Building Research Establishment (BRE) gives evidence about fire testing, the role of testing laboratories in certification, and the limitations of fire tests in predicting real-world fire behavior.
00:00:28 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence from mr david crowder uh formerly of the building research establishment yes great yes could we have dr david
00:00:40 yes great yes could we have dr david crowder please
00:00:51 good morning dr crowder i gather you're going to take the earth yes well there should be a testament there would you take it in your right hand please and read the words on the screen if they are on the screen
00:01:02 if they are on the screen they are good thank you uh the affirmations on the screen well then there we are uh i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing
00:01:13 the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now please sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:01:23 right yes mr strange when you're ready yes thank you um dr crowder can i first start by thanking you very much for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence today it is very much
00:01:34 evidence today it is very much appreciated um if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions that i'm going to ask please just ask me to repeat the question or i'll put the point in a different way we're going to take sheds your breaks
00:01:45 we're going to take sheds your breaks today one in the morning and one in the afternoon but if you feel that you need an additional break please do not hesitate to tell us and please can you try and keep your voice up because there is a transcriber
00:01:56 voice up because there is a transcriber sitting to your right who's taking a a note of your evidence uh try and keep your voice up and don't speak too fast thank you
00:02:04 thank you now you provided the inquiry with three witness statements let's look at those the first is that bre three zeros three two three three two
00:02:16 there is that statement if we go on to page 31
00:02:23 we can see from the bottom that's dated the 14th of september 2020 and is that your signature there yes it is thank you let's look at your second statement
00:02:34 let's look at your second statement that's at bre 3043716
00:02:40 and if we look at page 76
00:02:45 we can see that's dated the first of october 2021 and again is that your signature there yes it is
00:02:52 yes it is and then last you have provided a voluntary third witness statement to the inquiry that is at bre 3047668
00:03:06 and if we go to page 55 of that document we can see that that's dated the 24th of january 2022 and again is that your signature yes it
00:03:17 and again is that your signature yes it is have you read those three witness statements recently yes i have and can you confirm that the contents of those witness statements are true and accurate yes
00:03:25 yes thank you have you discussed the evidence that you're going to give with anybody before coming here today only with my solicitor and i had to make contact with former colleagues at bre to obtain the documents that i've relied
00:03:37 obtain the documents that i've relied upon in preparing these statements i see but but all you did was obtain the documents from them yes correct discuss your evidence with them no thank you now i want to start by asking you some questions about your background and your
00:03:48 questions about your background and your qualifications if we can turn up your first witness statement again bre
00:03:54 bre 3032 332
00:03:57 3032 332 and on page two paragraph five you tell us there in the final lines that you hold a bachelor of science degree in forensic and investigative science specializing in fire engineering
00:04:09 science specializing in fire engineering and fire investigation is that correct yes it is
00:04:12 yes it is when did you obtain that degree um i graduated in may 2006 yep and from which university was that the university of central lancashire yes it was great
00:04:24 was great and staying with paragraph five you also tell us that you've obtained a phd in the impact of far chemistry specifically flammability and toxicity
00:04:35 specifically flammability and toxicity in fatal fires is that correct yes that's correct and was that also from the university of central lancashire yes it was yeah thank you
00:04:43 you when did you obtain your your phd um i believe the award is dated january 2015. right yeah thank you now we're going to come on to some
00:04:54 now we're going to come on to some questions about your work at the bre in a moment but is it right that you joined the bre in 2006 yes that's correct and can we therefore take it that you work towards your phd alongside your
00:05:07 work towards your phd alongside your day-to-day work at the bre yes i did and so that would have been between 2007 and 2015 is that correct yes correct yeah now looking back at paragraph five of
00:05:18 now looking back at paragraph five of that second statement you also tell us that you are a chartered engineer registered with the engineering council by the institution of fire engineers is that correct yes that's correct
00:05:30 that correct yes that's correct when did you become a chartered engineer and member of the institute of fire engineers
00:05:35 engineers um i believe that was august 2017 whereabouts i was an associate member prior to that great and if we can look at your third witness statement now bre 3047668
00:05:49 statement now bre 3047668 and at page 3 paragraph 13 there you summarize your professional experience and you explain you say this i have extensive experience in the field of fire safety having been involved in a
00:06:01 of fire safety having been involved in a wide range of large scale experimental work testing inspections and fire investigations particularly with respect to new developments in the built environment i have worked on a wide range of
00:06:12 i have worked on a wide range of investigations and projects for the uk government the eu and private concerns i specialize in investigating fire development the performance of fire protection measures and systems during real fire
00:06:24 measures and systems during real fire incidents as well as the regulatory aspect of performance in these areas is that all correct yes that's all correct and moving down to paragraph 14 you tell us this you say i've provided expert
00:06:37 us this you say i've provided expert witness evidence for legal cases where there's been extensive or unusual fire spread
00:06:42 spread as well as numerous cases where there are disputes concerning the design and construction of premises which impact on fire safety i've been instructed by both prosecution and defense in cases under the regulated
00:06:54 and defense in cases under the regulated reform fire safety order 2005 as well as murder manslaughter arson with intent and reckless arson cases and have given evidence at crown court and you tell us that you've also
00:07:05 and you tell us that you've also assisted in matters relating to both liability and quantum for damages in civil disputes as well as identifying opportunities for recovery
00:07:15 recovery my experience in civil proceedings includes giving evidence at the high court the singapore supreme court and as part of mediation arbitration and adjudication proceedings so you're a very experienced expert witness in that
00:07:27 very experienced expert witness in that this field yes probably yes my experience is what it is thank you now i want to turn now to your career at the
00:07:38 i want to turn now to your career at the bre
00:07:40 bre and if we go back to your second with the statement and if we look at page 49 of that
00:07:50 and if we look at paragraph 161 just the first five lines of that paragraph you say i was a consultant within the fire safety group from the 2nd of
00:08:01 fire safety group from the 2nd of october 2006 when i joined bre to the 20th of july 2011. consultants were the most junior grade of staff within what was then termed the professional grades
00:08:12 professional grades i was responsible for my own tasks as assigned to me by other more senior staff
00:08:18 staff though was later given overall responsibility for projects albeit with mentoring from others predominantly martinship and david charters
00:08:27 charters is that correct yes that's correct so you've told us that you've had some mentoring during that period by martin shipp and david charters can you help us
00:08:38 shipp and david charters can you help us who is actually your line manager during that period so that's from october 2006 when you joined the bre to july 2011. my line manager was stephen manchester
00:08:50 my line manager was stephen manchester yeah
00:08:53 and what was his role in the bre at that time i believe his title was business group manager for fire safety yeah
00:09:04 and can you help us when you first joined the bre in 2006 were you given any training bespoke training by the bre um
00:09:13 um yes is the short answer that i mean we were sent on on various courses and linked to my phd studies also went to conferences and so on to try and pick up as much knowledge as
00:09:24 try and pick up as much knowledge as quickly as possible yeah so was that a specific program of training that kicked in at the beginning of your time at the bre
00:09:31 bre no it wasn't predefined it was
00:09:35 it was what's the word um opportunistic i suppose whatever became available that was relevant to the work that i happened to be doing at the time and and that was considered um
00:09:46 and and that was considered um worthwhile for us to be sent on sorry i say yes this was the same for me as for all other consultants there were a few um during that period within the fire safety group yes i see
00:09:57 yes i see and and were there any um were there was there any training provided in relation to topics which touched on fire investigation specifically
00:10:08 i don't believe there was formal training um there was the mentoring predominantly from martin ship was was the input that i got in relation to fire investigation yeah my formal training i'd obtained as
00:10:20 yeah my formal training i'd obtained as part of my my academic studies predominantly my undergraduate studies um and then what i learned through working with martin ship was if you like moving from traditional fire
00:10:31 if you like moving from traditional fire investigation origin and cause how how and where fires start to this sort of fire safety fire protection focused uh style of fire investigation yes i see and what about external fire spread did
00:10:44 and what about external fire spread did you receive any specific training or did you go on any particular courses which assisted with the topic of external fire spread
00:10:51 spread no certainly not during that time i don't
00:10:54 don't think other than occasional presentations of in-house to staff about the test methods i don't think i received any formal training on external fire spread but again there was the mentoring
00:11:06 again there was the mentoring generally as and when incidents cropped up so an example that's in my statement is when i accompanied sarah colwell to the cull street fire in glasgow uh in
00:11:17 glasgow uh in get 2007.
00:11:19 get 2007. yeah
00:11:19 yeah and and you mentioned that at the beginning of your answer you said sort of in-house um to staff about the test methods that there was some training to that effect um
00:11:29 um what test methods are you talking about there
00:11:33 there um the range of things that bri offered so there were friday
00:11:39 friday update
00:11:41 update meetings so that the company used to hold every friday morning there would be a bit of an update on you know how various aspects of the business are going
00:11:50 going and then not every week but there would be you know particular members of staff would be invited every so often to come and give a presentation on the work that they are doing to try and give everyone a broad
00:12:01 doing to try and give everyone a broad understanding of the range of services that bre offers given it's a very um diverse organization in terms of its activities yeah and what specific
00:12:13 and what specific presentations can you remember receiving relevant to external fire spread
00:12:21 probably only again presentations that the broadly explained the 8414 test and the equivalent lps was was of particular interest because of um obviously bre was
00:12:32 interest because of um obviously bre was very keen to push the loss prevention standards yes to make sure people were aware of those yeah so you talked about the loss prevention standard standards which which insurers might be very interested in is that correct yes yeah and can you remember who delivered that
00:12:44 and can you remember who delivered that informal uh briefing um
00:12:48 um i don't specifically but it would have been either sarah colwell or steve howard who were the relevant section heads at the time yeah
00:12:56 yeah now when you started at the bre did you read for example previous bre fire investigation reports was that part of what you did to get it i did it's
00:13:08 what you did to get it i did it's something i probably pursued myself rather than being directed to bre at the time had when i first started bre had a very large paper-based archive in one of its buildings um
00:13:21 its buildings um and for various reasons there was a time when they they had to thin the archive and so i devoted quite a bit of time to trying to to go and see what was in there and equally recover certain things that i felt you know really shouldn't be
00:13:32 that i felt you know really shouldn't be disposed of um so i spent a fair bit of time and again it was linked to my my phd studies at that time i wanted to learn as much as i could as quickly as i could yeah
00:13:43 could yeah do you remember reading for example the investigation report into the noseley heights fire in 1991 in liverpool i do but i don't think it would have been as early as the period when i was a
00:13:54 been as early as the period when i was a consultant i think i probably read that a bit later on yeah but i do remember reading it yes and what about the garnet caught fire in 99 yes the same yeah what about the investigation of real fires
00:14:05 about the investigation of real fires project reports do you remember reading any of those i certainly remember skimming them and looking through some of the fires of special interests that were contained in them but i can't claim to have read them
00:14:17 them but i can't claim to have read them cover to cover all the way back to whatever it is like 1988 i think was the earliest one yeah and just thinking about the period um after you started then between october
00:14:28 after you started then between october and july 2011. um
00:14:32 um was there any formal training about fire investigations during that five-year period provided to you again i don't think so i think it was mentoring from captain ship yeah
00:14:45 mentoring from captain ship yeah now let's turn briefly to your third witness statement at this point again bre 3047668
00:14:52 and on page six paragraph 26 there you tell us you say there was no formal fire investigation unit at this time in bre
00:15:04 time in bre various members of the fire safety group were simply involved in conducting fire investigations whether on behalf of government or private clients the other business areas within the division were all concerned with testing
00:15:16 division were all concerned with testing and certification now can you just help us who were the various members of the fire safety group who were involved in conducting fire investigations at this time so thinking
00:15:28 investigations at this time so thinking back to
00:15:29 back to 2006 through 2011. um so martinship was that the lead effectively in terms of fire investigation there was kelvin annabelle who worked a lot on
00:15:40 kelvin annabelle who worked a lot on compiling the quarterly reports um and then the end of year reports as part of that project can you just do his sorry give us a surname again kelvin hannibal annable yeah
00:15:53 annable yeah l a-n-a-b-l-e yes thank you um
00:15:57 um tom lennon would occasionally attend fires particularly where there was an interest in structural fire performance uh sarah colwell when there was um
00:16:08 when there was um areas of interest that were relevant to her expertise yep um and what would those be what would be the trigger points for sarah colwell to become involved in a fire investigation at that time her
00:16:19 fire investigation at that time her expertise was external fire spreading cladding external fire spread and cladding yes yes thank you
00:16:27 now did you understand those members of the greek that you just described who have had any specific um training or been undergone any specific qualifications
00:16:38 undergone any specific qualifications in relation to fire investigation
00:16:42 um i believe martin ship had he was involved with
00:16:49 with um apologies i'm going to struggle to remember the name there was a fire investigation course that was run um in east anglia quite regularly and and he got involved in um that and indeed other
00:17:01 that and indeed other training activities i believe he did something with the atf over in the u.s at some stage as well um aside from that i i don't know what formal qualifications or training anyone else had yeah
00:17:12 else had yeah you said earlier that sarah colwell monitored you in terms of fire investigation or mentored you sorry when you referred to accompanying her to the curl street fire in glasgow yes
00:17:23 curl street fire in glasgow yes um
00:17:24 um was that a a regular thing for sarah colwell to mentor you where there were fire investigations that she might be involved in no um i think
00:17:37 probably during my entire career at bre sarah probably attended fewer than five fires with me i apologize i would struggle to remember specific examples
00:17:48 specific examples um
00:17:50 um yeah it wasn't a huge number right yeah and
00:17:54 and of those people that you've mentioned in this fire investigation part of the fire safety group who was the most senior of those people martinship yeah and would he supervise the work being
00:18:06 and would he supervise the work being carried out on fire investigations whether for government or private clients yes he would yeah
00:18:13 now if we can return to your second witness statement and thinking more about your progression through the bre if we go paragraph 49 of your sorry page 49 of
00:18:24 paragraph 49 of your sorry page 49 of your second statement paragraph 162. you then tell us that you say i was a senior consultant within the fire safety group from the 21st of july 2011 to the 31st of march
00:18:36 21st of july 2011 to the 31st of march 2013.
