Dr. Crowder from BRE gives evidence on the Investigation of Real Fires project, explaining how BRE failed to properly investigate international ACM fires and the Sudbury House and Taplow House cladding fires despite clear warning signs.
00:00:25 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
00:00:38 all right dr crowder are you ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes it's great when you're ready yes thank you yes sorry mr chairman just checking my no take your time live link is working
00:00:49 is working yes thank you yes dr crowder so um we were discussing the investigation of real fires project if we can go to your third witness statement now um
00:01:00 third witness statement now um and so bre 3047668 look at page 41 and go to paragraph 171 so
00:01:09 so you tell us in this paragraph you say below i set out the list that determines how fires are escalated for either full desk-based investigations or on-site investigations and you explain that
00:01:21 investigations and you explain that similar lists appear and you've exhibited a number of the actual documents yes but i'm going to use this list here
00:01:28 list here so on this um you've got the fire incident survey high priority list the first
00:01:34 the first priority is fatal fires for all non-domestic premises multi-fatal fires and domestic premises other domestic premises with specific issue of interest the second category non-fatal fires with
00:01:46 the second category non-fatal fires with injury or rescue for all non-domestic premises domestic premises with specific issue of interest then third fires involving difficulties for fire brigade intervention
00:01:58 for fire brigade intervention four fires of relevance to building regulations and or adb for whatever reason
00:02:05 reason five fires of national importance for whatever reason and the list goes on and then
00:02:11 and then moving
00:02:13 moving to the next page you then
00:02:17 you then um sorry actually if we can go to back one page
00:02:21 one page the last bullet point says fires of specific scientific interest at point eight
00:02:28 eight and then we've got an example and we then have a list over the page and at three that includes cladding yes yes
00:02:39 yes um
00:02:40 um and there are a number of other sub topics in the fires of special scientific interest and then below that you set out fire incidents survey low
00:02:51 you set out fire incidents survey low priority list and we see for example at nine buildings which fall under the remit of another government department easy prisons schools hospitals um although it's noted these buildings
00:03:03 um although it's noted these buildings usually conform to adb 10 arsenal fires with no other interest 11 derelict buildings and then over the page
00:03:16 buildings under construction although noting that some buildings under construction can be partially occupied or may otherwise be relevant to clg 13 overseas fires so that's in the low
00:03:28 13 overseas fires so that's in the low priority list we'll come back to that fire brigade operational issues only caravans temporary buildings and transport so that's what you say is a typical list is that right yes which didn't fundamentally change did it
00:03:40 didn't fundamentally change did it during the lifetime of this project no there were tweaks but nothing more than that um and
00:03:47 and if we just go back to the um the first page um page 42 where you're setting out this list
00:03:56 list i beg you on page 41
00:04:04 so we go back to page 41. yeah just help us with how it worked you've got a high priority list are they all of equal high priority
00:04:12 priority or are they graded uh in accordance with this uh numerical order that we see here in terms of they're not graded and
00:04:24 how do i put this they indicate subject areas of interest but there is well there was
00:04:29 there was inevitably an element of judgment as to the extent to which any of these um categories were engaged by an incident and then whether you escalated it or not to the relevant follow-up or site
00:04:41 to the relevant follow-up or site investigation yeah but in practice were fires falling in say category one there or category two fatal fires non-fatal fires with injury or rescue were they treated as um in practice
00:04:52 treated as um in practice more of a high priority no you would treat fatal fires as more priority than non-fatal
00:04:59 non-fatal so they were there was a grading within the there is but it doesn't sorry um let me rephrase as a matter of um
00:05:11 um logic forms a better word um a fatal fire is of greater interest in a non-fatal fire even if an injury occurs a fatality always takes primacy in terms of interest
00:05:23 of interest but the fact that those are listed at numbers one and two is not intended to then follow through as a priority list on that page i see yeah so should we read this list as as
00:05:34 so should we read this list as as as meaning that fatal fires will always be the num you know the the most high priority and the rest are all of probably equal priority is that a fair way of
00:05:44 way of of understanding it more or less but there would be sort of individual variations but again yes let's just say yes um the extent to which it's important or one of these is important in any one
00:05:55 one of these is important in any one incident would then be a matter of judgment yeah and that would be left to the judgment of the bre in terms of whether they decided to escalate it to a further assessment yes with input from dclg for site
00:06:08 yes with input from dclg for site attendance was deemed to be the course of action yeah um
00:06:14 um now if we look at page 47 of this statement now in your third statement in paragraph 184 you're um we'll come back to these fires you're dealing with the sudbury house
00:06:25 you're dealing with the sudbury house and taplo house fires but i just want to look at um a more general point you make here you say rather than pursue these fires i consider that there was a stronger case to pursue
00:06:36 to pursue and there would have been more benefit in pursuing better information concerning international fires such as the various acm fires that occurred around the world prior to the fire at grenfell however the view of
00:06:48 fire at grenfell however the view of dclg as i understood it was that international fires would not provide useful information given the different regulatory environments in existence in different countries
00:06:59 different countries and then you go on and explain that you only have ever managed to attend one overseas fire as part of the investigative of real fires contract and that was a fire in dublin in ireland in 2008 is that correct yes that's correct
00:07:12 2008 is that correct yes that's correct and that was uh of direct relevance to a three-year project
00:07:16 project involved with fire spreading car parks is that correct yes correct now leaving aside the fires at sudbury and tableau which we'll come back to can you just explain why you considered
00:07:27 can you just explain why you considered that there was a stronger case and more benefit in pursuing the various international acm fires which occurred before the fire at grenfell tower
00:07:39 because i should clarify i make the statement with the benefit of hindsight and what's been learnt about grenfell
00:07:46 grenfell and the acm that was on it
00:07:51 i
00:07:53 for whatever reason i you know i wasn't made aware of the use of acm on high-rise in the uk i was aware of fires internationally i was aware of for instance the fire at
00:08:04 i was aware of for instance the fire at the address in in dubai in 2015 but equally
00:08:08 equally the rebuttal if you like in terms of attending that fire was well at the time dubai didn't have a fire safety code so you know that anything could have been put onto this
00:08:19 anything could have been put onto this building in terms of that regulatory environment and there was a i'll call it a presumption i'm not sure that's anyway let's call it a presumption there was a belief that
00:08:32 there was a belief that these fires wouldn't occur in the uk because
00:08:35 because acm wasn't being installed in the uk i mean that's obviously wrong but that was the view at the time um but i would [Music]
00:08:44 [Music] you know i wish i'd known more about acm pretty grenfell but you know grenfell was the
00:08:49 was the going to grenfell was the first time i handled an acm and when you say that there was a belief that these fires wouldn't occur in the uk because acm wasn't being installed in the uk
00:09:01 the uk whose belief are you talking about there um
00:09:07 i'd say it was an industry-wide belief there were various articles floating around at the time um and i forget the sources but i you know
00:09:19 forget the sources but i you know as part of the work because we did summarize some of these international acm fires we looked at what what the view was in the media in relation to these
00:09:26 these and um
00:09:27 and um yeah they were looked at as these um and i said we're looked at but by the media sources we were consulting yeah they presented these fires as being the outcome of a different regulatory regime that wasn't you know
00:09:38 that wasn't you know it wasn't a problem in the uk and i would suggest i i can't remember a specific conversation but i
00:09:46 but i imagine dclg had the same view um
00:09:51 so when you say they presented these fires as being the outcome of a different regulatory regime that was the view formed within the bre was it about the significance of these fires within
00:10:02 significance of these fires within my team because i have been following the inquiry's evidence but as far as myself and my team were concerned we didn't know that acm was being used in the uk
00:10:13 in the uk no that wasn't my question it was um
00:10:17 you said that these fires are the international fires presented as being the outcome of a different regulatory regime yes and i want to know who it was was it your team within the bre
00:10:29 was it your team within the bre that thought that those fires were explained by the fact it was simply a different regulatory regime
00:10:38 yes yes yes to a point in you know consultation with dclg and having conversations around the issue yes that was the conclusion that we reached and what was the evidential basis for
00:10:49 and what was the evidential basis for that conclusion
00:10:53 well at the time and i realized it's now much disputed but you know the belief was that you wouldn't have pe acm on a building as a result of paragraph 12.7 and i will say
00:11:05 result of paragraph 12.7 and i will say it's not i didn't put that paragraph under a microscope pre-grenfell obviously i have since but there was generally a a level of comfort admittedly incorrect comfort
00:11:16 comfort that
00:11:17 that the guidance wouldn't allow a pea acm onto a building so i want to be very clear about this you're saying that at the time there was a belief within bre that there was an acm going on acm pe
00:11:30 that there was an acm going on acm pe going on to tall buildings because of the language of 12.7 is that your evidence
00:11:36 yes but caveated that i i hadn't put 12.7 under a microscope in reaching that conclusion it was just considering the guidance in the round um
00:11:46 um we didn't believe that pacm was being put onto buildings and i realized that there's other parts of bre where that's not the case but and when you say considering the guidance in the round what do you mean
00:11:57 guidance in the round what do you mean by that section 12 right so on a reading of section 12 in its entirety yes you didn't believe that anybody would put acmpe on tour buildings
00:12:08 would put acmpe on tour buildings correct did you ever do any investigations to find out whether acmpe was in fact being put on tour buildings um
00:12:16 um no that wouldn't be our remit it wasn't our remit to go and look at
00:12:21 look at buildings that had not suffered fires so no we didn't did you understand from the fires in the middle east that you've described
00:12:32 middle east that you've described that
00:12:33 that one of the reasons why those fires developed in the way they did was simply because there was acm with a pe polyethylene core did you understand that at the time yes so
00:12:44 so the regulatory regime wouldn't matter would it what that's telling you is something about how that material performs in fire yes agreed yes and you said that you'd had some
00:12:56 and you said that you'd had some discussions with mhclg about this and the collective view was that this couldn't happen here because acmp wasn't being used who did you have those discussions with and when
00:13:08 those discussions with and when i can't tell you when exactly it would have been around the time of those fires so i think starting 2015 with the address fire but that would have been with martin ship brian martin
00:13:20 brian martin martin ship and brian martin right
00:13:24 right and was it the
00:13:30 was it brian martin's position that those fires were explained by the fact there was a different regulatory regime there different from ours here and therefore there wasn't a problem here
00:13:42 there wasn't a problem here i don't think it was put in those terms it was more that there are no regulations there that would prevent this but yes it goes to the same outcome right now you've talked about the address fire in in 2015 but we know that in fact
00:13:54 in in 2015 but we know that in fact there were a lot of fires in the uae before that time and there were a spate of fires in 2012 and 2013. now were you aware of those fires at the time
00:14:09 i probably um i thought they weren't had i put they weren't at the forefront of my consciousness but i was probably aware of them yes i think we might see one or two of them referred to later in
00:14:20 one or two of them referred to later in some of the reports but so you don't have a memory of becoming aware in 2013 sorry 2012 2013 that there'd been a spate of fires in fact there are five fires between
00:14:32 in fact there are five fires between january 2012 and april 2013. you don't remember being aware of those fires not
00:14:39 not within dubai there was there are apologies i shouldn't be asking questions there was a um a fire in france which i'm recording yeah acm which
00:14:50 yeah acm which we were keen to get more information on but
00:14:53 but none was forthcoming um was that the fire at rue bay the mermot's tower in may 2012 that sounds correct yes and what attempts did you make to actually get
00:15:04 attempts did you make to actually get hold of any information pertaining to that um a inquiry was made via the um european the forensics there's a forensic science network that's some
00:15:15 forensic science network that's some very european focused um [Music]
00:15:19 [Music] an embassy european network of forensic science institutes and an inquiry was made by our embassy i believe to try and obtain information but
00:15:28 but there was no willingness to share any information
00:15:32 right
00:15:34 and you say in your statement although you've just caveated that it's with the benefit of hindsight that you thought there was a stronger case for looking into some of these international fires perhaps
00:15:45 perhaps over over and above some of the domestic fires
