subject adb clause 12.6 and 12.7 and at the second paragraph it says i hope this i hope you can help with the following we're seeing an increasing number of inquiries which
00:38:32 increasing number of inquiries which were being asked for our opinion stroke interpretation of diagram 40 and adb b4 clauses 12.6 and 7 in relation to the build-up of systems using board finishes and we would like to reach a general
00:38:44 and we would like to reach a general understand general understand so we can respond to all parties in the same way now just pausing that does this trigger a recollection about either seeing this email run or having a discussion
00:38:56 email run or having a discussion internally with any of the people on this email it doesn't
00:39:02 now in her statement sarah colwell says let's look at that it's bre three series four seven five seven one page sixty one paragraph three eight five please
00:39:14 paragraph three eight five please bre
00:39:15 bre 3047571 page 61 paragraph 385 she says [Music]
00:39:26 this at 385
00:39:32 as far as i can we need i think to go back to 60 to see the question
00:39:40 and the question is at a at the very top of the page it says prior to sending this email which is a reference to the one we've just looked at what discussions if any had taken place on this matter within the bre
00:39:52 on this matter within the bre and then there are various other questions
00:39:55 questions between one of which is between whom and then if we turn the page to page 61 by whom was this decided as far as i can recollect he says this decision was
00:40:06 recollect he says this decision was reached between tony baker stephen howard debbie smith and myself
00:40:12 and she confirmed that fact when she gave all evidence at day 233
00:40:20 day 233 to the inquiry last week what do you say about that is it right that the decision to send this email was reached
00:40:29 reached uh between those people and you i don't recollect that um
00:40:34 um if i had been involved in the discussions i'd have expected to have been cc'd in on the email anyway
00:40:43 what i what i would say is i mean it was generally understood and it may be around that that sarah is referring that you know it was generally understood that bre's
00:40:55 that bre's role was not to provide an interpretation of the approved document [Music]
00:41:01 [Music] directly and that any such interpretation needed to come from government department whether it's about um clauses 12 or any other clauses
00:41:13 um clauses 12 or any other clauses within the approved document and
00:41:17 and you know it may be that that overarching issue that sarah is
00:41:24 sarah is is referring to there but i i i don't recall being involved in the detailed discussion around this and i think if i had been then i would have been cc'd in on the email that went
00:41:36 have been cc'd in on the email that went to brian
00:41:37 to brian was there any particular reason why you wouldn't have been involved in those discussions
00:41:45 well i mean i had a team of people that were working to me at the time
00:41:50 time which were covering a whole wide range of different activities and i was not involved and could not be involved in all of the day-to-day discussions that went on i mean just it's not physically
00:42:01 went on i mean just it's not physically possible so it's done more by exception or if there was a particular thing that they weren't sure what to do or or where to go with something that they would they would bring things to me
00:42:14 they would they would bring things to me but no i would not be having day-to-day discussions on every facet of the work that we were undertaking across the whole the whole group that i was responsible
00:42:25 the whole group that i was responsible for was this not one of those things that
00:42:28 that as a particular thing they weren't sure what to do with or where to go with it's a communication with government um about the meaning of an important part of
00:42:37 part of a proof document b i can't speak for that right do you remember yourself whether brian martin discussed this email or the point in it with you at the time
00:42:49 in it with you at the time i don't but i mean it would be unlikely that he would have done i mean he would be talking directly to sarah tony or or steve do you know what the inquiries were that
00:43:01 do you know what the inquiries were that the vre had been receiving to which tony baker refers on the interpretation of diagram 40 and 12.6 and 12.7 no i don't
00:43:10 don't you don't know anything about that i don't know what they what they weren't right okay
00:43:18 um sticking with sarah colwell's statement please at page 60 if we can go back to that
00:43:24 that paragraph 382 she says the discussions would have been within the passive fire team
00:43:30 team i was not working in this team on a day-to-day basis and so i was not aware of the full extent of the discussions within the team but from memory i believe that tony baker stephen howard and debbie smith were aware of these
00:43:41 and debbie smith were aware of these discussions did she write about that to the best of your recollection what what are these discussions that are being referred to the discussions that led to the email being sent
00:43:53 i'm not aware that i was involved um again tony baker and steve howard and the broader pacifier team may well have discussed those were you aware even in a general sense
00:44:04 were you aware even in a general sense of
00:44:06 of an increase in queries about the meaning of diagram 40 and paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 not specifically no not specifically
00:44:17 specifically brought about generally were you even generally aware that there was a rising chorus of
00:44:23 chorus of concern no i don't believe i was
00:44:28 let's go back to tony baker's email if we can please at clg one triple zero five eight nine five page two and let's look on
00:44:39 uh the second and third bullet points say this
00:44:42 say this at 12.6 guidance references diagram 40 in relation to the classification of the finish which would be acceptable over 18 meters as being b f3 d2 but 12.7 talks
00:44:53 meters as being b f3 d2 but 12.7 talks about insulation or filler materials which make up the wall being limited combustibility and then he says this as the minimum stroke maximum surface finish is not defined
00:45:04 finish is not defined a debate has opened up within the industry as to whether or not the boards can be called the finish or the filler now
00:45:14 now did you know that a debate had opened up within the industry about that no i didn't did nobody even hint to you at any time at this time within the bre that there was this
00:45:26 time within the bre that there was this question which had arisen within the industry about filler not that i can recollect no if we go to page three final paragraph tony baker
00:45:38 tony baker says
00:45:39 says based on our experience from the original pii program we would suggest that a definition of the surface finish thickness and filler would assist in clarifying this point
00:45:50 in clarifying this point and would therefore be grateful for your thoughts
00:45:54 thoughts now first what was meant by the original pii program do you know um i don't know i i would anticipate that it was the original work that was done
00:46:05 it was the original work that was done um at cardington in the 1990s that led to fire note 3 yes yes that's what sarah colwill says in her witness statement in paragraph 408 but
00:46:15 408 but what was the bre's experience from that program which was relevant here i'm not entirely sure i'm not as familiar with that as sarah would be for example right
00:46:26 sarah would be for example right now this is uh january sorry november 2013.
00:46:31 2013. uh
00:46:31 uh at that stage on the basis of what you knew and what you thought did you think that a definition of filler would assist as tony baker suggests well i don't
00:46:42 tony baker suggests well i don't remember discussing this with them but i mean it's a very sensible suggestion by this time november 2013 had your own understanding changed or developed from the
00:46:53 changed or developed from the understanding that you had in 2006 stroke 7 when sarah colwell told you what film meant um no i think that was still my understanding can you explain why the
00:47:05 understanding can you explain why the bre was still trying to reach a general understanding about this question the meaning of filler and the meaning and ambit of 12.6 and 12.7 in
00:47:16 meaning and ambit of 12.6 and 12.7 in november 2013. um no i can't
00:47:26 so i i'm
00:47:28 i i'm hearing from the answers you've been giving me that you knew nothing whatever about the debate about the questions or about their own perceived need for clarification not that i can recollect at the time no
00:47:40 not that i can recollect at the time no who was the person within the bre at this time late 2013 who was the account
00:47:48 account holder or points person within the bre so far as government was concerned we didn't have one you didn't have one you had been one hadn't you yes it had been the person that only existed during the
00:47:59 the person that only existed during the course of the framework and once the framework concluded in 2011 2012 um all projects were thereafter um tendered in a completely open way and
00:48:12 um tendered in a completely open way and you know there was no commitment to there being any nevertheless um or indeed being many and at that point there was no no purpose in having a framework
00:48:24 no purpose in having a framework well clearly there was no framework to have a framework manager did did others in the bre then develop into points people points of points of immediate contact as
00:48:35 points of points of immediate contact as between government and the bre instead of you
00:48:38 of you um
00:48:40 um yes of course i mean people had a new brian martin and
00:48:47 and were able to um you know speak speak to brian on a daily basis informally if they had a query
00:48:56 a query is that is that how it worked yeah i mean we had no no rules around that if people felt the necessity to speak to brian about something then it was down to their own um [Music]
00:49:07 [Music] their own um
00:49:10 needs if you like to um to to speak to him or to communicate with him
00:49:17 with him as tony has done here in in the email right let's um let's go up to the next email in the chain on page two and you can see brian martin's response
00:49:28 and you can see brian martin's response that uh on the 25th of november same day
00:49:32 same day at 15 47
00:49:37 so about half an hour later and uh
00:49:41 and uh you can see what he says there hi tony i see where you're coming from the problem we have with class b is that you can have a thin surface that gives you the performance and back it with something less desirable so there's no such thing as class b material
00:49:54 such thing as class b material the word filler was introduced because of a particular incident where a polymeric foam was used to keep an aluminium panel stiff the foam was not used for thermal reason so it wasn't quite insulation
00:50:05 so it wasn't quite insulation closed quotes exclamation mark is still burned of course three exclamation marks sarah will remember the details i'm sure i'm thinking out loud here but i think a homogenous class b board would be fine
00:50:16 homogenous class b board would be fine effectively a class b material question mark
00:50:19 mark but a lamination of board with something else should revert to the limited combustibility criteria does this make sense don't quote me on this yet what do you think
00:50:31 now were you uh i detect i know the answer to this question but i feel i should put it to you too are you aware in november 2013 that brian martin himself was still as he put it thinking out loud
00:50:42 was still as he put it thinking out loud about the scope and meaning of these paragraphs of approved document b and not wanting to be quoted on it yet no i wasn't or did you know that brian martin was asking tony baker and with sarah colwell
00:50:54 asking tony baker and with sarah colwell and stephen howard copied in what he thought about whether a homogenous class b board as he puts it would be fine no
00:51:06 if you've been asked this question in november 2013 what would your answer have been
00:51:20 i would not i don't think have agreed with
00:51:23 with um that a homogenous class b board would be fine
00:51:27 be fine um because it's all about how you would then write the guidance and define that are you able to explain how government thought it would be no i can't
00:51:43 and why would a homogenous class b not be fine well it's down to how you would actually define that in a way that made any sense
00:51:51 any sense and where would readers of approved document be discover that a homogenous class b panel would not be fine
00:52:02 well i mean if if they decided they were going to make a change to this effect then it would have to be incorporated within the approved document and it would have to be properly um you know the guidance would have to
00:52:14 um you know the guidance would have to be clear
00:52:15 be clear no sorry let me try again how would a reader know that a homogeneous panel would not be fine
00:52:28 sorry a reader of what the reader of approved document dr smith
00:52:34 dr smith but it isn't fine how would a somebody picks up a proof document b reads 12.6 12.7 on diagram 40. how would they know what words in that would tell them that homogenous
00:52:45 that would tell them that homogenous class b board would not be fine as you understood it well i've explained the way that i understand diagram 40 and that it refers
00:52:56 understand diagram 40 and that it refers to the surface well i'm puzzled about this because if you've got an homogenous class b board the surface is by definition class b isn't it it is
00:53:07 b isn't it it is now if you look at 12 7 12 6 12 7 and diagram 40 what is it in the language that's there used which tells you that although your
00:53:18 used which tells you that although your board has a class naught surface it is not suitable for use
00:53:24 in the exterior wall um
00:53:31 well insofar as you can potentially test that
00:53:34 that um
00:53:36 um sorry
00:53:37 sorry i'm not actually talking about testing i'm talking about the language of the approved document yes but it relates back to what you're actually physically testing
00:53:47 testing in order to achieve the classification yes
00:53:51 yes so
00:53:52 so the two are you know intimately bound together of course
00:53:56 course and that's what i was referring to earlier as well about you know whether you test with an air gap or against a substrate and so on with all of these things you you have to
00:54:07 with all of these things you you have to look at what you've done and how you've done it in order to define the field of application that that applies to so you'd need to think very carefully
00:54:18 so you'd need to think very carefully about
00:54:23 how if you want to change the guidance how you would change the guide no i'm sorry perhaps we don't understand each other sorry this is not a question about changing the guidance i think mr miller's question is this
00:54:36 i think mr miller's question is this if you have a board which has been demonstrated to be class b and it's an homogenous board what is it in the language of adb as it stands whether
00:54:49 language of adb as it stands whether it's stood at the time that tells you that it is not suitable for use on the exterior of a high-rise building
00:54:57 building so you're talking here and okay so i think i'm starting to understand where you're coming from now so
00:55:03 so in terms of a homogeneous board you're talking about a board that is consistent in its makeup throughout
00:55:15 makeup throughout and doesn't have a surface coating added to it whatever um
00:55:23 so yes in principle a class b board that is homogeneous throughout in that respect and has achieved a class b um
00:55:35 would comply with what is required in diagram 40. yes
00:55:42 yes but how would it then comply with 12.7 as you understood it um
00:55:49 um it wouldn't so
00:55:52 so exactly we have it you could have therefore
00:55:55 therefore this tension don't you between 12.7 as you understood it and class naught as you understood it yes how did you resolve that tension in your mind well you have to comply with with both with both pieces of the the
00:56:08 with both with both pieces of the the guidance well the problem with both pieces of the guidance is that one is telling you 12.7 is telling you that it has to be a1 or a2 you're using the euro classes for example and
00:56:19 example and diagram 40 is telling you that it need only be b which is it well i mean my personal opinion would be but i mean it would be for the department to
00:56:30 it would be for the department to potentially issue further guidance around that would be that you you need to comply with the highest level of requirements well that's you can't just pick and choose and say well
00:56:41 can't just pick and choose and say well i've met that one therefore that's okay if you've tested and shown that you're um
00:56:48 um that you've got class b but then equally the guidance in 12.7 says that it needs to be
00:56:54 to be limited combustibility you can't use the fact that you've got class b is demonstrating that you're complying with the limited combustibility requirement in 12.7 yes and what you've just told us
00:57:08 in 12.7 yes and what you've just told us was that something that you learned or could have learned after sarah sarah colwell told you what philla meant in 2007.