00:18:38 2013. at this time i was given responsibility for the fire investigation business stream as one of the four business streams which had been identified around 2011
00:18:48 2011 within the fire safety group the four business streams were fire engineering risk dsear research and fire investigation
00:18:59 investigation i was tasked with trying to re-establish fire investigation as its own self-sustaining income stream as it was considered that government income and if we go over the page was in
00:19:10 and if we go over the page was in decline and could not be relied upon if the business was to survive survive now as a senior consultant during that period so now 2011 to 2013 who did you
00:19:22 period so now 2011 to 2013 who did you report to who was your effective line manager that continued to be stephen manchester yeah
00:19:31 and who was it within the bre who in 2011 had identified the four business streams you refer to there
00:19:43 i'm not sure um [Music]
00:19:47 [Music] i remember a meeting where the four streams were introduced probably by stephen manchester so i say i remember i don't remember a specific meeting but i remember it being introduced at a meeting yeah um
00:20:01 introduced at a meeting yeah um i would
00:20:02 i would presume as as with a lot of these sorts of developments at bre that there was some sort of business planning process that had been gone through in the preceding months which at that time i wouldn't have been
00:20:13 at that time i wouldn't have been involved in which would have resulted in the identification of these streams because at that time and this was you know in the years following the financial crash there was
00:20:23 there was a big push to try and um
00:20:26 um proactively develop the business and identify you know where there were funding streams available so that it could continue to be financially viable yes i understand just looking back um if we go back a
00:20:37 just looking back um if we go back a page to see um paragraph 163 and you're describing sorry 162 back a page
00:20:46 page in your statement you describe those four business streams four lines down there and you say the fire engineering then we've got risk d-s-e-a-r
00:20:56 d-s-e-a-r is dsea are dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres regulations yes it is yeah
00:21:04 and can you help us by whom were you tasked with trying to reestablish fire investigation as its own self-sustaining income stream that was carol atkinson the then
00:21:17 that was carol atkinson the then chief executive officer of bra global yeah
00:21:21 yeah and when you say that that it was you were re-establishing that had it previously been a self-sustaining stream of income that was my understanding i don't have
00:21:32 that was my understanding i don't have particularly good details of what that was but i understand there was a i don't know whether it was ever a business unit but there was certainly a formal fire investigation unit within bre
00:21:42 bre which i believe was subsumed into fire safety sometime in the 90s or whatever the precursor to fire safety would have been right yes so so we're talking about the 90s or pre the 90s are we yes for
00:21:55 the 90s or pre the 90s are we yes for that yeah
00:21:56 that yeah and what was your understanding as to how and why that had ceased to be the case i had ceased to be its own self-sustaining income stream um i don't know there's an honest answer
00:22:08 um i don't know there's an honest answer right um
00:22:11 no i don't know sorry yeah
00:22:15 and um just focusing on the very last part of paragraph 160 that we read and the very last line of for page 49 and on to page 50 by whom was it considered that
00:22:26 by whom was it considered that government income was in decline and could not be relied upon if the business was to survive
00:22:34 i would say that's something that if not everyone certainly the large majority of the people in fire safety sort of recognized that um we um
00:22:45 we um as a team
00:22:47 as a team when i started at bre there were regular three-year research programs undertaken where you'd identify you know an area that needed work and development and focus on it properly for three years
00:23:00 and by around 2011 frameworks were coming to a close and there weren't new frameworks that were coming on to stream and there wasn't really an indication that certainly not that the same number would
00:23:11 certainly not that the same number would be maintained um so yes it was a concern yeah
00:23:17 yeah and so when you're talking about the business there you're talking about the whole of the bre yes um no sorry i'm in terms of my experience at that time it would have been confined to the fire safety group
00:23:28 safety group that was our concern as a group i wasn't really getting that exposed to the wider business i see although having said that i'm afraid i couldn't say when i do recall
00:23:39 recall um
00:23:41 um sort of company-wide presentation as the annual update on the figures and so on talking about this need to shift from and i'm going to pick numbers out of the air to illustrate but say 75 government
00:23:52 air to illustrate but say 75 government to 25 private business split and trying to shift that balance in the other direction so that there was this diverse portfolio
00:23:59 portfolio of clients um and not this over reliance on government given the way things were going yes thank you
00:24:09 and what was your understanding at the time about the extent to which government income was in decline
00:24:17 um
00:24:20 sorry we're still talking about when i was a senior consultant yeah so so 2011 through 2013 at that point yeah so i my awareness probably increased quite
00:24:32 my awareness probably increased quite substantially during that time because as part of my work to try and find a customer base for this business stream um i started looking a lot more at what the marketplace looked like and what was
00:24:43 the marketplace looked like and what was going on and that's where i became aware of things like the red tape challenge where
00:24:47 where government was actively pushing to to reduce
00:24:51 reduce its involvement in in fire safety there had been
00:24:55 had been i think it was around 2010 the fire futures review which was about decentralizing fire safety uh government having less of a presence in fire safety and encouraging industry to take the lead in this belief
00:25:07 industry to take the lead in this belief that um a belief that it had that the industry would lead the way and do what it needed to do and that probably
00:25:18 and that probably colored affected other than what the right word is but but everything that followed
00:25:22 followed was cognizant of that and again it's part of what you need to do to keep the business going yeah and did you pick that up solely from public government announcements or did you have any
00:25:33 announcements or did you have any private conversations with government clients about those matters you've just been discussing
00:25:40 um i probably got the odd hint from people like brian martin but you know to his credit he he you know he had a role as a civil
00:25:51 you know he had a role as a civil servant so it wasn't for him to sort of elaborate on all these things um
00:25:58 i suspect it came up on one or two occasions but there weren't any ever any in-depth conversations directly with government officials right yeah and and what kind of hints he said um i probably got the odd hint from people
00:26:09 i probably got the odd hint from people like brian martin what what what kind of hint are you thinking about um i probably would have asked him or probably did ask him you know where's the next research project coming what sort of things might we be doing
00:26:21 what sort of things might we be doing next and the general response along the lines that were you know that it isn't going to be what it was that sort of thing yeah
00:26:30 now um if we can go down to um page 50 now of your second witness statement oh we're there and look at paragraph 164 you tell us that you say i became a
00:26:42 you tell us that you say i became a principal consultant and business group manager of fire investigation it now being its own standalone business group on the 1st of april 2013
00:26:53 group on the 1st of april 2013 and remained in this role until the 31st of august 2014. during this time i continued the general objective of soft selling and promotion as above
00:27:03 as above though i also became increasingly involved in active dissemination of information most notably in relation to the lack of house fire on which i gave 36 presentations
00:27:14 presentations in the 17 months in this role following the conclusion of the inquest plus another 17 presentations on other subjects
00:27:21 subjects presentations i gave those listed within this period in my first witness statement to the inquiry now we will come back to some detailed questions about lachnal house and your involvement in investigating that fire
00:27:34 in investigating that fire but just sticking with your career for now when you became business group manager of fire investigation in april 2013
00:27:43 2013 who else worked in that particular team or unit at that time um in april 2013 uh so i'm making sure i've got my dates
00:27:54 so i'm making sure i've got my dates right kiara holland i suppose was was part of the business by then um she joined in october 2012 yeah
00:28:03 yeah i believe
00:28:05 and anyone else was it just you and her yes which is the turbulence actually yeah and to whom did you report when you were in that principal principal consultant role uh well as as a result of becoming
00:28:17 role uh well as as a result of becoming a business group manager um i then i think for a while reported directly to debbie smith who at that time was technical director of fire and security
00:28:28 technical director of fire and security i believe
00:28:29 i believe yeah
00:28:31 yeah now did you put in place any training i mean it sounds like it's only kiara holland did you put in place any training for the staff that were involved in fire investigations at that time
00:28:42 investigations at that time um not a a course per se or although i say sorry i stopped myself there
00:28:53 i think kira did attend the leads there was a lead short course linked to its msc
00:28:59 msc so she was sent on that at some star i couldn't say when i'm afraid yeah um and then similar to before she received also mentoring from martinship um
00:29:09 um and sort of the general ongoing development of staff as was normal really yeah yeah so what role did martin ship continue to have in this fire investigation
00:29:20 investigation work now that you're the principal consultant and business group manager of that group so martin was still i think his title was technical development director
00:29:31 development director within fire safety but he continued to have a strong interest in fire investigation and was was keen to see the the business group succeed and grow
00:29:42 the the business group succeed and grow and so you know whenever he had um
00:29:45 um availability that's probably not that's not fair he split his time i think he tried to split and commit a fair proportion of his time right to their respective business streams right i see
00:29:56 respective business streams right i see yeah
00:29:57 yeah now um
00:29:59 now um looking at paragraph 165 then of that second witness statement that's on the screen
00:30:03 screen you say in the first four lines there i became head of fire investigation and expert witness services on the 1st of september 2014 and stayed in the role until i left the bre on the 24th of may
00:30:15 until i left the bre on the 24th of may 2019.
00:30:17 2019. the title signified that i remained business group manager for fire investigation but had also assumed responsibility for expert witness services across all disciplines in the bre group of companies
00:30:30 bre group of companies now
00:30:31 now what had prompted your move to head of fire investigation and expert witness services
00:30:36 services in september 2014. was that a promotion um it was i had um
00:30:48 i had taken an increasing interest in the expert witness work across bre um just it was it was part of that sort of trying to get to know the other areas of the business and realizing that there
00:30:59 the business and realizing that there were all of these um experts doing various things in you know fairly disparate subjects um you know from acoustics to structures to water ingress and so on um
00:31:12 water ingress and so on um and realizing that there well there had been um oversight previously from uh two individuals um sandy mackay was one
00:31:24 individuals um sandy mackay was one and um
00:31:28 stewart i'm sorry his surname fails me but they're sorry there'd been two individuals within the construction part of the business that had been leading the expert witnesses um for a number of years
00:31:39 witnesses um for a number of years um
00:31:40 um they were both getting to a stage where you know they wanted to hand the reins over to somebody and as a result of i probably say i had an unusually broad range of experience of the courts by that time and in that i'd done civil
00:31:52 that time and in that i'd done civil proceedings and um
00:31:54 um criminal and inquests
00:31:58 so it was yeah it was part of those sorts of discussions you have about career progression and what next and um it was put to me as you know if if you want to get on to the next step you need to take on responsibility for
00:32:10 you need to take on responsibility for for these which i did yeah and who did you report to in that role
00:32:16 i've got a feeling very initially i might have been reporting to debbie smith but it would if i did it wasn't for very long um because it was around
00:32:28 for very long um because it was around that time that she was promoted to managing director of bre global and then julie bragula was made director of
00:32:39 was made director of fire and the building technology group which sort of it had previously been parts of fire and security and the building technology group were put together into the fire and building
00:32:50 put together into the fire and building technology group and as i said julie was responsible for that and i reported to julie who
00:32:55 julie who in turn reported to debbie okay and can you tell us why did you leave the bre in may 2019 um
00:33:04 um that long list of reasons um i
00:33:13 having dealt with grenfell
00:33:17 grenfell for the um for the police since the day of the fire there were a lot of pressures around that it was it's difficult to describe um and i don't want to you know
00:33:29 um and i don't want to you know compromise the police investigation that's not going either but um
00:33:34 we so my team and i the people that reported to me and myself we spent the most part of a year not really at bre we went to to grenfell and did what we did um each day and um
00:33:47 and did what we did um each day and um excavated and took the tower apart all the evidence from the tower um and then returning to bre um [Music]
00:33:57 [Music] there was an expectation of you know going back to growing the business and trying to grow the team and hiring more people which with it came expectations about income growth
00:34:08 came expectations about income growth and so on and i
00:34:11 i felt that
00:34:13 felt that i was being stretched too thin kiera was the same we ended up spending most of our days you know dealing with the needs of junior staff which is no criticism of them they need input and that's
00:34:25 them they need input and that's absolutely fair enough for them um
00:34:28 um but then spending the nights doing our own job and and trying to keep up with with the rigors of things and so by um
00:34:39 beginning of 2019 i think yeah the decision was it was untenable uh there were also um again discussions on going with the met about various things which okay you don't need to get worries dealing with
00:34:50 don't need to get worries dealing with and is it right that after leaving the bre you've set up your own partnership dcch experts llp with kiara holland is that correct yes
00:35:00 yes now um we don't need to go to it but chiara holland tells us in her witness statement that she joined your department in october 2012 and i think you just confirmed that is that correct yes that sounds correct and she reported
00:35:11 yes that sounds correct and she reported to you throughout is that right yes yeah and do you still work together at dc cchx yes yeah now just going back to the management and reporting structure at the bre let's
00:35:23 and reporting structure at the bre let's just look briefly at cara holland's witness statement that's bre three zeros four three eight two nine and i want to look at page four and paragraph 13.
