Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Monday 21st March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:24 uh

00:00:33 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing i'm sorry that we've kept you waiting a little longer than usual that's been the result of some technical difficulties more importantly i think i

00:00:45 difficulties more importantly i think i should apologize at once for my absence from the hearing room this morning i'm afraid that on thursday evening i tested positive for covid and have been suffering mild symptoms

00:00:57 and have been suffering mild symptoms since then of course it would be irresponsible to return to work until i'm confident that i'm not infectious however i think it's important that we don't interrupt the evidence

00:01:08 don't interrupt the evidence if that can be avoided and i'm glad to say that i feel well enough to take part in the proceedings uh the other members of the panel who are with you and council are all

00:01:19 are with you and council are all satisfied that it's possible for them to continue with me presiding remotely that might require a few modifications to our usual procedure

00:01:30 to our usual procedure but i'm sure that i can rely on the cooperation of everyone involved to enable the hearing to run smoothly today we are due to hear further evidence from mr brian martin formerly

00:01:42 evidence from mr brian martin formerly of dclg

00:01:44 of dclg so i'm going to ask mr millet at this stage to uh invite mr martin back into the hearing room thank you very much mr chairman yes can we please have mr martin back in the hearing room now

00:02:14 good morning mr martin uh i'm sorry that i'm not able to be sitting in the hearing room with you this morning i have explained to the other people in the room and to the people watching that

00:02:25 the room and to the people watching that i'm afraid i tested positive for covid at the end of last week so i'm not able to come in in person but we are satisfied that we can continue with the hearing and avoid interrupting your

00:02:37 hearing and avoid interrupting your evidence if i take part remotely so i'm sorry if it seems a rather strange arrangement but that's what we plan to do what i must do of course is check that you can see me and hear me clearly can

00:02:49 you can see me and hear me clearly can you i can say yes good thank you very much well in that case i'll invite mr millet to continue with his questioning yes mr miller yes thank you very much mr chairman good morning to you and good morning to you

00:03:00 morning to you and good morning to you members of the panel mr martin good morning to you um on thursday we had i think just we were just about to start looking at the literature review in 2000. can i ask you to look at that

00:03:12 2000. can i ask you to look at that please that is a bre four zeros one three five three

00:03:21 this is the first page of the document run which is a letter dated the 30th of march 2000 from sarah colwell to mick payne

00:03:28 payne if we go to page four we can see the start of the report itself you can see there that the report is dated the 30th of march 2000 and it's written or prepared by sarah colwell j

00:03:40 written or prepared by sarah colwell j foster and b martin you see that yes and it's signed off by dr debbie smith the same date what was your role in this literature review report

00:03:52 review report i'm not sure i can remember with any great accuracy but my contribution to the project was to to help with building regulations related issues buildings regulation related issues do you

00:04:03 regulation related issues do you remember which parts of the report you took the lead on no but can we tell you that the topic areas that you researched and wrote about were as you as you put it buildings regulation related yes right

00:04:16 buildings regulation related yes right now if we look at page seven of the review please at the top paragraph on that page we can see the purpose of the paper which is to identify and summarize

00:04:28 to identify and summarize the three things first the types of external cladding systems currently in use second the current requirements and guidance has given an approved document b 2000 revision and third the research

00:04:39 revision and third the research previously undertaken on external fire spread in buildings and now this is a 25-page report and i'm not going to go through it with you in its entirety um but can we take it that

00:04:50 its entirety um but can we take it that um on the basis of your last answer about your role uh you are at least involved in identifying and summarizing the second bullet point contents there yes yes yes now if we go please to page

00:05:03 yes yes yes now if we go please to page 14 we can see in the first paragraph there

00:05:07 there that um it says this uh and this is about the far performance of external cladding systems it says irrespective of boundary distance diagram 40 provisions for

00:05:19 distance diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces of walls in adb restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings where the top floor is at least 18 meters above ground level and those of the assembly and

00:05:30 level and those of the assembly and recreation purpose group to reduce the danger from fire spread up the external face of the building now um in her oral evidence to the inquiry dr colwell

00:05:41 inquiry dr colwell said that you had written the adb passages in the literature review and that included this one i've just read to you

00:05:49 you is that right i don't remember but it seems likely right now looking at it looking at those four lines do you consider what is written there to be correct

00:06:02 it's a very high level summary well i want to focus on the word words restricts the combustibility diagram 40 restricts the combustibility

00:06:14 diagram 40 restricts the combustibility if we look at diagram 40 of the then approved document b that's at clg 1 6 0 12 please page 90.

00:06:33 looking at it i'm assuming that you're familiar with this this is the 2000 version published in july 2000 so after uh

00:06:40 uh the after march 2000 but can you explain how does diagram 40 of approved document b here restrict the combustibility the combustibility of external surfaces

00:06:52 the combustibility of external surfaces of walls of buildings with a story over 18 meters

00:06:56 18 meters and probably depends how you use the term combustibility and i think probably as i've got older and wiser i probably would have been more pedantic with the use of that word um

00:07:07 um i think at the time um i would have been using it in terms of um

00:07:12 um restricting the reaction to fire performance of a material is probably a more correct term to use right i think therefore on that answer can we agree first that the requirement in diagram 40

00:07:23 first that the requirement in diagram 40 is for national class naught isn't it yes yes and national class north isn't anything to do with combustibility is it depends what you mean by combustibility well

00:07:34 well if you're talking about reaction to fire in the broad sense that's one thing but if you're talking about combustibility which has a specific and understood meaning within adb you're talking about

00:07:45 meaning within adb you're talking about another aren't you

00:07:52 and i think i think it may be overstating the difference my understanding of the term combustibility is a term that's used to describe how combustible something is as opposed to a

00:08:04 combustible something is as opposed to a binary term whether something is or isn't combustible it probably depends whether you're referring to the definition of non-combustible materials or the general term combustibility which is

00:08:16 term combustibility which is um how combustible something is which is more of a sliding scale so i think probably today i would be more cautious with the language i used well national class naught isn't about

00:08:27 well national class naught isn't about sliding scales is it it's not about degrees of combustibility is it

00:08:32 is it i think it is why do you think it is um

00:08:38 because it's it's it's a there are two tests which look at how um readily a material reacts with a fire

00:08:49 a material reacts with a fire well

00:08:51 well there are two tests on there we've been through this part six and part seven one of which one of which tells you about propagation of fire and the other tells you about surface spread of flame they're not combustibility tests are

00:09:02 they're not combustibility tests are they

00:09:04 they part 11 was a combustibility test it's a non-combustibility test what's that um it it it tests whether something meets a definition of non-combustibility and

00:09:15 definition of non-combustibility and then you've ever heard of a non-combustibility test mr martin are you able to tell us what that is it's a test to see whether something meets the definition of non-combustible what's the definition of non-combustible um it's the one that's set out in um in the

00:09:27 the one that's set out in um in the standard well a1 and that's the european classification what's the what's the uk i can't remember off the top of my head but it'll be set out in um i think in part 11.