00:57:18 it was um i mean i've not thought about it in the context that we've just discussed it yeah my question is why not it wasn't something that um had ever been
00:57:30 been raised or discussed but what you've just told us is exactly the reason why i asked you yesterday when sarah colwell told you about the meaning of 12.7 after the amendment did you go back and check how it was
00:57:42 did you go back and check how it was consistent with diagram 40 because had you done so i think you would accept now that you would have realized the anomaly which you've just identified
00:57:53 which you've just identified but again i mean i don't regard that particularly okay it is an anomaly but it does not avoid the need to comply with both of
00:58:06 avoid the need to comply with both of the paragraphs and i don't think i mean my view would be that somebody that achieves a class b cannot then comply with the requirements in 12.7
00:58:19 comply with the requirements in 12.7 and just because they've got a class b they still have to meet the requirements in 12.7 as well so it's not an either or but do you think the difficulty for the
00:58:30 but do you think the difficulty for the reader
00:58:32 reader who's got the class b board when he looks at 12.7 he doesn't see anything there other than the word filler to tell him that the class b board
00:58:44 to tell him that the class b board is not suitable and he might say well there's no filler involved here so it doesn't apply
00:58:53 isn't that one of the difficulties potentially i mean
00:58:58 i mean what we're what we're considering now is whether the guidance in
00:59:03 in clauses 12.5 to 12.7 was actually clear enough and i guess benefit of hindsight now knowing what we all know about the way that people have interpreted this then
00:59:14 that people have interpreted this then the answer to that is well clearly it wasn't
00:59:18 wasn't did you have any inkling at the time late 2013
00:59:22 late 2013 that government brian martin
00:59:26 viewed this view the interpretation of adb differently from how you had viewed it for the previous seven years um in 2013
00:59:38 um in 2013 um i i had no idea right now let's go uh back up to page one of this email run please to tony baker's email of the third of december a week or so later
00:59:52 and he he starts by saying uh hi brian i'm sorry it's the second email down and in the second sentence he says it is an interesting issue and one we need to resolve one way
01:00:03 resolve one way or another um
01:00:07 um now
01:00:09 now at the time did you know that there was at least an issue that needed to be resolved by government in this respect um not that i was aware of no or between
01:00:20 um not that i was aware of no or between government and the bre no no going on to the next paragraph he says euro class b s3 d2 has the potential to propagate flame either as a surface coating
01:00:31 coating or as a homogeneous product and more so if both surfaces are exposed which in the case of systems with these boards can be the case as they invariably have a cavity between the board and insulation
01:00:42 insulation do you agree with that um yes i mean i guess he's referring here to sort of rain screen type systems and then it goes on the pii and dc lg cladding projects used board
01:00:53 and dc lg cladding projects used board systems looking at the data the systems appear to have achieved a range of indicative b and c euro classes depending on substrates and fixings etc when these systems were tested to bs8414
01:01:06 when these systems were tested to bs8414 in the five tests none met the performance criteria in br135 now those pii and dc lg cladding project that's a reference i think isn't it to the experimental testing program carried
01:01:19 the experimental testing program carried out
01:01:20 out under
01:01:21 under this contract cc 1924 in 2001 which we've examined um i guess he's considering a broader range of the evidence because he's referring to the pii project as well which was honestly the 1996 503 all
01:01:35 which was honestly the 1996 503 all right
01:01:35 right and
01:01:36 and then he goes on to say this would suggest to me that clause 12.6 and hence diagram 40 is appropriate for surface coat surfaces coatings in the context of a decorative
01:01:47 coatings in the context of a decorative render finish i.e a non-substantial component scenario burns often doesn't propagate flame through the system with the remaining system requiring limited combustible materials as 12.7 or the system to meet
01:01:59 materials as 12.7 or the system to meet br135 has 12.5 now
01:02:04 now the words that would suggest to me um
01:02:08 um is what he says but do you did you or would you and do you agree with what he goes on to say in his thinking
01:02:16 thinking um
01:02:32 okay i mean saying that it's appropriate for those systems he's not saying what it's not appropriate for so it's really only part of the issue i think that he's discussing there right we're going to the
01:02:44 we're going to the foot of the email he says as you say thinking out loud we probably need to discuss in order to fully resolve would it be possible to arrange a meeting to discuss further and then the response to that is at the
01:02:55 and then the response to that is at the top if we scroll up to the top of um page one please in in the on the screen you can see brian martin coming back to him the same day
01:03:06 four minutes later five minutes later saying happy to have a chat probably not this side of xmas i think it's important to remember that we never expected the adb rules to result in a system that would always pass the br 135 criteria
01:03:20 pass the br 135 criteria now
01:03:23 i'm not going to ask you to interpret his language that's for him to tell us but
01:03:31 but is it correct as a fact that
01:03:35 that adb
01:03:38 adb um
01:03:41 by which he means i think the linear route would always result in a system that would always pass the br 135 criteria
01:03:52 um i mean that's my my reading of what he's written there yeah similar to yourself i think it's your reading of it and i can understand that but what i'm really asking you to stand back from the
01:04:04 really asking you to stand back from the language of the of the document was it your own understanding of approved document b once finite nine came into it and then in 2006 bs
01:04:15 came into it and then in 2006 bs 8414
01:04:17 8414 um that
01:04:18 um that you might fail the linear route but could pass br-135
01:04:25 br-135 well i suppose that's that's conceivable and vice versa and vice versa indeed yes
01:04:35 but it is on that basis is it right that the linear route as i call it 12.6 diagram 40 and 12.7 was never expected to result in a system
01:04:46 never expected to result in a system which would always pass br 135 i don't know whether that was it was never expected but i mean you could never guarantee that of course because you
01:04:57 because you unless you tested everything and you you know that was following the the other the other route and how would the expectation of the performance of the materials used under the linear route be consistent with the
01:05:08 the linear route be consistent with the functional requirement of b4 1 to adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls well that would be for others to
01:05:17 others to make that judgment well i'm asking i'm asking the bre i'm asking you as the bra that's something that that we do i mean we we are not there to provide the interpretation
01:05:29 provide the interpretation of the regulatory requirements on behalf of government no let me try this differently was your understanding of the regulations the regulatory framework that even though you might pass
01:05:42 that even though you might pass the tests under the linear route diagram 40 12.6 and 12.7 as they became in 2006.
01:05:51 you might by doing that still fail uh to satisfy the functional requirement
01:05:59 um
01:06:03 well the functional requirement is the high level requirement in the regulations isn't it so
01:06:10 i'm not quite sure what what you're asking there i mean the fact that the guidance provides those routes then if you satisfy either of the roots either of the options then
01:06:21 either of the options then my understanding is that that's the department's view that you have then satisfied the functional requirement right
01:06:30 right and let's move on then in time april 2014 can we go to bre 30 is 47459
01:06:41 and if we go to the first email in the chain at the bottom of page 2 you can see that this is an email from brenda aptid of the cwct to sarah colwell uh on the 24th of april 2014 at 1520.