00:35:35 and paragraph 13. she says this when i joined bre debbie smith was director of fire sciences and subsequently became managing director of bre global limited of which fire sciences and building products was part
00:35:47 sciences and building products was part fire investigation was one of the teams within fire sciences and building products
00:35:52 products the overall department changed names several times during my time at bre with some sections moving into and out of the department and the management structure changing slightly as a result but it was my understanding that the fire
00:36:04 my understanding that the fire investigation team ultimately reported to dr smith however when dr smith became managing director dr julie bragula became the director of fire sciences and building products dr smith was the contract
00:36:16 products dr smith was the contract manager project director qa for all fire safety related government research projects and ultimately approved bids and proposals and also approved many fire research reports
00:36:28 fire research reports um now does that description there accord with your understanding yes it does yeah i think it's consistent with some of the evidence you've already given
00:36:37 given um and
00:36:39 um and so debbie smith had ultimate responsibility for all fire safety related government research projects is that correct that was my understanding yeah
00:36:47 yeah did that include reports and the work done
00:36:51 done under the investigation of real fires project which we will come on to with you
00:36:56 with you yes it did though so from memory debbie was directly involved in the bidding process so for each contract when it was renewed
00:37:07 each contract when it was renewed when it came to signing off reports she delegated that responsibility to corin williams
00:37:14 williams i see
00:37:15 i see so does that mean she wouldn't actually read the reports that were produced under that investigation of real fires project sometimes she would but i think by exception rather than norm
00:37:28 norm right
00:37:28 right i see
00:37:30 i see i mean were there particular circumstances in which she would read them
00:37:33 them yes we did you know on occasion um if there was um something that was interacting with say another area of research then we
00:37:44 say another area of research then we might specifically ask for debbie's input to make sure that things were aligned because we you know you you'd be aware that there were other activities going on in bre but you wouldn't necessarily be
00:37:55 bre but you wouldn't necessarily be appraised of all the details yeah but she'd have the overview yes exactly yeah and can you describe your working relationship with debbie smith during your time at the bre from 2006 to may
00:38:07 your time at the bre from 2006 to may 2019
00:38:09 2019 um it was a good relationship she interviewed me i think with david charters
00:38:14 charters before i started
00:38:17 oh i got on well with debbie um she was um not without challenges everyone has their own you know way of doing things um but broadly speaking i got on well
00:38:29 um but broadly speaking i got on well with her yeah did she ever supervise directly any aspects of your fire investigation or research work at any time
00:38:37 time uh yes during the period when i was reporting to her when she was my line manager yeah
00:38:44 now i want to move on now to some questions about the structure and organization of the bre during your time there
00:38:50 there if we can look at your third witness statement
00:38:53 statement um at page five and at paragraph 24 on that page at the bottom there you say this you say the bre i joined in 2006 still had strong ties to government
00:39:07 2006 still had strong ties to government since most of the personnel had previously been civil servants working at the former agency all the research carried out by bre needed to be directly related to a commission from a client whether that
00:39:19 commission from a client whether that client was a national or local government a private client or the bre trust
00:39:24 trust and then you say this this i believe created tensions now can you just help us what kind of tensions did this create um i think i'd come on to this later in
00:39:35 um i think i'd come on to this later in the statement it was really around the point that um the
00:39:41 the the people in fire safety they were all committed enthusiastic research scientists you know they they wanted to understand a problem or an issue
00:39:52 understand a problem or an issue to the fullest and then provide an answer that's what they they had done particularly those little previously for civil servants and
00:40:00 and i remember and i think again i think it was after the financial crash when this this increased focus on on finance came to the fore that
00:40:09 that certain individuals struggled with that that they they didn't like having to stop you know the the that you've got a brief from a client that says this is the thing that we want and we're going to pay this much for it and
00:40:21 we're going to pay this much for it and they're not interested in going two or three levels beyond that to to really fully understand the fundamentals um
00:40:28 um and equally there was a a bit of a pushback you know to the idea that that you know
00:40:34 you know bre was now a fearing although the fire safety group is now a fearing organization that projects needed to generate a profit um
00:40:41 um you know i as part of my role particularly later on i became acutely aware of how the the finance is balanced that you need ultimately to have the earning projects that generate a margin
00:40:52 that generate a margin even if only to break even after you've paid for building rent maintenance admin and so on and so forth again for the business to survive um but there were some people that struggled with that and you know felt
00:41:03 struggled with that and you know felt that anything beyond breaking even on a project wasn't okay they felt there was a moral
00:41:08 a moral issue with that yeah um
00:41:13 and in terms of who the these the tensions were between who the groups were between and who was it that was still wanting to pursue product projects that might be loss-making that might only break even
00:41:25 only break even um you talk about research scientists i mean who are you talking about particular groups within bre um not groups as such just again individuals that had
00:41:36 individuals that had had been part of the civil service role i remember um [Music]
00:41:42 [Music] calvin annabel was was a particularly passionate person you know he wanted to do the right thing and he he struggled with the idea i remember having conversations about that with him and there were others um i remember
00:41:55 others um i remember i forget who but so members of the computer modelling group for instance were also very sort of died in the wall yeah civil servants that just wanted to to do the job yeah yeah without
00:42:06 to do the job yeah yeah without constraint in that way yeah and i mean you you've talked a little bit about your the evolution of your approach to your work but where would you say you sat in relation to such tensions
00:42:18 relation to such tensions i
00:42:23 i would say my my position evolved i was very much on the side of you know when i was a junior a consultant doing these research projects i just wanted to do more research
00:42:34 i just wanted to do more research projects and more and better research um you know it was a reality of the job the organization that ultimately you you know like becoming more mature in life you realize that you you've got
00:42:46 in life you realize that you you've got to do certain things a certain way otherwise yeah there won't be a future in it so it's it's something something that evolved yeah so is it fair to say as you became more senior and you had more responsibility you had to take
00:42:58 more responsibility you had to take cognizance of of the commercial pressures on the bre more and more yes yeah
00:43:03 yeah now um you have described this in a bit more detail if we look at um page seven in this statement at paragraph 31 you say this you say 2008 was the time
00:43:14 you say this you say 2008 was the time of the financial crisis i recall a lot more focus being placed upon the financial health of the fire safety group
00:43:20 group during the regular monthly meetings there were concerns raised by management that some staff apparently viewed the need to generate profit on projects as a problem
00:43:29 problem further there was a tendency for some staff to pursue areas of interest or pet projects that did not form part of the objectives set by the client this appeared to stem from the culture that had existed when bre was part of
00:43:40 had existed when bre was part of government and staff were therefore able to make their own cases for pursuing new areas of research where this occurred these projects either broke even or made a loss the reality was that it was necessary for
00:43:51 reality was that it was necessary for fee earning projects to generate profit so that bre's overheads could be met buildings utilities non-fee earning staff
00:43:58 staff and there would be funds remaining i.e an overall profit margin to pass to the bre trust
00:44:05 bre trust now
00:44:06 now in the first line you were talking there about a lot more focus being placed on the financial health of the fire safety group at the time by whom was that being imposed
00:44:18 imposed predominantly debbie smith and stephen manchester um we so the fire safety group had
00:44:25 had i believe it was a monthly meeting something of that order in terms of frequency um just a you know a catch up for the group on projects and so on and there were a number and i forget what number but
00:44:37 a number and i forget what number but that
00:44:38 that um
00:44:39 um debbie came in on and correctly you know the point that um things needed to change and to secure the financial viability of the group yeah
00:44:50 yeah and so where you refer to management in line three you say there were during those meetings concerned raised by management that stem staff viewed the need to generate profit on projects as a problem are you are you referring there
00:45:02 problem are you are you referring there to debbie smith and stephen manchester yes yeah
00:45:08 now was it your understanding at the time that the bre itself was in financial
00:45:16 difficulty probably yes um i don't think i was hugely aware of it as as with my progression it was my awareness of these things increased
00:45:27 my awareness of these things increased as time progressed and my financial responsibility increased i do remember at some point early during my career there was for instance the switch of the
00:45:39 there was for instance the switch of the pension fund arrangements that caused a bit of an uproar because you know bre had used the civil service pensions for a long time um and that caused financial problems because there's a big financial burden that
00:45:50 there's a big financial burden that comes with that and so it switched over to a stakeholder pension scheme um
00:45:55 um and yes there were i remember you know meetings again annual i forget if it was described as the annual conference or business update whatever it was a um a look through the group's finances as a
00:46:08 a look through the group's finances as a whole and the the point tended to be made that
00:46:12 made that profits were very slim compared with the overall turnover of the business i mean i think at the time at that time the bre group turnover was probably something to the it's a tune of 40 to 45
00:46:23 something to the it's a tune of 40 to 45 million and profits if and when they occurred were in the hundreds of thousands it certainly wasn't a
00:46:30 wasn't a a seriously profitable business right yeah
00:46:33 yeah now you've talked about um these discussions taking place at the regular monthly meetings were there any other particular steps that were taken by management to ensure that bre employees were aware that fee earning projects
00:46:45 were aware that fee earning projects needed to generate a profit do you recall anything concrete happening i don't but that's probably because i wouldn't have been exposed to those conversations at the time i
00:46:57 conversations at the time i expect because so i i wasn't managing serious projects at that point i think there might have been a reference to conversations with project managers about making sure they were
00:47:08 managers about making sure they were doing what they needed to do i wouldn't have been privy to those at that time yeah now if we can look at page nine now this third witness statement and paragraph 35
00:47:19 third witness statement and paragraph 35 you say that in my experience there was a fractious relationship between large-scale cladding testing and research each belonged to a separate business unit one within standard testing and the
00:47:31 unit one within standard testing and the other not
00:47:33 other not the various business units in bre were in my experience set up in indirect competition with one another we were seeking different types of work and clients but ultimately competing for the same resources such as laboratory space
00:47:47 same resources such as laboratory space now just to help us here can you just expand on what you mean there in the first lines by a fractious relationship between large-scale cladding testing and research
00:47:58 research the um
00:48:03 the short answer is we got in each other's way i suppose to a large extent within the burn hall um and
00:48:11 as i mentioned earlier there were those of us that were very passionate about the research and wanted the most for the research and there were others whose interests were in large scale testing and you couldn't physically fit all the activities that we wanted to fit
00:48:23 all the activities that we wanted to fit in the burn hall into the burn hall yeah and when you're talking about large-scale testing are you talking predominantly about large-scale testing for private clients yes when i say testing i
00:48:34 i will try at least two to be referring to standard tests something to a british standard or a european standard with a predefined pass fail and large-scale testing
00:48:43 testing so the large-scale tests that occurred in the burn haul were the the 8414 tests yeah there were also various suppression related tests where they looked at distribution of sprinkler systems how
00:48:55 distribution of sprinkler systems how much water ended up in in various parts of a springheads throw and others there was a gas suppression rig also within an annex to the burn hall
00:49:05 hall um i'm sorry i can't list all of them no no no no no those are examples of the sorts of things that were going on that were not researched they were testing products for private clients yeah and so you said that one
00:49:17 yeah and so you said that one manifestation of that was that you were just getting in each other's way because you all wanted the space in the burn hall were there any other manifestations of those tensions um
00:49:32 there were some heated discussions i would say but then there was an odd i think
00:49:40 i think you know you know i only have very limited direct experience of this but part of i think what the the senior management at pres i'm talking about debbie at the time um martin wyatt carol atkinson um probably
00:49:53 martin wyatt carol atkinson um probably peter bonfield to an extent as well they were i think as part of this strategy to try and move people out of the civil service mindset they were fostering a fairly competitive
00:50:04 fostering a fairly competitive um
00:50:06 um culture
00:50:07 culture within bre that you know businesses would be compared against each other and we would talk about how one business was doing well this month and another business not so well and um you know it's great when you're doing
00:50:18 um you know it's great when you're doing well but it's it's not so much when you're not and you know people will try and fight for their corner yeah i understand yeah can you tell with this the you've drawn this distinction between the
00:50:29 distinction between the testing work and what we might call the research work who was responsible for uh
00:50:37 uh instigating or generating the research side
00:50:41 side and how does that come about in terms of winning the work do you mean well this is was it a case of winning work for again from third parties or was it internally generated by someone saying i
00:50:52 internally generated by someone saying i think we ought to look into this or that i see um so in terms of the government frameworks which i think i've touched on in various points
00:51:02 points those were generally overseen by debbie smith she was a framework director i believe they would be generated by government they would be generated by government i'd like you to look at this or that yes was all the
00:51:14 look at this or that yes was all the research work generated by some outside request for not all of it no so alongside the government work there was there were private clients who would come with a need
00:51:25 come with a need and
00:51:26 and bre being what it was we'd get some fairly unusual questions and might have to devise a program of research on how to answer that question and then equally there was the bre trust research which was self-generated so
00:51:38 research which was self-generated so there was a i believe it was an annual it might have been a biannual process wherein the trust would um open itself up to bids effectively from staff so that you staff will be
00:51:49 staff so that you staff will be encouraged to try and think of new areas of research that
00:51:53 that they had to meet a number of criteria so you know things that government was unlikely to commission um
00:51:59 um things that we felt would make a positive impact on the built environment as a whole and yes so as far as that was concerned there was and i will say it was a modest
00:52:11 there was and i will say it was a modest funding available given the issues of profitability but there was a certain amount of funding available to do those kinds of research and one of the first projects i was involved in was around the evacuation of people from
00:52:22 around the evacuation of people from hospitals so people with various levels of mobility impairment depending on why they'd arrived at hospital
00:52:28 hospital that was all funded by the bre trust that was a self-identified piece of work that needed to be done for the public good so research in response to requests from third parties could
00:52:39 requests from third parties could presumably have cost it correctly turn a profit yes absolutely but obviously the internal research would not um no there was a
00:52:50 was a i mean it was certainly possible that you might underspend on a bre trust piece of work but there was a stricter focus i suppose is the best way
00:53:01 stricter focus i suppose is the best way of putting it on on making sure that you you price the thing absolutely you know without a margin from the outset and that once you'd finished the work you know you were left with nothing effectively
00:53:12 effectively thank you very much yes yeah thank you can i just clarify one point can you just help us it's right isn't it that after the bre was privatized in 1997 the bre had to bid for all government work
00:53:23 bre had to bid for all government work didn't it that's my understanding yeah thank you
00:53:27 thank you now
00:53:28 now we were
00:53:29 we were looking at the your description of a fractious relationship between large-scale cladding testing and research for how long did that fractious relationship continue did that remain the case until you left the bre in may
00:53:40 the case until you left the bre in may 2019 yes it did
00:53:48 and um can you help us um who are the employees that were involved in that fractious relationship that you're describing at senior level um
00:54:00 um steve howard was a had spikey moment something again i was able to get on well with him at times but equally there were a few more heated exchanges at other times um
00:54:13 in terms of cladding i suppose he was probably the main person because he he took
00:54:18 took quite a lot of responsibility for the cladding in spite of his role as business group manager and later director of pacifier yeah
00:54:26 yeah so there was tension between stephen howard in his role relating to large-scale cladding testing yes versus who who who was on the research side of that
00:54:37 side of that stephen manchester was yeah business group manager for fire safety um the two of them shared an office funnily enough um but yes there would be you know various debates about when we can and can't do things
00:54:49 can't do things i mean i should say in addition to the senior management there was also at various times and i would struggle to say when but there were there were burn hall groups sort of set up where all the
00:55:00 hall groups sort of set up where all the various
00:55:02 various customers if you like internal customers of the bre burn hall would try and hold meetings to try and coordinate when the various things in the burn hall were going to take place and what could actually be accommodated um or not but again everyone was
00:55:15 um or not but again everyone was fighting their corner to a certain extent in that yeah and and where did debbie smith sit in terms of that fractious relationship between large-scale clouding testing and research she was trying to keep the