00:15:48 fires and did you ever say that to anybody at the department and say do you know what we actually ought to be looking more closely at some of these international fires they're interesting and they're potentially relevant did you ever say that to them
00:15:59 that to them um probably not in specific relation to those as i say that's that's the benefit of hindsight that i've looked at those fires again and um and did you ever say that in relation to the later fires in the middle east in
00:16:10 the later fires in the middle east in say 2015 2016 the address fire the torch did you ever say it at that point i'm pretty confident we did okay sorry i can't recall a specific conversation i'm pretty confident we did and again it was
00:16:22 pretty confident we did and again it was it was deemed that this was a thing you know these were events that were occurring as a result of a complete lack of regulation over there and therefore we didn't need to worry about it in the uk
00:16:33 about it in the uk did you ever actually make either an informal or a formal proposal to the department to
00:16:38 to look more closely at some of these international cladding fires um
00:16:43 um no not a proposal it was nothing more than conversations
00:16:48 wasn't that an obvious area that the bre and the government needed to understand given the significance of some of those international cladding fires for for life safety
00:17:02 were it not for the presumption that this wouldn't occur in the uk i would tend to agree but that that was the overriding view at the time was that sorry to clarify looking puzzle the um there's the point about understanding
00:17:14 there's the point about understanding peacm
00:17:16 peacm um
00:17:17 um and there is the separate point as to whether or not peacm is making it into the uk
00:17:22 the uk i
00:17:24 i and i'm now going to speak hypothetically but but the
00:17:29 if there are construction techniques that do not and will not ever appear in the uk
00:17:34 the uk i can't see a circumstance where dclg would allow us to go and investigate um i mean
00:17:39 um i mean taking another example that features a bit in my statement but um scandinavia for example has a great history in terms of timber frame buildings and there have been timber frame building issues as detailed in my
00:17:50 frame building issues as detailed in my statement
00:17:51 statement but
00:17:52 but the view is that their regime for addressing those the fire safety of those buildings is so different that we weren't going to be going um and having had
00:18:03 having had a serious challenge just getting to uh to ireland for that one fire you know you know what the answer is going to be i suppose
00:18:11 so um did the fact that you had to it sounds like you had to battle to get across to ireland to see that fire did that put you off um trying to explore other international fires yeah
00:18:22 international fires yeah and
00:18:23 and did you ever ask the question of yourselves whether that presumption that acmpe would not be used here was a correct assumption did anyone ever question that no no one questioned it
00:18:36 question that no no one questioned it did anyone ever carry out any kind of steps even informal to find out whether or not it was right that acm pe wasn't being used in the uk
00:18:53 no but i don't know how that would have occurred i mean that so the picking on the fires at tableau house and sudbury house
00:19:03 house they are fires and and that they fall within therefore the remit of the project and they were looked at albeit only a summaries because the cladding wasn't ever involved to a high degree there was um
00:19:15 there was um in fact there was i think a a proposal for a an offshoot of the investigation of real fires project to just look at you know do a building survey generally but that was never taken up and we were
00:19:26 but that was never taken up and we were not
00:19:27 not there to look at um buildings that had not suffered fires that was it wasn't part of what we were there to do and what we were able to do right okay i'm going to come back to some more detail questions about tableau
00:19:38 some more detail questions about tableau and sudbury in a moment but they they were both acm pe weren't they we know that now the best of my knowledge yes that's yeah um
00:19:50 now just some questions about the budget which was allocated to the department for this investigation of real fires project
00:19:57 project if we turn first to kira holland's witness statement at bre 3043829
00:20:04 3043829 page 14
00:20:10 and at paragraph 42 she says this the contract and therefore the budget allowed for a maximum of eight site investigations a year site visits sorry a year
00:20:21 visits sorry a year and then she calls those category 1 incidents
00:20:23 incidents a minimum of 14 category 2 incidents 32 required in the 2012 to 2015 contract and a minimum of 200 category 3
00:20:34 and a minimum of 200 category 3 incidents a year on the basis of this breakdown it's clear that site investigations were to be limited to incidents meeting certain priorities and then she goes on however if the
00:20:45 and then she goes on however if the maximum number of incidents was reached and a major incident of national importance occurred there was scope to agree a budget to attend such an incident the main part of the contract was a fixed price over
00:20:56 of the contract was a fixed price over the three years now if we look at page 11 of her witness statement
00:21:03 statement and paragraph 37 she tells us um she explains what she's uh referring to as category one category two in category three
00:21:13 three so
00:21:14 so category one were fires of special interest which had a site investigation so she's told us there was a maximum of eight of those a year um
00:21:24 um and then category two or what's called follow-up investigations is that the same as like the desk-based assessment that martin ship referred to and she told us that there was a minimum
00:21:36 and she told us that there was a minimum of about 14 of those per year
00:21:40 per year and then a minimum of 200 media summaries that's the first level you go to is that right as category 3 that sounds correct yeah do you agree
00:21:52 that sounds correct yeah do you agree with what she's um written there yes yeah
00:21:57 yeah and you tell us in your third witness statement going back to that page 44 paragraph 179 you tell us in the first three lines you say that the as previously stated the budget for investigation of real fires
00:22:09 budget for investigation of real fires remained around 100 000 pounds per year throughout my employment at bre up to the fire at grenfell tower is that correct yes and you go on
00:22:20 and you go on in over the page at page 45 to set out the figures breaking them down into
00:22:27 into different time periods into budget per item do you see that yes
00:22:34 now um did the budget for this project increase following the grenfell tower fire can you tell us it did because the project i don't think the the fire investigation
00:22:46 i don't think the the fire investigation element budget increased but it was used as the contract to conduct the the large-scale cladding test post grenfell i should point out i didn't have much involvement in it
00:22:57 i didn't have much involvement in it post grenfell because i was at the building doing on-site investigation now
00:23:04 now i just want to go back to the objectives of the project that we looked at earlier if we go to bre 50951 at page four bring that back up we looked at those objectives
00:23:15 we looked at those objectives can you explain it in a little more detail how the summaries from media reports that the more detailed desk-based assessments when they happened and the eight or so
00:23:26 when they happened and the eight or so site visits a year how were they brought together to enable the bre to let's look first of all at bullet three how did that information help you
00:23:38 how did that information help you provide
00:23:39 provide dclg with unbiased so third bullet point and independent evidence information to enable dcld to take a proactive approach in ensuring policies and guidance remain proportionate to the risk and continue
00:23:51 proportionate to the risk and continue to be fit for purpose how is all that information brought together to meet those objectives so
00:23:58 so at the end of each period whether that was a quarter or a full year or indeed a final
00:24:03 final research report a member of the team would go back through
00:24:08 through the
00:24:09 the well there were summaries and there was a table a high level table at the start of each report and looked and then taught up effectively the trends as to what kinds of issues were cropping up on multiple
00:24:21 of issues were cropping up on multiple instances and um therefore what what appeared to be a common issue the the warranted um specific identification um in the report
00:24:32 specific identification um in the report so was it as simple as that as looking for patterns like multiple instances of the same thing happening before you would identify a common issue that required further investigation yes
00:24:44 that required further investigation yes as a general rule you know one-offs um weren't treated as a trend yes i'm interested in that martin ship describes that a number of times in his witness statement and says well you you
00:24:56 witness statement and says well you you can't really tell anything from one incident but you might be able to tell something from a pattern of incidents is that really right though because can't there be exceptions to that
00:25:07 that where in fact one incident in fact tells you
00:25:11 you an awful lot about the regulations because you might have discovered that they were complied with and yet still something very serious had occurred why does it necessarily take a pattern
00:25:23 why does it necessarily take a pattern or multiple incidents before a common issue like that is identified
00:25:39 yeah i mean the simple answer is my previous response but um i mean if for a fire of special interest for instance we might end up with the the level of detailed understanding
00:25:50 the level of detailed understanding about an incident to take a broader view based on one incident but you know regarding summaries in particular i don't i really don't see how
00:25:59 how you would ever glean the volume of information needed to draw a firm conclusion unless you start seeing a pattern across numerous incidents
00:26:06 incidents yes
00:26:08 yes but do you think with hindsight that perhaps that thinking was um a little too conservative and that actually you should have sometimes been interested in incidents in their own right
00:26:19 right if they were telling you that there was a problem with the regulations i something serious has occurred and yet the regulations have been complied with
00:26:30 um yes
00:26:32 yes but
00:26:32 but i suppose i would respond that you know in the discussions that we have with dclg about the fires of special interest we would invariably have a chat at some point about what's
00:26:43 have a chat at some point about what's happened whether we're still at the scene or after we've written the report that would be the forum when we when we feed back individual comments but i take your point it didn't
00:26:54 your point it didn't necessarily i think it may have done on the odd occasion but it doesn't didn't necessarily feed into then the end of year report because it wasn't a trend across the year right yeah i mean looking at bullet five of this
00:27:05 i mean looking at bullet five of this list um
00:27:07 list um you had to monitor the effectiveness of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in adb in achieving fire safety again can you explain how that essentially numerical exercise you were doing of totting up
00:27:19 doing of totting up and looking at patterns would actually help you monitor the effectiveness of the building regulations
00:27:31 sorry i don't follow the question could you um yeah i'm just interested in how how in practice did that exercise you've just described as somebody at the end of the year sitting down and looking for multiple instances
00:27:43 down and looking for multiple instances of a problem how did that in practice it's an open question how did it in practice help you monitor the effectiveness of the building regulations and the guidance in adb
00:27:54 adb well if an issue crops up over and over again you know it points to something being endemic that is you know
00:28:01 know lots of people are getting confused by something or failing to to deal with an issue um
00:28:08 um and at that point it becomes clear that you you know you need to respond to it and act accordingly yeah and what about bullet 10 the penultimate one we looked at identifying and indicating areas for research
00:28:19 research or potential changes to part b adb how does that numerical exercise help you with
00:28:27 you with identifying areas for research well it's the same point it arises from when an issue becomes endemic i mean one example
00:28:35 example well a couple of examples so that the cable supports research that was undertaken was as a result of multiple reports of cables dropping down entangling
00:28:46 cables dropping down entangling firefighters and the various you know particularly tragic incidents where firefighters lost their lives um
00:28:52 um and similarly we did a project in relation to um soffits under the eaves of roofs as a result of trends in the data so i see the same principle applies yeah but you you then follow it on and say we think we need to
00:29:04 say we think we need to look at this in more detail yeah to understand why it's occurring but isn't it possible that one of those incidents could tell you um something really significant about the failure of the regulations if you've got one incident where a firefighter was tangled in
00:29:16 where a firefighter was tangled in cables that had fallen down from the ceiling why do you need any more incidents to tell you that that's a problem and when you then identify that it's not dealt with in the regulations why doesn't that one incident then
00:29:27 doesn't that one incident then trigger that kind of further research or investigation
00:29:35 i think well i think we're drifting into policy decisions but um which which aren't for me to make but um
00:29:45 how do i put this um
00:29:49 there was a view i think um from from government that you know one-offs
00:29:56 one-offs you don't rewrite all the guidance and the regulations for the sake of a one-off even if it's a tragic one-off um
00:30:06 i mean cable fixings were as an example they were looked at and certainly being discussed
00:30:13 discussed before then so they were being discussed as a result of the atheism on stale fire in 2007
00:30:18 in 2007 and there was a sort of a question and an ongoing discussion and then
00:30:22 then the shirley towers fire sort of further confirmed
00:30:25 confirmed the significance of this and then the need to get it um resolved
00:30:30 resolved um
00:30:31 um and i suppose i mean again i'm supposing
00:30:35 supposing but there's an element of of willingness to fund this activity that if you if you start
00:30:39 start you know if we don't get me wrong you know more things to do and more research is what i'm for but um
00:30:45 um if we start following up every individual fire with a research project and think that that is a cost decision for government to make as to what they want to
00:30:54 want to spend their resources on um sure