01:06:56 uh on the 24th of april 2014 at 1520. now i just should tell you this you do get to see this email because you're looped into the email chain higher up as we're going to see um and she brenda aptid says this
01:07:07 um and she brenda aptid says this cwct currently provides guidance on fire performance in technical note 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens copy attached this explains the requirements of the building regulations
01:07:18 requirements of the building regulations and suggests how these requirements can be satisfied just pausing there the inquiry has had some evidence about technical note 73 which was the cwct's guidance
01:07:29 cwct's guidance published in march 2011 um in april 2014 do you remember were you familiar with that guidance no i
01:07:37 no i i don't believe i was right
01:07:42 do you know whether anybody at the bre and
01:07:45 and i'm going to exclude you because of your last answer but did anybody from the bre have any input into any aspect of that guidance when it was crafted i don't know
01:07:57 as at the spring 24 as it spring 2014 uh were you familiar with it
01:08:04 not that i'm aware of no when you got this email string did you read the attachment which was technical note 73 i don't recall
01:08:15 i don't recall was it your practice to read attachments to emails
01:08:18 to emails into which you were looped sometimes but not always
01:08:24 you know if it was addressed to another individual then i would often um leave it for them to deal with unless they actually brought it to me to
01:08:36 they actually brought it to me to to discuss if there was a particular issue that they wanted to discuss i mean it just physically wasn't possible to read
01:08:42 read every attachment to every email that i was i was ever sent you know the email traffic was quite vast as a general question given your what you say about your familiarity with the document were
01:08:54 your familiarity with the document were you aware
01:08:55 you aware at all that there was no explanation in technical note 73 of the meaning or scope of the word filler
01:09:03 filler no i wouldn't have been or that there was no indication that the cwct for their part understood that paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 of approved document b
01:09:14 approved document b in some way required the use of materials of limited combustibility in all
01:09:19 all elements of the external wall of high-rise buildings no looking at her email if we go to the very bottom of page two she says
01:09:29 she says we have had we've had numerous inquirers inquiries i think that should say in recent months regarding fire and facades issues that have been raised include
01:09:41 issues that have been raised include and if you look at the first bullet point use of combustible insulation in facades particularly rain screens this is causing problems due to the greater thickness of insulation that is required of limited combustibility materials have
01:09:52 of limited combustibility materials have to be used and then the fourth bullet point down performance of composite panels such as acms
01:10:00 acms well either of those subject matters of concern for the bre at the time so far as you were aware um
01:10:09 depends what you mean i mean obviously this this email would have been considered by by sarah
01:10:20 so you know were they of issues of concern
01:10:24 concern um
01:10:25 um [Music]
01:10:28 not in isolation i suspect but potentially in reading this then that would have prompted some
01:10:37 some interest where i were either of these topics in these two bullet points matters on which the bre had been receiving inquiries itself not that i'm aware of are you able to explain why the
01:10:48 aware of are you able to explain why the cwct
01:10:49 cwct had been receiving inquiries but but bre not
01:10:53 not no i can't other than the sector of industry that they they were representing potentially and their membership i guess now directly under the first list of bullet points you can see she says we propose to hold a
01:11:04 see she says we propose to hold a meeting to discuss the issues of fire and facades too
01:11:09 too and then she says get a wider industry view establish the adequacy stroke appropriateness of existing regulations establish whether alternative solutions are available
01:11:20 are available establish what action cwct should take and then she goes on to say depending on the outcome of the meeting we would propose to establish a working group to oversee the development of cwct work in
01:11:31 oversee the development of cwct work in this area
01:11:33 this area the working group would be drawn from those present at the initial meeting that may include others with specialist knowledge if appropriate we would like to invite you to our initial meeting half a day meeting in central london
01:11:47 do do you remember this correspondence no i don't if we move up the pay up the chain to the middle of page two we can see um that here is an email
01:11:58 um that here is an email from sarah colwell on the 24th of april same day
01:12:05 a few minutes later to stephen howard david gall and tony baker
01:12:12 baker and she says uh and you can see that you're copied in there yes so you're copied into this she says this is something we need to be aware of and should consider being involved with because of the increasing
01:12:23 involved with because of the increasing number issues similar to those identified below which we are being asked by industry it follows on from the discussion tony and i had with brian earlier in the year which suggested that dclg would be keen
01:12:34 which suggested that dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced and then referenced in the faq area on the dclg website now when you got that email in copy
01:12:45 now when you got that email in copy on the evening of the 24th of april 2014 uh did you read it i don't recall do you recall whether you read what had come from brenda aptid which sarah
01:12:56 come from brenda aptid which sarah colwell was copying you into i don't recall i mean if i'd have read one bit i'd have read the the rest of the chain i'm sure
01:13:04 i'm sure do you know what the similar issues which sarah issue sarah colwell was referring to in this email which uh bre was being asked by inquiry no quite an industry did you ask sarah colwell
01:13:16 an industry did you ask sarah colwell what are those no i didn't why is that um
01:13:21 um i mean this email from sarah to which i'm ccd on gives me comfort in that it's an area that sarah was on top of and was dealing
01:13:32 that sarah was on top of and was dealing with and that unless i was asked to become involved it was not something that i needed to
01:13:40 pursue further why do you think she copied it to you i i don't know well um
01:13:49 well um was it
01:13:50 was it her practice to your knowledge to copy you into emails which she wanted you to see
01:13:57 see um
01:13:58 um sometimes sometimes it's just for information it may have been because it was something that was unusual i mean certainly where we were asked to
01:14:09 asked to attend external meetings from time to time um
01:14:14 time um you know we had to go through a process then
01:14:17 then of deciding if we could actually self-fund those attendances it's a process question yes when you received emails and copy was it
01:14:29 when you received emails and copy was it your assumption that you should read what you'd been sent or was your was it your practice not to bother no i didn't read everything that i was cc'd into i was cc'd into very very many email trails
01:14:41 cc'd into very very many email trails from
01:14:42 from many people across the business and i say it was by exception really if they then flagged there was a particular issue that they needed to discuss with me then they would send it to me rather
01:14:54 me then they would send it to me rather than cc me in and
01:14:57 and you know my approach was and always has been that
01:15:01 been that my door is open and i'm available to discuss things so it was you know mr chairman i'm going to continue with this email chain for a little while um maybe for
01:15:12 maybe for maybe 10 minutes or so we need to do it in one go if we can yeah yeah that would be better i think so yeah yes you carry on thank you um now
01:15:22 now uh
01:15:25 uh looking at sarah colwell's email into which you were copied it refers to a discussion tony and i had with brian earlier in the year that's
01:15:36 with brian earlier in the year that's 2014. at this stage did you know anything about that meeting um i don't recall i say the the context of this email
01:15:47 of this email reading it sat here now is that there are things that are going on things seem to be under control if there's a need for me to become involved then they will
01:16:00 involved then they will involve me yeah
01:16:04 were you aware that the dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced that's the faq no
01:16:12 did you have any idea what she meant when you were copied into this email if you'd read it yeah i don't recall
01:16:21 did you understand at the time what an a document referenced in the faq area on the dclg website was what kind of document that might be
01:16:32 no i don't were you aware at all that brian martin or anybody else at the department had been
01:16:38 been keen or expressed keenness to the bre earlier in the year for a document dealing with the types of matters listed in brenda raptor's email no no
01:16:50 so you can't tell me who has suggested that such a document should be included on the faq section of the department's website no right
01:17:01 now sarah colwell says in her statement let's go to that please that's bre-3047571 page 83 paragraph 555 but
01:17:16 she had
01:17:19 let's wait for it to come up it's bre-3047571
01:17:24 page 83.
01:17:32 paragraph 555 and this is one of a number of questions in relation to this
01:17:41 to this email run and she says what action did you take at any stage in relation to raising the matter of an faq with brian martin and she says i recall that i discussed the matter with colleagues at bre
01:17:52 the matter with colleagues at bre stephen howard tony baker and debbie smith and w cwct
01:17:58 cwct drafting options were discussed which could be used either as an faq or alternatively as part of the upcoming approved document b consultation process that's what she says um do you recall having a discussion
01:18:11 um do you recall having a discussion with her as she says you did about raising the idea of an faq on these subjects with brian martin i don't recall that no you don't
01:18:23 is this something you just never heard of never heard about any of this well i've heard about it now obviously but at the time i mean i don't recall from that time no
01:18:34 from that time no i mean i'm aware of it now of course did you yourself ever discuss the idea of an faq on these subjects with brian martin or anyone else at the department no i don't believe i did
01:18:46 no i don't believe i did do you know yourself whether sarah colwill ever raised the idea of an faq with brian martin or anyone else at the department no i don't let's go back to the exchange of emails please at bre 30-47459
01:18:59 30-47459 page one
01:19:01 page one please
01:19:03 and at the very foot of the page you can see stephen howard responds to sarah colwell copy to you david gall and tony baker see that yes i can we want to be involved
01:19:14 involved and if you turn the page please he says can you let me know the date of the meeting when it is set thanks stephen howard yes yes and then if we look at
01:19:25 yes yes and then if we look at page one if we go back to that please we can see that you respond to stephen howard and sarah colwell copied to david gall tony baker and
01:19:37 copied to david gall tony baker and irene george and you say woo
01:19:41 woo [Music]
01:19:43 [Music] this looks very dangerous we need to discuss our strategy to ensure we don't end up handing the fire safety mantle to cwct a
01:19:55 handing the fire safety mantle to cwct a competitor losing the need for br135 bsa414 etc etc etc i will get irene to set up a meeting thanks debbie
01:20:07 meeting thanks debbie what was your point um
01:20:10 um i don't i don't particularly recall this um
01:20:13 um it's very unusual for me to respond in in a way like that
01:20:22 i think from what came
01:20:26 what came next
01:20:27 next the response then from sarah obviously allayed my my concerns um
01:20:37 i mean i guess i was probably just reading out of context and
01:20:42 and i i really don't remember exactly what what was going on in terms of my mind at the time
01:20:51 i mean obviously the email that came from steve howard
01:20:57 might very well have been as part of the thoughts that were going on
01:21:01 on um would steve howard have been the right person to have participated in this as well because he he was only sort of recently becoming involved in this area of work and taking
01:21:14 involved in this area of work and taking over the sort of leadership of it
01:21:19 so just trying to put some i guess trying to put some context for his benefit around this so that a knee-jerk reaction wasn't um
01:21:31 so that a knee-jerk reaction wasn't um wasn't taken and that we had the opportunity to consider it um
01:21:37 um at a meeting where everybody was represented in could express their their views to the background and explain who cwct were etc
01:21:49 what were your concerns
01:21:53 concerns you said that sarah's response had laid your your concerns what what were those concerns
01:21:59 concerns um so she's basically then going on to explain more of the background but what were your concerns i'm sorry what were your concerns dr smith um well it came out of the out of the blue basically the the the request and um as i said that
01:22:13 the the request and um as i said that part of the issues were around how much we could
01:22:17 we could fund and participate in activities of external bodies to bre um
01:22:25 um so part of that is part of the explanation i guess as to mentioning the fact that cwct are a competitor i mean how much time do you devote
01:22:36 devote in terms of our effort and resources in producing documents for others
01:22:43 others and whilst we we do that we have to do it in a very strategic way because vre's subject to very many requests from many organizations to sit on their