00:55:26 research she was trying to keep the piece and and make sure that you know what was ultimately concluded was the best for the organization as a whole yeah and and what about sarah colwell
00:55:39 um
00:55:42 sarah probably and again apologies i will struggle with dates early on in my career she was part of i think she headed up reaction to fire so her and steve howard were both in the
00:55:53 steve howard were both in the reaction to fire stroke passive part of the business so testing for things like ps476 part seven tests but equally the larger furnace tests that was shared between them sarah later moved to suppression
00:56:06 sarah later moved to suppression and again apologies i can't recall when off top of my head no um so she was involved to an extent with those although the bernhard user group meetings they would tend to be more junior members of
00:56:17 would tend to be more junior members of staff than sarah steve or debbie that were attending to try and resolve things but i'm sure she would have been involved in various discussions with the two stevens and debbie about i see how and when
00:56:29 and debbie about i see how and when things will be fitted into the bernal yeah so she was trying to manage these tensions is that right yeah and you you've talked a little bit about the fact that for example um monthly
00:56:41 the fact that for example um monthly performance figures were shown and that was one of the ways in which people were set up in indirect competition with one another were there any other um
00:56:50 um examples of that that you can give us um
00:56:57 no i mean the not from that side of things there was the the regular the friday update about hearing about various parts of the business and you know it would become very obvious which parts of the business are doing
00:57:08 which parts of the business are doing better than others but that wasn't the intent behind those meetings it was just part of what you know what you realize is going on in other parts of the business okay now i want to move on now to some questions about some particular
00:57:19 questions about some particular definitions and fire classifications and and just reminding ourselves that you joined the bre in october 2006 when did you first become familiar with the sections of the building regulations
00:57:30 the sections of the building regulations which are relevant to fire and in particular external fire spread
00:57:38 um in terms of approved document b as a whole
00:57:44 whole setting aside external fire spread for a moment um i became aware of it and i suppose i was i was forced into it probably deliberately uh through being involved in the drafting of
00:57:56 drafting of htm so healthcare technical memoranda guidance for for hospitals about construction of hospitals i was involved in drafting part j
00:58:06 j of
00:58:07 of 05-03 of the htms um
00:58:11 um and equally i was briefly involved in drafting of bb-100 which is building bulletin 100 which was a design guide for schools
00:58:20 so that those pieces of work and again i i believe probably intentionally forced me to try and dissect approve document b to understand what it's trying to achieve to then be part of the team that was working on how to
00:58:33 of the team that was working on how to construct relevant guidance for these specific types of buildings in terms of external fire spread um
00:58:42 i would have i mean my first exposure i think was curl street was the the fire i attended with with sarah colwell that's where i was first introduced to the concept of the 8414 test you know
00:58:53 to the concept of the 8414 test you know in a real sense i'd seen the rigs in the burn hall
00:58:56 burn hall can you remember the date that you were first involved with that in cull street yeah apologies it's in my statement yeah if we went to it i could tell you about it we'll find it yeah
00:59:07 we'll find it yeah um now i asked you my question was actually about the building regulations themselves as distinct from the approved no it's fine but but can i just check that you did understand there to be a difference between the functional
00:59:18 difference between the functional requirements in the building regulations and the practical guidance that you see in for example approved document b yes that was explained very early on something i remember
00:59:30 something i remember attending i believe during my first 12 months at bre was a conference launching the new approved document b because that that was that came into effect i believe april 2007. correct 2006 edition yeah
00:59:41 april 2007. correct 2006 edition yeah and there was a road show that government were doing and it came to bre and
00:59:46 and we were all obviously asked to go and sit in and hear from um at that time i think it was anthony bird and brian martin um what the developments were and how the
00:59:57 what the developments were and how the whole
00:59:58 whole structure of the regulations and the approved documents fitted together yeah and what we were doing that contributed to that so at that point you became familiar with the 2007 or the the 2006 version published in 2007 version of adb
01:00:11 version published in 2007 version of adb yes
01:00:12 yes yes and i would have almost certainly been looking at the 2000 edition prior to that i was about to say just yeah dipping into it rather than having any formal input yeah so you
01:00:23 than having any formal input yeah so you did have some familiarity with approved document b in its previous iterations yes yep
01:00:29 yes yep now what about national class nord when did you first come to us understand that classification in any detail um
01:00:40 in terms of really seriously understanding it was probably during the course of the lack of house fire and i mean martin was mutton ship apologies was mentoring me
01:00:51 mutton ship apologies was mentoring me through the early part of that investigation and um yes i think that was the time when i first really got into the nuts and bolts of how class i worked right got you
01:01:02 of how class i worked right got you now um i want to ask you a little bit about your knowledge of the background to national class naught and now can we agree that that classification can be achieved by combining particular results from two british standard tests
01:01:14 results from two british standard tests bs 476 part seven and bs476 part six yes now turning first to part seven that's essentially a surface spread of flame test yes yes agreed now what's your
01:01:26 test yes yes agreed now what's your understanding about the origins of that test
01:01:30 test um
01:01:31 um it first appeared in
01:01:35 in bs476 before it was split into parts and i'm probably going to get the dates wrong i believe there was a 1932 edition a 1953 edition it certainly appeared in 1953 edition it
01:01:48 it certainly appeared in 1953 edition it may yeah i forget it may have appeared in the 32 edition as well and what did you understand when it first
01:01:55 first became
01:01:56 became a test and a thing what did you understand it to be testing in relation to
01:02:05 my understanding is it was it was developed for internal linings it was looking at the rate of flame spread that you might achieve under different incident heat fluxes so the way the test was set up
01:02:16 was set up with a
01:02:18 with a specimen that is perpendicular to a furnace face yeah um that in and of itself creates a gradient of heat flux across the sample which is most intense nearest the furnace and
01:02:30 most intense nearest the furnace and um decreases you can move away from the furnace face um and then you can correlate the the speed and extent to which flame spreads across the surface with those heat fluxes
01:02:42 the surface with those heat fluxes although
01:02:43 although in in practice in terms of users of the approved documents or indeed the building regulations pre uh the 1984 act um users were just interested in what class they achieved so they would get
01:02:55 class they achieved so they would get classes one to four depending upon the extent of flame spread which would then via
01:03:00 via either again the regulations um pre 84 or the approved documents post 84
01:03:07 84 the the
01:03:09 the the the classes would be equated with with certain
01:03:13 certain areas of surfaces on buildings yeah doctor
01:03:16 doctor we're going to come on to how users of the approved document might have understood class nor in just a moment i'm just interested in in establishing your understanding and some basics about those tests
01:03:29 basics about those tests can we agree that it was established as a method for testing flame spread within corridors within buildings yes agreed and can we agree as well that there have
01:03:40 and can we agree as well that there have been no fundamental changes to the part seven tests since its initial development agreed no no fundamental changes yeah so the reference scenario for that test
01:03:51 so the reference scenario for that test is an internal fire yes yes and it is testing a horizontal progression of flame is that correct it's not testing vertical spread of
01:04:02 it's not testing vertical spread of flame is it no it isn't now
01:04:05 now turning now to bs 476 part six that's the fire test for fire propagation yes yes how would you define fire propagation if someone asked you in the street what is
01:04:16 someone asked you in the street what is fire propagation what's your definition it's analogous to heat release rate or energy that is released by a specimen or the surface of
01:04:27 released by a specimen or the surface of a specimen it isn't ultimately the heat release rate because all that the test measures is temperature change yeah um but what the test does so
01:04:38 so you have a calibration run which is run with a non-combustible blank specimen and then you have your test run
01:04:45 test run and
01:04:46 and the indices that arise from from the fire propagation test again they're analogous to the amount of energy that's being produced by by the test specimen as compared with a non-combustible specimen but they don't
01:04:57 non-combustible specimen but they don't give you any direct information as to exactly how much energy is being produced yeah i understand now um what's your understanding about the origins of that part 6 fire propagation test
01:05:12 i don't know its original development as well as the part 7 test i believe it was introduced later i don't think i may be wrong i don't think it appeared in the undivided
01:05:24 appeared in the undivided bs476 i think it first appeared as part six to the standard yeah so um
01:05:31 did you ever come to know that it was developed for and intended to test fire propagation within a compartment yes you knew that yes so both of these tests have an internal
01:05:44 so both of these tests have an internal fire as their reference scenario
01:05:47 neither were designed or intended to test an external cladding fire scenario were they agreed now in light of that can you just help us in general terms what is the relevance of these tests
01:05:59 relevance of these tests to assessing the risk of external fire spread in the event of a cladding fire my
01:06:05 my understanding i wasn't directly involved in this but my understanding is that there was some work done and i can't claim to have seen the work but the the the issue of interest
01:06:17 but the the the issue of interest was the amount of heat flux that so if a fire occurs in a room and the window to that room fails you get flame extension out of the building
01:06:28 get flame extension out of the building and you will get heat flux back onto the walls
01:06:31 walls the external walls of the building immediately above that window i believe
01:06:35 i believe that there was a belief and again i haven't seen the detail but that the that level of heat flux was comparable with the room fire itself particularly in areas
01:06:45 in areas close to where the flames were emitting from the window and that was the rationale for using these tests in that way but again i don't have direct
01:06:56 but again i don't have direct information on that and and
01:06:58 and and when you're talking about that this belief and that the rationale can you remember which scientist it was at the bre that was involved in um working this out or what period of
01:07:10 um working this out or what period of time we're talking about no apologies i i remember it being explained to me it may have been martin chip it may have been brian martin i remember getting the explanation but i couldn't tell you who did that work
01:07:21 couldn't tell you who did that work sorry
01:07:22 sorry so is it right that you've never had a proper explanation provided to you as to precisely why class naught is used as a metric for assessing the risk of
01:07:33 metric for assessing the risk of external fire spread in the event of a cladding fire correct
01:07:39 do you consider that national class naught has been at any time an appropriate measure of the fire performance for external cladding
01:07:51 i
01:07:55 when it was when when the issue if you like was first conceived then i can understand the argument for using an existing test and trying to
01:08:06 existing test and trying to make best use of it albeit in a slightly different application using these sorts of principles um but i would say that you know certainly by the time of um
01:08:15 um adb 2006 when you know we were several years into european harmonization for instance i i really struggle to see why classo was
01:08:26 i really struggle to see why classo was retained um i mean i think i'd well i think i did i gave evidence on the appropriateness or otherwise of classo as opposed to the european tests during
01:08:38 as opposed to the european tests during the
01:08:38 the the evidence i gave in singapore in the supreme court um back in 2015. and can you just summarize for us what was your what what was the gist of your evidence about the appropriateness of
01:08:50 evidence about the appropriateness of retaining class naught as opposed to my principal european sorry um my principal concern was it doesn't deal with composite behavior very well um that was a case that concerned um
01:09:03 that was a case that concerned um composite roof panels because the singapore fire safety code has class naught enshrined within it in relation to various products um
01:09:12 um and there was a debate about the european test methods as opposed to the um the uk the national methods and the appropriateness or otherwise of each um
01:09:24 um and yeah
01:09:25 and yeah i don't support classo as a test i understand that there are political motivations as to why it was retained but those are political they're not
01:09:36 but those are political they're not technical
01:09:37 technical we may come onto this later but i just want to tease this out now when you say i don't support class naught did you ever make that clear to to government and the department
01:09:49 to government and the department as in the department that used to be i remember asking the question um probably of brian martin and and being told you know it's part of the um
01:10:03 what's the word i'm looking for the the the side-by-side application of the harmonized european standards and the old national standards and and there was a
01:10:12 a a desire to discontinue reliance upon class o at some point in the future um
01:10:19 um but i remember being told there were you know
01:10:23 know industry
01:10:24 industry interests you know the products that were on the market as a result of achieving class o that would cease to be on the market if if classo ceased to be a viable option i wasn't privy to that right what was
01:10:35 i wasn't privy to that right what was going on
01:10:36 going on but i remember being told you know that it's it's a thing which is understood as being a weakness but it's not something that will continue in perpetuity as part of this transition but ultimately the transition never you
01:10:48 but ultimately the transition never you know it never concluded in the proper way
01:10:50 way um and and can you help us just breaking this down when did you have that conversation with brian martin where you explained your concerns and he explained that there were certain reasons for retaining it
01:11:03 reasons for retaining it probably fairly early on in my career um i would say around the time that he
01:11:12 that he moved to um to government to to dclg um so that would have been what 2008 i suppose um it was early it was but it was as i said there was there
01:11:23 was but it was as i said there was there was a
01:11:24 was a recognition was my understanding that the class i wasn't the ideal tool in the box but that it wasn't going to be there forever yeah and did you ever raise it with him again and ask him why the transition period hadn't come to an end
01:11:36 transition period hadn't come to an end and class naught abandoned in favor of for example the euro classes um no but by then i
01:11:45 by then i you know i did the how do i put this the writing was on the wall in terms of advances in fire safety and research and the you know things not being changed in
01:11:56 the you know things not being changed in the approved documents unless you could find things to delete so um
01:12:01 um i knew it wasn't going to be a fruitful line of inquiry let's put it that way so
01:12:05 so is your evidence that um despite remaining concerned about it you never raised it with brian martin what because you knew the answer would be no i wouldn't say i never raised um
01:12:20 we knew there was a shared understanding that classo is what it is and it's not ideal um
01:12:29 yeah and and
01:12:31 and and that ultimately it would come to an end but that end got extended and extended and extended um
01:12:39 um and i mean as it's in some of my evidence you know government and i'm not talking about prior martin i'm talking about people he reported to they weren't in listening mode at this point that was
01:12:51 point that was fire safety was was very much in decline at that stage i would suggest and who told how did you know these people above brian martin weren't in listening mode how did you come to be aware of that
01:13:02 aware of that um conversations things that he you know let slip i suppose during phone calls about research i remember there was probably i think it was during the external fire spread um
01:13:14 external fire spread um work which i know we'll come on to later but this point that you know government a isn't commissioning any new research and for whatever reason and i don't think
01:13:24 think don't get wrong i think brian martin agreed with this but they weren't going to accept anyone else's research either um they just weren't open to new ideas on how to do things
01:13:35 on how to do things and you talked about there being a shared understanding that class naught wasn't ideal but but you know you had to live with it who was that shared understanding between
01:13:46 understanding between when i said that i meant brian martin and me in terms of those conversations but i think well i suspect others also had that shared understanding that it is you know it's an outdated standard and it needs to go
01:13:57 to go the question is when did you ever discuss that um difficulty with other colleagues within bre
01:14:05 um
01:14:09 i probably discussed it with kira holland at some point just as part of you know explaining to her the regulations the approved documents and and so on and how they work
01:14:20 and and so on and how they work um
01:14:23 no i don't think i'm sorry double checking myself i'm not sure is the answer it may well have come up um if it had come up it would have been
01:14:36 if it had come up it would have been during project review meetings that kind of thing um as opposed to sort of general chitchat okay
01:14:44 okay and do you ever recall a time when either you or anyone else from the bre actually reinforced the urgency of getting rid of national class law in terms of public safety
01:14:56 terms of public safety did that ever happen
01:15:03 i believe there was um there was something linked to i mean what apologies it wasn't part of it was covered by
01:15:15 covered by standard testing and debbie smith to a degree there was some work done
01:15:21 is it radar there was a project that looked at the the european versus the national yeah standards and the pros and cons of each
01:15:35 when that occurred i can't say apologies i did i know that there were other conversations ongoing but they didn't involve me but it was it your understanding that during the course of that project the bre made clear that there would be
01:15:47 bre made clear that there would be public safety ramifications of allowing class naught to remain as a metric for the measurement of external fire spread i don't know whether they did you don't know okay
01:15:59 you don't know okay mr chairman i think that might be a good moment for our break because i'm going to stay with class nor but i'm moving on to a different seven we'll take a break at this point you probably know mr dr
01:16:10 this point you probably know mr dr crowder we have a break during each session we'll take it now we'll stop and resume please at hothouse 11 and now you've started giving your evidence as i've said to all the other witnesses please don't talk about it to
01:16:23 witnesses please don't talk about it to your evidence or anything relating to it to anyone while you're out of the room all right
01:16:28 all right thank you very much would you like to go to the usher
01:16:40 thank you very much half of us 11.