00:30:58 sure we had a scope to follow and we followed it yeah i understand that but i'm interested to know whether or not you as a fire investigator thought that you ought to tell government that waiting for an incident to happen more than once
00:31:10 for an incident to happen more than once before looking at the regulations or guidance which had led to it was not necessarily a good approach
00:31:25 i think i had that conversation with brian martin at one point but i when did you have that conversation with brian martin um
00:31:38 [Music] probably around the time of shirley towers um
00:31:42 towers um sorry it's difficult to say but um that would be 20 10. okay um
00:31:50 but this again this goes back to the point that
00:31:58 there's this unwillingness from government to allow these things to continue that you know we're boxed into this this is what we do
00:32:08 we do and we're not to go outside of that scope and and the
00:32:15 you know i i'm keen to learn from every incident that's why we write up the fires of special interest reports we the findings are there um
00:32:25 um whether or not government decide that it's significant enough for them to start dealing with policy
00:32:31 policy that you know particularly post 2012 that fell into their remit and not ours and they were i mean they were losing interest in policy i think before the new contract well hence the
00:32:43 the new contract well hence the i think it was a response to a policy recommendation we've made that wasn't very welcome so right yeah let's just look i think you summarized this uh paragraph 177 of your third witness statement on page 44 if we go back to
00:32:54 statement on page 44 if we go back to that
00:32:56 that you say in this picking up in the second line second sentence the reality is that no single summary would ever be capable of meeting all the objectives for the project the point is that each summary
00:33:07 project the point is that each summary is a data point which when combined with all the other data points gathered in a given period can be used to identify trends which are just address the objectives for the project so i think that is consistent
00:33:18 project so i think that is consistent with what you've just been describing yes
00:33:20 yes yes insofar as it relates to summaries but clearly there was a more detailed report be it a follow-up report or a um a fire of special interest in relation to the fires that we deemed
00:33:32 in relation to the fires that we deemed to be significant yeah and who was it that was responsible for spotting the trends or the potential problems from those data points within the bre was that you or kira holland the
00:33:43 the bre was that you or kira holland the team collectively so um we
00:33:48 trying to remember now i think we there would usually be someone nominated to do a troll through the report and and see what sorts of um numbers they could tally up in relation to to various subject areas that the
00:33:59 to to various subject areas that the fire is concerned and then we'd have a meeting usually as a team and with martinship as well and just discuss what what we think what our views are around the various trends that we've identified
00:34:12 we've identified and then yeah get them in the report okay
00:34:14 okay now let's just i just want to ask you now about some of the overall findings in these reports if we can go to bre 50936
00:34:24 which i just want to use as an example to show you some particular wording we can see from page one bottom right that this is an investigation of real fires report
00:34:35 fires report dated the 27th of march 2007. yes you see that right at the very bottom yes right hand corner prepared for anthony bird
00:34:43 bird and on page two we can see this report was prepared by martin shipp we go over the page
00:34:59 are we okay i think something's frozen in the system
00:35:10 here we go so we can see it's prepared for anthony bird prepared by martin's shipp and it's approved on behalf of the bre by dr corin williams
00:35:21 by dr corin williams in march 2007 and i want to look at page 15 within the conclusion section
00:35:29 which is section three and under that heading conclusions at the bottom of that page we can see this wording it says this the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building
00:35:41 effectiveness of the building regulations and adb in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire and most of the significant issues that have been identified during this study fall outside the scope of these regulations
00:35:52 outside the scope of these regulations do you see that yes can you just help us those last words where it says and most of the significant issues that have been identified during this study fought outside the scope of the regulations
00:36:03 outside the scope of the regulations what's meant by that
00:36:07 um i would
00:36:11 i would i think it relates to matters covered by other um regulatory instruments it's like um [Music]
00:36:22 [Music] that kind of yeah so we can see the general conclusion the findings have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations in adb now are you aware that in each and every
00:36:34 now are you aware that in each and every final report for each of the bre's investigation of real fire projects for the government between 2001 and 2015 and there are many of those reports
00:36:45 and there are many of those reports exactly the same conclusion using exactly the same wording was reached are you aware of that
00:36:53 uh probably um i mean i whether i'd have looked at all of the reports before i started at bre i don't know but there's certainly from when i started i would imagine i would have
00:37:04 started i would imagine i would have um
00:37:05 um well not this report but certainly after this report the next annual report i was seeing them before they went out and being involved as part of the team yeah so long before there was this change in october 2012
00:37:17 october 2012 which prevented the bre from making any policy
00:37:20 policy recommendations for year after year after year the report was producing the same conclusion with the same wording yes yes
00:37:29 yes now
00:37:30 now did the bre well did you consider that statement to be accurate and true on each and every occasion that it was made
00:37:43 in so far as it confirms the overall effectiveness yes
00:37:49 yes but
00:37:50 but i don't think that detracts from the fact that there were issues within so there's
00:37:55 there's um
00:37:57 um how do i put this the overall regime in terms of how it set out the regulations the functional requirements the approved documents the way that we we divide things into b1 and b1 to b5
00:38:10 we divide things into b1 and b1 to b5 um
00:38:11 um that is what i would take this paragraph is referring to it's it's saying we know we we don't see a need for a total rewrite of building regulations in adb however and then what follows on is then
00:38:22 however and then what follows on is then the specific findings in relation to certain subject areas right
00:38:28 right if that's what it meant it could have been a lot clearer couldn't it you could have said we don't see a need for a fundamental rewrite but there are issues and here they are
00:38:39 issues and here they are the way it says reaffirm the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and adb in providing for the life safe for the safety of life in the event of fire
00:38:50 safety of life in the event of fire it's pretty broad all-encompassing language isn't it yeah i understand the point um
00:38:58 do you think it's right that in fact over that 14-year period the findings from these investigations covering hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of fires actually reaffirmed the overall
00:39:10 actually reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and approved document b in providing for life safety do you think that's likely to be correct again in in the same way that i answered
00:39:21 again in in the same way that i answered the previous question in that it doesn't indicate
00:39:25 indicate a fundamental problem and a fundamental need to go back to the drawing board but this was followed up within specific recommendations right
00:39:35 right was this wording included at a request or suggestion from the
00:39:40 the department do you know i don't know was it simply a cut and paste job in each report from a template report um
00:39:51 um i would imagine previous reports were used as a starting point for for subsequent reports given they all followed the same format whether this paragraph was cut and pasted uh well if it's the exact
00:40:03 cut and pasted uh well if it's the exact same wording then it stands to reason it probably was cut and pasted and the author or the person concluding that it needed to be in there took a view that it was still the appropriate wording i see
00:40:16 appropriate wording i see let's turn now to the fires which took place at sudbury house in wandsworth in august 2010 and the taplow house fire at swiss cottage in january 2012. now you've dealt with these fires in some detail and your third witness statement
00:40:28 detail and your third witness statement to the inquiry and we'll come on to your comments about the reporting of these files by the bre but for now let's just look at what the reports were in relation to these fires
00:40:39 reports were in relation to these fires if we turn first to bre 50945
00:40:44 this is the investigation of real fires report for the july 2010 to july 2011 period
00:40:50 period and it's dated the 27th of july 2011 and on page two we can see that you're a contributing author if we go over to that
00:40:59 that so there we can see it's prepared for brian martin and it's prepared by a number of individuals and you're the second name mentioned there yes and it's been approved on behalf of the
00:41:10 and it's been approved on behalf of the bra by dr corinne williams if we go to page 33
00:41:20 paragraph 5.1.3
00:41:24 reads this block of flats london 1st of august 2010 sudbury house ones with high street london a fire occurred in the fifth floor of a 24-story block of flats around 11 o'clock a man presumed by bre
00:41:37 around 11 o'clock a man presumed by bre fire and
00:41:38 fire and fire and security fire investigators to have been in the flat of origin was suffering from smoke inhalation and was rescued from the fifth floor and another person was rescued from the third floor
00:41:49 person was rescued from the third floor the cause of the fire was under investigation do you see that yes and can we note while we're looking at that that there are two rescues one from the fifth floor one from the third floor that's recorded in this summary yes
00:42:03 that's recorded in this summary yes now that's how this fire was reported by the bre to government in this report yes yes
00:42:11 yes the bre did not undertake an on-site investigation of this fire did it no this was a summary only situation wasn't it where from media reports that short
00:42:22 it where from media reports that short summary was prepared yes so it didn't go to a site investigation and it didn't go to a desk-based investigation correct no further information was asked for
00:42:34 further information was asked for um if we can turn to um some images arc 50234
00:42:42 on page two now the sudbury house image is at the bottom you can take it from me this is sudbury house after the fire and i'm going to come back to some more images in a moment do you see that yes so we can see
00:42:53 do you see that yes so we can see there's been a fire in a compartment of origin
00:42:56 origin and can we agree that it looks like the cladding has caught fire and there's been vertical fire spread on that column e yes limited vertical fire spread but
00:43:07 e yes limited vertical fire spread but yes
00:43:08 yes well why do you say limited vertical fire spread because the um the height of the vertical the extent of the vertical fire spread given you've got two compartments involved
00:43:21 got two compartments involved it's not much greater than the length of the flames that would be emitting from these compartments when the fires were fully alight right but it's clearly gone beyond the compartment of origin hasn't it yes by some distance
00:43:33 it yes by some distance yes
00:43:35 yes um
00:43:37 um and i think we established earlier you're now aware is this right that the cladding used at sudbury house was replaced after the grenfell tower fire in 2018 because this cladding was acm with an unmodified polyethylene core yes
00:43:50 with an unmodified polyethylene core yes yes you know that now i know that now you didn't know that at the time no
00:43:56 now just looking at the tableau report and then i'll ask you some more questions about both of these if we could turn to bre
00:44:06 50947 this is the investigation of real fires report for july 2011 to july 2012. it's dated the 26th of july 2012 at the bottom of that page and again looking at page two we can see
00:44:19 and again looking at page two we can see that you're one of the authors
00:44:25 you're prepared for brian martin and you're one of the first authors there yes yes
00:44:31 yes yes and if we go to page 53 of that report we look at the final paragraph 5.1.64 it says this block of flats london 16th january 2012. swiss cottage london the
00:44:44 january 2012. swiss cottage london the fire started at about um 2200 on the 17th floor of a 22-story block of flats 130 people were evacuated to a nearby community centre the 17th
00:44:55 to a nearby community centre the 17th floor was partially gutted but firefighters confirmed the fire to that floor and brought the fire under control over three hour in over three hours the fire was caused by a candle setting fire to papers prompting a warning by a
00:45:07 to papers prompting a warning by a london fire brigade spokesperson on storing large amounts of papers magazines and books in dwellings now that's so that's the tableau house fire is that correct i believe so
00:45:19 fire is that correct i believe so and again the bre did not undertake an on-site investigation of this fire did it correct it didn't carry out any kind of desktop investigation of this fire did it no it did not it was a summary only report yes
00:45:31 did not it was a summary only report yes and again can we take it that you're now aware that the cladding system at taplow consisted of rainerbond 55pe backed by mineral fiber insulation yes i
00:45:42 backed by mineral fiber insulation yes i am now aware of that yeah and if we go back to the the photos we were looking at arc50234 this is the tableau house fire do you see that there
00:45:54 tableau house fire do you see that there yes
00:45:55 yes and
00:45:56 and so there's you can see the fire from the compartment of origin and on the column there's been involvement of the panel the cladding panels on the column is that correct yes and we can see both upward and downward
00:46:09 and we can see both upward and downward fire spread can't we on that column yes
00:46:15 but all we saw in the two
00:46:19 two um reports was a a very basic factual description of the fire yes yes i don't think the people writing the summaries had access to these photos so no that stands to really that may be the
00:46:31 no that stands to really that may be the case
00:46:32 case um
00:46:36 now
00:46:38 if we turn back to the bre's report that the july 2011 report bre-50945 at page 10.