01:22:56 many organizations to sit on their committees etc to help them draft help them generate data and so on and so forth and we were self-funding i mean we we
01:23:07 we were self-funding i mean we we that there was no income stream to cover this type of activity
01:23:13 activity so
01:23:13 so what did you mean by this looks dangerous
01:23:17 dangerous um dangerous yeah what was dangerous i don't recall that particularly as to what my concern would have been around that um
01:23:29 um well let me let me just get at this differently you start this email with woo exclamation mark and you've told us that was a response that was uncharacteristic and
01:23:40 a response that was uncharacteristic and then you follow it up this looks very dangerous
01:23:43 dangerous this is clearly a moment which called for a particularly strong reaction from you say you felt yeah so did you really not recall it no i can't but i mean it it was a response
01:23:54 i can't but i mean it it was a response back predominantly to steve to say that we just need to consider this properly you know don't don't just go off and rush off and and do something your
01:24:06 rush off and and do something your concern appears to have been at the time that the cwct was the bre's competitor they are a competitor to some degree yes in what way
01:24:26 what did you mean by
01:24:30 the fire safety mantle don't end up handing the fire safety mantle to cwct a competitor what was that about um
01:24:44 basically that you know you have to understand the the background to participating in these types of activities um and in this case yes it's talking
01:24:55 um and in this case yes it's talking about cwct you can't you can't just go in there
01:24:59 in there um
01:25:01 um unprepared well to understand what what the objectives are you need to understand what they're doing and if we are indeed the right people to participate in this
01:25:12 the right people to participate in this well it you know it's um right
01:25:15 right it was a badly written email and but basically the message was look we need to sit down and talk about this talk about what what i'm really seeking
01:25:27 talk about what what i'm really seeking to understand from you is what your point was here and your point appears to be
01:25:35 discussing a strategy so that you don't lose a competitive commercial edge to cwct that's what this is about isn't it
01:25:44 it well
01:25:45 well potentially there that comes through as part of the um point what's the rest of it um well so it's about understanding the
01:25:56 um well so it's about understanding the context and the cost to us as well in participating in these types of activities i mean we had to we had to make tough decisions
01:26:08 we had to make tough decisions um consistently throughout the time from privatisation you know you cannot support every initiative and every activity that's going on out there yet you know we were requested to do so
01:26:21 yet you know we were requested to do so on multiple occasions could you identify the words in this email
01:26:27 email which indicated that the bre was interested in participating in a collaborative program in the in the interests of public safety not from that email no but then as i say
01:26:39 not from that email no but then as i say as it goes on sarah has come back with a response and i
01:26:47 it looks as though from then my response to that
01:26:55 that the need for the meeting and so on was dispelled and that then
01:27:00 that then participation um took place and sarah contributed and um and participated would you agree that many well when you responded woo this
01:27:11 many well when you responded woo this looks very dangerous you had at least read
01:27:14 read what it was that had been sent to you in copy
01:27:18 copy um
01:27:19 um yes partially yes well will you say partially which parts well i certainly this was a response to the steve howard email in particular um and it was a
01:27:30 um and it was a yeah it's an off-the-cuff um
01:27:34 response that i suppose you could now say was probably an overreaction actually on my part well
01:27:45 well it's not an overreaction or it might be an overreaction the way you expressed it what i'm really seeking to understand is when you read the email chain below this did you not understand
01:27:56 did you not understand that many of the issues identified by brenda acted were important matters of public fire safety um
01:28:06 potentially but i i don't recall exactly what my what my views were at the time and you know and i hadn't had the
01:28:17 and you know and i hadn't had the opportunity at that point to discuss it i mean normally that's what we would do we would sit down and discuss these things well i have to say dr smith just reading this
01:28:29 dr smith just reading this for what it says one might get the impression that you were very concerned that cwct was taking active steps to deal with a problem
01:28:40 deal with a problem and we're concerned that it might be asserting its position in the in the market which you found unwelcome is that a fair reading um
01:28:52 i mean that may well have been part of my immediate reaction to that well it's the only reaction we get in this email yeah from but i say i don't recall this specifically at the time
01:29:03 specifically at the time and um
01:29:05 and um yeah it looks like a knee-jerk reaction to something which is not the normal way that we operate and um
01:29:17 the normal way that we operate and um hence the the the comment there look we need to set up a meeting to discuss this right but as i say it then evolved so yeah
01:29:29 all right thank you mr one more question then i'll well all right because i think we need to give the uh a chance to have a break i mean in light of the answer you've given the chairman and and just before
01:29:40 given the chairman and and just before that
01:29:41 that is it fair to say that this email this response indicated that your sole concerns to protect the bre's revenue streams uh i mean you weren't interested in matters of public fire safety um
01:29:55 in matters of public fire safety um well that was never my sole motivation in anything you could see how this email can be read that way i can mr chairman is that a convenient i think we should have a break at this point yes thank you we'll have a break now dr
01:30:07 thank you we'll have a break now dr smith we'll um resume of course to 12 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your own thank you
01:30:21 thank you of course the 12 please
01:46:23 would you ask dr smith to come back in please
01:46:37 all right dr smith yes thank you thank you yes mr phillips yes um can we move up the chain then please we'll rather go back to bre three zero four seven four five nine and go up the
01:46:48 four seven four five nine and go up the chain please to page one and we can see sarah colwell's response to your email and she says that this document has been around for several years and was focused on curtain wall issues
01:46:59 and was focused on curtain wall issues the problem is now the issues we are seeing in the industry that are not clearly defined in adb hence our meeting with dclg earlier in the year and their suggested faq route this cwct revision
01:47:11 suggested faq route this cwct revision would fit with that approach we used to have good links to cwct via btg but i'm not sure who's taking it on now i'll follow up with julie now before we go on
01:47:23 follow up with julie now before we go on there's a reference in the first line there to this document yes
01:47:28 yes that's a reference isn't it to the cwct's technical note 73 attached to the i assume so yes who is btg um that would be the building technology
01:47:40 um that would be the building technology group within bre i see i think right and julie is that julie bregular um yes i would imagine it is
01:47:51 is and um
01:47:53 and um what were the issues that she says we are seeing in the industry and that are not clearly defined in adb
01:48:12 i don't know the specific issues to which she's referring to did you ask her we don't see that you did in the no i don't i don't recall asking her but as i say you know
01:48:25 sarah seems to be fully in control of this [Music]
01:48:30 [Music] i would have no reason to um sort of interfere with it unless she required me to do so in terms of the detail
01:48:42 well she's coming back to you not in response to your
01:48:48 woo email
01:48:50 email but
01:48:52 but explaining the context of the substantive email from brenda acted of the 24th of april yes at the bottom of the email chain were you not interested to know from her
01:49:04 were you not interested to know from her what the substantive issue was
01:49:08 i don't recall what um specifically at the time but i say my reading of this is that it is somebody that is
01:49:16 that is fully in control of what's going on and fully understands the background and is proposing a way forward well that's true
01:49:27 well that's true as we can read it but my question is is about really your curiosity
01:49:33 curiosity were you
01:49:34 were you not curious to know what the issues we are seeing in the industry that are not clearly defined in adb were not least given the role of the adb in advising government on the amendments to
01:49:45 advising government on the amendments to atp in 2005 and 2006. i don't recall at that time
01:50:01 now looking at your response at the top of the email chain you say sarah i suspect that no one has picked up the links and that's another good reason sorry another reason why it could
01:50:13 reason sorry another reason why it could be a threat we need to consider what we are going to do is we don't want everyone going to cwct with their fire issues in the future
01:50:21 future i recall we'll need to check that we had a draft ihs publication in this area depending on where it is could that be reviewed to address a number of these issues
01:50:35 what issues
01:50:38 issues the issues i presume that are being referred to within the um
01:50:44 the email lower down what was the draft ihs publication i don't recall there may have been one that was around the um cladding
01:50:57 um cladding um
01:51:00 um in general um
01:51:02 um so did the bre actually have a draft document addressing these issues
01:51:09 i mean i have a obviously in this email i had a recollection that there was something that was in the pipeline or whatever but i don't recall what happened as a consequence of this or indeed if it had
01:51:20 consequence of this or indeed if it had been supported and and drafted i mean when you refer to these issues there which might be addressed by that publication of yours
01:51:32 publication of yours presumably you were referring to the issues that had been spelled out by brenda raptor in her email um i can that's all i consume yes yes and therefore by the time you get to
01:51:43 and therefore by the time you get to respond to sarah colwill on the 25th of april
01:51:46 april you were fully aware of what the issues were
01:51:50 were uh fully aware of what sarah colwell was telling you
01:51:55 and fully aware therefore of the problems
01:51:59 problems yes
01:52:00 yes um well at a high level potentially yeah i mean i i wasn't um i say involved in any of the detailed discussions around these points no but you you were you
01:52:11 these points no but you you were you were you were being you were you knew enough of the issues to be able to suggest the uh the checking at least of a draft ihs publication which might have addressed the issues
01:52:23 which might have addressed the issues yeah that was just a question wasn't it it's a question is there is there a draft is there a draft ihs publication because i had some recollection that there would
01:52:34 i had some recollection that there would have been a discussion about that that could potentially review and be changed to address some of the issues that would could that be reviewed to
01:52:47 that would could that be reviewed to address a number of the issues
01:52:51 your main concern in this is about the threats posed by cwct as a competitor isn't it um that's part of it yes
01:53:02 isn't it um that's part of it yes it certainly appears to be so yeah but it's the f it's the subject of the first two sentences isn't it um
01:53:08 um no one's picked up the links i mean i think that's referring to probably the btg
01:53:15 btg reference in sarah's email below which obviously was owned by btg
01:53:24 and that why would that be a threat well potentially because we just hadn't been following any of the work and paying any uh attention to it
01:53:36 uh attention to it if that link had been broken so that i think that's what that first sentence is referring to um
01:53:42 um [Music]
01:53:46 well yeah and then the next bit is um you know we need to make sure
01:53:52 that we're not i guess marginalized in terms of uh this ongoing area of work
01:54:04 yes um let's go to bre three zeros five
01:54:12 this is the code of conduct we looked at yesterday i think from september 2014 code of conduct and ethics policy you recall that uh yes yes
01:54:23 recall that uh yes yes and uh if you go please to a page uh two paragraph one
01:54:33 uh there is a heading are ethical principles yes yes
01:54:42 yes yes and
01:54:44 you can see what those those are yes and if if you go to honesty and integrity one of those was about the duty to
01:54:56 one of those was about the duty to [Music]
01:54:57 [Music] ensure
01:55:00 ensure uh
01:55:01 uh that we acquire and use wisely and faithfully the knowledge that is relevant to the skills we need in the service of others yes
01:55:08 yes and if you go to page three in the final section
01:55:11 section under the heading respect for life law and the public good
01:55:20 it says we give due weight to all relevant law facts and published guidance bre group requirements and the wider public interest and
01:55:30 and will you see that will yes
01:55:36 ensure that all our work is lawful and justified
01:55:42 and then in the penultimate bullet point hold
01:55:44 hold paramount
01:55:46 paramount the health and safety of others you see that yes i do and under expertise science and research
01:55:56 it says as we saw yesterday remember that we hold a privileged and trusted position in society and thus expect to demonstrate that we are seeking to serve wider society