01:31:52 so
01:31:59 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
01:32:13 all right dr crowder i'm ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes thank you there's just a couple of questions picking up on the evidence just before the break can you help us with this um did dr debbie smith did she
01:32:25 with this um did dr debbie smith did she also have the shared understanding that you talked about your understanding between you and brian martin that class naught was far from ideal and would be replaced at some
01:32:36 ideal and would be replaced at some point
01:32:37 point i would presume so but that would be a presumption um why would you presume so she had a lot of involvement in the development of the european tests was my
01:32:48 development of the european tests was my understanding and how they compared with the national debt yes yeah and did you ever come to know what might replace national class naught um if ever that transition did actually
01:32:59 um if ever that transition did actually happen
01:33:01 happen my understanding was that the the european
01:33:03 european classes under uh 13501 part one were intended to fully replace class naught and indeed the other classes against ps4 seven six part seven and what about for buildings over 18
01:33:14 and what about for buildings over 18 meters
01:33:15 meters um
01:33:16 um was it just to be a european classification or was for example bs84 testing going to be part of what was in the relevant guidance um
01:33:27 um i don't
01:33:28 i don't think
01:33:29 think pre grenfell i don't think there was ever a view that bs8414
01:33:35 bs8414 was
01:33:37 was was in need of significant review obviously it needed its periodic updates and so on
01:33:42 and so on um
01:33:43 um but i don't recall any concerns being raised about bs8414 prior to grenfell yes no i'm not really talking about concerns but um thinking back to the parliamentary select committee in 1999
01:33:54 parliamentary select committee in 1999 were you aware of that dimly it's before my time dimly aware of it actually before my time in which case if you're dimly aware of it i won't i won't um ask you about that i'll ask someone we'll ask some of your
01:34:05 i'll ask someone we'll ask some of your other colleagues about that um
01:34:08 um but staying with national class naught for a moment i want to look at your third witness statement now that's bre 30 six eight page thirty two
01:34:21 six eight page thirty two and at paragraph um one three three there you say this you say in my opinion professor bisbee has misread approved document b's definition
01:34:33 document b's definition of class nought despite including it and its precursors in his report the definition states the highest national performance classification for lining materials is class naught this is achieved if they
01:34:45 class naught this is achieved if they material or the surface of a composite product is either a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or b
01:34:56 or b a class one material which has a fire propaga propagation index i of not more than 12 etc etc that's referring to the 476 part 6 and part 7 tests yes yes
01:35:08 476 part 6 and part 7 tests yes yes now that is the definition of national class naught from paragraph 13 of appendix a of approved document b yes yes
01:35:16 yes and
01:35:17 and in that paragraph of your witness statement where you set out the definition from within that appendix of the approved document you we can see you've underlined certain words you've underlined
01:35:30 words you've underlined the surface of a composite product and then you've underlined composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility yes yes and
01:35:40 and you go on to explain if we can go below that to paragraph 134 you explain you say this the underlined text above means in my opinion that an acm panel or indeed any composite
01:35:53 acm panel or indeed any composite product which has a surface formed throughout of any of the metals which are deemed to be non-combustible including aluminium zinc copper and any alloys
01:36:04 alloys of these
01:36:05 of these meet the definition for class naught without the need for testing provided they do not have a surfaced coating yes yes
01:36:15 yes now just leaving aside professor bisbee's opinion for the moment and concentrating on yours first
01:36:23 first has what you've described in those paragraphs always been your understanding of the definition of national class naught as set out in the approved document no what other view have you held about the
01:36:36 what other view have you held about the interpretation of the definition of national class naught i
01:36:41 i previously so my understanding developed um further from what i'd had previously during the drafting of powers double nato
01:36:51 nato which is that that's the new standard for assessing the fire safety of cladding
01:36:55 cladding um just pause there sorry um and can you just perhaps try and speak slightly more slowly because i think sometimes you're going quite fast so past 9980 as you say is the new
01:37:07 so past 9980 as you say is the new standard for assessing the fire safety of cladding that came out very recently didn't it yes in january 2022 is that right yes yes so you're saying is this right that your understanding of the
01:37:19 right that your understanding of the definition of national class naught change during the course of your work on that
01:37:25 that standard yes yes can you just explain how it changed i
01:37:31 i hadn't
01:37:32 hadn't fully appreciated and apologies would we could we return to the previous page with the definition yes please on the screen
01:37:40 screen so if you look at the bottom of page 32
01:37:45 and you want to blow up paragraph 133 yet yes i i had not previously appreciated the significance of the underlined text in the first partial paragraph the point about
01:37:56 first partial paragraph the point about the surface of a composite product i had
01:38:00 i had previously held the view that um effectively you you could get class o provided
01:38:09 provided the
01:38:10 the the product as a whole was limited combustibility i hadn't fully understood the nuance about the surface that you know all it takes is to put a metal sheet onto something and you get a class o and that was um
01:38:22 and you get a class o and that was um raised
01:38:23 raised i forget when during the various steering group discussions for the development of the of the pas and i yeah it took me a bit to um to process but i fully accept that that
01:38:34 to process but i fully accept that that is ultimately what the text says i see
01:38:37 i see and um was that a surprise to you when you realized that it could be read that way or that those words were there and that's what you thought it meant yes it was um
01:38:50 yes it was um because i
01:38:53 because i you know
01:38:55 my background is obviously from within bre it's it's fire engineering and so on and
01:39:01 and having
01:39:02 having the benefit of of the steering group with the pass was this diverse range of views that we had from industry as to you know what the issues were that needed to be addressed in terms of cladding
01:39:14 cladding and yes it took me by surprise but ultimately when you read it and re-read it
01:39:18 it that is ultimately what it says there is to my mind it's not something that necessarily jumps off the page and i you know i certainly don't criticize professor
01:39:29 certainly don't criticize professor bisbee for for not having seen it because there were many years when i didn't
01:39:33 didn't um
01:39:34 um but it's there and it is possible for a user of approved document b depending upon their background to reach that conclusion that all they need to do is put a metal sheet onto a composite
01:39:46 is put a metal sheet onto a composite product and they will have a class 0 product right do you ever recall hearing that view being advanced by anybody prior to your work on the pass
01:39:57 work on the pass 9980 standard so that wasn't a view that ever got discussed within the bre no and um
01:40:07 so is it is it your reading now that any composite product so long as the outer surface of that product is composed throughout of non-combustible or limited combustibility material
01:40:18 combustibility material that any such composite project will will achieve class nord um
01:40:23 um yes save that class naught is no longer defined in the approved documents i appreciate that but but just but yes there's a point of principle yes anything that has a metal face supplied to it could
01:40:34 to it could under the the preceding editions of approved document b beading to be class naught
01:40:38 naught and is the logic of that this that you could have for example a piece of explosive for example a piece of semtex plastic explosive which would achieve national class
01:40:49 which would achieve national class naught without testing so long as it was lined on its outer face with for example a one micron aluminium foil facer
01:40:58 um yes i mean you've picked an extreme example but yes that is the corollary of what is in this text i see
01:41:07 i see and if you're right are you saying that for example an acm pe polyethylene composite panel could be national class naught without any need for testing provided the outer
01:41:18 any need for testing provided the outer layer was pure aluminium and didn't have a paint or surface coating correct
01:41:29 now you're presumably aware that for many years and until after the fire the guidance in approved document b in relation to the external surfaces of buildings directed that the provisions of diagram 40 were to be followed yes
01:41:41 of diagram 40 were to be followed yes yes
01:41:42 yes and you're presumably familiar with the provisions of diagram 40 is that correct yes and that for any habitable story over 18 meters the external surfaces of the walls were to be national class
01:41:53 the walls were to be national class north or euro class b yes uh yes save that it's the overall height of the building that needs to be over 18 meters on diagram 40 for class naught the heritable story is referred to a
01:42:04 the heritable story is referred to a paragraph 12.7
01:42:09 yes i see
01:42:13 so you never came to have any discussions with anybody in government about the potential ramifications of having
01:42:21 having a definition of class naught that had this ability to achieve class naught simply if the surface was composed of materials of limited combustibility that's not a conversation
01:42:32 combustibility that's not a conversation you had no and that's not a public safety issue that you ever raised with government well i wasn't aware of it so no it is now
01:42:43 it is now it has been raised um because government were part of the discussions with the steering group on the paz and the the paz has taken a far more restrictive view
01:42:54 restrictive view on class nord um so class naught features classo still features in the past
01:43:00 past in that
01:43:01 in that you know we're dealing with historic buildings in that document but it's only deemed to be reliable in relation to homogeneous materials yeah what specifically was it that led you to
01:43:12 what specifically was it that led you to revisit this guidance and read and reread it as you've described and then then come to this view the discussions during the steering group meetings of the the past
01:43:23 group meetings of the the past and were there any particular um organizations or individuals within the steering group that were advancing this definition all the it with potentially extreme
01:43:34 all the it with potentially extreme consequences yes uh cwct right
01:43:39 right they were the one putting this definition forward yes yeah let's see
01:43:48 have you ever discussed your understanding of this definition with any other fire safety professionals outside
01:43:55 outside um the pass 9980 group um not as yet i'm due to because now now the pass is out in the world people are asking for explanations but no not as yet i see
01:44:08 explanations but no not as yet i see it's only been very recently published yeah now we're going to come back to so i'm trying to interrupt you again this screenshot yes please stop doing it so often but
01:44:16 often but um
01:44:17 um i understand what you're saying about the construction of these words but there is something slightly odd isn't there about the use of the expression composed throughout of
01:44:29 expression composed throughout of materials
01:44:30 materials in the plural if you're only referring to the surface uh
01:44:37 uh the final exterior surface agreed
01:44:40 agreed that that might sound great writing if i'm not brutally honest might it suggest that um what a is really referring to is the material
01:44:50 material which is referred to in the previous sentence
01:44:58 it's possible and well and that that was my original reading of the text um
01:45:03 um [Music]
01:45:05 [Music] as i say we're having been confronted with this proposition um and it's a similar debate to that in relation to paragraph 12.7 that the point is there is room for interpretation
01:45:17 interpretation um
01:45:18 um and i don't you know it's not as much as i it worries me i don't um what's the word i don't think it's unreasonable for people with you know
01:45:30 unreasonable for people with you know different backgrounds to arrive at those different interpretations well perhaps we can agree it's not the best piece of drafting at that we can agree yes sir thank you very much anyway yes as far as you are aware from the
01:45:42 as far as you are aware from the discussions that you've described at this steering group
01:45:46 group are there organizations or individuals within industry who've always read the definition as you now do and applied it for example in the way that i gave i'm
01:45:57 for example in the way that i gave i'm afraid i don't know whether they had always held that view or whether it was a recent development um all i know is that it was it was brought to the steering group for discussion okay now we'll come back to some more
01:46:08 now we'll come back to some more questions later about national class nought moving on now to the euro class system
01:46:13 system um can we agree that these were introduced into the uk in 2002 as a result of the european construction products directive yes yes
01:46:21 yes and the classification standard which explains how for example euro class b is derived is en 13501 part one is that correct yes i agree now if we just turn to that
01:46:32 agree now if we just turn to that british standard it's at bsi four zeros 1738 at page 40. there we have
01:46:43 there we have table 1 on page 40 which sets out the classification criteria now looking at that we can see that the various classes rely not just on one test but on a combination of different tests is that
01:46:55 combination of different tests is that correct yes
01:46:58 and the various classes from a2 down to d they all require testing to en 13823 yes yes and that's the single burning item test yes
01:47:10 item test yes now can we agree that the single burning item test was in basic terms introduced to replace the room corner test by providing a method
01:47:21 room corner test by providing a method where the results of that test could be inferred without incurring the same cost in time and money that's my understanding yes when did you come to have that understanding about the single burning item test
01:47:41 i don't know sorry um it would be later on in my career it wasn't one of the very first things that i learned about um
01:47:50 about um we
01:47:50 we so bre had an iso 9705 room which was the standard room for this room corner test
01:47:57 test um
01:47:59 um and yes at some point it was made the link was made clear to me that it had been used as the means of
01:48:05 means of establishing the various classes that were related to the time to achieve flashover in that standardized room but i'm sorry i couldn't say exactly when i learned of that link no that's fine but i think we can agree that as
01:48:17 fine but i think we can agree that as with the national classification system that we looked at the reference scenario is a fire within a room yes as
01:48:25 as originally developed yes that's my understanding yeah do you consider that this test is useful for assessing the fire behavior in circumstances far removed from that test scenario for example on the external
01:48:37 scenario for example on the external face of a high-rise building
01:48:42 it can be but only when used in and again apologies my memory is going to fail me there is a european assessment document ea an ead
01:48:54 ea an ead which describes in quite some detail it's a fairly painful document to navigate but it deals with cladding kits for the bsen 138 2-3 test
01:49:05 2-3 test and it sets out the
01:49:10 the the ways in which specimens should be prepared so that they are representative of the end use condition on a cladding system and so that the data that is then
01:49:21 system and so that the data that is then derived from the test is um
01:49:24 is um applicable or relevant to to the cladding arrangement i see so i can see that there's some some guidance about how specimens are prepared so that they're representative of the
01:49:35 so that they're representative of the end use condition on a cladding system but but what i'm looking for is it's fundamentally do you consider that this test this single burning item test
01:49:46 test this single burning item test that's derived in part from the room corner test is a useful test for assessing external fire spread on a building i do in that
01:49:57 i do in that while i agree it was originally developed into a room corner test my understanding is that formal specific thought has been put into
01:50:07 into making it applicable to cladding related
01:50:10 related products
01:50:12 products i see but you you don't know the detail of that is that right no i didn't get involved in that work um and i don't know who did all i know is there is a european commission document that deals with the issue yeah
01:50:23 with the issue yeah now turning now to the concept of combustibility could you just summarize your understanding of the term limited combustibility as used in the approved document
01:50:33 document um yes limited combustibility covers um a range of different performances which are described in table a7 of appendix a of approved
01:50:44 table a7 of appendix a of approved document b volume 2. um the one that gets referred to the tester gets referred to most often is the bs476 part 11 test which provided the temperature increase
01:50:56 which provided the temperature increase doesn't succeed 25 or 35 degrees celsius when when you plunge specimen into the furnace at 750 degrees c
01:51:05 degrees c you can deem that product to be limited combustibility there are other criteria as well that accompany that but yeah
01:51:10 yeah that's the broad and can you explain the difference between the concept of limited combustibility and a classified classification to national class north
01:51:21 classification to national class north yes so
01:51:23 yes so limited combustibility or if i may i'll stick with the part 11 test first it's only
01:51:31 only deals with individual materials it is
01:51:35 it is very difficult or be it not impossible to try and prepare a specimen for that test
01:51:42 test out of
01:51:43 out of anything other than a purpose made cylinder of material for dropping into the furnace um and so it is and if i may i it it's somewhat
01:51:54 and if i may i it it's somewhat analogous to it there's a similar separation if you like as with the fire propagation test where i said before the fire propagation doesn't directly tell you about energy release it tells you about temperature but it can be
01:52:05 you about temperature but it can be interrelated with energy release so the limited combustibility test also tells you about energy release and given the the severity of conditions it imposes
01:52:15 imposes it has some links with the um the bomb calorimeter test in terms of again understanding energy output but that is what it is it tells you how much energy again indirectly via a temperature
01:52:27 again indirectly via a temperature measurement a material will produce when exposed to very severe heat and how is that different from the national class naught tests thinking back to 476 part six and part seven
01:52:38 back to 476 part six and part seven the those tests are surface-based tests you know only the exposed surface is exposed there are um particularly in relation to composite products a number of weaknesses um
01:52:51 products a number of weaknesses um associated with them chiefly with the part 7 test the main weakness i've encountered is the the use of the water cooled um specimen holder so that
01:53:02 so that even if you have an i'll take polyethylene acm as a prime example if you place a sample of polyethylene acm into a part seven rig um yes has been done since the grenfell
01:53:13 um yes has been done since the grenfell fire
01:53:14 fire um
01:53:16 um the the heat will conduct through the aluminium face and will melt the polyethylene within the panel but as soon as that polyethylene starts to flow and reach the edges of the water cooled frame they are cooled they re-solidify
01:53:27 frame they are cooled they re-solidify they never get exposed to the furnace and you don't therefore um get an appreciation of the extent to which those underlying layers might then impact on real fire performance yes thank you
01:53:38 thank you similar albeit slightly different but similar weaknesses in the fire propagation test yeah that doesn't really test the core of the product does it only the surface is exposed in the frame yes yeah
01:53:50 exposed in the frame yes yeah now thinking back has there been any stage in your career when you can see now that you were confused and unsure about the definitions meanings or relationship between national class nor
01:54:02 relationship between national class nor and limited combustibility um
01:54:06 um yes certainly during the early stages of my career i mean the the the example i would draw out not that i was involved in in its drafting but um
01:54:17 in in its drafting but um i'm aware that html502 uh which is the healthcare memorandum for hospitals doesn't identify limited combustibility for external walls in spite of the fact that approved document b does
01:54:28 b does um
01:54:29 um and i'm
01:54:31 and i'm in again hindsight having thought back to the time when i was involved in writing
01:54:37 writing the guidance or the the other parts of the htm guidance i certainly didn't appreciate the the intricacies when i was first becoming acquainted with approved document b and getting involved in
01:54:48 document b and getting involved in crafting these i see and for how long did you think you perhaps didn't appreciate those intricacies um
01:55:00 probably up until some point during the latino investigation because initially
01:55:09 initially again i was i was being mentored so i understood the need to do the class o test and that it arose directly from approved document b2000
01:55:20 and it was only later it was this whole point that's become quite a debate obviously around
01:55:27 the range of materials within external wall construction that need to be limited combustibility and then you know once you appreciate that that distinction understanding the actual differences between the test methods and
01:55:38 differences between the test methods and what they mean and what the significance of those that that came probably late on during my work on lacking yeah is it possible actually with hindsight that you didn't really understand those two concepts fully until after your work
01:55:51 two concepts fully until after your work on the lacrinal house fire um no i think i'd say i learned it part way through okay but i didn't appreciate it i mean when i was attending the scene itself and you know doing the on-site
01:56:03 itself and you know doing the on-site investigation no i didn't have that appreciation okay now if we can look at your third witness statement again page 32
01:56:12 page 32 paragraph 132 and starting at the third line of that paragraph
01:56:20 paragraph you say this you say for composite products
01:56:23 products a user of approved document b that is not a fire testing expert might reasonably in my view conclude that class naught is at least equivalent