00:46:49 we can see that the first bullet point the first sub-bullet point that the objective of the investigation of real fires project um
00:47:01 had been amended so it says at the top of that page the specific objectives of this project are to monitor and provide timely feedback to clg from fire incidents on the following issues and the first one is
00:47:13 following issues and the first one is the effectiveness of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in approved document b in achieving its fire safety objectives with particular consideration of the impact of the 2006 revisions do you see that there
00:47:25 revisions do you see that there yes
00:47:27 yes now
00:47:28 now no comments were made in these reports about the uh compliance or otherwise of the sudbury house or taplow house cladding systems with the guidance contained in adb
00:47:40 contained in adb were there no well there wasn't the level of information available to make any kind of assessment as to their compliance or otherwise
00:47:48 otherwise no indication was given as to whether the cladding products had been classified for reaction to fire using the national or european classifications and whether the cladding panels were class naught or a euro class or
00:47:59 class naught or a euro class or otherwise yes correct though again no such information was available no indication was given as to whether the core of these panels was a material of limited combustibility either agreed and in summary that's because
00:48:11 agreed and in summary that's because none of those matters were investigated that's right isn't it yes that's correct there was no attempt to identify the composition of the panels at sudbury house or tableau house
00:48:22 house or tableau house there wasn't but that was because none of the triggers for escalation of the investigation had been incurred by either of these fires
00:48:31 yes now let's look what you say about that in your third witness statement page 41 paragraph 170. if we read that paragraph you say both sudbury house and taplo house were fires
00:48:43 sudbury house and taplo house were fires that involved a single flat professor busy has found photographs that indicate some limited burning of the cladding around the flats but it is ultimately the case that no neighboring
00:48:55 ultimately the case that no neighboring flats were involved in these fires so that's the first reason you give the fires you say were contained to a single flat no neighboring flats are involved
00:49:05 involved and then you say aside from smoke inhalation during the sudby house fire there were no serious injuries in either fire
00:49:13 fire do you see that yes and you go on at paragraph 172 on page 43 picking up at the end of that first line
00:49:24 picking up at the end of that first line you say pick it up at the comma in the absence of the hindsight afforded by grenfell tower fire there would have been no reason for anyone to follow up or attend these fires
00:49:35 fires i disagree with professor brisby's view that these two fires significantly involve cladding that the fires were treated as summaries was therefore the appropriate course of action and you say i know professor bisbee had not heard of these fires
00:49:46 bisbee had not heard of these fires prior to the grenfell tower fire
00:49:52 now
00:49:55 you're saying is this right that neither of these fires were deserving of a death-based assessment or on-site investigation because they didn't fall into the high-priority areas that we've looked at
00:50:06 high-priority areas that we've looked at earlier in your evidence is that correct correct
00:50:12 so you're saying is this right that there would have been no grounds on which the bre could have requested a site visit or a mile thorough assessment is that right based on the information available at the time that's correct
00:50:26 and essentially are you saying that because it happened to be the case fortunately on both occasions that no one was killed or seriously injured is that a fair summary and that there wasn't significant external fire spread
00:50:39 external fire spread now let's look back at page 41 of your third statement
00:50:49 there you've got the high priority list can we look at um point two under the high priority list you've got their non-fatal fires with injury or
00:51:01 non-fatal fires with injury or rescue
00:51:03 rescue do you see that yes so i appreciate your saying there was just smoke inhalation in the sudbury house fire but two people were rescued weren't they yes
00:51:14 yes and that's recorded in the bre's summary yes but it's also recorded in relation to dozens of other fires that only remain summaries so
00:51:23 so can you explain why the fact that somebody's been rescued two people have been rescued from sudbury house didn't trigger this high priority list and wasn't deserving of at least the
00:51:34 and wasn't deserving of at least the next stage of investigation a desktop assessment because that would have been the judgment reached by the person writing the summary as i said these were not absolutes in
00:51:45 as i said these were not absolutes in terms of whether or not to escalate they were a series of subject areas to consider and the relevant person would would make a decision as to whether or not it warrants escalating
00:51:59 right
00:52:04 i mean the information that's recorded about sudbury it tells you so very little how could a person make an informed assessment about escalating any further
00:52:15 escalating any further when there's so little in the summary itself
00:52:18 itself i understand the point you're making but that goes to the heart of the contract the same is true of all the others hundreds of summaries um
00:52:27 um that simply wasn't achievable within the resources that were available to the project
00:52:35 so even there it says non-fatal fires with injury or rescue and that's in a high priority list are you saying that there might have been lots of fires where people were rescued and nobody looked any further
00:52:46 looked any further there were and but they would have been in domestic premises such as blocks of flats
00:52:50 flats and we're interested in non-domestic premises or domestic where there's a specific issue of interest it is
00:52:57 it is you know unfortunately it's not uncommon for people to be rescued from blocks of flats
00:53:03 flats um i mean again this has been the subject of a lot of debate post grenfell but
00:53:11 the project simply could not resource and i don't think was intended to resource every single rescue in a fire being
00:53:19 being physically followed up or attended i see so was the fact that this was a high-rise block not not a factor that might make it potentially of more interest and more importance
00:53:31 interest and more importance given that fire safety and high-rise blocks of facts is it is more of a it would depending on how the other factors come together the simple fact that it's a high-rise block in and of itself
00:53:43 a high-rise block in and of itself doesn't you know ring alarm bells particularly if the fire is confined to the flat of origin then it's a fire in a home it's confined to the home you know life goes on the building
00:53:54 you know life goes on the building regulations um and i
00:53:59 realize this is a potentially a sensitive subject but the building regulations as i understand it they and this is again conversations with dclg that if a person stays in
00:54:10 with dclg that if a person stays in their home with a fire if they fail to escape their home there is an acceptance that they are probably not going to survive that fire the point is in high-rise buildings as with
00:54:21 as with a street of houses while we may accept uncomfortably that people will die in their home if they stay in the fire with stay in their home with the fire we don't expect the
00:54:32 with the fire we don't expect the neighbours to be affected and
00:54:35 and i don't see in terms of the information that was available then and again absent these follow-up investigations that have been done
00:54:43 been done there wasn't anything that indicated these were more than that there was a bit of involvement of the fabric of the building but it's not a cladding fire in the way that knowsley heights or irvine or even lachenal
00:54:54 lachenal were it is a fire largely confined to the dwelling of origin i see just coming back to what the purpose was behind this project did you ever tell the department and
00:55:06 did you ever tell the department and government that it was simply not achievable to make a proper assessment of whether or not to escalate these fires under that contract i mean isn't isn't on one view the whole premise of it flawed because
00:55:19 it flawed because you're looking at it at such a summary level from these media reports that you have pretty much no information on which to know whether in fact you ought to be escalating
00:55:32 um
00:55:40 maybe i mean you mentioned that it occurs to me that these two fires do fall within the period when the quality of information in news outlets was declining and we were having to switch our focus over to
00:55:52 to switch our focus over to rss feeds from fire and rescue services but
00:55:55 but that was a dynamic situation that we were you know trying our best to make up for the shortfall in quality of information in certain outlets by redirecting our focus to others
00:56:07 redirecting our focus to others but would it be really that difficult to get a post-fire photograph of one of these buildings to to make just even a cursory assessment of the extent of fire damage
00:56:18 assessment of the extent of fire damage how do i put this um yes is the short answer i mean getting
00:56:27 fire services um you know various of them will assist others less so um
00:56:34 but they're not generally um [Music]
00:56:38 [Music] you know they expect formal involvement or no involvement at all this sort of you know just let's just check in and see if we can get a photo of each fire um i don't think that's a realistic
00:56:50 i don't think that's a realistic proposition that we we could have followed up and you know at this time we didn't have the wealth of social media that we do now that you know every incident comes with 20 30 photographs on the internet from
00:57:02 20 30 photographs on the internet from people with their camera phones that are just
00:57:04 just taking photos and posting them you know this this time preceded that okay well i'm going to come to some more photographs from the sudby house fire that were posted contemporaneously at the time in in a moment
00:57:16 the time in in a moment and but but just help us with this did you ever consider that it might be dangerous to continue with this project reaffirming the overall effectiveness of the building regulation and adb
00:57:27 the building regulation and adb without mentioning to government that the constraints of the contract and the budget were such that in fact proper assessments couldn't be made was that a conversation you ever had with
00:57:38 with government um
00:57:42 in a roundabout way i mean i i think
00:57:46 think i was
00:57:48 again this we're talking about the period where budgets were being cut and and there were requests made for us to cut our budgets further than they the the figures that are already set out
00:57:59 the the figures that are already set out in my witness statement and you know there came a point we were trying to do our best with what we had because the alternative wasn't going to be more money it was going to be well let's just cancel the contract
00:58:10 be well let's just cancel the contract so
00:58:11 so but they didn't equally cover a point where i dug my heels in i i got a phone call from one of the finance people at dcrg saying we wanted to cut i think it was another 20 off your rates and i think
00:58:22 and i think it's unprofessionally i think i laughed at him down the phone said you know you cut us to the bone you're not getting any more out of us
00:58:31 we did the best we could with what we had
00:58:33 had yeah
00:58:34 yeah i mean help us priority number four on the screen is fires of relevance to the building regulations and or adb um to what extent was this process going to help you
00:58:45 was this process going to help you identify fires that were relevant to building regulations or adb when you were constrained in the way you've just described um
00:58:54 um i mean we still would identify i mean every
00:58:57 every every fire of special interest and follow-up fire that exists within the appendices of the various end-of-year reports and and final reports that starts its life as a summary that starts with someone from the team
00:59:09 starts with someone from the team finding a news article and you know escalating it from that point so
00:59:14 so to that extent you know the system could work it may not work on every occasion and as i said we're limited by the resource that was available at the time but
00:59:23 but in plenty of instances it did work the incidents were escalated and we we you know worked out what the issues were that were behind them yeah if we look at paragraph um sorry on page 44 of your
00:59:35 paragraph um sorry on page 44 of your third statement staying with this statement paragraph 176 going back to the sudbury house fire you say this professor bisbee has found a youtube video of sudbury house fire
00:59:46 a youtube video of sudbury house fire posted on the 10th of august 2010 although no longer available to view some nine days after the incident had the fire been the subject of a detailed investigation then i'm reasonably
00:59:57 investigation then i'm reasonably confident that this video would have been found and reviewed however in circumstances where it was only to be the subject of a summary i expect the work to summarize the fire would have been completed before this video was uh posted
01:00:10 video was uh posted so is it right that you're telling us that had this fire been the subject of a more detailed desk-based assessment you're reasonably confident the video would have been found however because
01:00:21 would have been found however because the video was posted nine days after the fire
01:00:23 fire the summary report would have already been completed and so that information wouldn't have been taken into account correct was there ever any uh checks that would
01:00:34 was there ever any uh checks that would go on to check whether further information had become available about a particular fire incident or once the summary was written was that just put to bed more or less there were so
01:00:46 more or less there were so as part of the um the peer review and approval process towards the end of each report um corrine williams in particular would
01:00:57 corrine williams in particular would apart from checking spelling and grammar she'd check that there is a logical [Music]
01:01:03 [Music] argument proposition in relation to each fire that's been summarized so if it was fundamentally difficult to understand what was going on based on the text contained
01:01:13 contained um
01:01:14 um then that would be flagged um and there would be additional attempts made to try and understand what was going on right but but only if it was flagged that it was
01:01:21 was unclear or confused if it looked like a perfectly coherent description of the fire that was it is that right it would be finished no further investigations
01:01:32 further investigations now you can take it from me that this youtube video video is still available online as at today you can take it from me well i did try the link and i okay it wouldn't work um it's dated in fact the 1st of august
01:01:44 it's dated in fact the 1st of august 2010 not the 10th of august 2010 there's a typo in professor bisbee's report and does that affect your view as to whether this video ought to have been reviewed when the work was completed
01:01:57 um so you're sorry you're saying it was uploaded on the same day as the fire it's dated well the video all we we can tell you is it's dated the first of august 2010. just assume for a moment
01:02:08 august 2010. just assume for a moment that's right should that video have been taken into account
01:02:13 account as part of this um analysis yes i'd like to think it would have been because i would have expected so you know it shouldn't have been the case that anyone writing summaries would merely
01:02:25 anyone writing summaries would merely stop at the first news article they they found they should have checked google for instance and seen if there was anything else to flesh out the content will be from the media sources yeah
01:02:38 media sources yeah well the description in this video states sudbury house wandsworth high street
01:02:43 street let's look at some stills from that video it we can see it at inq inq3015117
01:02:54 so here we we've got some stills from this youtube video this one's taken one minute 30 through the video and you can see there's been some pooling of molten material on the floor can you see that
01:03:05 material on the floor can you see that yes
01:03:06 yes if we go on to the next page
01:03:10 we can see there that there's
01:03:14 clear vertical flame spread going up that uh column can you see that there is vertical sorry there is flaming around the column yes yeah
01:03:25 around the column yes yeah and then if we go to page three oh sorry before we leave that one go back if we go page two sorry there's also to some extent it would
01:03:36 there's also to some extent it would appear it's going down the column can you see that uh sorry i can't wait next to the smoke it looks like there are flames well i i it's hard to tell but it looks
01:03:47 well i i it's hard to tell but it looks like there's there's flame going up and down that column do you see that you mean the lowest point of flaming that's yeah yeah i wouldn't agree because it's more than well it looks around halfway up the
01:03:58 well it looks around halfway up the window so that's not necessarily a sign of flame going down okay that could just be the level of the neutral plane in the compartment fire and then the next page page three
01:04:09 and then the next page page three there we can see that that's clearly advancing up that column isn't it yes and then at page four
01:04:17 what we can see is that because of the location of this fire the firefighters managed to get directly opposite it and extinguish it do you see that yes and that explains what potentially
01:04:29 and that explains what potentially explains why the fire didn't progress further than we saw in the post-fire damage photo yes yes now
01:04:37 now do you agree that that information really ought to have been picked up and referred to in this investigation of real fires report
01:04:49 i agree that the video ought to have been found
01:04:55 what the investigator would have made of it pre grenfell
01:05:01 i don't know because ultimately the fire is extinguished and the the extent of fire spread is not um
01:05:10 it's not particular you know it is a decent sized fire but in you know compared to the sorts of fires that we typically investigate it is not a huge fire it's not a very
01:05:21 it is not a huge fire it's not a very large fire could we just go back to um the previous photograph please
01:05:31 page three yeah um does that look to you like a cladding fire
01:05:36 fire yes that does and would that be relevant for
01:05:40 for uh
01:05:42 uh the ministry to be aware of
01:05:46 um probably yes yeah thank you
01:05:55 do you accept that with hindsight now certainly with hindsight the reality is that the bre did not conduct its initial investigation into this fire thoroughly enough to identify the fact that these
01:06:06 enough to identify the fact that these fires had serious implications for the building regulations and the associated guidance
01:06:12 guidance i would i would respond that it conducted its investigation in accordance with the parameters set out and the information available with hindsight yes more should have been
01:06:23 with hindsight yes more should have been discovered but that is with the benefit of hindsight yeah now
01:06:28 now you tell us in your witness statement that the work of this investigation of real fires project and you've said it a number of times needs to be seen in the context of the budget that was available yes yes
01:06:38 yes yes and we've already talked through what the budget was and that it didn't increase from about 100 000 pounds a year from 2006 to 2017 yes yes presumably the cost of carrying out the
01:06:49 presumably the cost of carrying out the work
01:06:50 work increased over that period and there was no corresponding increase in the budget at any stage while the budget fluctuated as you can see from the table in my statement but
01:07:01 see from the table in my statement but certainly towards the end it started to reduce again when
01:07:07 when there was a particularly strong view from government to try and reduce those costs
01:07:11 costs did you consider the budget to be insufficient at any stage um
01:07:19 i certainly questioned it i was i was humming an arring and again when i got a phone call from
01:07:26 from i think it was andrew newton who is a financial person at um a dclg who in fairness to him sheepishly asked about cutting another 20 um that for me was
01:07:38 um that for me was they crossed a line and i fed that back accordingly this project was flawed in a number of respects wasn't it do you accept that yes
01:07:48 yes [Applause] with a larger budget what would you have done how would you have improved the project
01:07:56 the first thing i would have done although i'd say this some well no i was about to say i say this with the benefit of hindsight but we had had discussions pretty greenful about this um the first thing i would have done is try and
01:08:09 would have done is try and bring the project into the 21st century we
01:08:13 we the projects as you've seen you know it was based in word documents and paragraphs of text being written and then tabulated and it was all a fairly manual laborious process and something i had been keen to
01:08:25 process and something i had been keen to do not just with this project but equally with you know bre's archive and other things was to try and digitize and to
01:08:32 and to put things into an electronic format that makes them searchable that makes it a lot easier to improve you know the identification of trends makes that whole process a lot more transparent um
01:08:43 um but that you know the resource wasn't there to set that up and i mean vre wasn't inclined to digitize its own archive which is something i thought was was very important but um
01:08:55 was very important but um yeah i did ask questions about that but it didn't happen yes did you ever raise concerns i know you said you raised them internally within the bre about the budget but did
01:09:06 within the bre about the budget but did you ever raise those concerns with the department directly about the available budget for this project um
01:09:16 i think i probably made the point a few times to brian martin that he was getting incredibly good value for money and then again a conversation with andrew newton um that i you know i thought
01:09:28 um that i you know i thought what they were spending on this they were getting a lot and i mean
01:09:37 yeah the budget should have been more you know had there been more than more could have been achieved
01:09:44 and you told the government directly did you that the budget needed to be more i don't think i put it in those terms it was in the you know the value for money sort of proposition slightly probably put slightly
01:09:55 slightly probably put slightly flippantly but i'm sure i made that point once or twice did you consider that the budget and the contractual arrangements to be sufficient to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the building
01:10:06 effectiveness of the building regulations and adb
01:10:16 at the time yes but i didn't have anything to benchmark that against it was
01:10:22 was again and i don't pretend that it was an ideal situation but it again it was what it was and we did the best that we could to meet those objectives um again hindsight's a wonderful thing yeah
01:10:34 wonderful thing yeah what do you consider that this project did actually achieve it achieved some things i mean it did result in changes to
01:10:46 changes to well
01:10:47 well not
01:10:48 not since my tenure because tclg didn't make any further changes to adb but there were changes i understand to adb prior to my tenure where things that were discovered under the project did
01:10:59 were discovered under the project did ultimately make their way into adb in terms of my tenure there were the changes that made their way into the wiring regulations both dealing with
01:11:10 both dealing with cable supports and then consumer units um
01:11:13 um and you know in terms of things that really and truly government should have done um through updates to adb we addressed as best we could via
01:11:24 we addressed as best we could via dissemination you know the government view um
01:11:28 view um was that it's for the industry to lead the way so we
01:11:32 we i would say not followed that but if that's the only way that we could affect change then we did the most that we could to try and disseminate and see whether the industry would actually pick up on these things
01:11:43 up on these things and act accordingly um hence the large number of presentations in my first witness statement
01:11:52 obviously i would have preferred particularly now for for ad for adb just to have been updated but we tried to disseminate as best we could i see
01:12:02 i see um
01:12:03 um before we move on to another subtopic and and we'll take a break at that point can we turn to hom 401090 this is the final research report for
01:12:17 this is the final research report for 2010 to 2012.