00:09:38 i think in part 11. part 11

00:09:40 part 11 part 11 of i think so from the top of my head yes i don't think that's i mean we can look at it and i'm not going to fence with you now about whether that's right or wrong but

00:09:49 but it's not four seven six part six or seven is it they got nothing to do with combustibility except in the very lay except in the lay sense

00:09:59 sense the person in the street might think that

00:10:04 i'm not sure i agree well anthony bird told us

00:10:07 told us that

00:10:08 that the use of the word combustible was and i'm quoting a basic mistake yes and it doesn't actually capture the rest of the content in what was section 13 of the approved document

00:10:19 13 of the approved document now do you accept that it is a basic mistake as anthony bird told the inquiry it was um

00:10:34 i'm not sure that i do i i i think it's i think a more precise form of words could have been used which would have been better at describing um the way that the guidance works but why were you

00:10:45 that the guidance works but why were you using words that were not precise in a document that had been authored by three people and approved by dr debbie smith coming from the bre and advising government why was there any room for this slackness this imprecision

00:10:57 this slackness this imprecision i don't he was deliberate well in which case so what that was an accident was it an oversight i guess you could call it that yes well i'm not guessing i would like to know

00:11:08 i'm not guessing i would like to know precisely whether you actually really understood the difference between combustibility on the one hand and what it is that that class naught by way of testing comprises on the other i'd like to know whether you really

00:11:19 i'd like to know whether you really understood that back in 2000 or whether you were using it in a loose lay sense

00:11:25 lay sense um i think i was probably using it in a more lay sense at the time um i i can't remember exactly what was going through my mind at this time is it possible that in fact as you just say it was that there was some confusion in your own

00:11:36 there was some confusion in your own mind at the time about national class naught and the difference between that classification and the concept of combustibility

00:11:53 i'm not sure i would have um had an issue with the use of the term at the time i think combustibility to me is a is a sliding scale of um

00:12:03 um performance for materials well is it possible that in fact that the confusion wasn't limited to you to be fair uh and there was widespread confusion within the bre at the time about the difference

00:12:15 the bre at the time about the difference between combustibility on the one hand and what class naught designates or identifies on the other i'm not sure i could answer that for bre as a whole

00:12:28 now we can see who's co-authored this with you dr colwell and we can see that it was checked and approved by debbie smith and submitted to the department

00:12:39 to the department did dr

00:12:40 did dr smith ever come back to you and correct you on any aspect of your work in relation to this report before it went out i don't remember i don't remember if we get back to

00:12:52 if we get back to page 14 please of of the literature review top of the paragraph you can you can also see something else here because it says that diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external

00:13:04 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings that's not right is it because it only applies to the external surfaces of walls

00:13:11 walls as the title to diagram 40 says not the whole of the external wall that's right isn't it yes yes that's another error wasn't it yes i would accept that i think that's

00:13:22 would accept that i think that's again um

00:13:24 again um it's it's an attempt at summary and and does

00:13:28 does become inaccurate as a result but as the the person in charge of adb and ensuring that the the government understood how adb worked with some

00:13:40 understood how adb worked with some precision are you able to explain how these two

00:13:44 these two errors the use of the word combustible there combustability there and external walls immediately after it crept into this paragraph

00:13:54 so i think at the time i was trying to summarize

00:13:57 summarize and i think i've probably um over summarized and lost some of the accuracy right let's go to page 11 please uh there's a

00:14:09 let's go to page 11 please uh there's a heading

00:14:11 heading uh

00:14:12 uh at the foot of the page cladding materials and then if we turn the page please to page 12

00:14:20 there's another heading underneath that facade costs and underneath that in tables one two and three which runs over to page 13 there are what are described

00:14:31 to page 13 there are what are described as the typical costs as you can see typical costs associated with different cladding systems based on the on figures given in the architects journal aj in february 1998 you see that yes now if we

00:14:44 february 1998 you see that yes now if we scroll down to page 13 and look at table three

00:14:47 three in the fourth row there we can see it says this composite panel of 0.5 millimeters stove lacquered aluminium three millimeters polyethylene

00:14:58 aluminium three millimeters polyethylene core 0.5 millimeters mill finish aluminium with insulation and vapor barrier bonded to rear face um now that's acm with a pe core isn't

00:15:09 um now that's acm with a pe core isn't it for want of a better expression yes yes now were you aware before co-writing this report that acm panels with a polyethylene core were in use

00:15:19 use in the external wall arrangements of uk buildings above 18 meters no you weren't

00:15:26 weren't um was it a surprise then to you that this was being listed by the architects journal as uh

00:15:35 as uh as

00:15:36 as a perhaps a typical product

00:15:40 product um at the time i don't think i'd i'd noticed it in this table even though it was in a report uk authored how come um

00:15:49 um i

00:15:50 i i guess at the time i probably didn't read it or if i did i read i probably read it skimmed over those bits that i wasn't responsible for

00:15:59 right so we can we take it from from that answer that you weren't responsible for this part of the report at least as far as i can remember i don't remember doing this but did you not read it in its entirety before you

00:16:11 it in its entirety before you allowed it to go out with your name on it

00:16:16 i can't remember um i doubt

00:16:20 i doubt it why

00:16:24 it why um i i

00:16:25 um i i my recollection is i drafted some paragraphs to summarise what was in the building regulations and probably handed on them on to dr colwell um

00:16:36 dr colwell um i may or may not have read the whole report at the time i don't remember

00:16:43 i mean it's not a very it's not a very long report it's only 29 pages including the rear part and is there any reason why you wouldn't have read it all it's a report from the bre

00:16:55 it's a report from the bre going to government at a place where you worked half the week you might be asked questions about it by your boss when it came in was there any reason why you weren't fully familiar with it and ready to answer

00:17:06 familiar with it and ready to answer questions on it if asked

00:17:10 if asked and probably because i was busy doing other things i i i'm sorry it sounds really good but i don't remember paying an awful lot of attention to this particular piece of work right

00:17:20 right okay

00:17:28 what did you know at the time march 2000 about the the reaction to fire properties of well let me put it more broadly so as to help you the pr the fire properties of

00:17:39 help you the pr the fire properties of polyethylene

00:17:43 um i think at the time this was drafted yes march 2000 um i imagine i would have known that as a as a plastic material it was likely to be combustible