01:56:34 that class naught is at least equivalent to limited combustibility particularly in relation to composite products for which it was presented as being the more relevant measure of performance
01:56:45 performance and you go on you say this is exemplified by the fact that for healthcare premises such as hospitals only class naught or class b as its deemed equivalent is relied upon for external wall construction
01:56:57 external wall construction and there is no reference to limited combustibility or class a2 that is equivalent to the reference in approved document b
01:57:06 now i just want to break this down composite products that you're referring to there would include for example acm aluminium composite material products yes yes now
01:57:17 now you're referring to a fire testing expert might reasonably conclude that class naught's at least equivalent to limited combustibility can you just help us what who do you
01:57:28 can you just help us what who do you mean by a
01:57:29 mean by a fire testing expert and who is not a fire testing expert can you help us with the distinction you're drawing there so a fire testing expert would be
01:57:40 so a fire testing expert would be someone that has carried out a lot of fire testing and and understands
01:57:47 first hand what the respective conditions are that are imposed by each of the tests so someone like sarah caldwell for example yes
01:57:56 yes um would you class yourself as a fire testing expert um
01:58:04 to a point yes i mean i've never been a test technician um going to the strict separation that was operated within bre um but i've certainly
01:58:15 um but i've certainly witnessed and been exposed to more tests than
01:58:18 than your average construction professional i see
01:58:21 see so thinking about the range of users of approved document b would you agree that the proportion of those users who were not fire testing experts would be the vast majority yes
01:58:33 experts would be the vast majority yes so building control officers builders architects designers manufacturers yes yes agreed
01:58:42 now can you help us why do you say that for composite products class naught was presented as being the more relevant measure of performance presented where
01:58:53 measure of performance presented where in
01:58:56 paragraph 13 and an adjacent paragraph i forget whether it's 12 or 14 with an appendix a there is a point about composite products and the relationship to limited combustibility there is also
01:59:07 to limited combustibility there is also a reference or a note within table a7 i think being the limited combustibility table that says it's a warning in effect that you know even if you have a material which is a
01:59:19 even if you have a material which is a limited combustibility exercise caution where you have a a surface um coating because in spite of you know meeting limited combustibility you might not get
01:59:30 limited combustibility you might not get classo
01:59:31 classo but isn't that merely telling readers that they're testing different things that for example you might have a product that's primarily of limited combustibility but it has a surface coating
01:59:42 coating that needs to achieve class naught yes yes agreed but that's not the same as saying that what you've said here is it that class naught is presented as being the more
01:59:53 naught is presented as being the more relevant measure of performance well it how i put this um
02:00:00 for composite products the definitions for limited combustibility as i said earlier they're very difficult to actually achieve in practice
02:00:10 practice it's very difficult to prepare a specimen
02:00:14 specimen that will give you a representative answer
02:00:17 answer on limited combustibility when you have a composite so
02:00:21 so and i'm you know don't get me wrong as a point of fact as i think i've said in the statement limited combustibility is ultimately better than class nords i'm the point i'm making is that
02:00:32 i'm making is that to the uninitiated reading um approved document be at first blush those the warnings that exist within appendix a i think could again be construed in in a
02:00:43 i think could again be construed in in a way that leads someone to believe that class naught is enough and that you don't actually need to rely upon limited combustibility in all circumstances
02:00:52 again i'm not suggesting it's correct i'm just suggesting it's an interpretation though i just wanted to establish that with you before i consider some of your more specific arguments whether you're saying that is a correct
02:01:03 whether you're saying that is a correct interpretation of approved document b well i'm sorry let me arrive at this in a slightly different direction
02:01:12 direction with the
02:01:14 with the the guidance in section 12 of approved document b we have diagram 40 which we discussed which points to class o and then there is paragraph 12.7 which refers to limited combustibility
02:01:27 refers to limited combustibility for whatever reason doesn't refer to class a2 it just talks about limited combustibility and then you have these thresholds that exist with 18 meters for the overall height of the building on diagram 40
02:01:38 height of the building on diagram 40 versus the the height of the topmost story in paragraph 12.7 and
02:01:45 and i have you know for some time wondered why have these thresholds where the figure is ultimately the same but the point of measurement is slightly out yes by a story or less
02:01:56 by a story or less if you
02:01:59 if you consider diagram 40 and 12.7 in the absence of the european classes in particular then
02:02:06 then i think
02:02:07 i think we're agreed in terms of the proposition you put that they're measuring two different things yeah and that you need to achieve but once you have a story above 18 meters you must have a building above 18 meters and therefore
02:02:19 building above 18 meters and therefore you need to achieve both limited combustibility and the class 0. where things get slightly odd and it's the reason i raise the point is when once you
02:02:27 once you map the european classes onto these same diagram and paragraph it doesn't make sense because the european classes are strictly hierarchical you start with a1 then a2b
02:02:39 hierarchical you start with a1 then a2b and work your way down yeah and i
02:02:44 i i don't see how you can arrive at a conclusion that you would somehow have a class b surface with class a2
02:02:53 class a2 insulation fillers whatever the underlying construction is yes it's a
02:02:58 it's a again
02:02:59 again it's a nuanced point it's about the way that the text is put together and um again with the experience i've had in the last year we're trying to engage with more construction professionals from different backgrounds
02:03:10 from different backgrounds the point is it's it's a view that i can understand yes yes i mean
02:03:15 i mean i understand the points you're making i think that um
02:03:22 parts of adv may seem quite confusing as to why one classification replies to one part of the wall and another classification applies to another part of the wall yes yes i i understand that and that that's a confusion that this
02:03:34 and that that's a confusion that this inquiry is looking closely at but the point you're making in your witness statement is not that it's confusing and that things could have been clearer it's that you're saying the reasonable user of the document
02:03:46 the reasonable user of the document might consider class naught to be at least equivalent to limited combustibility and that's the bit i'm not following as to how the points you're making
02:03:58 to how the points you're making signify to the user that they are equivalent surely if you read the document properly it's clear that they are different tests that you need to satisfy for class naught versus limited
02:04:10 for class naught versus limited combustibility save that you you so there's the references i previously talked about and then there is paragraph 13 which is still on the screen that paragraph sits within the reaction to fire section of approved document
02:04:21 to fire section of approved document being in appendix a and it says the highest national product performance is class o
02:04:28 class o yes i'll come on to that point in in a moment um
02:04:31 moment um let's just break down the key points that you make um
02:04:37 um well actually before sorry before we do that did you ever express to any colleague within the bre the view that readers of our adb might consider those two concepts national
02:04:48 consider those two concepts national class nor and limited combustibility to be equivalent did you ever express that view to anyone within the bre no no that's that's a rose that arose again very recently as part of the past discussions and did you ever express
02:04:59 discussions and did you ever express that view to any official within government during your time at the bridge during my time at the federal
02:05:07 now i just want to take the reasons you're giving in stages in the second half of paragraph 13t that we we read you tell us that
02:05:18 you tell us that users of the approved document who were not fire testing experts might conclude that they're equivalent and that's exemplified by the fact that for health care premises such as hospitals only class naught is relied upon for
02:05:30 only class naught is relied upon for external wall construction and there's no reference to limited combustibility now let's just turn to that healthcare health technical memorandum this is inq3015115
02:05:51 we can see this is health technical memorandum zero five zero two it's a 2015 edition guidance in support of functional provisions fire safety and the design of health care premises
02:06:03 the design of health care premises and is is this the type of guidance you're talking about that users of approved document b might be thinking about
02:06:10 about yes
02:06:11 yes although um there's a 2007 edition which came out at the same time as adb 2006 i think which is more relevant in terms of when that thinking existed i see okay
02:06:24 when that thinking existed i see okay and i think you said that you had played some part in drafting this guidance is that correct so yeah not in o502 i was involved in 0.503 part j which was the
02:06:36 involved in 0.503 part j which was the fire engineering part
02:06:40 part right i see just turning within this guidance for a moment to page 71 and to paragraph 6.9 it says that surfaces of external walls the surfaces of external walls of
02:06:51 the surfaces of external walls of healthcare premises bottom of the left-hand column should provide a surface spread of flame classification of class naught or european class b do you see that yes
02:07:03 european class b do you see that yes now as you say there's no reference in this section to limited combustibility is there
02:07:08 is there no not in relation to external walls i believe it comes up in relation to uh elements of structure uh i think it might come up but not specifically in relation to external walls but looking
02:07:20 relation to external walls but looking at that there that doesn't exemplify the point you're making that readers might think class naught is equivalent to limited combustibility does it oh no i was sorry i wasn't
02:07:32 i wasn't saying that the guidance leads to that conclusion i was saying that for whatever reason which may be linked to how one reads appendix save approved document b
02:07:44 appendix save approved document b the authors of o502 didn't feel it was necessary to put limited combustibility into the htm and
02:07:51 and i think it's well established in in fire safety fire engineering that hospitals are sensitive buildings that are highly reliant upon the fire performance of the
02:08:02 reliant upon the fire performance of the structure
02:08:03 structure and yet here we are we don't have limited combustibility for hospitals i see so in short it's your point that because in this healthcare guidance
02:08:14 because in this healthcare guidance there's no requirement for for example the insulation to be of limited combustibility yes a reader of approved document b might think to themselves well because
02:08:25 might think to themselves well because class naught's okay for healthcare premises which are high-risk buildings it must be seen as a pretty [Music]
02:08:33 [Music] reliable and robust measure of performance of external fire spread yes that's your point i see and and do you consider that it likely that users of approved document b would
02:08:44 that users of approved document b would have consulted this healthcare guidance to make that comparison that you're making no no no right
02:08:52 right just while we're with this healthcare guidance i'd like to note one point on it
02:08:57 it if we go at page 83 we get a glossary of terms at appendix a and if we look in the right hand column we can see that there is a definition
02:09:09 we can see that there is a definition there of class naught surface spread of flame do you see that yes and the text reads class not surface spreader flame the classification achieved by a material or composite product which is either
02:09:21 product which is either a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or b and then it's got reference to the 476 part 7 and part 6 tests do you see that yes can you see that the
02:09:32 do you see that yes can you see that the definition of class naught in this document is different from the definition within approved document b yes i can see that is that the first time you've noticed that
02:09:42 that uh yes it is because again i only had those discussions about adb very recently so yes and in particular the reference to a material or the surface of a composite product that we looked at
02:09:53 of a composite product that we looked at so closely in adb isn't in this definition is it agrees it's just a material or composite product yes yes the surface off has been removed yes
02:10:08 and you can't help us as to why the two are different uh no i
02:10:14 uh no i i forget who i don't believe the 2015 edition i don't believe bre had any involvement in the 2015 edition of html502 right i may be mistaken but i'm
02:10:25 html502 right i may be mistaken but i'm fairly confident they didn't so um
02:10:30 so um you weren't previously aware that there were these two different definitions of class naught within this two pieces of government guidance no again the difference is a subtle one which i've only recently been alerted to as in the the amended view of the text in adb
02:10:43 the amended view of the text in adb hence i i previously read the both both as being the same right
02:10:49 right now just going back to your third witness statement and looking at page 31 paragraph 129 where you give another reason why you say readers might consider
02:11:02 say readers might consider national class naught and limited combustibility to be at least equivalent um you say in the final lines of one two nine final four lines
02:11:13 nine final four lines however both tables a5 and a7 recognize that composites which achieve limited combustibility may fail to achieve class naught it is therefore not the case in my opinion that limited combustibility
02:11:25 my opinion that limited combustibility is presented as being better than class naught in all circumstances now
02:11:31 now isn't that just telling readers that these are different tests testing different things i.e national class naught is testing the surface
02:11:40 surface rather than it being equivalent
02:11:46 it would have been certainly historically i mean sorry the text yes does point to those things the issue that arises again is is when you sit the national classes
02:11:59 you sit the national classes alongside the european classes and that there is a
02:12:06 a there is now under the european class is a formal structure that says a2 being equivalent to limited combustibility must always be better than class b read class o um
02:12:18 um whereas this this wasn't the case but no i agree they're fundamentally measuring different things yeah but the point is there is um
02:12:27 i think there's a belief that has arisen which is linked to the hierarchical nature of the european standards that limited combustibility must be better than class o and equally non-combustibility must be better than
02:12:38 non-combustibility must be better than limited combustibility i agree with you they're measuring different things but that has become confused as a result of the
02:12:46 of the the dual application of both the national and the european classes and the different ways in which they're structured yes but thinking about diagram 40 that says above 18 meters it's got to be national class naught or
02:12:57 it's got to be national class naught or b european class b now that's not limited combustibility is it's not a1 or a2
02:13:04 a2 agreed
02:13:05 agreed so diagram 40 is not telling you that national class nor is equivalent to limited combustibility is it no no
02:13:16 now the other point you make and you you you mentioned it earlier in your oral evidence and i wanted to come back to it is you make the point um at page 32 paragraphs that 130 and
02:13:27 um at page 32 paragraphs that 130 and 131
02:13:28 131 over the page here you make the point and you underline it that within approved document b national class naught is said to be the highest product performance
02:13:39 the highest product performance classification and you've underlined those words why haven't you underlined the words thereafter for lining materials
02:13:50 thereafter for lining materials isn't a reader being told this is the highest product performance classification for lining materials it's not being told it's the highest product performance classification for external wall materials is it
02:14:03 external wall materials is it um no though i would say that doesn't state internal linings it just says linings
02:14:09 linings you can have external linings and internal linings i see so are you saying that a reasonable reader of this might interpret lining materials as meaning
02:14:21 meaning an external wall material potentially the surface product not the entire external wall build up obviously but
02:14:31 have you been aware during your career at any time of others confusing or conflating or equating the concept of national class nor unlimited combustibility
02:14:44 um
02:14:48 i have um it's been
02:14:53 been how do i put this within the context of civil litigation cases that i'm involved in yes i have only in recent years but yes what about thinking before that and
02:15:04 what about thinking before that and outside the context of civil litigation when you were at the bre in the roles that you performed did you ever become aware in any of your work
02:15:14 work that there was a confusion about the difference between national class naught and limited combustibility no not at pre no
02:15:24 no you say no not the bre i'm i'm not just asking about the bre what about outside the bre what about in industry more generally did you ever become aware that there was this confusion
02:15:35 there was this confusion sorry i don't follow the question um when you say industry more generally yeah when i was employed at bre what do you mean yeah when you were employed at the bre right and and in discussions you might have had you know at conferences
02:15:48 might have had you know at conferences with other industry groups whether that's the cwct or other industry bodies or particular individuals who are involved in fire safety and cladding
02:15:59 involved in fire safety and cladding were you ever did you ever become aware of such third parties confusing national class naught with limited combustibility no not during my time at bra whether within or or outside of bra
02:16:16 did you ever uh raise with government um the fact that reasonable users of approved document b might reasonably think that class naught was equivalent to limited combustibility did you ever
02:16:28 to limited combustibility did you ever have that conversation with anyone within government well no because i wasn't aware at the time but again this has all been flushed out during the conversations around the past i see
02:16:39 past i see okay i want to move on now to the investigation of real fires project and that was a contract which the bre had with central government um now can you just in very simple terms
02:16:52 um now can you just in very simple terms briefly describe to us what that project involved
02:16:56 involved um yes i can try um so the objective of the projects in its broadest sense um
02:17:04 um was to
02:17:06 was to investigate fires and to identify whether or not there were aspects to the guidance within approved document b or the functional requirements of
02:17:18 the functional requirements of part b of schedule one which
02:17:22 which were not working as as intended i mean that's the bottom line so it wasn't interested in breaches and failure to comply that sort of thing
02:17:33 of thing it was interested in circumstances where people
02:17:39 yeah people had either followed or attempted to follow the guidance and yet there was something that had occurred that was untoward and therefore there's an opportunity to learn
02:17:50 there's an opportunity to learn something and therefore try to improve the competence or the regulations accordingly yeah were you ever made aware of how that project came to be what were the drivers for it
02:18:02 to be what were the drivers for it originally um
02:18:05 um not in detail but i'm broadly aware that it
02:18:09 it i i believe it arose
02:18:13 it arose partly as a result of the building act 1984 and the approved documents and this this recognition that the the uk had moved from prescriptive regulation in in the preceding
02:18:24 preceding iterations of the building regulations through to these functional requirements and the technical guidance and that it was as a result of that that it was felt there was a need to have a watching brief if you like to see
02:18:37 have a watching brief if you like to see that um
02:18:38 that um things were working as intended yeah i think
02:18:41 think now in in your third witness statement for the transcript we don't need to turn out page six paragraph 27 you tell us that this investigation of real fires project was one of the first pieces of work you came to be involved in at the
02:18:53 work you came to be involved in at the bre in 2006 is that correct yes that's correct and you also tell us that that project has run continuously since 1988 is that correct that's my understanding yeah so all the way through right
02:19:05 yeah so all the way through right through to the grenfell tower fire that project continued yes and it was run in 2006 by your senior colleague martin shipp until you took over and led the project from april 2015
02:19:17 over and led the project from april 2015 onwards is that correct yes that's correct now if we could turn up to your your second witness statement bre three zero four three seven one six at page 68
02:19:30 six at page 68 and look at paragraph two four four you tell us there that you were the deputy project manager of the investigation of real fires project and then you became the project manager of the external fire spread project
02:19:41 of the external fire spread project within that yes uh at the time of the external fire spread project yes i mean i wasn't immediately deputy project manager when i started a bre that didn't come until some years later
02:19:52 some years later yes so
02:19:53 yes so when i think for context and you're talking about around in the preceding paragraphs about october 2014 you're saying you were deputy project manager of this investigation of real fires
02:20:04 of this investigation of real fires project is that correct yes i
02:20:06 yes i was
02:20:08 was prob i probably became deputy project manager in it would either be 2012 or potentially 2009 or thereabouts yeah probably 2012
02:20:19 probably 2012 sorry
02:20:20 sorry 2012 yeah
02:20:22 2012 yeah and was the project manager martin ship yes yeah
02:20:27 yes yeah now
02:20:29 now the reason i ask is this because martin ship tells us in his witness statement i don't think we need to go to it for the transcript that's at bre 30 47594 page 24 paragraph
02:20:40 47594 page 24 paragraph 118.