01:12:20 it's dated we can see in the bottom right hand corner 26 july 2012 and if we go to page two
01:12:29 um it's prepared for brian martin and you are the second author that's named there in the list after martin shipp
01:12:37 shipp yes and this is the report the end-of-year report which covered the period during which you reported to government in respect of the sudbury house and taploe house fires
01:12:48 the sudbury house and taploe house fires now if we go to page 21
01:12:53 there's a list which begins there have been a number of incidents where fire spread has been an issue and then
01:13:01 and then we can see at the penultimate bullet on that page it says two fires one overseas have involved fire spread up external claddings
01:13:10 claddings these demonstrate the value of the additional recommendations in adb now first of all can you tell us which can you help us or remember which fires
01:13:21 can you help us or remember which fires this comment is intended to refer to i'm sorry i can't we we can't work it out from this report so no i'm not surprised um but no i'm
01:13:32 so no i'm not surprised um but no i'm sorry i can't help you you say you're not surprised i'm not surprised that you can't work out which fires feed into this um why isn't that stated in the report i don't know
01:13:44 stated in the report i don't know should it have been should those fires have been identified um
01:13:53 it wasn't well generally individual fires wouldn't generally be identified within these trends um whether they should have been i mean
01:14:08 having just said what i said i mean i would like to think that they're in there somewhere but it is you can see why it's not easy to find them from from that statement alone yeah um
01:14:18 um can i just clarify that you said this was an interview report isn't this a final research report sorry that may be right it may well be a final research report
01:14:28 what does that final sentence mean these demonstrate the value of the additional recommendations in adb so all that said is two fires one overseas have involved fire spread up
01:14:39 overseas have involved fire spread up external claddings then these demonstrate the value of the additional recommendations in adb what does that mean i don't know
01:14:49 can you help us with what additional recommendations in adb i mean you're one of the authors of this report
01:14:57 report uh i am but i wouldn't necessarily have drafted that text
01:15:09 no sorry i don't know you can't help us with that no
01:15:16 mr chairman i think that might be a good moment for our break i've almost finished this big topic but i'm going to look at some more recent reports next right well then it's a good time to have a break dr crowley we'll
01:15:27 time to have a break dr crowley we'll stop there we'll resume please at hop on three and again please don't discuss your evidence to anyone while you're away from the globe thank you very much
01:15:46 thank you very much three please
01:31:14 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
01:31:23 [Music]
01:31:27 all right dr crowd are you ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr scream thank you yes i just want to look at some of the more recent reports in time um in terms of this investigation of real fires project
01:31:39 of real fires project um and if we go to 2017 and look at bre 50959
01:31:45 50959 this is the end of year invest investigation of real fires project end of year report we believe yep dated the 30th of april 2017
01:31:56 dated the 30th of april 2017 it's prepared for brian martin and on page two we can see you're a contributing um
01:32:03 um author of this report prepared by and you're the second name yes yes now if we go down to page 118 and section 10 headed conclusions we can see in the first paragraph that
01:32:15 we can see in the first paragraph that it reads as follows it says overall the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations in adb in providing for the like the safety of life in the event of fire
01:32:27 life in the event of fire and then it says this all of the significant issues that have been identified during this study relate to innovative construction products and techniques which have not yet been considered
01:32:38 considered in relation to the regulations or adb do you have that yes so the first part of that was exactly the same as the wording that we saw before which was repeated again and again but the second
01:32:50 repeated again and again but the second part of it is different in that it's saying that there are some significant issues which relate to innovative construction products and techniques which have not yet been considered now
01:33:01 now isn't that conclusion as you can see it written there now internally inconsistent and on the one hand you're saying overall the findings have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness
01:33:12 overall effectiveness but then
01:33:13 but then in the second part you're saying but actually
01:33:17 actually there are some significant issues that have not yet been identified to do with innovative construction products and techniques which haven't been considered in relation to the regs and adb do you see
01:33:29 relation to the regs and adb do you see the problem i do my responses as as earlier that the the first sentence is not indicating that everything is perfect not intending to indicate that
01:33:40 not intending to indicate that everything is perfect it's an overall statement regarding the manner in which the framework of building regulations and approved documents is set out and then you know following that statement you move into
01:33:52 following that statement you move into then the specific areas of concern where further work is needed right and
01:33:59 and you've explained that that's how you understood the first part what it was to mean are you confident that that's how government understood it that brian martin when he got this report would have understood it and
01:34:11 report would have understood it and meaning essentially you don't have to rewrite the building act 1984 i think so because he knew that we had concerns about innovative construction products and technique he knew that there were things that we were
01:34:22 there were things that we were um
01:34:23 um interested in that we would like to do more work on that needed you know we needed to ensure that um the detailed guidance was still fit for purpose and if if i may pick out an
01:34:35 for purpose and if if i may pick out an example so um photovoltaic panels was i think a specific topic may even be within this report
01:34:43 report sorry can you say that more slowly sorry photovoltaic panels pv panels solar panels um
01:34:52 panels um were
01:34:53 were a specific concern particularly where so that there are two types of solar panels there are those that are um integrated into the roof and become the roof
01:35:05 into the roof and become the roof covering and the waterproof protection itself
01:35:07 itself and there are then standoff systems where you have the the original roof it may be or it may just you know buildings some buildings are designed in this way with a waterproof layer at one level and then a framework and the solar
01:35:18 level and then a framework and the solar panels above um
01:35:21 um one of the concerns we had and i think it related to a fire may have been reported in this period was about how the presence of solar panels over the roof changed the way that a fire can develop over the roof
01:35:33 that a fire can develop over the roof because historically we've assumed the roof is the top most surface of the building okay and it was about how that changed the dynamics and therefore propensity for spread okay i understand that's an example you're
01:35:45 i understand that's an example you're giving
01:35:46 giving but going back to those beginning words are you saying that the words the overall effectiveness didn't apply at all to the content of the building regulations in adb
01:35:57 the building regulations in adb and what just applied to to their you know the concept of them
01:36:04 um
01:36:06 i think i follow what you're asking but again in in the round so the the not just the concept but the sort of the broad direction of the guidance and the
01:36:17 broad direction of the guidance and the way that the functional requirements are set out
01:36:21 set out was
01:36:22 was appropriate or there was no evidence to say was fundamentally inappropriate but we still then go on to make detailed recommendations as to areas of interest um things that require further exploration and work
01:36:34 exploration and work one does not exclude the other right so what exactly was being referred to as effective what was it that was said to be effective about the building regulations
01:36:45 effective about the building regulations in adb
01:36:47 in adb well it remains the case that you know in spite of a large number of fires you know in the tens of thousands of fires those that result in you know the worst
01:36:58 those that result in you know the worst outcomes fatalities ultimately are
01:37:01 are relatively small in number um i mean if you if you look back at the history of fire statistics in the uk comparing you know even the 1990s
01:37:12 comparing you know even the 1990s compared to where we are today not to mention the 70s there has been an overall improvement in terms of fire death fires still occur yes sorry i'm going to stop you there but the department could have worked that out for itself couldn't it it would
01:37:24 that out for itself couldn't it it would have had statistics on deaths in fire and it would have been able to see whether deaths in fire were increasing decreasing whatever it's coming to the bre for specific advice on whether the
01:37:36 bre for specific advice on whether the building regulations and adb are fit for purpose
01:37:40 purpose so
01:37:42 so just help me with this you know
01:37:44 you know what were you saying was effective
01:37:49 again the overall direction of the guidance sorry just returning to your point the fire statistics provide no granularity as to whether particularly where there's been an improving trend in fire deaths there's
01:38:01 improving trend in fire deaths there's no way of identifying whether that's as a result of building regulations as a result of furniture and furnishings regulations provisions for smoke detectors under domestic smoke alarm requirements the fire safety order none of that is
01:38:13 fire safety order none of that is apparent from the national fire statistics so having a piece of work that looks specifically at building regulations is i would contend on value it's not something that simply flows from the national fire statistics right i see and
01:38:26 national fire statistics right i see and that was that this was the valuable piece of work was it this project well i mean we can debate its value but that's what it was trying to do now going back briefly to the topic of international cladding files if we look
01:38:38 international cladding files if we look at page 111 in this report paragraph 6.14.