00:17:56 and if turning to the question of compliance with the guidance and approved document b

00:18:01 b would there have been any particular reason for concern in finding that these types of panels were being used to client cloud high-rise buildings

00:18:11 at that time i probably wouldn't have known you probably wouldn't have known but they would my question was would there have been any

00:18:18 any reason for concern if you had known that polyethylene was being used within a panel to cloud buildings above 18 meters what would you thought

00:18:36 so i'm trying to think back to what i knew then and what i would have understood which is very difficult given what i know now let's try it differently supposing uh you had read this document as a

00:18:49 uh you had read this document as a thorough and conscientious person whose name it was going out in looked at table three and read what i've read to you from the penultimate entry there and you'll have seen

00:19:01 and you'll have seen three millimeters polyethylene core what would you thought

00:19:06 i think i would recognize that there was a polymer material in the in the cladding system and salt to find out more about its five performance right

00:19:17 right now would it be right that if these were genuinely class naught panels the composite panel as described there then as a matter of regulation and

00:19:29 then as a matter of regulation and guidance they could be used uh

00:19:32 uh on or as part of the external wall build up

00:19:35 up of buildings over eight over 20 meters in fact

00:19:38 in fact at the time and 18 meters from july 2000 um

00:19:44 um as a class assuming they were classo i would have recognized that that met with the guidance in the approved document i may have asked myself the question as to whether it met the functional requirement or not

00:19:55 it met the functional requirement or not yes

00:19:56 yes what would the answer have been um at that time i think i would have needed to look into it yes did it occur to you at the time and before any experimental testing took place as we

00:20:07 experimental testing took place as we know it did the following year that the use of polyethylene at height above 18 meters or even 20 at this time might present a serious danger in the event of fire

00:20:18 in the event of fire did it occur to me yes um no was there it was was there any discussion within the bre or within the department on that topic at about this time

00:20:29 on that topic at about this time not that i recall now

00:20:34 did you give any consideration apart from the provisions of approved document b

00:20:39 b to whether or not the use of polyethylene in the external wall build-up of a high-rise building uh would or in fact could ever comply with the functional requirements of b4

00:20:50 with the functional requirements of b4 of the building regulations at that time now we didn't consider it didn't

00:20:56 can you explain why not can you explain how it can come about that the architect's journal is providing this panel as let it be assumed a typical panel for use in

00:21:07 assumed a typical panel for use in buildings

00:21:08 buildings uh and it's the fact that it had a combustible core passed you by and appears as you would have put it past the re buy when considering the functional requirement

00:21:27 so i don't recall seeing this table at the time um and in the drafting of this report i don't think this was something that we discussed

00:21:38 discussed nobody picked up on it so can we take it then that you didn't consider one way or the other whether there were circumstances in which external cladding materials

00:21:50 in which external cladding materials containing polyethylene could ever adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls at the stage of drafting this report

00:22:01 at the stage of drafting this report uh it's not something i was aware of right

00:22:06 and therefore can we also take it i think the answer is yes but can we also take it tell me if this is wrong that at the time it never struck you and so far as you could see nobody at the bre

00:22:16 bre that there might be a fundamental problem with the statutory guidance which did not restrict the use of polyethylene core panels at height provided that they obtained class

00:22:27 height provided that they obtained class naught

00:22:38 this is quite early stages of this project and i think at that time that wasn't a conversation that i'd had with anybody

00:22:46 anybody right

00:22:48 right let's go to page 27 and the conclusions of this literature review if we look at the second conclusion on the page there and please could we have that

00:22:57 that expanded thank you it says this the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of far performance of external cladding systems the review of br135 will help to

00:23:08 systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified now can i take it that given your role in this report you are responsible for coming to that conclusion and drafting

00:23:19 coming to that conclusion and drafting paragraph two i imagine that was a joint effort but i'm right i i can't remember who drafted what all right but you would have contributed at least to the thinking and

00:23:30 contributed at least to the thinking and the writing yes i believe so yes right now um the reference there to the 2000 revision of adb is that the version that came into force a few months later in the july of 2000

00:23:44 uh must have been yes yeah it must have been yeah but the previous one is 1992. so that's lodge yes yes now which issues therefore specifically in relation to the fire performance of

00:23:56 in relation to the fire performance of external clouding systems had had the 2000 revision of approved document be quotes gone some way to addressing those quakes

00:24:07 those quakes [Applause] i think that's the revision where there was an introduction of a requirement for classo to play to apply on the internal surface right of a cladding panel

00:24:19 right of a cladding panel i see

00:24:20 i see but the requirements for external surfaces

00:24:23 surfaces in both versions uh are

00:24:26 uh are the the external walls of a building over a certain height 20 meters then down to 18 in 2000 should meet the provisions of diagram 40 yes yes yes and those versions both stipulate class

00:24:39 and those versions both stipulate class naught yes yes the only difference i think is that in the 1992 version it was it was 20 meters in and in the 2000 version it was 18 it came down by two meters

00:24:51 came down by two meters yes

00:24:52 yes yeah that sounds right yes now um for insulation uh slightly different topic i think it's right isn't it that the 1992 version we can look at it if you need to

00:25:03 can look at it if you need to um required insulation in the external wall construction of buildings over 20 meters

00:25:09 meters to be materials of limited combustibility yes yes yes but in 2000 the approved document only called for insulation to be of limited combustibility in ventilated cavities in

00:25:22 combustibility in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction of buildings over 18 meters yes so there was that change now isn't that wasn't that a reduction of the circumstances in which the guidance asked for insulation to be of limited

00:25:34 asked for insulation to be of limited combustibility um i think i think you're correct yes yes it go i mean it goes from insulation and the external wall construction to insulation in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction

00:25:46 external wall construction and

00:25:48 and it

00:25:49 it correct and the functional requirement had also changed hadn't it between 1992 and 2000

00:25:55 and 2000 do you remember how i was this is the introduction of the word adequate it is indeed yes that's right do you understand that to be anything other than a

00:26:06 that to be anything other than a relaxation of the requirement the introduction of the word adequate yes um i i think it was intended to have no

00:26:14 no um material effect it may have been intended to have no material effect but

00:26:22 did you understand it at the time at least to present the risk of being seen as having a a a an intended effect namely a relaxation of the requirement

00:26:34 relaxation of the requirement no

00:26:36 and we'll come back to the word adequate later in your evidence if we look at the third conclusion on page 27

00:26:44 page 27 the work to date suggests that a large-scale test method is necessary to assess the performance of the complete system was that your own opinion at the time um that was the view of of

00:26:56 time um that was the view of of bre at the time so um dr carwell had been working in this area for a while um that was that was the uh opinion of the