02:20:42 118. he tells us that he headed the fire investigation activities at the bre from 1988 until 2006 and he says thereafter he was a consultant to the fire investigation team
02:20:53 team assisting with the analysis of findings calling upon his experience and providing historical background
02:21:00 so can you help us um he seems to describe himself as a consultant to the fire investigation team
02:21:08 team but was he in that role as consultant was he project manager to the real fires project
02:21:14 project i
02:21:15 i believe he was i mean it'll be in the exhibits to my statement whether he was or not that was my understanding was that he was project manager up until 2015.
02:21:27 manager up until 2015. i mean yes sorry the consultant point goes back to the comments i made earlier about him splitting his time between fire safety and fire investigation so when fire investigation became
02:21:38 became a business stream and later a business group
02:21:41 group yeah martin divided his time accordingly but that wasn't until 2011 yeah for the business stream and he tells us that from 2007 debbie smith was the contract manager for this contract is that
02:21:52 manager for this contract is that correct yes i believe so
02:21:56 and we touched on this earlier but just to be clear um what precisely was debbie smith's role in relation to the investigation of real fires contract during that period from 2006 until you
02:22:07 during that period from 2006 until you left the bre in may 2019 um
02:22:12 um she was
02:22:14 she was i think the term was framework manager because there were various frameworks which i've set out to the best of my knowledge in my statements
02:22:26 knowledge in my statements under which individual projects were let so
02:22:32 the fire investigation project you know being being what it was which framework it happened to fall under would simply depend on when the previous contract had come to a close and then you set up a new project under the framework um
02:22:44 new project under the framework um but debbie smith was the the overall framework manager corrine williams was had some sort of deputy framework manager type role
02:22:56 manager type role um
02:22:59 um debbie i believe was identified on the investigation of real fires project in her role as framework manager but as i mentioned before she wasn't she didn't have a day-to-day involvement in the project yeah but she
02:23:10 involvement in the project yeah but she would get involved in sort of um particularly you know formal correspondence with government um for instance
02:23:19 instance the contract for various reasons had to be extended um when
02:23:23 um when you know
02:23:25 you know government whether it's dclg mhclg they didn't get around to issuing a new invitation to tender in time before a contract ended so they would get an extension arranged and that's where debbie would definitely get involved yep
02:23:36 debbie would definitely get involved yep let's turn to cara holland's witness statement again that's at bre 30 43829 page 10
02:23:45 page 10 and looking at paragraph 33 um i just want to see if you agree with what cairo holland has explained here she says on the basis of the above debbie smith had overall responsibility for the contract and therefore the
02:23:56 for the contract and therefore the content of reports the majority of reports produced were approved by corinne williams acting on behalf of debbie smith however each report also went separate
02:24:07 however each report also went separate separate technical checks or peer review prior to being sent to dr williams and or dr smith for approval who undertook these technical checks or peer reviews depended on who prepared
02:24:18 peer reviews depended on who prepared the report in my first couple of years at bre this was generally martinship and or david crowder in later years i also undertook these technical checks or peer reviews all
02:24:30 technical checks or peer reviews all journal articles required approval of debbie smith prior to publication and the experimental proposals and reports also required approval of debbie smith now do you agree with what the
02:24:42 now do you agree with what the description kyra holland's written there yes thank you now
02:24:55 so do you agree that ultimate responsibility for the content of the report prepared under this contract lay at all times with dr debbie smith
02:25:06 at all times with dr debbie smith or
02:25:06 or in the period from april 2015 onwards did that responsibility lie with you when you became project manager um
02:25:15 um well no i think i replaced martin shipp in his role as project manager but i believe there was still the framework manager role that sat above that yeah which was doctors made yes
02:25:27 which was doctors made yes now going back to the start of your time at the bre in 2006 let's look at your third witness statement at page 12 paragraph 51
02:25:37 you you say this when i started work on the project i understood its overarching goal was to identify instances where the guidance in approved document be or part b of the building regulations might need
02:25:48 b of the building regulations might need to be reconsidered or updated if it was considered to have failed to properly mitigate the consequences of a fire in this regard the project was specifically not concerned with
02:25:59 specifically not concerned with and then you've got some bullets deliberate fires accidental fires in which the cause is in no way affected by the performance of the building or breaches of the guidance or regulations
02:26:10 breaches of the guidance or regulations and that's consistent with what you were just explaining in terms of what you're interested in now did that understanding from when you started work on the project ever change or develop at any time
02:26:23 um i don't think so no now
02:26:28 now again in the witness statement of kiara holland if we go back to that bre eight two 3043829 at page seventeen at paragraph 51 she describes
02:26:40 at paragraph 51 she describes um
02:26:41 um various reporting in respect of the investigation of real fires project and what that involved and i just want to look at the headings we don't need to look at all the details so in subparagraph a she said there were
02:26:52 subparagraph a she said there were quarterly progress reports she then tells us there were end of year reports
02:26:57 reports there were final research reports prepared at the end of a contract which summarized the findings of a three-year period at high level there were one-page summary reports
02:27:08 there were one-page summary reports which she says were prepared as a briefing to dcld on an incident to enable approval for site investigation there were the fires of special interest report
02:27:19 report these were reports on category one incidents will come to what she described as a category one incident at the moment and they were included as appendices to quarterly and year-end reports then
02:27:30 quarterly and year-end reports then there were follow-up investigation reports
02:27:33 reports these were reports on category two incidents
02:27:35 incidents and then there were journal articles now just in broad terms is that correct that this project involved a number of different types of reports and some
02:27:46 different types of reports and some articles is that correct
02:27:50 now the first report which was submitted to the department after you joined the bre was an interim report dated the 14th of december 2006 and that covered the period from the first of october 2006.
02:28:03 period from the first of october 2006. if we could turn to that this is a hom 3046642
02:28:09 we can see in the bottom right hand side of the page it's described as a dclg interim report for the third quarter of o67 investigation of real fires underneath
02:28:21 investigation of real fires underneath that and we can see it's prepared for anthony bird at the dclg yes yes and if we go to page 13 and looking at section 2 midway down
02:28:32 and looking at section 2 midway down that page
02:28:33 that page we can see a number of stated objectives for this program and i just want to look at a number with you so if we can perhaps blow up that part of the page in
02:28:44 perhaps blow up that part of the page in the middle we see a number of bullet points and it says the objectives of this program are now looking at the first bullet point it says to provide timely feedback to dclg
02:28:55 says to provide timely feedback to dclg on the effectiveness or otherwise of the guidance in building regulations approved document b in achieving fire safety in real buildings in england and wales yes
02:29:05 wales yes yes the second bullet um to improve understanding of how unusual fires develop and grow particularly in domestic and other residential property yes yes
02:29:17 yes yes third bullet to monitor the impact of european standards on building materials and systems yes yes then if we go down to the sixth bullet point
02:29:28 point it's third one up from the bottom in that list it says to identify the effect of the building regulations in providing failing to provide protection for firefighters yes yes underneath that point seven
02:29:41 underneath that point seven to maintain close contact with other investigators in the brigades and elsewhere to encourage the exchange of information on unusual fires that will be of benefit to dclg yes yes
02:29:52 be of benefit to dclg yes yes and then the last bullet to disseminate findings from fire investigations to the fire service building designers and owners and others as relevant yes yes so the idea was that there would be a
02:30:03 so the idea was that there would be a dissemination of findings from these fire investigations to
02:30:08 to a wider audience yes is that right yes in order that they would learn lessons from these fires yes is that correct
02:30:22 now
02:30:25 the overarching goal that we looked at that you identified in in paragraph 51 of your third statement was to identify instances where the guidance in approved document b or part b of the building regulations might need to be
02:30:36 regulations might need to be reconsidered or updated if it was considered it had failed just to be absolutely clear was that your understanding that that remained a principal objective of the investigation of real fires project
02:30:49 investigation of real fires project from 2006 into until 2012 yes yes and was it your understanding that during that period such instances were to be identified in the project reports
02:31:00 to be identified in the project reports which were submitted to the department yes
02:31:05 and was that done during that period as far as you're aware
02:31:11 as far as i'm aware yes
02:31:15 and um
02:31:18 if we turn back to your third witness statement now at page 12 paragraph 52
02:31:26 you explain that one of the objectives was to identify and indicate this is picking up at the end of the second line to identify and indicate the need for research or for changes to part b adb
02:31:38 research or for changes to part b adb arising out of specific problems highlighted in fire investigations yes yes and in paragraph 53 you say this you say however that objective in relation to part b adb
02:31:51 objective in relation to part b adb ceased in the proposal issued in october 2012
02:31:56 2012 when the objectives in the invitation to tender and therefore the proposal in response were amended to focus on monitoring and providing feedback
02:32:06 feedback and you go on to say from this point on there was an express requirement for bre not to make any policy recommendations do you see that yes now were you still the deputy project
02:32:19 now were you still the deputy project manager for this contract in october 2012
02:32:24 i think that's when i became deputy project manager i see
02:32:29 i see um and the project manager would have been martin schiff at that time yes i believe so yes
02:32:37 now let's go to that october 2012 proposal that you're quoting from there that you say changed things and if we could turn to that in your um
02:32:48 um sorry if we could turn to that directly it appears at bre 50951
02:32:57 so this is the october 2012 proposal we can see it's prepared by martin shipp and approved by debbie smith on the 1st of october 2012 yes yes
02:33:09 on the 1st of october 2012 yes yes and page 4 if we go down to page 4 we can see from the second paragraph down
02:33:17 down under that introduction this research proposal is submitted on the understanding that the new contract will have a duration of approximately 29 months
02:33:25 months from the 1st of november 2012 to the 31st of march 2015 with some break points in it as well is that correct yes so just under two and a half years yeah yes
02:33:37 yes and that this proposal was accepted and the contract was let to the bre yes yes now staying on page four and looking at the list of overriding objectives
02:33:49 the list of overriding objectives we can see if we look for example at the third bullet point down it's stated there to be to provide dclg with unbiased robust and independent evidence information to enable the dcld
02:34:01 evidence information to enable the dcld to take a proactive approach in ensuring that policies and guidance remain proportionate to the risk and continue to be fit for purpose but also to support the continued review of general policies in order to identify and or
02:34:14 policies in order to identify and or remove simplify existing regulations that have the potential to unnecessarily impede growth and then if we look at bullet point five
02:34:25 and then if we look at bullet point five we can see it's to monitor the effectiveness of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in adb in achieving fire safety in real buildings in england and in providing protection for firefighters
02:34:37 protection for firefighters similarly monitor the impact of british european and international standards on building products and systems which have a consequence on real incidents in england do you see that yes
02:34:48 england do you see that yes and if we look at the penultimate bullet point on that page four um we can see it's the tenth bullet point it's also to identify and indicate
02:34:59 point it's also to identify and indicate areas for research or for potential changes to part b adb arising from specific problems highlighted in fire investigations do you have all that i see that yes
02:35:12 do you have all that i see that yes now keeping those objectives in mind can we go down to page 51 there is a section in the middle of the page
02:35:21 page where it says all reports will and then a number of solid bullet points do you have that yes and the third bullet point down it says
02:35:32 and the third bullet point down it says all reports will and then it goes on not contain any policy recommendations all reports produced by bre for this project will not contain any proposed
02:35:43 project will not contain any proposed text
02:35:44 text for a revision to an approved document or supporting guidance with the agreement of or at the request of dclg such material will only be provided in a separate
02:35:55 provided in a separate policy implications report as and when necessary and following the format of a type 3 report as this will typically need to be published separately
02:36:06 now you've explained in your witness statement that was a contractual requirement yes that these reports were to contain no policy recommendations is that right that was my understanding yes
02:36:17 that right that was my understanding yes and was this change to this contract something that you were actually aware of at the time in october 2012
02:36:28 i believe i was
02:36:33 there was i believe there was a project kickoff meeting um very early on where where that was discussed and the point was made that effectively um
02:36:47 we would only be providing policy recommendations on request we want to just volunteer our own policy recommendations that the department
02:36:56 wanted strict control effectively of you know whether it needed to respond to any policy
02:37:02 policy recommendations i see and who who was at that meeting that kickoff meeting and who explained that to you um i believe it would have been attended by so from bre martinship
02:37:14 so from bre martinship kyra holland probably and myself she would have only been very recently in the job at that point um and from dclg
02:37:23 dclg brian martin certainly steve kelly i think may have been involved at the start of this project but his tenure at dclg wasn't very long um but steve was
02:37:34 um but steve was i believe he took the the sort of the lion's share of the responsibility for the content of of this um the invitation to tender sorry
02:37:44 sorry i see
02:37:45 i see now
02:37:46 now was any consideration given at that time or was there any discussion at that time about the potential impact of this change
02:37:53 change on the ability or otherwise of the bre to meet the objectives of the contract as we saw earlier in the document was that discussed um
02:38:07 i believe martin ship might have expressed some misgivings but i couldn't specifically say what was said i'm afraid i can't recall okay
02:38:17 okay can you recall whether there was any discussion about the value of the project in terms of informing policy on fire safety matters if it wasn't to contain any policy recommendations
02:38:31 um
02:38:34 no i don't i don't think there was a discussion around you know it fundamentally devaluing the project
02:38:47 and can you recall anything that brian martin said about it and this this change
02:38:52 change um
02:38:53 um my recollection is he
02:38:59 he had his instructions as it were from from the department he was there you know doing a job i'm not convinced that he necessarily agreed
02:39:11 convinced that he necessarily agreed with it but it wasn't his decision at the end of the day so
02:39:16 can i just explore how did you understand the scope of what's precluded how far does it go because it says not contain any policy recommendations then it says all reports produced by bre
02:39:29 then it says all reports produced by bre for this project will not contain any proposed text for a revision to an approved document or supporting guidance what exactly was precluded so far as you
02:39:40 what exactly was precluded so far as you understood it um well proposed text was definitely excluded i'd i don't recall this specific incident but i do
02:39:52 recall this specific incident but i do i believe there was a suggestion made in a report prior to this um contract which caused some unease or unhappiness at the department and and
02:40:03 and and the result was this amendment to the contract so but you know if i understand what you're saying it i agree that it's vague and it doesn't really set out exactly what is precluded and what is not precluded under the
02:40:15 and what is not precluded under the contract yes well i was just focusing in particular on will not contain any proposed text for a revision to an approved document so on one reading of that you can't actually write out what should change an
02:40:26 actually write out what should change an approved document or what the new wording of it should be but
02:40:31 but does that mean that you can't explain that there needs to be a change to approve document b or that a change is at least
02:40:39 at least requiring it was our understanding we had
02:40:43 had the
02:40:44 the scope of the project have been had been changed to one of us we were evidence gatherers effectively so it was you know it was fine for us to identify trends and and you know say
02:40:55 identify trends and and you know say what
02:40:56 what how things looked in terms of the fires that were being investigated but we couldn't go any further than that and it would be for the department to decide
02:41:05 decide what it did in response to the the evidence that was gathered that was a pretty fundamental change wasn't it