01:56:07 seeking to serve wider society and be sensitive to public concerns now apart from the fact that this code was dated september 2014 and the exchanges we've been looking at just now took place in the april of that
01:56:19 just now took place in the april of that year
01:56:21 year can you explain how your responses in those emails particularly the woo this looks dangerous email are consistent with the principles that i've just read to you
01:56:32 i've just read to you so i mean bre the staff myself everybody
01:56:38 everybody has always um done work just for the public good and to support the health and safety of others in the environment that that is part of the raison d'etre
01:56:50 part of the raison d'etre the stark reality is around all of that you still have to earn money otherwise you're not there you cease to exist and
01:57:05 you cannot therefore provide support to every piece of work that is going on outside that
01:57:16 that is
01:57:17 is health and safety related and for the public good bre just does not have the depth of staff and resources and
01:57:28 the the income to enable that to happen and strategic decisions have to be taken about prioritizing and supporting those
01:57:40 about prioritizing and supporting those activities you know every every year we used to go through a cycle for example in
01:57:48 in looking at standards committee attendance because all of the standards that are produced fall within this category of being for the public good and for the
01:57:59 being for the public good and for the health and safety of others but
01:58:02 but we just can't physically send somebody to every single standards committee that is working within that space so you have to sit down and take
01:58:15 so you have to sit down and take decisions about which activities you can afford to support and
01:58:22 and and that's really the environment within which we've had to exist
01:58:28 exist um since privatization there is nobody there that is funding those
01:58:35 those attendances and
01:58:38 and you know as i said the the reality is if you don't earn any income from other sources which nevertheless are there to underpin the health and safety
01:58:50 health and safety requirements etc so pretty much all of the testing and certification activities that we undertake
01:58:58 undertake say in the fire safety area are
01:59:02 are aimed at and do support the implementation of the building regulations and the approved documents
01:59:13 and you know it's very necessary that
01:59:16 that you earn that income to enable you to continue to to operate within that space
01:59:27 do you accept dr smith that quite contrary
01:59:31 contrary to the service of wider society your reaction to seeing brenda aptid's email
01:59:37 email which suggested collaborative work was to plan a strategy to work out how to guard and protect the bre's fire safety mantle for what was in reality reasons of self-interested private
01:59:50 reasons of self-interested private commercial competition not entirely no i don't i understand the way that that email was read but i think you can also see the way that the conversation then went on
02:00:01 conversation then went on and you also then have to look at the fact that we did support that once all of the facts and so on became and were made available to me and i became aware of
02:00:13 available to me and i became aware of the context to that so you will see that we
02:00:17 we did support the activities at our cost and we did send
02:00:24 send people to to the meetings to to do that so i think to just take that one email um in in isolation is not a true and fair reflection of the decisions that
02:00:36 fair reflection of the decisions that were taken well let's see how this then moves on in time can we then move to june 2014 and go to clg 3031777
02:00:50 this is a an email
02:00:53 an email sent from charlotte robin to herself she's at arab but also to brian martin
02:01:01 martin and barbara lane for a meeting on the 25th of june it's an invitation yes and it says in the text all as discussed this meeting is intended to discuss some particular issues we we come across related to the
02:01:13 issues we we come across related to the interpretation of performance requirements and how this is being achieved in real building applications this covers multiple aspects of the fire stroke facade interface including the use of combustible materials and fire
02:01:25 use of combustible materials and fire stopping and then you can see the attendees
02:01:28 attendees include you brian martin barbara lane charlotte charlotte robin and neil butterworth yes yes i can see that um do you remember going to that meeting um i remember
02:01:39 going to that meeting um i remember going to a meeting with arab but i don't remember
02:01:43 remember brian martin being there and i do recall i think sarah colwell was there do you know who initiated that meeting i mean clearly mechanically it had been arab but do you know who initiated it
02:01:54 arab but do you know who initiated it no i don't do you know what the previous discussions were to which charlotte robin refers in the first line of this email no i i don't think i'd had any
02:02:06 no i i don't think i'd had any discussions with charlotte at all right prior to this do you know what the particular issues were that were going to be discussed um
02:02:17 um i don't recall
02:02:20 did they align with any of the matters set out in brenda aptid's email of the 24th of april 2014 um
02:02:28 um you know i don't i don't know i mean one of the things i do recall was a discussion around the definitions at the meeting of non-combustibility and limited combustibility
02:02:41 limited combustibility i do remember that do you remember any discussions about um the different aspects of the fire or facade interface including the use of combustible materials and fire stopping
02:02:55 combustible materials and fire stopping um which was the intended i don't recall those specifics no
02:03:02 do you remember what specifically was discussed about the use of combustible materials at the meeting
02:03:11 my recollection is that
02:03:15 is that arabs had got a particular project in mind at the time and were
02:03:22 were interested in how the provisions would apply to that and we're asking for some clarifications from our understanding
02:03:33 from our understanding why did you think that the bre would be able to assist arab in
02:03:39 in [Music]
02:03:40 [Music] understanding
02:03:44 the provisions i don't think um
02:03:50 um i don't think i would have had a view of that at the time is it not because i regarded bre as being able to offer an insight
02:04:01 bre as being able to offer an insight into the
02:04:02 into the intended meaning and effect of the guidance
02:04:07 guidance on combustible materials in facades given its role in assisting government in making the amendments to adb in 2006. i don't know i don't know what would
02:04:18 i don't know i don't know what would have been arabs motivation in that respect i mean obviously where the facades were concerned
02:04:26 there would have been some expectation that they wanted to discuss also in line with matters associated with br135 potentially classification etc
02:04:38 potentially classification etc which would be why um
02:04:41 um i'm
02:04:42 i'm i'm pretty sure that sarah colwell attended that meeting with me she's not on the list but you think she was there i think she did attend this meeting do you think brian martin didn't no i don't think he did and actually i
02:04:54 no i don't think he did and actually i don't think neil butterworth did either but i
02:04:58 but i i say i i can't i can't be 100 certain about that when you were going to the meeting what did you think the purpose of your your attendance was why did they think i wanted you there
02:05:09 why did they think i wanted you there i think i was seen as the the point of contact within bre somebody that they knew
02:05:14 knew right
02:05:15 right and um
02:05:16 and um was do you remember any discussion about the meaning or interpretation or scope of
02:05:21 of paragraph 12.6 or and 12.7 of approved document b i don't recall i mean i'm sure it probably was touched upon within the context of
02:05:33 within the context of facades and br135 what about the appropriateness or otherwise of class naught as a classification for fire performance for the external surfaces of buildings
02:05:45 for the external surfaces of buildings above 18 meters i mean i don't recall it in specific detail though well do you know what the outcome of the meeting was can you recall what that was
02:05:54 that was no i can't i mean obviously it was a request from arab there was a discussion and i don't think we ever had any follow-up from them in in regard to the
02:06:05 in regard to the discussions that we had was there any discussion about the use of k-15 on high-rise buildings no i don't believe so was there any discussion about the use of other
02:06:17 discussion about the use of other combustible insulation materials on buildings above 18 meters um it would probably only have been in a very generic sense i can't imagine we would have talked specifically about any particular manufacturer or their product
02:06:30 particular manufacturer or their product right
02:06:37 um were there any action points you recall no agreed not that i can recall at all this meeting took place uh exactly a week before the cwct fire
02:06:49 uh exactly a week before the cwct fire group meeting at arab on the 2nd of july 2014
02:06:53 2014 which is is in fact the meeting that had been proposed in brenda aptid's 24th of april 2014 email okay can we take it that um you were aware of the cwct fire group
02:07:05 um you were aware of the cwct fire group meeting
02:07:06 meeting on the 2nd of july at the time it happened or before it happened
02:07:11 happened i i assume i was because of the email trail that and that we actually agreed that yes we were going to attend that yeah
02:07:19 yeah i know you didn't attend it but sarah colwell did didn't she yes correct did you have a discussion about the bre's
02:07:27 bre's um strategy your word from the email run with sarah colwell in advance of the meeting no i mean the strategy that i was referring to would not it was not
02:07:38 referring to would not it was not on in terms of what to say and what to do at the meeting because the scope and the
02:07:44 the the extent of the discussions would not have been known in advance the strategy is more about whether you attend or you don't attend whether we can participate actively or we can't
02:07:56 can participate actively or we can't did you have any discussion with sarah colwell at all about the meeting i don't recall what about after the meeting do you remember having a discussion with or debrief from sarah colwell about
02:08:09 with or debrief from sarah colwell about the meeting i don't recall that at all no you don't recall now given the immediate reaction from you we saw in the email run in april
02:08:20 in april and your um skepticism if that's the right word about the meeting at all can you explain why you didn't seek to find out what had happened at the meeting from sarah cola
02:08:33 well i can't recall the details from the time but
02:08:40 the very fact that we got to the point where we were going to participate and support
02:08:46 support the participation in in that activity
02:08:52 that's kind of the decision point and you then expect others to as i say get on and do the work and do whatever they need to do and i would not have expected to necessarily
02:09:05 i would not have expected to necessarily have immediate report backs on on everything that was going on unless there was a particular issue that um sarah had wanted to discuss with me given the potential threat to the fire
02:09:18 given the potential threat to the fire safety mantle that the collaboration with cwct presented as you saw it at the time
02:09:24 time do you not recall insisting or asking sarah colwell just to tell you what happened no i mean because we'd gone beyond that and the the issues that
02:09:35 the issues that i appeared to have been concerned about must have been satisfactorily resolved otherwise we wouldn't have been participating let's go to the minutes at clg three
02:09:46 let's go to the minutes at clg three zeros one nine three three six
02:09:50 now we can see that it's a minute of a meeting held at arab on the second of july 2014 at two o'clock in the afternoon present david metcalf in the chair from cwct and you can see who else was there
02:10:03 cwct and you can see who else was there sarah colwell is named third down and there are other people there including brian martin who was there it is said for some of the meeting but not all of it either meredith from kingspan
02:10:15 all of it either meredith from kingspan and other names just looking at the at the minute on its first page is this a document that you saw at the time do you think i don't recall
02:10:26 you think i don't recall do you remember whether you have seen them before just now i have seen it before since now um in the preparation for
02:10:36 for um
02:10:37 um for the public inquiry basically but not at the time is that right i don't recall seeing it at the time if we go to page three first please you can see that there's a section
02:10:48 can see that there's a section at the top of your screens which says combustibility of insulation
02:10:53 and i'll read it to you limited combustibility insulation should be used above 18 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of adb clause 12.7 but other materials
02:11:04 clause 12.7 but other materials principally foil faced phenolic foam are often used in rain screen walls there is a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility
02:11:15 with limited combustibility in other cases building control officers are permitting the use of class naught materials making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility in insulation
02:11:27 in insulation higher standards of thermal insulation are required uh are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation and in some cases this can only be achieved within the designated wall zone by use of combustible
02:11:39 wall zone by use of combustible insulation architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material