00:27:07 that was that was the uh opinion of the organization was that the large-scale test was the best option and i had no reason to disagree with that uh right so you had no reason to disagree with it so it can be taken that you shared the bre opinion

00:27:19 shared the bre opinion that is uh probably didn't know enough about the subject at the time to to

00:27:25 to argue for or against did you not had you read fire note 9

00:27:31 by then i probably had right

00:27:38 let's go then um back to the um the project itself now we saw from the bid document and you may recall this and we can look at it again if you like mr martin but the bre was to undertake a

00:27:50 mr martin but the bre was to undertake a survey of current stock and industry practice in relation to the cladding of high-rise buildings in the united kingdom wasn't it yes and in fact again i showed you this on thursday afternoon but you'll remember that the select committee had recommended in their 14th

00:28:03 committee had recommended in their 14th of december 1999 report that a full survey be carried out hadn't it yes yes was that ever discussed as a possibility

00:28:15 was that ever discussed as a possibility either at the bre or at government at the time um

00:28:26 only in safaris it was considered something that should be included in this contract right okay now we know that there was a questionnaire compiled for completion by a selected number of local authorities and we have the questionnaire

00:28:38 and we have the questionnaire um let's just have that up please it's bre 3041885

00:28:44 if we go to it we can see the questions uh

00:28:51 uh it's six pages long but you if we just scroll through it it's an external planning survey questionnaire and question four you've got age groups um and then the numbers of

00:29:03 um and then the numbers of buildings where external cladding was installed by way of percentage page two you can see generic cladding types rendered and rain screen there is the second one page

00:29:15 screen there is the second one page three

00:29:18 um there's the other two infill and built up

00:29:20 built up uh and insulation under page under paragraph eight mineral fiber or polymeric core and then if you turn the page to page four you can see that the questionnaire goes on

00:29:31 goes on um of the polymerics it identifies pir and phenolics and then fire stopping at nine and then page five you can see um there's a question have

00:29:42 you can see um there's a question have you had any this is question eleven have you had any incidents involving fire spread due to external cladding systems any details would be appreciated uh

00:29:53 uh now

00:29:54 now do you remember this questionnaire yes you do sarah colwell told us that she'd prepared it and run it past you at the time is that right it seems likely i don't remember right

00:30:05 don't remember right now we know that the bre created an excel spreadsheet to record the responses to the survey and sarah colwell's evidence to the inquiry was that you took the lead in analyzing those responses

00:30:16 those responses she told us that at day 232 page 54 at lines 13-23 is she right about that i don't remember let's look at the native version of that document please bre 3041886

00:30:31 and if we look at the first tab i'm sorry let's just wait for it to come up thank you there it is and if we look at the first tab

00:30:40 tab introduction uh we can see um that

00:30:45 um that uh it records just over halfway down the text

00:30:48 text under the words to date it says 45 surveys were distributed 17 responses have been received of these three winning returns one is still trying to provide the data 13 full returns were provided do you see

00:31:00 13 full returns were provided do you see that yes

00:31:02 that yes now do you know why only 45 questionnaires were sent out in total

00:31:09 i can't remember do you know who took that decision no do you know what discussions led to the decision to send out only 45 questionnaires no i'm sorry i can't remember do you remember any

00:31:20 remember do you remember any involvement of anthony bird in that

00:31:25 i can only offer conjecture which is that it's the sort of thing that you'd expect the contractor and the client to agree right but you were on both sides weren't you you were at the contractor and at the client so do you not remember how that got got agreed if it was a

00:31:37 how that got got agreed if it was a discussion about a contract i wouldn't have been

00:31:41 have been representing the department can you tell us who chose the list of recipients or on what basis they were chosen no i'm sorry i can't remember right let's let's see how far you can help us can we go to column c please

00:31:54 can we go to column c please to the sheet entitled survey responses and if you go in that please you can see the responses of ws atkins on the leftmost column under column c you see

00:32:06 leftmost column under column c you see w atkins

00:32:08 w atkins now do you know what kind of organization ws atkins was um it's a multi-disciplinary engineering company i think right now they're listed as type one as a which means specifier

00:32:21 as type one as a which means specifier and if we go down to row 54 we scroll down to row 54 we can see what their response to question 11 was and you'll remember from the questionnaire that 11 was about about incidents experience of incidents

00:32:33 experience of incidents and their question is yeah answer yes you see that and then there's a note added to the cell if we can open the notes we can probably see some of it

00:32:44 notes we can probably see some of it and

00:32:45 and it reads you may have to take this from me because we can't demonstrate it on

00:32:50 on with this technology but it says bre spread of flames generally rapid due to loss of integrity of composite aluminium panels using combustible cores you can see part of that

00:33:02 you can see part of that now

00:33:04 now assuming that that is a note of what was recorded on ws atkins survey response do you know who would have typed that into this spreadsheet i i don't remember i don't remember it

00:33:15 i i don't remember i don't remember it at all right now you may not remember it precisely but as a matter of system would it have been you taking the lead on collating the responses and then inputting them into this spreadsheet

00:33:26 inputting them into this spreadsheet if you've taken the lead then can we take it that you would have done that or or not i don't even remember producing this spreadsheet so i i i can't comment on that i don't recognize it at all all right

00:33:37 right did you or anybody else contact ws atkin to discover what the composite aluminium's aluminium panels using combustible cores were

00:33:48 were no i wish i wish we had if someone did i'd know no recollection of it

00:33:55 do you remember whether this spreadsheet was sent to the department or whether it was or remained an internal bre document i'm sorry i can't help

00:34:11 i mean if it's right that sarah if sarah cole is right and you've taken the lead on compiling this the survey responses it would follow that you would have at the time

00:34:21 the time seen that response and collated it into this document that must be i must follow mustn't it whether you can remember it now or not if that's true but i i i don't remember it at all right

00:34:33 it at all right let's go to page two

00:34:37 i'm sorry i'm so sorry uh let's uh go please to bre three zeros four one eight eight seven

00:34:45 which is a document entitled survey summary and options report prepared for a bird in the detr dated 24th july 2000 and if we turn to page two

00:34:56 page two of that you can see um that it's a report prepared by sarah colwell for anthony byrd signed off by dr debbie smith dated the 24th of july 2000

00:35:08 smith dated the 24th of july 2000 do you remember what role you had in relation to this report no

00:35:13 no if we go to page six please we can see the survey responses towards the bottom of the page can you see that there's a heading and it says 45 questionnaires were issued of these 17 responses were received figure 1

00:35:25 17 responses were received figure 1 summarizes the categories and responses received the number of responses received were less than expected and in fact if you if you um go

00:35:37 um go to bre three zeros four one eight eight six the previous document in number we can see that there were only 13 full responses we saw that from the introduction i think on thursday

00:35:55 you can see them across the page um do you know why the bre didn't issue further surveys to other organizations when it became clear that the response rate was so low 13 out of 45.