01:38:45 we can see there's a a report of a high-rise residential block at the in the united arab emirates on the 20th of july 2016. do you have that yes and it says
01:38:57 2016. do you have that yes and it says the salafa tower dubai uae fire and rescue services were called to the fire in a 75-story tower of luxury apartments at around 1448 local time it's understood that the fire started on the
01:39:08 understood that the fire started on the 35th floor then spread to the balcony and the facade in both downward and upward directions and damaged two-thirds of the building with debris falling from the balconies the whole
01:39:19 falling from the balconies the whole building was evacuated as well as the surrounding buildings three people including a pregnant woman were taken to hospital to be treated for smoke inhalation the cause of the fire was under investigation
01:39:30 under investigation and then if we go to page 113 and to paragraph 6.14.17 towards the bottom of the page we can see that there's a another
01:39:41 we can see that there's a another high-rise residential building dubai 12th of december 2016. and it says that dubai's palm jumeirah in dubai fire and rescue services called the fire in a residential high-rise
01:39:53 the fire in a residential high-rise building understood that the fire started in one of the penthouses of the 17-storey building and spread down to the ground floor and up to the roof by the flammable curtain-walling facade in one of the towers of the building
01:40:05 one of the towers of the building the whole of the cladding system of the tower was involved in the firing collapsed as a result several flats in the top floors were severely damaged by the fire many people evacuated there were no injuries reported
01:40:17 injuries reported now was it your understanding at the time
01:40:19 time of these reports that these files involve acm products with a polyethylene combustible core
01:40:29 um i
01:40:31 i don't know i those summaries weren't written by me so i don't know whether they had acm in them or not i see can you help us to who would have written those summaries
01:40:42 would have written those summaries um
01:40:42 um [Music]
01:40:44 [Music] sorry could we go back to page two and i'll try
01:40:48 i'll try and figure out which which person is more like most likely to have been yeah page two page you mean page two of the report page two of the report yes the one with the list of authors yeah
01:41:14 i i mean i can't say for certain but it would so looking at the list of names there was a rotation um certainly between yasin gillam allah
01:41:26 yasin gillam allah rob robert lucas and sean taylor who were
01:41:31 were graduates on rotation at various times uh within
01:41:34 uh within fire safety possibly for investigation um
01:41:38 um the work was divided between people i don't know which individual ultimately drafted those summaries okay can you help us so we've seen two reports in this in this um
01:41:49 reports in this in this um in this report here about um uae fires and we've got downward fire spread as well as upward fire spread um were you having discussions with the
01:42:00 were you having discussions with the department in 2016 about these acm cladding fires do you remember discussions taking place no not certainly not detailed discussions do you recall any discussions whatsoever
01:42:12 do you recall any discussions whatsoever with people from the department about these acm clouding fires in 2016. again i do have a recollection of discussions around acm fires and the point being made that it's a
01:42:25 the point being made that it's a different regulatory regime i forget when the um the dubai fire and life safety code came into force i think it was probably around the time of these fires but the buildings would have built beforehand so
01:42:37 buildings would have built beforehand so yeah they wouldn't have been captured and you told us earlier that you were aware that these dubai fires involved acm with a pe core yes um
01:42:47 um i was certainly aware that there were dubai fires with with acm yes right can you help us as to why that's not reported here that we don't find it being said in any of
01:42:58 we don't find it being said in any of these reports by the way either these fires or other fires in the uae at this time have got acm pe involved
01:43:07 involved you can't help us as to why that's not said
01:43:10 said now despite the occurrence of external spread of fire in the two examples we looked at
01:43:15 looked at the involvement of the cladding systems the observation of burning debris um in these fires there is no mention in the end of year report for the period april 2016 to march 2017
01:43:28 april 2016 to march 2017 to the fact that external downward fire spread
01:43:32 spread is a matter of some potential significance in terms of public safety can you explain why that is
01:43:41 sorry can you would you mind repeating that question yeah
01:43:45 yeah there's no despite the fact you've written up the what happened in these fires and it's recorded that there's been downward fire spread yes what we don't see in the end of year report is downward fire spread being flagged up to the department
01:43:57 being flagged up to the department as a potential topic of interest that needs looking at why is that i don't know
01:44:07 was that because no one had um kind of
01:44:11 kind of realized the potential significance of it someone had realized the potential significance of it but didn't think the department needed to have it flagged to them can you help us on that
01:44:25 no sorry can i just check the date of this report is 30th of april 2017 not 2016.
01:44:31 2016. is that correct i just see the signatures dated april 2016. yes it says any end of year report april 2016 to march 2017 the approval date just go back back one
01:44:42 the approval date just go back back one page
01:44:46 let's go back one page it says on the front page 30th of april 2017. do you see that yes i think there's an error no there is an error on the signature page the
01:44:58 an error on the signature page the reason why i raise it and i apologize in advance is not going to be very very helpful to you i was on paternity leave for the rest of april so wouldn't have been involved in finishing this report can we look at an email chain that you
01:45:09 can we look at an email chain that you are involved in if we go to clg one triple zero eight triple one here we have it so it's quite small print this um and i want to um so this is an email chain
01:45:22 want to um so this is an email chain between martin ship brian martin um from march 2016 into which you and kyra holland are copied and if we look at the very first email at the very bottom of the chain on page
01:45:33 at the very bottom of the chain on page one there's an email date of the 29th of march
01:45:36 march 2016 sent at 908 in the morning and it's from martin's ship to brian martin we can see you and miss hollander copied
01:45:47 copied and it says subject am jam fire huge blaze hits uae residential towers and it begins with a link to a bbc news report
01:45:58 report and then
01:45:59 and then we can see it says the fire struck one tower in amjan emirate north of dubai before spreading to an adjacent block and then he's put my emphasis and the words before spreading to an adjacent
01:46:11 words before spreading to an adjacent blocker are in bold and then he asks the question is this a first martin do you see that yes
01:46:20 and then brian martin responds at 9 36 immediately above that again you're still copied in and he says great fire of london question mark
01:46:31 question mark and then moving up the chain to the next email martin responds at 9 41.
01:46:38 at 9 41. oh yes i'd forgotten about the tower blocks in 1666 london exclamation mark and then in parenthesis he says i'm not suggesting this is a world first for fire spread between buildings just
01:46:49 fire spread between buildings just occupied
01:46:52 um something tower blocks modern modern i'm sorry the screen's a little bit blurry just occupied modern tower blocks and then brian martin responds above
01:47:03 and then brian martin responds above that
01:47:04 that and he says only kidding smiley face yes it's a first as far as i'm aware looks like it's the same stuff as dubai and then finally in the top email of the
01:47:15 and then finally in the top email of the chain martinship responds i know smiley face sarah thinks it's burning debris landing on balconies i know grant lupton in the uae and have emailed to ask for more info
01:47:28 emailed to ask for more info and then there's a link provided
01:47:32 provided another link in relation to the fire now
01:47:36 now did you understand brian martin saying uh looks like it's the same stuff as dubai to be a reference to acm pe
01:47:47 um i probably would have done yes do you remember discussing this fire with martin ship sarah colwell or brian martin any further uh no i would
01:47:59 uh no i would probably have left the others to get on with it i mean i was copied into everything on the project by this time um
01:48:07 um so i would have yeah it would have been copied from my information but i wouldn't necessarily have followed up with the team do you remember discussing any other similar fires at the time
01:48:18 similar fires at the time um
01:48:21 not specifically but it's probable that we did
01:48:25 we did can you explain you just said i would have let the others get on with it why would you let let the others get on with it in terms of discussing this kind of fire
01:48:36 um because i
01:48:38 because i had a
01:48:39 had a range of different projects and duties on the go and i was content that um the team by that point was was doing what they needed to do and they
01:48:51 doing what they needed to do and they they knew
01:48:53 they knew you know if they'd been a question directed at me in the email then i certainly would have responded i wouldn't have ignored that um but they appear to be on top of it
01:49:04 but they appear to be on top of it there's an inquiry that's been made to a contact in in the area that we yeah we know
01:49:09 know um
01:49:10 um so
01:49:11 so i mean i don't know whether there's a follow-up email to this as to whether information is ultimately furnished but
01:49:17 but to me this email chain looks like things are being addressed as they should be right
01:49:23 right who is grant lupton can you help us um he's uh now retired uh he was and apology i'm probably going to get this wrong but he was a fire chief in
01:49:35 this wrong but he was a fire chief in the uae um he had previously been um in new zealand um he's a director of the institution of fire engineers
01:49:46 engineers and would have been um someone that martin ship was regularly in contact with as martin was also a director of the institution right and how long did he have that contact with him in the uae for do you know was that
01:49:58 him in the uae for do you know was that for many years or just around this time grant moved around quite a lot during his career but um [Music]
01:50:07 [Music] yeah i could probably find out but i couldn't tell you off top of my head right he was in the uae did the bre have any other contacts in the uae which they used to find out information about no no the fires
01:50:19 no no the fires you told us earlier that you would have liked to have investigated the uae fires and would have done so but for the presumption that acmpe was not in use here
01:50:28 here did you raise that during the course of discussions such as this
01:50:33 this not at this point i mean you know as i said earlier it becomes clear that that's simply not going to happen and the costs associated with the trip to uae would have been out of the question i
01:50:44 would have been out of the question i would have thought under the project right
01:50:47 right well i can see visiting the uae may be one thing but but you could have found out more short of visiting yes agreed um i mean i don't i don't know where where this link
01:50:58 i don't know where where this link points to but had um had it provided sufficient information to populate a follow-up summary then i would like to think that would have been done right if it was only sufficient to
01:51:10 done right if it was only sufficient to furnish
01:51:11 furnish yeah a summary um then that's what it is right can you help us as to why both martin ship and brian martin seem to be making light of this topic in these emails using smiley faces
01:51:22 topic in these emails using smiley faces for example i don't think they're making light of the fire they're making light of the reference to the great fire of london um
01:51:29 um [Music]
01:51:31 [Music] yeah i don't i don't think they're making light of the fire in dubai right
01:51:36 right was brian martin ever flippant or casual about such topics when these things were brought to his attention um
01:51:45 um occasionally yes i mean
01:51:49 i would suggest a sense of humor is something that is necessary um in this line of work so within the confines of this group
01:52:00 within the confines of this group i wouldn't criticize him for it and i realize how you know it might be interpreted by others but um
01:52:08 the way things were and the subject matter that you're dealing with if you don't have a sense of humor you're not going to last very long
01:52:16 long well that's your kind of analysis as to um
01:52:20 um what you might need to stay in the job mine was a factual question about whether or not he was ever flippant or casual
01:52:26 casual about fire safety matters when they were raised with him and i think you started your
01:52:30 your answer by saying occasionally yes is that right yes but not dismissing the matter it would be you know there'd be something associated with it to try and lighten the mood but he would
01:52:41 he would deal with the matter and he has responded to it in this um instance right can we look at your second witness statement at this point if we go to that bre three zeros four three seven one six
01:52:52 bre three zeros four three seven one six page 23
01:52:53 page 23 and i want to look at paragraph 79 now um you're asked a question at b at the top of that page in bold what consideration if any did you give to the
01:53:04 consideration if any did you give to the fact that there were no explicit provisions within part b adb at that time to address or to aim to prevent downward fire spread yes yes and you'll recall diagram 40
01:53:16 recall diagram 40 when it requires class naught it doesn't require anything for burning droplets do you remember agreed and i would add the same is true for the european classification because the subclass called up is no restriction on burning
01:53:28 called up is no restriction on burning droplets yeah now in response to that question what consideration of any did you give to the fact that there were no explicit provisions within part b adb at the time
01:53:39 provisions within part b adb at the time to address or aim to prevent downward fire spread what you've done is provide seven examples of fires where downward fire spread did occur and was reported to the department yes yes
01:53:50 to the department yes yes now i don't think we need to go through all of those but in summary those are all fires which occurred in the uk yes yes
01:53:55 yes and they date in uh over the range from december 2007 to august 2016. yes is that correct if we go over the page
01:54:06 go over the page we see it going right through to 2016. yes and if we go down to paragraph 81 you say this you say the chief consideration during my time at the bre was that burning droplets were appearing
01:54:18 was that burning droplets were appearing on average less than once a year with the with within the investigation of real fires project as an issue that led to significant fire spread however with the exception of wellesley
01:54:29 however with the exception of wellesley road above all of the incidents featured at least one other causative factor in terms of significant fire spread had these other causative factors not been present then it's unlikely there would
01:54:40 present then it's unlikely there would have been extensive fire spread in spite of the creation of burning droplets by some materials once these incidents are removed there is only a single incident i can recall investigating during my career where
01:54:51 investigating during my career where burning droplets in and of themselves without contribution from any other factors led to substantial fire spread now can we agree this that in almost all fires it would
01:55:02 this that in almost all fires it would be rare for there to be a single causative factor responsible for the precise mechanisms and nature of fire spread
01:55:10 spread agreed
01:55:12 agreed and so there'll almost always be a combination of factors involved can we agree that yes though if i may clarify then that what i meant the specific point in relation to these fires
01:55:23 relation to these fires is that there were membranes in the cavities that were producing burning droplets cavity barriers are the key point here so when when cavity barriers are
01:55:34 so when when cavity barriers are properly provided and properly close the cavity then even if fire involves one portion of the facade within the confines of a set of cavity barriers
01:55:45 set of cavity barriers then burning droplets will be restricted to that area when they land on a cavity barrier and can go no further and equally the fire spread up will be restricted so the point i probably made a bit clumsily is that
01:55:58 i probably made a bit clumsily is that these
01:55:58 these were a problem because cavity barriers in the main had not been addressed properly and so burning droplets were able to go and cause problems in ways that would not have occurred had it not been for cavity