02:11:51 material now um first within the industry did you know that there was as you said here a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility
02:12:03 with limited combustibility um no
02:12:05 um no i didn't
02:12:06 i didn't you weren't were you aware at the time july 2014 that building control officers were permitting the use of class naught products
02:12:15 products composed of combustible materials in high-rise buildings no i would not know that
02:12:23 right would it have come as a surprise to you to discover either of or both of those facts um yes
02:12:32 yes but you say sarah corwell didn't pass that back to you not that i'm aware of no right i'm still on page three under the heading use of acm on high-rise buildings
02:12:44 buildings acm refers to aluminium composite material the normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately half a millimeter thick separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick
02:12:56 millimeters thick this material generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class naught or class b s 1 d naught there are versions available with the mineral core which can achieve a 2 s 1 d
02:13:08 mineral core which can achieve a 2 s 1 d naught
02:13:09 naught there are also similar materials available with other metals such as copper used for the facing there have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world including the middle east and france where acm
02:13:21 the middle east and france where acm materials have been used for the cladding with the acm responsible for external fire spread now
02:13:28 now um was any of that imparted to you by sarah colwell after the meeting um
02:13:36 um well i think as i've already said in earlier evidence we were aware of the major fires that were occurring in the middle east and we had had discussions
02:13:47 and we had had discussions internally with several different people
02:13:54 as to whether that could actually happen in the uk or not and that's really where we would we we had reviewed the guidance as written and
02:14:05 and i mean as i say i i was absolutely convinced by what i'd heard that that could not happen in the uk if the guidance was being interpreted and used correctly
02:14:17 and used correctly so
02:14:18 so um
02:14:19 um but at the times those things happened and and so on you know i
02:14:25 know i i don't know but you say in that last answer that you could review the guidance and you were absolutely convinced by what i'd heard that that could not happen in the uk yes
02:14:36 that that could not happen in the uk yes when did you review the guidance in light of the middle east for the uae fires
02:14:42 fires well it would have been around the time that those occurred and i say i can't i can't be specific about dates because i don't recall those but um you know i had discussions with um
02:14:55 um you know i had discussions with um with sarah and people such as martin ship and so on in terms of
02:15:02 what we were seeing and based on our very very limited knowledge of what was going on in the construction sector at the time i'll
02:15:13 construction sector at the time i'll give you the dates see if they're familiar
02:15:16 familiar um
02:15:17 um the al baker tower 18th of january 2012 the altea tower 28th of april 2012 syedfz
02:15:26 syedfz of october 2012. tamweel 8th of november 2012 and i'll have feet in april 2013. yeah so those were those far as you knew about um i i can't
02:15:38 about um i i can't i don't know they don't recognize the names of them all like that but around the top of the time frame yes yeah of course i mean and it's likely that the discussion would have initially taken place around one of the first ones that were high
02:15:50 one of the first ones that were high profile and well reported and that we would have then had the discussion around that time and then obviously subsequent ones we would not keep repeating that discussion because the view was that
02:16:03 discussion because the view was that everything was um as we understood it okay in the uk um
02:16:11 in your answer before last you referred to a very very limited knowledge of what was going on in the construction sector at the time why was the bre's knowledge in 2014
02:16:24 why was the bre's knowledge in 2014 of what was going on in the construction sector very very limited um
02:16:29 um i mean our role was not one of either design of buildings or inspection and signing off of buildings so we were removed from that
02:16:41 so we were removed from that you know the role was one of just testing and classifying products materials that came to us or if
02:16:51 if a particular issue was raised and discussed or researched by us but
02:16:58 by us but and well and the other area that we would have some very limited information would be
02:17:04 would be that collected in the fire investigation type
02:17:08 type activity but apart from that we you know we were not on site we had nobody on site
02:17:15 on site um
02:17:16 um on a regular basis at all presumably you knew as she told us that dr colwell was traveling to the uae or the middle east i think as she put it two or three times a year
02:17:28 two or three times a year um is that not right well i mean sarah did go to the middle east i was aware she went to the middle east i don't know whether it was two to three times a year that's what it sounds okay well if that's um that's what she said then
02:17:40 if that's um that's what she said then that must be the case she was asked to support
02:17:44 support them in terms of their development of their fire code and their
02:17:54 um addressing the issues that they were faced with external cladding fires so the examples that you gave earlier so they wanted to as i
02:18:06 gave earlier so they wanted to as i understand it revise their fire code and then see what standards were available and so on that could potentially help them now going back to the answer you gave a few minutes ago
02:18:18 the answer you gave a few minutes ago you said that in light of the files in the middle east you had discussions internally with several different people as to whether that could actually happen in the uk or not at first who were those
02:18:30 in the uk or not at first who were those several different people i think i said it was um
02:18:34 it was um sarah
02:18:36 sarah martin ship um potentially david crowder and
02:18:43 and i think it would have probably involved tony baker as well and you go on um
02:18:49 um i'm sorry
02:18:53 um you go on to say that you had reviewed the guidance as written and you were absolutely convinced by what you'd heard that that could not happen in the uk
02:19:04 that that could not happen in the uk was it your position
02:19:07 and you go on to qualify it if the guidance was being interpreted and used correctly that's your qualifier was it your position and understanding at the time that the uk construction industry
02:19:18 industry was interpreting and using the guidance in the way you understood it as you've explained to us yes that was my view what was that view based on
02:19:29 my view what was that view based on the fact that we were not aware of any problems right so let's then go back to the
02:19:36 the note of the meeting use use of acm on high-rise buildings and you see that it says
02:19:41 says in the second sentence the normal material consists of two skins of aluminium etc separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters
02:19:53 five millimeters this meeting is being told that acm on high rise buildings contains
02:20:00 contains those ingredients components as the normal
02:20:04 normal material
02:20:06 material did that fact not get reported to you did you not know that
02:20:10 that no i don't recall being aware of that at all
02:20:16 is there any reason why sarah colwell given the discussions that you'd had with her
02:20:22 with her having reviewed the guidance and thinking that nobody um would be putting that material on high-rise buildings if they were complying with the guidance
02:20:33 the guidance tell you that in fact at the meeting it transpired that acm products with a polyethylene or otherwise combustible core were being used in the uk above 18 meters
02:20:48 sorry so was there any reason why she wouldn't tell me is that what you're asking that is what i'm like i don't know well
02:20:57 well can you think of a reason why she would not have reported back to you the fact that contrary to your collective beliefs before this meeting that acm of the polyethylene core wasn't being used because it wouldn't
02:21:09 wasn't being used because it wouldn't have complied in fact it was being used yeah i i don't know
02:21:16 i'm suggesting to you there isn't a reason why she wouldn't have reported that back to you i don't recall having that discussion and that being reported back to me
02:21:28 so is it your evidence to the inquiry that
02:21:31 that as of july 2014 you were unaware that acm products with a polyethylene or otherwise combustible core were being used in the external wall arrangements of buildings with a
02:21:43 wall arrangements of buildings with a habitable story over 18 meters in england and wales yes
02:21:55 now i think it's right that because you told us earlier in your evidence that
02:22:02 that that kind of product should never ever be used above 18 meters you'll recall that evidence that's my personal opinion yes and was it your personal opinion in july 2014
02:22:13 july 2014 um
02:22:16 i suppose my opinion as i express it now is based upon the information well and the the tests that i witnessed in
02:22:26 in august 2017. but was it your personal opinion so july 2014. yeah i i don't recall precisely if i um what my opinion was
02:22:38 what my opinion was within that context that you're asking there well you told us but in terms i suppose of compliance and
02:22:47 and satisfying the requirements as i understood them in the approved document then yes they should not be that should not have been in use and indeed i think it's right wooden isn't it that in
02:22:58 isn't it that in july 2014 you would have been well you were well aware of the dangers of the use of acm
02:23:06 acm products with a polyethylene core because of the tests carried out on exactly that type of rain screen cladding product during the 2001 cc 1924 program
02:23:17 2001 cc 1924 program um which led to yes the production of br 135
02:23:22 135 and the means or a means by which to basically prevent those products being used yes well that's that's um can i just explore that was it
02:23:33 that's um can i just explore that was it your understanding that cc 1924 led to
02:23:39 led to prevention of those products being used um
02:23:43 um it led to the production of br 135 no but it didn't leave did it to the word filler being inserted in 2006. which what didn't
02:23:56 let me let me ask you to in an open way you said
02:24:02 you said that
02:24:08 maybe i've misunderstood your evidence but was it your understanding that the cc 1924 program led to the introduction of the word filler and its effect
02:24:20 filler and its effect no no
02:24:27 did you consider what were you aware of any further testing
02:24:31 testing since 2001 that produced any better results for acm with a pe chord panel either under the
02:24:40 under the linear route or under what became bs8414 parts one or two no not that i'm aware of no
02:24:49 of no did you consider in 2014 or indeed at any other time up to the time of the grenfell tower fire that the use of composite metal panels with a polyethylene core in the facade
02:25:00 with a polyethylene core in the facade of a residential high-rise building would present anything other than a grave risk to the lives of occupants of that building
02:25:11 i sorry i'm not i can't answer yes or no to that because i'm not quite sure of the line that you you you followed there but
02:25:20 but basically i could not
02:25:24 could not see how
02:25:26 see how acm could be used on a high-rise building in the uk without of the guidance yeah and
02:25:36 and couldn't be do you accept this extra bit couldn't be used on high-rise buildings in the uk where at least where they were residential without the gravest of risks to the lives of the occupants yes yes
02:25:56 now do you remember
02:26:01 whether as a result of the meeting you were aware that any action needed to be taken did anybody tell you to sarah or i'll tell you that as a result of this meeting well i'm sorry to interrupt you mr
02:26:13 well i'm sorry to interrupt you mr really but if if we're going to move from the meeting can i just ask or not but
02:26:23 we've been told that in the course of the meeting views were expressed about the
02:26:28 the uh effect of 12.7 in its then current form we're coming to that are you coming together
02:26:35 together then i'll let you do it um
02:26:39 um that's okay if we can go back to the minutes let's do that now um let's go to the minutes of page four please paragraph two down second paragraph on the page
02:26:53 and there you can see it says
02:26:58 yes we want page four please i'm so sorry page four second paragraph down and after the reference to the academic literature in the
02:27:09 in the italics at the top you can see this it says this it was stated the clause 0.12 to clause 12.7 of adb is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters
02:27:23 called acm in buildings over 18 meters as they are not classed as limited combustibility this is not clear from the wording of the current clause the current clause is preceded by a heading insulation materials stroke
02:27:34 heading insulation materials stroke products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this is not clear
02:27:46 polyethylene core but this is not clear that
02:27:47 that do you know from what you knew heard saw at the time who it was who had said at the meeting stated at the meeting the 12.7 was intended to
02:27:58 the meeting the 12.7 was intended to prohibit the use of acm polyethylene products in buildings over 18 meters no i don't know who said that it presumably this statement aligned
02:28:09 it presumably this statement aligned with your own view at the time of adb is that right just looking at it on the page um yes that it couldn't that it was intended to prohibit the use
02:28:20 that it was intended to prohibit the use yes
02:28:21 yes had you previously been aware before this meeting that there were others in the industry to whom this was apparently not clear using the last two words of that paragraph um no no i was not