00:36:07 rate was so low 13 out of 45. um

00:36:08 um i think what happened is that um the contract would have been for bre to send out um an agreed number of questionnaires um so to do any more work

00:36:20 questionnaires um so to do any more work would have required renegotiation with the department and was there any um

00:36:26 um i

00:36:27 i it's very difficult to be certain but my recollection is the department had the option of

00:36:32 option of carrying out a more detailed survey and decided not to right as you say the department because you were there two and a half days a week on average

00:36:40 average were you party to or did you hear anything about that the discussions that led to that decision

00:36:46 decision not that i can remember um it would have been the conversation amongst them the sort of officials in the department can you tell us how it could be that the bre and government

00:36:58 be that the bre and government could gain a proper and comprehensive understanding of the current industry practice in relation to the to the over cladding

00:37:04 cladding uh of uh high-rise building stock in the uk when you only had 13 responses to a 45

00:37:11 45 item survey um it's clearly not sufficient to give you a good understanding of what's happening in the industry um but

00:37:23 what's happening in the industry um but i think the decision at the time was um not to

00:37:27 not to commit more resources to to trying to get a better better view but why would it have required more resources i mean it's just a question of just making sure you had a

00:37:36 you had a had a larger spread of um distribution send out the same document to more authorities well that would have cost time and money so someone would have needed to pay for it well time and money

00:37:47 needed to pay for it well time and money not really just a question of sending an email or licking the envelopes and putting a stamp on it no that's not free no it's not free but um

00:37:58 no it's not free but um well

00:37:58 well right

00:38:01 when this report was submitted to the department did anybody from the department suggest to the bre that perhaps more data than 17 responses uh was needed and that more surveys should be sent out

00:38:13 should be sent out so i never vague recollection of a decision being made that um not not to put more resource into this i'm right and that decision would have come to you

00:38:25 and that decision would have come to you presumably from or through anthony bird

00:38:30 i expect so yes and he was your line manager at the time did you have any other source of information

00:38:38 um also working at bre then so he wouldn't have been my line manager uh well uh you were working two days a week this is now 2000 july 2000 you were working i think two and a half days a week two to three days a week at the

00:38:49 week two to three days a week at the department and two to three days a week at the bre yes yes and at the department he would have been your

00:38:55 your line manager when there

00:38:59 it would have been the person i reported to right yeah fine um that will do then if we um if we go to page 10 of this document

00:39:06 document we can see um

00:39:08 um there's a heading third down on the page so sorry bre 3041887 again thank you survey conclusions and if you look at the first bullet

00:39:19 and if you look at the first bullet point it says this based on this survey it would appear that although the number of responses have been limited they provide sufficient data to form a consistent view of the types of external cladding systems used

00:39:30 cladding systems used in the public housing sector now on what basis did you understand that that conclusion had been reached

00:39:43 i can't answer that question sorry oh did you see this report at the time do you think

00:39:53 i don't remember seeing it but it seems likely that i would have been aware of it yeah and if we look at the responses from local authorities we can see those on page seven there's a figure figure one

00:40:07 and if you look at the red

00:40:10 the red columns returned you can see the numbers and the local authorities are england five scotland three wales one suppliers four

00:40:23 wales one suppliers four you can see the figures there so and one of those in scotland was a nil return

00:40:29 return so england scotland and wales is a total of eight

00:40:34 and it's acknowledged in the report that some of the information might be duplicated we get that from page seven i don't need to show you that would you accept that that is very far from a comprehensive survey of

00:40:46 very far from a comprehensive survey of the uk building stock um proposed by the select committee and indeed proposed in revision two of the bid for this contract that we saw last week

00:40:56 week yes yes

00:40:59 yes yes why was it so woefully incomprehensive um i think from experience and these sorts of surveys are often very unsuccessful

00:41:11 unsuccessful there's nothing to compel the building owners and local authorities to respond to them so you're relying on the goodwill of the people that you're seeking information from um

00:41:22 um and again from from the experience over the last four years it's it's clear that quite a lot of building owners aren't really aware of the construction of the buildings they're responsible for so when you refer to experience this is

00:41:33 so when you refer to experience this is experience that you've had after july 2000 not before it yes yeah this was the first time i'd been involved in any kind of project like this

00:41:42 like this let's move on then to the experimental testing program in 2001 if we stick with this document please and go to page 12 we can see there are two design options for a

00:41:53 there are two design options for a full-scale test to be carried out and under the heading option one towards the foot of your screen it says fire note 9

00:42:00 note 9 and it reads as follows from the information provided in the survey and in order to address the trend towards increasing thermal and acoustic performance in the residential housing market the following experimental

00:42:12 market the following experimental program is proposed this option does not provide any indication of the performance of built up systems or pre-formed insulation panels the tests would be carried out in accordance with bre far note 9 using the existing test

00:42:25 bre far note 9 using the existing test facility at bre cardington system type 1 u-value equivalent to proposed draft br262 guide requirements and then i'll read the rest to you set one rendered systems no fire barriers

00:42:37 one rendered systems no fire barriers standard fixing and then there are three tests mineral fiber expanded polystyrene insulation and phenolic foam insulation and then repeat with fire barriers and then over the page if we go to that

00:42:50 then over the page if we go to that system type 2 equivalent u value for system type 1 set 2

00:42:55 set 2 ventilated rain screen system no fire barriers and then there are four tests metal face panel metal rail mineral fiber insulation test two non-combustible panel on wooden battens

00:43:07 non-combustible panel on wooden battens mineral fiber insulation test three class naught panel or metal metal rails mineral fiber insulation test four class naught panel on wooden batten mineral fiber insulation repeat set two tests

00:43:19 fiber insulation repeat set two tests three and four that's the class naught tests with five barriers and then there's a price and you can see that yes um what was your role in relation to this test program generally

00:43:31 program generally um i don't think i had very much to do with it

00:43:35 with it really

00:43:36 really nothing very much to do with it right

00:43:39 right i mean let's take that in stages there did you contribute to the discussions about what was to be tested i don't think so did you see this list of proposed tests as set out

00:43:50 this list of proposed tests as set out in this document presumably you did because it's part of the report that was sent to mr bird yeah i would have been generally aware of it yes what was your understanding about how the various components were chosen do you know

00:44:01 chosen do you know i can't remember if i had any to do with that i certainly don't remember right