01:56:10 have occurred had it not been for cavity barriers being inadequately provided right i see and how would you discern that it was the membranes that were producing these burning droplets in each of the fires uh with a couple of them i conducted
01:56:21 uh with a couple of them i conducted experiments and established that they were producing burning droplets when a light and others i think there was evidence within the cavity of um burning droplets having dropped down the cavity and produced
01:56:32 dropped down the cavity and produced fires at the base of the you know whatever the furthest point was that they they landed i see there was occurring below the fire of origin but can we think thinking about downward prior spread more generally
01:56:43 prior spread more generally um can we agree that it wouldn't be a valid basis on which to rule out downward fire spread as a serious topic for further research simply because there might have been other mechanisms as well that were in
01:56:54 other mechanisms as well that were in play
01:56:57 play agreed i mean the downward fire spread was identified in relation to each of these fires so to that extent it was flagged up and
01:57:08 so to that extent it was flagged up and again it was for dclg to decide what it wanted to do about that um in terms of decisions on future policy yes let's look at what you say at paragraph 82 we can see there on that page
01:57:20 we can see there on that page um you tell us there that you did have concerns about the lack of explicit provision within part b adb concerning downward fire spread so you say picking it up at the end of
01:57:31 so you say picking it up at the end of the second line i did have concerns which is why i went to the trouble of conducting basic experiments on the materials taken from manthorp avenue and bennett close after i conducted the investigations on
01:57:43 after i conducted the investigations on both and then gave presentations which featured those experiments for some years afterwards and then you go on if we look four lines from the bottom you say this
01:57:54 you say this the general impression i had was that it was an issue of which dclg were aware but it was unlikely that anything would be done to address it given how infrequently it arose and the fact that
01:58:05 infrequently it arose and the fact that substantial fire spread could be attributed to other causative factors now where did that general impression come from that the department was aware of this
01:58:15 of this potential problem with downward fire spread
01:58:20 um again during the course of general discussions with brian martin about the findings of these these fire investigations um i
01:58:29 um i believe they would require going through each of those exhibits but i believe brian martin would have been in attendance at one or two of those presentations um
01:58:41 and again there is the the earlier point that dclg was in no mood to make any changes which is what motivated the number of presentations to try and get this out to industry
01:58:52 did you ever offer or ask the department to do a policy implications report on downward fire spread and whether there ought to be provisions within approved document b
01:59:03 approved document b which regulated that no
01:59:07 why not
01:59:10 um it's the same point i don't think it would have been taken up
01:59:17 i don't think there was a mood to do anything to address the issue but with respect wasn't your role to give them independent advice regardless of whether or not they took that up
01:59:29 of whether or not they took that up wasn't your role to point out the areas that were deserving of further attention including you've said it was a concern downward fire spread
01:59:42 yes but it was flagged up to them i mean
01:59:47 putting things into a a report you know i think these were reported in the fire of special interest reports it's not as though these were not flagged up whether or not it ultimately ended up in a policy implications report
01:59:58 policy implications report um
02:00:00 um the information was still there dclg was still in possession of the knowledge that there was an issue with burning droplets at all of these fires but what we don't see anywhere is you saying there have been a number of incidents involving downward fire spread
02:00:12 incidents involving downward fire spread you need to have a close look at whether or not approved document be ought to be amended
02:00:17 amended to contain some guidance about around this subject we don't find that anywhere do we in any of the reports no we don't but then i returned to my earlier point that that that was being
02:00:28 earlier point that that that was being mitigated where cavity barriers were properly installed these i know there's a point here that these aren't these are not cladding this is not the external cladding that's producing burning droplets this issue only arose in relation to membranes within cavities
02:00:42 in relation to membranes within cavities but there is this you know i had a concern
02:00:45 concern i looked i did some experiments i came to the conclusion um in terms of the
02:00:53 the the cavity barrier the effect of cavity barriers on the issue um nonetheless it was flagged to dclg within the various reports for all these incidents
02:01:02 incidents um
02:01:05 and again i don't i don't think there was
02:01:13 enough form of a better word i mean again in terms of the trend and how it comes up for it to be a policy implication in terms of that report it was flagged but whether it needed escalating to the next level i
02:01:25 needed escalating to the next level i don't know yeah well you you say it was flagged it was flagged by reference to a number of specific incidents yes yes but it wasn't flagged in terms of a systemic problem that was had been identified by the bre was it
02:01:38 the bre was it um
02:01:39 um not within no not in this report but but you've told us in this paragraph that you did have concerns which is why you went to the trouble of conducting some basic experiments yes yes and
02:01:50 some basic experiments yes yes and giving presentations yes yes so why wasn't it flagged as a potential problem that needed looking at with adb
02:01:59 sorry it was flagged it was flagged in the fire of special interest reports in each of them
02:02:07 um
02:02:09 if we look at paragraph 83 of your second statement on page 25
02:02:17 you say you say this you say my concerns were on the basis that approved document b provides or should provide a suite of measures which provide reasonable protection to life in the event of fire at the time my concerns regarding
02:02:29 at the time my concerns regarding downward fire spread related to burning droplets which were couched within my wider concerns regarding modern methods of construction or innovative construction products and techniques most specifically modern timber frame
02:02:41 most specifically modern timber frame construction it was my opinion that significant fires involving these forms of construction were giving rise to significant outcomes on a frequent basis and that it was likely that the fund the fundamental
02:02:52 likely that the fund the fundamental combinations of materials used in these buildings were responsible for this and you say um my particular concern with materials that form burning droppers was that was that they would often be fitted against
02:03:04 that they would often be fitted against other fuel items such as combustible insulation or the timber frame itself the material forming burning droplets would typically promote rapid spread of fire by igniting the other combustible materials at a rate that is much faster
02:03:16 materials at a rate that is much faster than if the other combustible materials are simply burning unaided my concern was greatest in relation to bennett close as i considered this to be a near miss
02:03:28 so you were concerned at the time let's be clear about the lack of explicit provision within adb concerning downward fire spread yes
02:03:38 yes in within the context of modern methods of construction innovative construction yes and that was in the light of a growing trend towards modern methods of construction yes yes
02:03:48 now you refer there specifically to timber construction as one of those methods were there any other methods that were giving you concern about downward fire spread at the time
02:03:59 at the time um
02:04:00 um [Music]
02:04:03 [Music] not that i recall no did it ever occur to you we've seen that you were writing up some of the uae files not you specifically but the bre were writing up these uae files
02:04:14 were writing up these uae files involving ac mpe involving downward fire spread did it come to your attention that there was a potential issue about the use of acm pe specifically because of downward fire spread
02:04:26 of downward fire spread as well as anything else no because again the use of it wasn't believed that acmpe was being used in the uk
02:04:35 the uk right
02:04:35 right i see
02:04:40 now we've seen in the broe's end-of-year report
02:04:45 report dated the 30th of april for dclg that the conclusion was that the findings for this period of reaffirm the overall effectiveness of the building regulations in adb but that all of the significant issues that have been identified relate to
02:04:57 that have been identified relate to innovative construction products and techniques which had not yet been considered yes yes so is this right that the very thing you were concerned about the lack of explicit provision within part b and adb
02:05:08 explicit provision within part b and adb about downward fire spread was explicitly not considered in relation to the building regulations or adb in the investigation of real fires project
02:05:21 i think i agree sorry could you please restate that yes so
02:05:27 yes so the conclusion as we saw before said that um
02:05:31 that um all of the significant issues that have been identified during this study relate to innovative construction products and techniques which have not yet been considered in relation to the regulations or adb
02:05:42 regulations or adb so is it right that the very thing you were concerned about the lack of explicit provision in adb about downward fire spread was explicitly not considered by the bre in relation to the building regulations
02:05:54 in relation to the building regulations or adb
02:05:58 right so explicitly it was considered again within individual incident reports and then there was the headline points made about innovative construction products and techniques right
02:06:10 right but despite your concerns you did not take the initiative to seek to raise the matter as a
02:06:17 as a systemic problem in itself in these investigation of real fires reports yes
02:06:25 do you sorry do you mean putting this into the conclusion section of the report is that what you're getting at yes right
02:06:31 yes right um
02:06:34 no it wasn't because within any one of the project reports there wouldn't have been a trend relating to it i mean these these are incidents that span
02:06:45 incidents that span 10 years
02:06:46 10 years so
02:06:50 i you know and it ultimately the end of year reports at this time were specifically flagging innovative construction products and and techniques it was a growing um
02:06:59 um issue and
02:07:03 things were how do i put this in terms of the project responding to it um things were moving in in the direction that they needed to albeit you know there's always more that can be done but
02:07:15 there's always more that can be done but with the resources we have you know it is what it is but the
02:07:19 the when you say sorry um paul's was there when you say in relation to it things were moving in the right direction what are you referring to there i mean that i
02:07:29 i we had
02:07:31 we had we were trying to flag up this point about innovative construction products and techniques we wanted it to become more of an issue that there was not just in relation to burning droplets there were various new technologies
02:07:42 there were various new technologies on the marketplace that
02:07:44 that warranted a closer look that had been a scoping study done i think it might have been 10 years previously about innovative construction products and techniques
02:07:55 products and techniques but it hadn't ever really been followed up
02:07:57 up and so
02:07:59 and so while
02:08:01 while these were occurring over an extended period of time there were still attempts being made to try and say well you know we trying to nudge dclg in the right direction to say this needs to be looked at we need to
02:08:12 this needs to be looked at we need to but
02:08:13 but candidly i don't know when there would have ever been the the inclination or the resource to respond but we were trying to get it into the report i see why don't we see something just like
02:08:25 why don't we see something just like paragraph 83 of your witness statement in one of these reports saying we have concerns
02:08:31 concerns that adb should provide a suite of measures and in relation to downward fire spread and burning droplets in relation to these innovative construction products we've got some problems and you say at the end my
02:08:42 problems and you say at the end my concern was greatest in relation to bennett closed as i considered this to be a near-miss why wasn't that said in these reports i.e clear and candid advice being given to government about the concerns that you had
02:08:53 the concerns that you had well bennett close was flagged as a near miss in the report it was i think it was pretty clearly stated that it was only by luck that the incident commander chose to evacuate the whole building that we didn't end up with
02:09:05 that we didn't end up with people tried so for context bennett close was a timber frame block where cavity fire spread was extensive and what happened was there was a central staircase
02:09:16 staircase and that happened to be the first thing to collapse in a very short order during the fire
02:09:21 the fire that was a big deal because had people not been evacuated by the incident commander they would have been left stranded in flats with a staircase a central staircase that had collapsed
02:09:33 central staircase that had collapsed and that was flagged when the incident occurred in the report but the the mindset you said people had at the time was if there was one incident it wouldn't be looked at it was only if there was a trend or a pattern
02:09:45 only if there was a trend or a pattern why wouldn't you why weren't you identifying that trend and pattern that you've set out so clearly at paragraph 83
02:09:51 83 in these reports to government because the trend didn't exist within any one report but again there was a more general overarching statement made
02:10:02 more general overarching statement made about the need to start looking at these technologies it wasn't you know burning droplets is one issue um which is obviously of significant interest to the inquiry i accept that but there there were a number of issues that were all
02:10:14 were a number of issues that were all coming together that we we wanted to look at more closely i'm sure that's right i mean you just said the trend wasn't identified in any one of these reports
02:10:23 reports isn't that utterly flawed surely you had to be looking at trends not just in one single reporting period but across the whole period of this project otherwise quite important trends could
02:10:34 otherwise quite important trends could be missed if you're just confining it to one report at a time surely um
02:10:43 yes i take that on board
02:10:47 and i think you know to a limited extent it was
02:10:50 it was but this wasn't captured in it okay
02:10:55 but instead what we see at the end of the report is the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulation in adb now i know what you say about that wording but can you see how stating that
02:11:07 that um
02:11:08 um isn't signaling to the department that you have a serious problem in terms of adb and downward fire spread
02:11:16 it's a problem but it's not so i don't want to diminish this but but it is not a fundamental problem with adb it is one facet of a very large complex
02:11:28 it is one facet of a very large complex suite of measures dealing with fire safety
02:11:31 safety and again it was identified but
02:11:35 but putting it front and center as though it's the single most important thing within the approved document i don't think is is fair because there were lots of other issues that were all being looked at simultaneously yeah i'm not
02:11:47 looked at simultaneously yeah i'm not suggesting that it was the only issue you should have been flagging but given you've said that you had concerns in this witness statement i'm seeking to understand why those concerns weren't spelt out clearly in in this report
02:11:59 in in this report well as i said i believe they were in the various reports leading up to this and i believe that
02:12:07 that my focus
02:12:09 my focus on disseminating to industry was
02:12:13 it was it was in accordance with what we'd been told it was the policy of you know governments not going to deal with this so go and disseminate to industry and make sure they deal with it whether they do or not i mean it's
02:12:24 whether they do or not i mean it's ultimately voluntary and i you know i don't agree with that but that was the policy okay let's turn to a different topic now i want to look at your investigation of and reporting on the fire at lacanal house
02:12:36 fire at lacanal house in camberwell in london which occurred on the third of july 2009. now can we just agree some some things by way of background to this fire and i'm going to summarize