02:28:33 that paragraph um no no i was not had it never come up in any of the inquiries received by the bre before july 2014 not that i was involved in no
02:28:43 but it is correct isn't it from the emails we saw in november 2013 that that lack of clarity had been raised by the bre tony baker particularly with government we saw that
02:28:54 government we saw that yes but you were not aware of that at all no didn't cross your desk not that i'm aware of no
02:29:02 in the third paragraph you could see this
02:29:05 this it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an faq approved documents can be downloaded from the government planning portal the page for each approved document also
02:29:16 the page for each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin
02:29:23 so were you told as a result of this meeting that there was not going to be a cwct document
02:29:32 um not that i can recall no was it were you told that it was sarah caldwell who heard
02:29:39 heard i don't know volunteered is the right word but would be raising that matter with brian martin um not not that i can recall were you told by sarah colwell that as a result
02:29:50 told by sarah colwell that as a result of her volunteering to do that the fire safety mantle rested secure with the bre not that i can recall um i thought brian martin was at the meeting
02:30:01 meeting he was at the meeting for some of it so he says and we can be investigating that later but since you weren't there i'm not sure yes that helps terribly much um had that been the strategy
02:30:12 had that been the strategy to go into the meeting uh with sarah colwell essentially taking charge of this topic to retain control by um
02:30:22 um uh raising with brian martin the faq no
02:30:27 no no
02:30:29 no i'm not i'm not sure that [Music]
02:30:33 [Music] the suggestion of an faq where that would have come from um
02:30:38 um that's not an area that i think bre has any particular familiarity with well we saw the reference to an faq in the tony baker email chain back in
02:30:49 the tony baker email chain back in november 2013. so i wonder whether that's quite right dr smith yeah but i faqs are not um a vehicle that we have i think ever had any sort of involvement
02:31:01 i think ever had any sort of involvement with
02:31:02 with so the faqs on the planning portal
02:31:06 portal um
02:31:08 um to my knowledge anyway we've we've never been involved in drafting any faqs or anything like that which can you explain to us then in the light of that
02:31:19 explain to us then in the light of that why sarah colwell agreed to raise the possibility of an faq with brian martin if it was so alien to the bre well i'm guessing that she um
02:31:30 um somebody else would have probably suggested that as a means and then um sarah acted or agreed to act as a
02:31:39 conduit for that discussion why would you do that if she was so unfamiliar with that as a process i can't answer that i don't know but i all i can say is i'm
02:31:51 i don't know but i all i can say is i'm not aware that bre has ever had any involvement prior to this in
02:31:56 in drafting or whatever any any faqs can we take it that you are aware
02:32:03 aware sitting there today that no faq document on any aspect of the meaning or scope of paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 of the approved document was published at any time before the grenfell tower fire i
02:32:15 time before the grenfell tower fire i now understand that yes yes do you know whether one was ever even drafted i'm not aware of that no you're not a in other words you have never seen never heard of one being drafted no
02:32:28 heard of one being drafted no right
02:32:29 right were you aware that uh of sarah colwell or anybody else at the bre ever working even on a draft however sketchy
02:32:39 sketchy not that i'm aware of no i mean obviously sarah would be able to answer that more specifically well we've had her evidence stop smith we have also heard evidence that a
02:32:51 we have also heard evidence that a meeting took place on the 8th of september 2014 between sarah colwell allen keeler of the cwct and others to discuss the potential faq and how the wording
02:33:02 the potential faq and how the wording was to be formulated did you attend that meeting uh no not that did you discuss that meeting with sarah colwell either before or after the 8th of september 2014. not that i'm
02:33:13 8th of september 2014. not that i'm aware of no were you aware that by march 2015 david metcalf of the cwct was chasing sarah colwell by email to find out what was happening with the note that she had apparently agreed to
02:33:24 note that she had apparently agreed to draft
02:33:25 draft no were you aware that sarah colwell responded to that chaser telling him that the document had been drafted and would be circulated no
02:33:34 no i take it that you've never seen such a document no i haven't
02:33:40 uh let's go to her statement please br
02:33:44 please br e3047571 page 84 paragraph 565
02:33:52 she says this
02:34:07 five six five
02:34:10 uh and the question is if an faq on this matter was drafted when and by whom was that done you see that yes
02:34:18 yes 565 which has now disappeared please can we scroll down to the bottom of page 84.
02:34:29 um in the end sorry uh
02:34:33 sorry uh 565 thank you um
02:34:37 um several outlines of the faq were discussed between bre staff and cwct representatives but nothing was finalized that's what she says were you involved in discussions
02:34:48 discussions um about the outlines of the faq not that i can recollect no do you know whether a positive decision was ever made not to finalize it no i don't do you understand why no faq
02:35:02 no i don't do you understand why no faq was finalized um
02:35:05 um no i don't do you know when it was decided that an faq notwithstanding the promise made to the meeting by sarah colwell was not finalized no i don't
02:35:18 now
02:35:20 in her oral evidence to the inquiry on day 233 sarah colwell told us that the decision that an faq would not be
02:35:31 be the appropriate route by which to deal with this matter and that no such document would be produced by the bre was a decision taken in or by august or september 2014.
02:35:46 in or by august or september 2014. does that sound right to you that was her evidence um
02:35:50 um i can't i don't know you don't know let me show you what she says elsewhere in that in her evidence can we go please to her
02:36:01 in her evidence can we go please to her transcript of day 234 and go to page 12.
02:36:14 day two three four
02:36:32 and
02:36:36 at line five she says this as i said yesterday we were becoming aware
02:36:41 aware and this is september 2014 that it was more than a single point response that the document needed and looking at where the changes were going to be required it was going to be a larger piece of work around that
02:36:54 larger piece of work around that the decision was taken around that time of august september to look at whether it was better to move to a full review of part 12 and part of the outcome of the meeting from this was it was clear
02:37:05 the meeting from this was it was clear that there was more requirement just a simple faq question with a written answer it was a more detailed response that was needed do you remember discussions about that
02:37:18 discussions about that um no i don't and
02:37:23 i mean in in terms of a review of a full review of part 12 i assume that's referring to the clauses in the approved document
02:37:36 i mean that that must have been based on a discussion with brian martin because bre was not in a position to implement or undertake any review of
02:37:47 implement or undertake any review of part 12.
02:37:49 part 12. can we go to page 28 of this transcript please
02:38:04 uh in fact i think we probably should pick it up at the foot of page 27 to give you a little bit of the context
02:38:14 and
02:38:16 at line 21 miss grange has put to sarah caldwell this just to be clear who made the final decision within the bre
02:38:28 decision within the bre that no faq route was to be pursued was that dr smith answer i believe that came as a conversation between dr smith and myself
02:38:39 conversation between dr smith and myself yes
02:38:41 yes and if we turn the page
02:38:45 line one right but she is the senior yes answer yes question at line three did she take that final decision that the faq route was not one you were going to go down
02:38:57 not one you were going to go down answer at line five it was agreed between us so yes in that sense yes
02:39:04 yes and i'm putting that to you as her evidence do you accept it i don't recall that at all and i would
02:39:14 so i i can't i can't um say yes or no i mean i'm i'm amazed that that's her recollection of that
02:39:25 that that's her recollection of that as i say
02:39:27 as i say any revision of clause 12 as suggested on the previous i think previous page would not be one for us to undertake
02:39:39 would not be one for us to undertake anyway and similarly
02:39:42 similarly um
02:39:44 um bre would not be in the position to issue an faq in relation to the planning portal and why did sarah colwell
02:39:55 and why did sarah colwell agree to help with it then so i'm i'm puzzled by by this not bre's role to um
02:40:06 not bre's role to um to write the guidance directly nor to interpret the guidance is that something you told sarah colwell at the time it's something that
02:40:17 it's something that was i believe well understood how was it well understood based on um discussions that would have taken place over over many years
02:40:30 taken place over over many years i mean people knew that and that's evidenced by the fact of the um email that you said you showed earlier where tony baker had written to
02:40:41 earlier where tony baker had written to brian martin seeking
02:40:44 seeking you know an interpretation of the the text in um part in part 12 of approved document b
02:40:55 part in part 12 of approved document b looking at what sarah colwell volunteered to do it wasn't to issue the faq it was to it was to assist with the drafting of an faq for brian martin so that he could
02:41:06 faq for brian martin so that he could put it up on the government's portal yes so it's not our decision as to whether that route would be followed or not it would have to be
02:41:17 it would have to be brian martin's or the department's decision as to whether that was the appropriate route to take
02:41:26 coming back to her evidence i think you is it your evidence that you can't quarrel one way or the other with her recollection i can't recall this no no but do you quarrel with her recollection do you say
02:41:38 quarrel with her recollection do you say that her recollection is faulty or do you say that she might recall that but you can't correct
02:41:46 correct is it the latter of them thank you
02:41:49 thank you if we go then to the witness statement of david metcalf that's at
02:41:55 cwct4040115 forgive me cwct40115
02:42:01 i want to show you what he says at page 13 at paragraph 47
02:42:12 and this is under 2015 communications meetings and communications and the paragraph 47 he says this in the event a draft of the faq was not shared with cwct
02:42:23 shared with cwct i do not know why a draft was not shared the last contact i had with sarah colwell about this suggested that the draft was nearing completion and would be sent to us soon for comment i chased
02:42:34 be sent to us soon for comment i chased sarah colwell for the draft via email and i left at least one voicemail i also asked a colleague of sarah colwell's at the time to chase her for me but i still did not receive any further contact
02:42:46 further contact do you know why a draft document wasn't shared with cwct as promised to him by sarah colwell no i don't
02:42:56 now we don't need to go through the correspondence but if we go over the page to page 14 of his statement david metcalf says i'm in i am aware the
02:43:07 david metcalf says i'm in i am aware the inquiry has an email chain which shows some of the attempts made to chase bre for progress on the faq additionally i exhibit further emails which give further examples and then he sets out five emails between the 13th of
02:43:20 sets out five emails between the 13th of march 2015 and the 10th of november 2015 and
02:43:25 and there are also voicemails that he had left her
02:43:28 left her to which she sarah colwell did not respond as you can see from paragraph 49 of his statement do you know why those five emails and voicemails were ignored by sarah colwell
02:43:41 voicemails were ignored by sarah colwell no i don't do you know why the cwct was not updated about the decision contrary to the second of july minute not to finalize an faq
02:43:54 not to finalize an faq and not to submit anything to brian martin no i don't do you accept that the cwct ought to have been updated on those matters so as to allow them for themselves to decide
02:44:05 to allow them for themselves to decide what they might want to do such as put out a document yes i do was anything was this to do with the cwct's involvement being perceived by you as dangerous
02:44:17 dangerous no no it was not can we look at sarah colwell's statement please bre 3047571
02:44:26 page 84
02:44:31 and she says at paragraph 564 towards the foot of the page in the end no final faq was prepared as ongoing discussions in this period referred us to the upcoming review of a
02:44:42 referred us to the upcoming review of a proof document b please see my answer to question 134 above
02:44:47 above and then she goes on to say at 566 at the foot of the page was it ever submitted to brian martin as the question no is the answer what do you know about those discussions
02:44:59 what do you know about those discussions ongoing discussions in this period referring to the upcoming review of approved document b what do you know about those um
02:45:07 um my knowledge was the same as most people i guess in the fire sector at the time we were regularly updated at various meetings
02:45:18 regularly updated at various meetings with industry etc as to the planned program for a review of the approved document and in fact the research project that was tendered and that we won in 2012
02:45:32 was tendered and that we won in 2012 was
02:45:33 was one of the pieces of information if you like that was
02:45:39 was used in support of the department's