00:44:07 do you know what the technical or practical rationale was for choosing these products or cladding configurations no

00:44:14 no right

00:44:15 right were you not consulted at all about um

00:44:19 um about the makeup of these tests with an eye

00:44:22 eye to making to making sure that they could be adequately reflected in uh in the regulation or in the approved document

00:44:31 i don't think so no now it's the case as we know from the documents and other witnesses that a total of 14 full-scale tests were carried out with a third set of tests on

00:44:43 carried out with a third set of tests on composite panel systems do you can you can you take that from me or would you quarrel with that happy to accept yeah do you know why a total of 14 scale tests were carried out

00:44:54 14 scale tests were carried out no

00:44:55 no do you know how the testing program that was eventually undertaken was decided on

00:45:03 not for sure but i i assume it would have been um a discussion between uh dr colwell and the department um and would have been run past the advisory group probably do you know

00:45:16 probably do you know whether the ultimate program was decided before the testing began or whether it changed as the experimental program evolved i don't know but it's not unusual to change

00:45:27 change as you work through a program

00:45:31 now i mean we know that you were

00:45:36 you were the one of the authors with dr colwell of

00:45:40 of br135 in its second edition produced in 2003 yes yes and we know that the purpose of this program was in order to inform that next

00:45:51 program was in order to inform that next edition yes yes can you explain given that that was the role why you weren't involved as you say from the very earliest time at least familiarizing yourself with what it was

00:46:02 familiarizing yourself with what it was that was to be tested um the the test program was something that dr caldwell was focused on um i i would have been working on other projects when was it first proposed that you would be a co-author of the second

00:46:14 you would be a co-author of the second edition of br135

00:46:22 i assume it's in the contract documents to say that i was one of the team that would contribute to that um in terms of being a listed author i think that was probably decided um when when the document was completed

00:46:36 right

00:46:38 well at what stage did you were you were aware that you were going to be involved in assisting in writing it whether or not your name appeared on it

00:46:47 it presumably it was before july 2000 right um

00:46:53 um i i'm not sure

00:47:00 now if we go then to

00:47:03 to bre 3041882

00:47:10 what i'm showing you here is the client report prepared for anthony bird dated the 19th of september 2002 and it's called analysis of iso 7

00:47:24 and it's called analysis of iso 7 so

00:47:25 so 9705 european and british standard fire test data for br 135 project all right now that is what has been called the analysis report

00:47:36 what has been called the analysis report if you go to page two we can see again that it was prepared by sarah colwell and approved by dr debbie smith yes yes did you have any involvement

00:47:47 did you have any involvement uh in this report not that i remember right

00:47:54 now if we look at page well did you ever see it i mean it came to the department as we can see in on the 19th of september 2002 did you see it when it came through i i can't remember did anthony bird ever

00:48:06 i i can't remember did anthony bird ever show it to you did he discuss it with you did he ask you about it again i don't have any recollection of it at the moment right let's go to page five and let's see how we go page five

00:48:17 five and let's see how we go page five introduction it tells us there that 14 in the second paragraph as part of the review process 14 full-scale fire tests were undertaken using the fire note 9

00:48:28 were undertaken using the fire note 9 test methodology the results from this work are presented in bre report 209 169 revision one the systems identified and tested at full scale were also assessed at intermediate and bench scale using

00:48:39 at intermediate and bench scale using the following test methods and then there are five of them set out the first two are bs476 parts six and seven respectively and the last three are part of the um

00:48:50 last three are part of the um european um 13 501 test suite aren't they uh yes yes uh and um if you um let's go then to the

00:49:01 uh and um if you um let's go then to the the 14 full-scale tests we know from other documents that the tests were carried out at various times between the 31st of may 2001

00:49:12 between the 31st of may 2001 and the 14th of november 2001 but occasionally more than one test was carried out does that sound about right to you

00:49:21 to you it sounds plausible right well yes of course it does but does it trigger a recollection no right

00:49:28 right were you present at any of these tests no

00:49:32 no now sarah colwell tells us in her oral evidence day 232 page 82 lines 13 to 23 that you would have been present for at least some of these tests do you

00:49:43 least some of these tests do you disagree

00:49:45 disagree um i can't remember i may have witnessed one or two i don't know right

00:49:52 well you said a moment ago you weren't present at any of these tests and now you

00:49:57 you you say you can't remember you may have witnessed one or two do the best you can i've seen a lot of fire tests over the years um i don't particularly remember witnessing these um so

00:50:08 witnessing these um so um if dr caldwell thinks i attended some i may have done but i don't remember right

00:50:18 do you remember can you help whether uh debbie smith attended them do you remember watching a fire test in 2001 with dr smith standing next to you

00:50:34 and these are mostly small scale tests i'd be surprised if dr smith would have had time to witness one of those well no true but it also says that the systems identified and and tested at full scale were also

00:50:45 and tested at full scale were also assessed

00:50:47 assessed an intermediate and bench scale so they were both done full scale far note 9 tests and the bench scale tests so my question is about the full scale test do you remember standing underneath a rig

00:50:59 you remember standing underneath a rig in the burn hall of gaston with dr debbie smith and watching one of these um i think at the time these if the full scale tests would have been carried out at the um large building test facility in cardington

00:51:10 cardington which is a good hour and a half drive from gaston well do you remember going there and watching a test i don't think i ever did see a full-scale cladding test at um cardington right let's go to

00:51:22 test at um cardington right let's go to um a different document we're going to jump between these two for a short time and this is a a document called the closing report at bre 3041895

00:51:33 bre 3041895 you can see from the first page it's dated the 16th of september 2002 and it's called the adpm closing report review of fire performance of external cladding systems and revision of br e

00:51:44 cladding systems and revision of br e report br135 are prepared for anthony bird and as i say it's dated three days before the analysis report we've just looked at

00:51:55 looked at three days beforehand looking at this did you have any involvement in compiling this report i doubt it i don't remember it if we go to page uh

00:52:07 if we go to page uh two we can see that it was prepared for anthony

00:52:10 anthony again by dr colwell and again approved by dr debbie smith and if we go to page nine please we can see the list of the 14 full-scale tests carried out with the description of the

00:52:21 carried out with the description of the main components of the systems used in each

00:52:24 each test

00:52:28 now are you able to help us why it is that the specific products there aren't many aren't referenced are sorry aren't identified by reference to the product name or manufacturer

00:52:40 to the product name or manufacturer it was a common practice when doing work for the department to avoid making reference to specific manufacturers in reports but is it the case that the information was nonetheless known at the

00:52:52 information was nonetheless known at the bre even though not reflected in the document sent to the department i assume so you assume so so that would be normal practice would it um yes it would have been bre that's obtained the material so you assume