02:12:47 i'm going to summarize is it correct that lachnal house was a 16 story block of two-story masonette flats yes yes so each flat spanned two stories yes we'll look at some
02:12:58 stories yes we'll look at some photographs in a minute which will make this easier and the building was constructed between 1955 and 1960. is that correct yes i believe so and lacknow house underwent a refurbishment between 2006 and 2007
02:13:11 refurbishment between 2006 and 2007 which saw the replacement of the majority of its external walls with a system of aluminium framed window units yes yes
02:13:20 yes yes those window units incorporated double glazed windows partially glazed doors and composite infill panels yes
02:13:28 yes and on the third of july 2009 a fire broke out in flat 65 which was on floors nine and ten the flyer spread both up and down the block to a number of other flats is
02:13:40 the block to a number of other flats is that correct yes and six people died is that correct yes now if we could turn to um to get some more context on lachnal house to bre
02:13:52 more context on lachnal house to bre four zeros five eight seven eight and i want to
02:13:55 want to blow up the lower image figure a20 so um
02:14:02 so um this is headed external overview of fire spread sequence so this is a photograph contained in the bre's computer modeling and reconstruction fire report in relation to this fire that report was dated december 2010 it's
02:14:15 that report was dated december 2010 it's a photograph of lachenal house post fire and looking at this image we can see a number of of things so
02:14:23 so we can see that every other floor has a shallow balcony yes yes and it's right isn't it that partially glazed doors opened onto these shallow
02:14:34 glazed doors opened onto these shallow balconies on these alternating floors and provided an evacuation route yes
02:14:40 yes now and it's right that um also part of the refurbishment that we just referred to were opaque panels that formed the solid balustrades for the shallow balconies
02:14:51 the shallow balconies is that correct yes now we can see that that that beneath the windows on levels that don't have balconies there is a a darker colored blue green
02:15:03 darker colored blue green horizontal line of opaque panels do you see that
02:15:06 see that yes and they're held within an aluminium frame which supports the lower portion of the external wall is that correct yes
02:15:17 and um those partially glazed doors we talked about that allowed access from the flats into the evacuation balconies they also contained these darker colored panels but we can't see them in
02:15:29 colored panels but we can't see them in this image is that correct yes that's correct so those dark green panels that we can see alternating up this building the same panels were on the doors
02:15:40 the same panels were on the doors from into the balconies yes yes but we can't see those because it's hidden by the balcony the lighter green panels they're the balcony panels yes
02:15:53 now those darker colored blue green window panels they were composite sandwich panel products yes they were sorry um there's one panel that you've missed
02:16:04 there's one panel that you've missed which is to the to the right of each door as it appears on this photograph there is a full height composite panel right yeah thank you yeah i think you can just about see some
02:16:15 yeah i think you can just about see some of those at the lower levels actually yes yeah
02:16:19 yes yeah now
02:16:20 now just sticking with those darker colored blue green window panels they're composite sandwich panel products yes yes
02:16:29 yes and they consisted of front and rear faces of high pressure laminate sheets is that correct yes they were trespa high pressure laminate yes yes and in between those sheets was
02:16:41 and in between those sheets was sandwiched and insulating foam core material yes yes so that's in the darker panels
02:16:47 panels now we can see that on the levels where we have the balconies where there are the lighter colored pale blue green opaque panels these essentially form the balustrade for the shallow evacuation banners
02:16:59 for the shallow evacuation banners balconies don't they yes and those balcony panels the light green panels
02:17:05 panels they were just solid sheets of high pressure laminate is that correct yes so they didn't have any foam core inside them correct is that right thank you
02:17:16 thank you um
02:17:17 um now if we look at the text um on this um image in the blue boxes i just want to trace what happened with this fire we can see at box number one the fire
02:17:28 we can see at box number one the fire starts in flat 65 and that was on floors nine and ten is that correct yes
02:17:37 and both floors of that flat because these are two story masonettes both thoughts flaws of that flat became fully involved in the fire that's right isn't it
02:17:46 it and the fire spread upwards to flat set 79 on floors 11 and 12. is that correct uh
02:17:54 uh yes in that 79 spanned both floors but the fire didn't really take hold on the 12th floor right and we can see that in label number three fire spreads up to flat 79 yes yes
02:18:06 three fire spreads up to flat 79 yes yes and that was the flat where catherine hickman died is that correct yes and the fire also spread downwards so you can see label four in box four
02:18:19 so you can see label four in box four it spreads downwards to flat 53 on floors seven and eight yes yes though again only involving a single floor within the flat yeah
02:18:31 floor within the flat yeah and the fire also that so it goes kind of diagonal across yes and down and the fire also spreads down to flat 37 on floor five
02:18:42 37 on floor five yes do you see that is that all correct yes now if we can turn to your second witness statement please at page four paragraph six
02:18:56 um we can see here a bullet point list of the numerous reports that you prepared on this fire so those will include reports to the metropolitan police the lfb
02:19:07 metropolitan police the lfb the london fire and emergency planning authority yes so a number of reports you prepared on this fire yes and we can see that those range in date from december 2010 at the earliest
02:19:18 2010 at the earliest all the way up on on the um the next page page five to november 2016 yes yes
02:19:27 and if we go to page two of your second witness statement at the top of the page at paragraph 5a you tell us that you first became involved with the fire at lachnal house via the investigation of
02:19:38 lachnal house via the investigation of real fires project so the project we've just been discussing um for the department yes yes and was it brian martin who arranged for the bre to investigate the fire at la
02:19:49 the bre to investigate the fire at la canal under that investigation of real fires project um
02:19:53 um he would have authorized it but i think arrangements were made directly between bre and london fire brigade right
02:20:02 right and you go on in that paragraph at 5a at page two if we start three lines before the little eye you say that the purpose of my work at
02:20:13 you say that the purpose of my work at this time in relation to lachlan house was to establish whether the fire had resulted from and and you say either it was from a failure of the building regulations and the technical guidance in approved
02:20:24 the technical guidance in approved document b i.e the fire spread in the way that it did and claimed six lives in spite of the building or aspects of the building being compliant with the guidance in approved document b or the subject of a
02:20:35 approved document b or the subject of a properly justified fire engineered alternative solution and whether there were therefore any aspects of the building regulations and or technical guidance for which recommendations might be made yes or two a failure to comply with the
02:20:48 or two a failure to comply with the regulations and the technical guidance in approved document b in which case the matter would be for the relevant and for enforcing authority to consider yes yes so in other words the department wanted to know whether there had been a failure
02:21:00 to know whether there had been a failure of the relevant regulations and guidance or whether there'd simply been a failure to comply with the relevant regulations and guidance yes now it's right isn't it and this becomes
02:21:11 now it's right isn't it and this becomes important that the version of approved document b which was relevant to the refurbishment at la canal house was the 2002 edition of approved document b not the 2006 edition
02:21:23 the 2006 edition yes which was not published until april 2007 yes yes and you confirmed that in your witness statement your second witness statement can you remember when was it that you
02:21:35 can you remember when was it that you first established that the relevant edition of the approved document was the 2002 edition
02:21:44 um
02:21:50 no i don't remember when that was established you can't remember that i can't remember so you don't remember establishing an early stage what the relevant approved document would be for looking
02:22:01 approved document would be for looking at this work
02:22:06 it must have been established fairly early on because i do remember the point about the insulation in in the panels not being covered
02:22:16 covered being discussed fairly early on
02:22:21 that may have been established as between martinship and brian martin i i don't know right i think what you're referring to there is that the 2002 edition of approved document b only requires insulation to be of limited combustibility where it's
02:22:33 be of limited combustibility where it's in a ventilated cavity yes yes and that was changed in 2006 to require oral insulation in an external wall to be of limited combustibility yes yes
02:22:49 now if we turn to your third witness statement
02:22:52 statement at page 24 and look at paragraph 89
02:22:57 you explain that you um first attended lachnal house on monday the 6th of july is that correct you say that in the second line so the fire was on the 3rd of july and you attended on the 6th
02:23:10 3rd of july and you attended on the 6th and then starting at line 5 you tell us that on that day you say that you were five lines down but we were asked to leave
02:23:20 leave around an hour after our arrival due to concerns by the then commissioner ron dobson concerning the purpose of our attendance once these concerns have been addressed i returned to the building on the 9th of
02:23:31 i returned to the building on the 9th of july 2009 when i conducted the main part of my investigation although i did make a few follow-up visits yes yes why were you asked to leave what was it
02:23:42 why were you asked to leave what was it that the lfb were concerned about i don't know to be honest um all i remember is a um a very sheepish
02:23:53 group manager paul jenkins who was head of fire engineering at the time at lfb um
02:24:00 um coming and finding us in the building and telling us very politely um that he was afraid we'd have to leave because he's been asked to to remove us from the building and so he did i see and you were never provided with a
02:24:11 and you were never provided with a reason why i don't think so no not well i wasn't martin ship may have been but i was not and how many follow-up visits can you did you make can you help us with that how many days in total did you spend at
02:24:23 how many days in total did you spend at the scene
02:24:24 the scene um i think i attended on six days but four less than six days right i see so you weren't there all day for all of those six days but you attended four six days okay
02:24:37 attended four six days okay and if we look at paragraph 27 of your second statement sorry page 27 paragraph 88a ux you also explain that in the first week contact between the bre and brian
02:24:49 week contact between the bre and brian martin was mostly through your colleague at the bre martin ship yes yes but you go on to say that thereafter you began to have direct contact with brian martin yourself is that right yes
02:25:00 yourself is that right yes now during the course of july 2009 so in the weeks immediately following the fire can you tell us a little about what work was actually carried out by you and others from the bre in order to establish whether this was a
02:25:12 in order to establish whether this was a case of non-compliance with the regulations and guidance or whether there might be problems with some aspects of the relevant regulations and guidance
02:25:22 um the short answer is we we conducted a as for an investigation of the building as we could so we um looked at the
02:25:33 looked at the the window panels the composite panels and removed i think we removed a heavily burned sample fairly early on there were samples for testing weren't removed until much later
02:25:45 removed until much later [Music]
02:25:46 [Music] and
02:25:47 and we looked at the the common corridors i mean
02:25:50 mean the underlying construction was um pretty exposed when we conducted our investigation due to the severity of the fire that had occurred so corridors um sorry ceilings within the corridors had
02:26:02 sorry ceilings within the corridors had collapsed so you could see directly what was going on um where the the internal staircases to the flats were cutting through the cross section of the corridor and hadn't been um
02:26:13 um well addressed at all um
02:26:16 um yeah we just sort of i mean
02:26:19 you peel away the layers you know you you work out what it is and gradually make your way through the building and try and identify whether something's again a one-off or whether it occurs consistently through the building so
02:26:30 consistently through the building so things like the the boxing in under the stairs and cavity barriers were consistent the ceilings were a consistent problem and obviously the facade had been done in its entirety
02:26:41 had been done in its entirety right
02:26:44 when you say the facade had been done in its entirety what do you mean by that in that it wasn't as though panels had just been installed into one or two flats the entire facade oh i think in reclad yeah
02:26:55 entire facade oh i think in reclad yeah with the the composite panels and the so this wasn't a localized problem this was the entire block which yeah cloud in these panels you tell us paragraph 88b in that part of your statement that's still on the screen
02:27:07 statement that's still on the screen that you provided regular updates to brian martin regarding the investigation progress and the purpose of each return to site yes yes was that by phone i think so yes i called him on various
02:27:18 think so yes i called him on various occasions when i was on site and how regular were those updates um
02:27:24 um probably around once per visit effectively right possibly twice per visit on some occasions but generally once per visit so every time you've been there you'd give him a call and update him yeah
02:27:36 him yeah and how detailed were the updates you were providing him with i mean how long were the calls depended on the on the breadth of issues that had been gathered during you know any one inspection so um
02:27:48 um i
02:27:49 i think there would have been a lengthy conversation after the ninth of july visit sort of setting out an overview of all the things that had been discovered but you know one of the follow-up visits i think was only concerned with um the
02:28:00 i think was only concerned with um the bathroom extraction system so that would have been a brief update just to explain you know a discrete issue will be taken some time to get to the bottom of yeah and you tell us a paragraph 76 of your
02:28:12 and you tell us a paragraph 76 of your second statement on page 22 that you're aware that brian martin attended lachnal house itself early on during the investigation likely in the first week although you can't recall on what day that was is that right yes and did he
02:28:24 that was is that right yes and did he attend just once or on multiple occasions
02:28:28 occasions um to the best of my knowledge he only attended the one time yeah and did you talk to him at the time he attended did you have a discussion with him no um
02:28:37 him no um i'm not even sure whether i was in the building at the time he attended i'm told he he quietly went for a look around but didn't particularly it was the building was surrounded by the press at the time so he kept a low profile and had a look
02:28:49 so he kept a low profile and had a look at what was going on right and did you have any discussion with him at that stage about your initial findings in terms of the purpose of the work we've looked at i.e had this fire been caused by failure to comply or failure with the
02:29:01 by failure to comply or failure with the regulations did you have any discussions with him on that topic
02:29:06 um no i think i i think i was still sort of mulling over the various sort of physical findings before going back to
02:29:18 physical findings before going back to the office and actually compiling a report and having a think about everything fitted together okay determine i think that's probably a good moment to stop for the day yes very well well i think we've done enough for today
02:29:29 well i think we've done enough for today uh
02:29:30 uh dr crowder we'll stop there we'll resume please tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and in the meantime as i've said to you already please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything
02:29:41 anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right so we look forward to seeing at 10 o'clock tomorrow okay thank you very much thank you
02:30:00 thank you very much strange 10 o'clock tomorrow