02:41:12 wasn't it yes i suppose it was was there a specific reason provided to you for this change not no not formally no you mentioned a little bit earlier that
02:41:23 you mentioned a little bit earlier that there'd been an incident where the bre had said something in a report that the department hadn't liked can you tell us what that was about i'm afraid i can't remember i just
02:41:34 remember i just when you mention it it sticks out in my mind that it was something they were unhappy with and
02:41:39 and i suspect it would sit with the timing of this it came after the um the general move towards deregulation so more regulation was not welcome
02:41:50 so more regulation was not welcome how did you come you just said earlier in your evidence that you came to have the impression that brian martin didn't necessarily agree with this change how did you come to have that impression did he say something to that effect to you
02:42:03 he say something to that effect to you um
02:42:04 um again i'm afraid i wouldn't be able to recall any specific words that he said but it
02:42:09 but it it was my general impression of his demeanor the tone of the way things were said um
02:42:15 said um [Music]
02:42:17 [Music] yeah he you know he he knew what his role was as a civil servant fairly junior civil servant i think in the grand scheme of things um
02:42:27 things um and
02:42:29 and not necessarily at this meeting but i've had you know discussions with him about how
02:42:35 how he understands the concerns and he passes them up the line but that doesn't necessarily get him anywhere or didn't get him anywhere
02:42:46 anywhere right when do you recall having those conversations with him um
02:42:52 it's difficult to say um again it would it would be part of this whole deregulation it would be post-2010 yeah did you discuss this change within the
02:43:03 did you discuss this change within the bre for example was it discussed between you martin shippen and debbie smith no um i think i mean i
02:43:14 no um i think i mean i almost certainly would have discussed it with martin ship i don't think it would have been discussed with debbie smith i think you know the itt was what it was and we were expected to service the needs set out in
02:43:25 expected to service the needs set out in the idc
02:43:26 the idc let's just go back to page four because we looked at a number of bullet points on that page and just want to pick up on a couple of them
02:43:36 them the penultimate bullet point that i read to you was to identify it's right at the bottom of that page now to identify and indicate areas for research
02:43:45 research or for potential changes to part b adb arising from specific problems highlighted in fire investigations did anybody point out that the objective not to make any
02:43:56 that the objective not to make any policy recommendations was potentially directly in conflict with that stated objective of the project um
02:44:06 i can't remember i'd i've it doesn't stick out in my mind that anyone did but yeah it's not it's not impossible that someone did um did anyone ask themselves within the bre
02:44:18 did anyone ask themselves within the bre or did you ask yourself how am i going to achieve that objective um to identify and indicate areas for potential changes to part b adb
02:44:29 potential changes to part b adb whilst not making policy recommendations and not providing any supposed text of of adb
02:44:43 um
02:44:50 i suppose well i'm probably surmising at this point with with honey i don't want you to smile no that's what i'm trying to expect
02:44:58 to expect i want to know if there anybody actually applied their minds to how these overarching objectives fitted with what we saw later in this document at page 51 not to my recollection um
02:45:10 not to my recollection um [Music]
02:45:11 [Music] no not to my recollection did you understand that you still had an obligation to be identifying and indicating areas for research or potential changes to part b and adb
02:45:22 potential changes to part b and adb after this point
02:45:26 um we did um and i mean it was you know that that objective was
02:45:33 probably not correctly but it was always you know whether or not the contract called for it it's always something that you think about when you when you attend a fire
02:45:41 a fire one of the fundamental questions i would ask myself is is the guidance working
02:45:49 thinking practically i mean the only the only way we could have met that objective is probably the way that we did which is by no means ideal but it was
02:45:58 was to have conversations you know we'd occasionally speak to brian and others when we attend an incident what we've seen what we think is going on but there's never a written record yes we'll come back to this point but but in
02:46:10 we'll come back to this point but but in principle
02:46:11 principle you can raise concerns informally can't you still
02:46:15 you still um
02:46:17 um what about the objective at bullet 5 on this page
02:46:22 this page to monitor the effectiveness of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in adb again did anyone think about how am i going to monitor the effectiveness of the regulations and guidance
02:46:33 guidance without um being able to point out any parts found to be ineffective well the way we did that in practice is that we
02:46:44 that we so at the end of each uh particularly the fire special interest reports there was a a summary set of what we call implications they weren't recommendations as such because we weren't allowed but we did try and tease
02:46:56 weren't allowed but we did try and tease out
02:46:57 out um
02:46:57 um [Music]
02:46:59 [Music] what the
02:47:00 what the type of issues were that had occurred in a fire and and map them onto the relevant parts p1 to b5 um of the proof document and part b in that
02:47:11 of the proof document and part b in that way
02:47:11 way i see
02:47:12 i see it sounds like a rather uncomfortable process you had to go through somehow
02:47:17 somehow sorry it's not ideal no so you were somehow having to signal without making any recommendations that there might be areas that the department ought to think carefully about yes yes
02:47:29 ought to think carefully about yes yes but you couldn't say so directly no and you felt in practice hobbled in that way did you um
02:47:37 um yes though not not specifically in relation to this contract it goes back to the wider piece about the state of government research in relation to fire safety it was part of
02:47:50 culture's the wrong word but the atmosphere if you like around where
02:47:55 where fire safety under building regulations was going at that time right and would it be right that any policy implications report would only be provided or written at all at the request of the department that was my
02:48:06 request of the department that was my understanding yes and those reports were subject to review amendment and ultimate approval by the department yes yes
02:48:18 um back to page 51 um and that text that we were looking at third bullet down in the middle of the page not to contain policy recommendations
02:48:30 recommendations it states that any policy implications reports
02:48:34 reports need to be provided um
02:48:36 um or published separately can you help us where policy implication reports ever released into the public domain as far as you were aware uh i don't think so but i don't
02:48:49 uh i don't think so but i don't think i may be wrong i don't think a policy implications report was ever requested
02:48:54 requested so there would not be one to release into the public domain that was my next question okay um as far as you're aware did the bre ever write or submit to the department any policy implications report
02:49:07 any policy implications report not to the best of my knowledge no so it follows there was no such policy implications report on external fire spread at any stage correct
02:49:16 did you ever ask the department if a policy implications report could be prepared on any particular aspect of the regulations or guidance
02:49:28 um i've got a feeling we did um and the answer was no um do you remember what that topic was was on what subject to remember
02:49:39 to remember it might have been in relation to cable fixings um so can you be sure that it wasn't in relation to anything to do with external fire spread
02:49:48 pretty sure yes
02:49:55 now i want to move on to some questions now about how the investigation of real fires project worked in practice and let's look at your third witness statement again at page 43 paragraph 173
02:50:09 statement again at page 43 paragraph 173 you give us some details in this statement you say each year the investigation of real fires project would prepare a few hundred summaries although numbers could vary
02:50:20 although numbers could vary significantly depending on the quality of information available in the media and the types of fires occurring in july 2010 to july 2011 the year of
02:50:31 in july 2010 to july 2011 the year of sudbury house the number was 204 whereas in july 2011 to july 2012 the year of taplow house the number was 511. and then you note the 2011 to 2012
02:50:44 and then you note the 2011 to 2012 period was extended to october hence the larger figure in the table below the budget for the project allowed for 28 days per year to be spent on the preparation of summaries which included monitoring news reports
02:50:57 which included monitoring news reports to find fires and sifting out those which were deemed not worth summarizing and you go on to tell us that there were 92
02:51:06 92 248 fires in 2010 2011 around nearly 87 000 fires in 2011 2012 of which over half were in buildings and therefore potentially relevant in
02:51:18 therefore potentially relevant in practice around three quarters of time was spent on monitoring and one quarter on writing summaries equating to around 15 minutes per fire is that right yes
02:51:29 is that right yes now just focusing on that very last sentence there you say in practice around three quarters of time was spent on monitoring um when you've referred to monitoring
02:51:41 um when you've referred to monitoring are you referring to monitoring news and media reports yes and how was that done in practice was that online it was online
02:51:52 it was online when i first started at bre um the bbc was relied upon quite heavily as was a website at the time called firenet
02:52:02 there was a time probably linked to the financial crash in fairness when the bbc's reporting quality declined
02:52:13 declined and it took us a little while to um figure out alternatives we wanted a better word but by the time i left bre
02:52:23 left bre we had a fairly elaborate set of rss feeds linked to fire and rescue service incident pages and various other means of of trying to get alerts so that we will whoever was
02:52:35 get alerts so that we will whoever was doing the summaries wouldn't have to physically trawl through all of these you know dozens and dozens of websites to try and find summaries so we did work quite hard to try and compensate
02:52:46 work quite hard to try and compensate for
02:52:47 for the you know how sources of information changed and declined and trying to be as efficient as we can given the restricted resource for the project yeah
02:52:58 resource for the project yeah paragraph 174 um below the one we just read you tell us you say at the time of these fires slow straight reports the routine in the team was for someone
02:53:09 the routine in the team was for someone to be the nominated person preparing summaries each week that person would typically spend approximately an hour per day
02:53:16 per day or a day per half day per week reviewing media reports and preparing summaries on the relevant fires yes yes and and those summaries there you've
02:53:27 and and those summaries there you've referred to writing summaries again they were also prepared from reading media reports is that right yes sorry yeah to clarify so monitoring and the writing of summaries goes hand
02:53:38 and the writing of summaries goes hand in hand
02:53:40 in hand exactly
02:53:42 exactly and is it right is it fair to say that monitoring media and preparing summaries from media reports made up the main body of activity under this contract is that right
02:53:53 right um it was certainly the most regular activity on the contract um whether it's the majority of the budget that's available um i should know if
02:54:04 that's available um i should know if it's on the next page of the table but um it might be yes yeah now if we look at the second witness statement provided to the inquiry by martin shipp this is at bre 3047594
02:54:16 3047594 page 25.
02:54:20 and yeah and paragraph one two three starting in the four lines down in one two three
02:54:29 two three um
02:54:31 um he says
02:54:32 he says and it's the last three lines of that paragraph from the continuous monitoring of fires in the news the bre team identifies and selects fires to report on
02:54:43 and selects fires to report on these short reports are based on available information from the media and readily available local fire and rescue service reports of the fire do you see that there yes so is it
02:54:54 do you see that there yes so is it possible that sometimes there would be readily available local fire and rescue service reports of the fire yes
02:55:03 yes obviously it's not my statement but i think
02:55:05 think um martin ship is referring to the incidence pages which would sometimes be very helpful so each fire and rescue service on their website had i'd forget whether they still have
02:55:16 had i'd forget whether they still have or not but an incident page that simply gives a continual feed of not every incident they attend but the ones they deem to be of significance or where they might have issued guidance to the local neighborhood as a result you
02:55:27 the local neighborhood as a result you know closing of windows that sort of thing
02:55:29 thing so i i think that's what he's referring to obviously it's ultimately his statement so those are publicly available
02:55:37 available reports from those fire and rescue services yes yes yeah and then at paragraph 124 below that he says this when researching fires facts may emerge that justify a more detailed
02:55:48 may emerge that justify a more detailed in-depth report being written a list of high and low priority considerations is agreed with the government at the outset of the contract and then he gives an example
02:55:59 and then he gives an example using this list of high and low priority considerations the facts of the fire may make it evident that a more detailed examination and a more thorough report is needed but as a desk based study
02:56:11 is needed but as a desk based study usually by seeking further information from the fire officers involved with the incident so in summary he's saying that you had a list of high and low priority considerations as agreed with the
02:56:23 considerations as agreed with the government yes yes and using that list that of priorities the facts of a fire might make it evident that you needed to go beyond just doing a summary and actually do what he describes as a
02:56:35 and actually do what he describes as a death-based study is that correct yes that's correct and that would be seeking further information from the fire officers who'd been involved in the incident yes
02:56:46 and he also goes on to say in paragraph 125 i think i can paraphrase that the facts of a particular fire incident may make it apparent that a site visit was needed is that correct yes
02:56:58 and is he right as he explains in paragraph 125 that on-site investigations could only take place with the specific agreement of the department so with for example mhclg yes
02:57:10 department so with for example mhclg yes um
02:57:12 um who was it within the bre that would decide whether to seek agreement from the department to attend the scene of a fire incident
02:57:24 um i mean ultimately that would be the decision for the project manager but um you know it wouldn't be fair to martin ship to say that he was always taking that on up until the end of his his role
02:57:35 that on up until the end of his his role as project manager i think i started um
02:57:38 um exercising a certain amount of discretion around that before 2015 um as indeed did kira we you know
02:57:45 know you get a sense of when a fire is worth escalating or not and it's not always possible to consult with the project manager before you escalate to to government yeah
02:57:56 yeah and who was it who decided which fires might merit going to the next stage which is the more thorough death-based assessment or study the same as previous answer yes
02:58:09 and you've set out an example of high and low priority considerations that mr ships referred to in your own witness statement and we'll go to that in a moment
02:58:20 in a moment do you agree with mr ship that that list the high and low priorities was agreed with government at the outset of the contract
02:58:29 uh yes i think it was even stipulated within their itts maybe not for all the contracts but i i'm fairly confident it appeared in at least one or two of the itts
02:58:42 two of the itts um
02:58:44 um how were those high and low priorities actually identified as as far as you understood it um
02:58:54 we so
02:58:57 so taking the 2012 contract as an example um and the kickoff meeting that i referred to we would have a discussion um sometimes about
02:59:07 about what we thought of the higher low priority list whether we were content with it as was whether it needed amending whether there were any particular themes that it felt needed to be added to
02:59:18 that it felt needed to be added to either the high or the low priority list and we'd go from there um i suspect no sorry the um
02:59:27 the um at the start of each contract there was a dear chief officer letter that was issued notifying all of the fund rescue services um of the contract having been renewed
02:59:39 um of the contract having been renewed um and that you know requesting that they cooperate with the contract uh with the with bre um to enable the contract to be fulfilled i think
02:59:49 i think all the
02:59:50 all the chief officer letters contained the high and low priority list so that we you know we we wanted them to understand what we were looking for in the hope that that would facilitate
03:00:01 that that would facilitate or prompt them to to decide when to contact us about particular fires [Music]
03:00:07 [Music] so i would given there was a drafting process for that dear chief officer letter
03:00:11 letter um
03:00:13 um i think we did revisit the list each time we wrote that letter yeah and who had the final say on the list of high and low priorities was that the bre or the
03:00:22 the department um i think that would have been the department ultimately if they said we weren't to look at something then we not to look at something do you ever recall there being any disagreement about the high and low priority areas
03:00:35 about the high and low priority areas um
03:00:41 i'm sure we did have a disagreement and i've
03:00:49 i don't think it was you know it wasn't a hugely contentious disagreement but i'm sure we did have debates and sometimes disagreements um relating to sort of
03:00:58 sort of issues that were peripheral to buildings so for instance there was a period of time when we were interested in fires in vehicles
03:01:08 and then that was sort of moved to one side um
03:01:11 side um [Music]
03:01:13 [Music] sorry i'm struggling to think of a specific example i'm sure there were debates it wasn't always a you know consensus from the outset mr chairman i think that's an appropriate moment for our right yes
03:01:24 appropriate moment for our right yes thank you very much i think it's time we stop for some lunch dr crowder we'll finish there we'll resume please at two o'clock
03:01:31 o'clock and uh again as i said earlier please don't talk to anyone about anyone about your evidence all right thank you very much would you go to the usher please
03:01:49 thank you very much two o'clock yes
03:02:16 you