00:53:03 obtained the material so you assume somebody had a record of what they were right and how and where was that information recorded

00:53:13 i don't know whoever whoever was procuring it probably had a the information to hand but um as i say it was it was common practice not to put that into publishable reports

00:53:24 put that into publishable reports you say whoever was procuring it we know that dr colwell took the lead in producing this report can we assume then on the basis of the way things normally work that she would have had that information collated and stored

00:53:36 information collated and stored somewhere

00:53:37 somewhere at that time she would have had that information yes and where would it have been kept on what system in what filing you know

00:53:45 you know um

00:53:46 um probably in a paper file somewhere i expect do you know who designed the test rigs for the full-scale tests done at cardington no do you know who approved the designs

00:53:59 no i don't know do you know who installed or built the systems i don't know

00:54:03 know did you play any part in the design at any stage

00:54:06 any stage no

00:54:07 no now the full-scale tests that were carried out were done in accordance with the whanau 9 methodology and i put that to you but is that correct to the best of your understanding that's my understanding yes let's go back to the analysis report

00:54:18 yes let's go back to the analysis report then bre 3041882 page 23 weeks if we go to that page we can see a table eight which is a full summary of full-scale test results

00:54:30 full-scale test results and if we look at the 14 tested systems they're listed and the results for each are in the far right hand column you can see

00:54:36 see where it says far note 9 pass fail you see that yes it's i think it may be underneath the thumb print on your top right hand corner but yes that is the list you can see you see a lot of failures there and a couple of passes as

00:54:48 failures there and a couple of passes as you go down the column but if you look at the

00:54:54 at the last column there that you can see that three of the 14 tests resulted in a pass those are the there's a the two render systems items four and five yes

00:55:06 expanded polystyrene

00:55:10 core yes and rock will call with an acrylic render coat and then one of them under the composite panel systems item four rock or core built up system no fire barriers also passed yes yes

00:55:22 passed yes yes all the others failed didn't they yes yes you can see that now so we take it from that that two of the systems which passed we're in set two render systems and that's self-explanatory isn't it yes and only

00:55:34 self-explanatory isn't it yes and only one from set three the composite panels yes

00:55:38 yes yes but none under the rain screen system tests they all failed all of them yes yeah now to showing you that let's then go back to the closing report

00:55:50 then go back to the closing report um for the department sort of the date the report three days before 16th september 2002 bre three zeros four one eight nine five page nine having shown you that the tabulated

00:56:02 having shown you that the tabulated results of the full scale test let's look at some of the systems that were tested

00:56:08 tested page nine here is table one initial experimental program and here we have in table one under the heading rain screen systems we have set two and if you look at item five it says aluminium sheet

00:56:19 at item five it says aluminium sheet sheets mounted on aluminium rails no fire barriers and now i'm quite sure you won't be able to tell me the name of the aluminium sheet product am i right about that that's correct and i might also write

00:56:31 that's correct and i might also write that you can't tell us the name of the manufacturer that's correct but i also write in in thinking that sarah colwill on the systems that were used at the time did know it at the time and had that detail in her

00:56:42 that detail in her documents i would expect so you would expect so

00:56:46 expect so now did you appreciate at the time or had you seen this at the time you would have appreciated that these panels were aluminium panels with a polyethylene core

00:56:56 core at the time i don't think i did appreciate that right

00:57:02 it's one of the types of panels referred to in the literature review that we looked at isn't it taken from the cladding typical cladding costs from the architect journal no um let me try it differently dr smith

00:57:13 no um let me try it differently dr smith and dr colwell both accepted that these were indeed aluminium composite panels with a polyethylene core anthony byrd couldn't remember but he didn't deny it that's the effect of their evidence and

00:57:24 that's the effect of their evidence and i'm summarizing it very broadly would you are you able to disagree with that

00:57:30 um i don't disagree with it no and you can see on its face that these are not uh not pure aluminium are they

00:57:37 are they have a core of some kind

00:57:41 and from this document we're looking at now

00:57:44 now it just says aluminium sheets well it does let's go to let's go to page 10. uh

00:57:49 uh table 1 there item 5.

00:57:56 so sorry i'm so sorry we need to get my fault bre three zeros four one eight eight two

00:58:06 uh which is the document we were looking at before

00:58:10 at before uh and uh there's the experimental program there and uh it's table one and if you look down at item five under reign screen it says aluminium strike polyethylene core sheets on aluminium railings so you can see from that

00:58:23 railings so you can see from that that

00:58:24 that these are not pure aluminium they have a polyethylene core yes yes and now if we go to bre 30 41909

00:58:35 um we have a blank tabulated summary for all of the testing results there it is and again you could see fifth item down aluminium straight polyethylene cool sheets on aluminium railing

00:58:46 railing now i've shown you that say taking it in stages first i don't think you can deny that this was an acm panel with a pe core which was part of the test yes

00:58:58 which was part of the test yes and appears to be yes that's what the document showed that that is what dr smith and dr colwell accepted um did you know that at the time did you see this report at the time did you

00:59:09 see this report at the time did you see that an acm product with a polyethylene core was subjected to this test full-scale test um the only thing i can remember of that test is dr caldwell um coming into the

00:59:23 test is dr caldwell um coming into the office after having carried out the test and showing me a piece of the material she tested right you see she came into the your office after the test yes

00:59:34 after the test yes is that the same day as the test um i don't remember so the test was at cardington and your office was at uh when you weren't at government was at um at garston yes

00:59:47 um at garston yes and so she came just just talk me through it you can remember this can you she came into her office and showed you what did she show you um well i re i i i don't know what i was working on at the time but i was working on something sarah walked into the

00:59:59 on something sarah walked into the office

01:00:01 office and

01:00:01 and showed me a small piece of material which i now know to be atm right and said look at this stuff we just did a fine 009 test on it

01:00:15 we just did a fine 009 test on it and

01:00:17 and she described the mechanism by which it um

01:00:20 um reacted with the fire i.e the aluminium melted away exposed the polyethylene and then the polyethylene began to burn did you tell you anything else about what she'd observed

01:00:31 she'd observed um not that i not that i i think she said that it failed the test um right

01:00:37 right that's as much as i remember did she tell you

01:00:41 tell you how she felt about it in human terms

01:00:48 not that i recall did she tell you she was shocked by what she saw

01:00:57 my recollection is that the conversation was it wasn't it was an interesting outcome an interesting outcome all right so if not shocking then it stood out can

01:01:08 so if not shocking then it stood out can we put it that way

01:01:15 obviously in the context of this inquiry this this sounds awful but i i think i should try and be as honest as possible it was a an interesting conversation that was that's that's what i recall