02:45:46 information exchange with industry that it was intended that the outputs from the 2012 research project which ran until 2015 would then be part of the
02:45:58 until 2015 would then be part of the consultation package that would go into the review document for the approved document so
02:46:06 so that that's basically the the ongoing information exchange and discussions that were going on it was all around a commitment as we understood it and as
02:46:17 a commitment as we understood it and as this fire sector in general understood it on behalf of the department that there was an up-and-coming review of adb imminent
02:46:27 imminent and i think you know at that time it was being spoken about as potentially happening in around 2016 and
02:46:34 and which is why the three-year research programme was started when it was with a view to providing new technical evidence etcetera to support
02:46:45 etcetera to support consultation on changes going forward now dr colwell's evidence was that it was you who was having these ongoing discussions
02:46:56 who was having these ongoing discussions um about the upcoming review of approved document b with the department wow that's what she said at day two three three okay so i mean it's as i've just conveyed it to you i mean
02:47:08 mean wasn't having direct conversations with them about any specifics in relation to that
02:47:15 that it's
02:47:16 it's the fact that they had let the contract which we understood and always been explained not just to us but to the fire sector in general and all the key stakeholders that that was the precursor
02:47:30 stakeholders that that was the precursor to the forthcoming review of adb that was being planned by the department so that that was the nature of that so there were no other real discussions other than we were
02:47:42 real discussions other than we were aware of that we knew what the intended output from those projects were and
02:47:50 and and that was understood and widely known in the fire sector
02:47:56 sector and it would routinely be discussed at fire sector group meetings and and so on and so forth
02:48:04 in what way would any ongoing discussions about the upcoming review of approved document b preclude the publication of an faq in the meantime
02:48:16 of an faq in the meantime giving clarity to the problem about adb which had been discussed at the second of july cwct meeting
02:48:24 meeting i don't know that it would have done i don't i don't recall um i don't recall that specific matter being a point of discussion
02:48:37 was it as a result of those ongoing discussions that no faq document was drafted
02:48:43 drafted not that i recall no well what was the reason
02:48:46 reason i don't know why the faq was not
02:48:51 published so is it your evidence that you had no discussion at all
02:48:59 at all so far as you can recall with sarah colwell about the potential faq in response to the problem i don't recall [Music]
02:49:09 [Music] any discussion around that matter no i mean i do know and i'm fully aware as i say that about the up-and-coming review of the approved document and the discussions around that
02:49:21 document and the discussions around that and what was very well known and public information at the time and who in the department were you having discussions about the upcoming review of adb with um
02:49:34 adb with um in so far as it related to the research projects that were being undertaken [Music]
02:49:43 i think at the time it was brian martin right and during those discussions did the subject of an faq on 12.7 come up
02:49:54 come up um
02:49:56 um not within the context of the research project that we were undertaking in what context um
02:50:02 um well i don't recall having had that discussion with him at all but
02:50:07 but the point i'm trying to make is that the discussions were bounded really by the research project that was being undertaken so
02:50:23 um can i show you brian martin's witness statement
02:50:30 uh at page 49. this is at clg three zeros one nine 4 6 9 page 49 paragraph 138
02:50:47 and here he says this on 17 march 2016 i attended the second meeting of the cwct technical group at the meeting a draft road map to summarize the measures needed to ensure
02:50:59 summarize the measures needed to ensure a facade complies with the prescriptive rules of adb was presented i recall being satisfied that the road map adequately set out how compliance with the functional requirements could be achieved the minutes go on to note that
02:51:11 achieved the minutes go on to note that 2015 bca guidance note 18 had extended the limited combustibility requirement to all material in the wall of a tall building this was not an objectionable clarification
02:51:23 objectionable clarification indeed at the meeting it was accepted as is recorded the paragraph 12.7 of adb was open to interpretation acting on behalf of the department i undertook to change this misleading
02:51:35 i undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of adb the conclusions of that section of the discussion were that and then quotes the cladding should not contribute to the spread of fire and that the
02:51:46 the spread of fire and that the combustibility clause is intended to include all materials in the external wall
02:51:51 wall in bold in the original an exception may be made for small isolated components that would not contribute to fire spread now
02:52:01 now we we know that you didn't attend the 17th of march 2016 cwct fire group meeting but we know that sarah caldwell did
02:52:09 did were you aware of that meeting at the time
02:52:12 time um i don't recall i may have been i don't know let's look at the minutes please clg three zeros one nine four one five one nine four
02:52:23 one nine four one five
02:52:25 one five this is a copy of the minutes of that meeting as you can see and you can see who was present uh
02:52:32 uh just looking at the first page of those minutes
02:52:35 minutes do they look familiar to you no
02:52:38 no no i don't recall do you think you've i've seen them since i've seen them um prior you know in preparation for the public inquiry so they're familiar in that sense but i don't recall seeing them at the time
02:52:49 them at the time do you remember having any discussions with sarah colwell before the meeting um no i don't do you remember having any discussion with sarah colwell after the meeting no i don't recall
02:53:00 meeting no i don't recall were you
02:53:01 were you aware of the content of bca technical guidance note 18 either in its 2014 iteration issue nought or it's 2015 iteration issue one
02:53:13 iteration issue one um
02:53:15 um again it's something that i'm familiar with now but i don't recall at what point i became familiar with it
02:53:25 now you can see here that brian martin accepts
02:53:29 accepts uh at least at that meeting that 12.7 was misleading and had undertaken to change it in the next revision of approved of the approved document was that something that you ever discussed with him in the context of
02:53:40 discussed with him in the context of your discussions with him about the upcoming review of approved document b generally um not that i can recall i mean he he wouldn't he wouldn't typically have come and discussed other matters with us other
02:53:52 discussed other matters with us other than those that we were currently working on for them or for him
02:54:00 did you not become aware at this time that brian martin the government ryan martin had accepted that paragraph 12.7 was misleading
02:54:12 misleading and had undertaken to change it in the next
02:54:15 next iteration of the approved documents i don't recall that at the time no is that not something sarah colwell discussed with you after the meeting well i say i don't recall i don't recall
02:54:26 well i say i don't recall i don't recall that discussion do you know when you first learned that brian martin had expressed the view that paragraph 12.7 of the approved document was misleading and required amendment no i don't
02:54:40 you don't do you not have any impression [Music]
02:54:44 [Music] of learning his view about that at around this time in 2016.
02:54:50 in 2016. um not explicitly no i don't what about him i mean i wasn't um i say
02:54:57 i say from 2016 onwards i was working at a much greater distance from the day-to-day technical activities within the um within the areas [Music]
02:55:08 [Music] my role was much more [Music]
02:55:12 [Music] overarching with a much greater um
02:55:20 group of responsibility covering many other areas as well as fire and the fire safety aspects and i was not as directly involved in
02:55:34 and i was not as directly involved in the day-to-day activities
02:55:38 right when in 2016 did you start working at a much greater distance it would have been around this time i took on the responsibility i think the
02:55:49 i took on the responsibility i think the beginning of april right
02:55:56 and so from i think it was from the december to the april i was working closely with the um previous managing director
02:56:05 director you know to develop familiarity and sort of as a handover mr chairman we're going to turn to a different topic now
02:56:14 now uh it's a few minutes before one o'clock i could start the topic well i i think it'd be better not and i have a question i'd like to follow up on i'm afraid it involves
02:56:23 involves jobbing back a bit to the um cwct meeting in july 2013 which sarah colwell went to but you didn't yes and it was the
02:56:36 but you didn't yes and it was the meeting at which according to the minute she agreed to approach brown martin to help him produce an faq do you remember that
02:56:47 an faq do you remember that should i get that up on the screen well i was good perhaps you could yes it's br because i i'd rather close you down i'm afraid but it's bre four zeroes two five seven seven page four um
02:56:59 um all right i've got it off on the different reference but it's all the same right let's see if it comes up
02:57:09 yes no then could could you just expand the top
02:57:12 the top third of the document that would be a help please
02:57:18 there we are it's the paragraph which begins it was stated that clause 12 seven of adb etc do you remember that yes yes and it reflects a discussion at the meeting
02:57:31 it reflects a discussion at the meeting about the use of acm panels as you can see in the second line above 18 meters yes and um
02:57:40 and um somebody said that 12.7 was intended to prohibit their use but it's clear from what follows that that was not regarded as obvious to
02:57:52 that that was not regarded as obvious to everyone in the meeting yes
02:57:55 yes it says this is not clear from the wording of the current clause and then there's the reference to the heading which it was suggested implies that it only applied to insulation yes so at that point it was clear to
02:58:07 so at that point it was clear to everyone at the meeting that there was if not around the table perhaps there was around the table but at least in the wider industry different views about the
02:58:18 different views about the uh
02:58:20 uh about the compliance of acm panels with 12.7 yes yes and it was that difference of opinion which resulted in the suggestion there should be an faq
02:58:31 should be an faq and one thing i'm interested to know is did sarah culver on her return from the meeting or in the days immediately following tell you that there was this difference of
02:58:43 that there was this difference of opinion
02:58:44 opinion about the compliance of acm panels um
02:58:48 um i don't recall i don't recall that at all you see the reason i ask is because i think she told us that maybe you can confirm that you and she worked in
02:58:59 can confirm that you and she worked in fairly close proximity to each other and would see a lot of each other on a regular but informal basis is that right um
02:59:09 um i mean in close proximity from i think 20
02:59:12 20 2009 sarah was actually located remote from the building that i was in right so
02:59:20 right so we weren't in close proximity right we were in
02:59:24 were in different buildings but as with you know all of the business group managers i would have um regular meetings with them around kpis and
02:59:35 kpis and performance and and so on um
02:59:38 um [Music]
02:59:39 [Music] you see it seems to be slightly surprising that she had gone to the meeting as she told us with a view that for whatever reason 12.7 did cover the core of an acm panel
02:59:52 did cover the core of an acm panel and you were of the same opinion as you've told us and and there at the meeting it suddenly became apparent that that was not a view that was universally accepted
03:00:03 was universally accepted and if it were for those who did not accept that view and were minded to use acm panels there was perhaps a very serious risk of danger to life
03:00:14 serious risk of danger to life did that
03:00:16 did that she didn't report that to you at all i don't recall that i mean i would have expected
03:00:21 expected um
03:00:22 um the discussion to certainly taken place between sarah and brian on that point if he
03:00:29 if he as you said wasn't there for the whole meeting
03:00:33 meeting um
03:00:37 and i mean it may very well have been discussed with other members of the bre team working in this particular area
03:00:46 area so tony baker and steve howard but i say i can't recall at the time us having had a discussion around this
03:00:58 having had a discussion around this now we know the faq saga went on for about six months with mr metcalf chasing dr colwell for response and so on and so
03:01:09 dr colwell for response and so on and so forth
03:01:09 forth and throughout that period no she never mentioned to you that there was this
03:01:14 was this rather important question that had arisen
03:01:17 arisen um
03:01:18 um and what was going to be done about it i said i don't recall at all i i just don't um
03:01:26 um i'm sorry i don't recall that all right thank you very much do you want to follow that off tournament um i might but i just did not get a transcript right thank you very much well it's time
03:01:37 right thank you very much well it's time we had a break for lunch we'll stop there we'll resume please at two o'clock and uh again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence wander out of the world
03:01:59 thank you very much two o'clock