01:01:27 that was that's that's what i recall right

01:01:28 right well did she report back to you and show you bits of other tests that have been done during this testing program or is this the only one

01:01:36 one the only instance that you can remember

01:01:41 um we would talk from time to time about very i mean dr caldwell would have been doing fire experiments and fire tests on lots of different tests a lot of different things people would come in and out of the

01:01:53 people would come in and out of the office at gaston regularly and talk about an experiment they just carried out

01:01:59 out and

01:02:01 and so it wasn't unusual for someone to talk about

01:02:04 about a test they just carried out did she give you the impression that what she had seen

01:02:14 was shocking or surprising or noteworthy to use a more neutral expression

01:02:22 that wasn't that's not the impression i remember having at the end of that conversation did she tell you that the test had to be terminated manually before six minutes if she did i don't remember that right

01:02:34 if she did i don't remember that right did she tell you that the flames had uh had not only reached the top of the rig but had doubled it and gone up to 20 meters in height yeah i don't remember saying that she'd tell you that she thought that the burn

01:02:45 tell you that she thought that the burn hall might have been put at risk test wasn't carried out in the burn hall was carried out at cardington garden cardington's an enormous space yes but did you you're right

01:02:56 did you you're right did you tell you that did you tell you that there were risks to the environment presented by what she had observed at the test i don't remember that

01:03:07 can we go to bre 3041912

01:03:28 uh now i will have to scroll i think to the left-hand side of this to take to see the results yeah thank you now if you look please at the rain screen system in the middle there row 15

01:03:40 screen system in the middle there row 15 under b aluminium oh sorry can we go back to where we were where please thank you

01:03:47 thank you uh

01:03:49 uh yep row 15 aluminium you see that and if you look at the results across the page

01:03:56 the page you can see a number of the statistics there but you can see that the the time

01:04:05 to external 600 degrees under column l was three minutes you see that yes and in the last column termination at 5.75 minutes yes yes

01:04:18 termination at 5.75 minutes yes yes uh and and going back to column n the insulation 600 degrees at 4.34 minutes yes yes

01:04:30 that that well did you see those figures at the time

01:04:33 time i don't think i did did sarah colwell give you to tell you those figures or tell you

01:04:38 tell you in outline terms technically what had happened during the test

01:04:43 test i don't remember ever doing that

01:04:48 i'm looking at those figures would you agree that that the far note 9 full scale test as identified there featuring aluminium of the polyethylene core was a catastrophic and very rapid failure

01:05:08 it's clearly very rapid i'm not sure how you define catastrophic well

01:05:14 well sarah colwell's evidence is that she was shocked at the test she said that those present were surprised and that this was a very rapid very

01:05:25 and that this was a very rapid very large fire growth that is all at day two three two pages 97 100

01:05:32 100 at 100.

01:05:34 at 100. anthony bird also told us that day 239 page 49 lines 12 21-22 that the result was surprising and and would you agree that time to external failure

01:05:45 external failure this three min being three minutes was at its lowest surprising

01:06:00 um

01:06:02 that's why it's it's clearly and it's it's a it's more rapid than than the other materials that were tested did you not want to know why the test was terminated at 5.75 minutes um i

01:06:14 was terminated at 5.75 minutes um i don't remember having that conversation as i don't remember seeing this data right

01:06:19 right i mean

01:06:20 i mean did you know at the time or did you get the feeling at the time that here was a test observed by your colleagues that shocked them or at lowest surprised them and on these figures would have demonstrated that the use of

01:06:32 would have demonstrated that the use of acm of the polyethylene core with an iso world insulation caused an inferno

01:06:43 at the at the time i don't remember anyone discussing this as being a particularly unusual outcome as i say i wasn't heavily involved in the experimental side of this project

01:06:55 side of this project so

01:06:57 so i didn't

01:06:58 i didn't that didn't register with me at the time when she brought you the piece of acm and

01:07:03 and told you about the test what did you think her purpose was in doing so

01:07:16 as this does sound awfully given that given the circumstances but at the time it was an interesting outcome i'm not even sure if i recall this being part of this program um

01:07:27 program um i think she just said look at this stuff that has come on that's that we've been looking at um and say described the mechanism

01:07:37 mechanism by which the aluminium melted away and exposed the polyethylene did you have any thoughts at the time along the lines of well we can't be having any of that above 18 meters in this country

01:07:54 i honestly don't remember thinking much more about it um i i think i assumed that that was i guess at the time i assumed that sarah was dealing with it but nonetheless she brought this to you

01:08:06 but nonetheless she brought this to you because you were the adb man so to speak what did you think her purpose of bringing this to you was other than to alert the adb man to the

01:08:17 other than to alert the adb man to the result

01:08:23 at the time it felt like a conversation amongst colleagues about an interesting result well it's more than interesting isn't it

01:08:29 isn't it and this is a conflagration a 20 meter fire you may not have known that but

01:08:36 that but given her reaction as she's told us uh and given the fact that she chose to discuss it with you can you really not tell us anything more than it was an interesting conversation no as i say it

01:08:47 interesting conversation no as i say it sounds awful now and and um that that's honestly the only recollection i have of that of that test was that short conversation

01:08:58 conversation uh

01:09:00 uh do you remember well let's show you a bit more a little bit more to see if it triggers anything else can we go please to

01:09:09 bre 30 is 41991 i think

01:09:15 and if we go within that to page three

01:09:27 no uh no okay i know what's gone wrong bre three zeros four nine four one nine one one not four one nine nine one this is a different document

01:09:39 nine one this is a different document thank you that's it and if we go into page three in this please we can see in page three rain screen three aluminium plus isolon metal and here is the chronology of a

01:09:51 metal and here is the chronology of a test

01:09:52 test and some of this i've shown you before but um you can see that at three minutes and five seconds molten aluminium drops off front face of

01:10:01 of flame reaches front level to 2c 2tc's thermocouples 420 flame reaches top of rig 5 minutes flame approximately twice height of rig 20 meters 545 crib doused

01:10:15 height of rig 20 meters 545 crib doused and seven minutes front and wing faces extinguished do you remember sarah colwell telling you anything of this the molten aluminium dropping off the front face

01:10:27 front face the flame reaching front level two thermocouples at four minutes and eight seconds or so 20 meters at five minutes any of that um no as i say all i can remember is i'm

01:10:39 um no as i say all i can remember is i'm talking about this mechanism of the aluminium melting away and exposing the polyethylene i don't don't remember mentioning um what's clearly quite a significant incident which is the the flames

01:10:51 incident which is the the flames doubling the height of the rig right do you remember any discussion about the fact that with molten aluminium dropping off the front's face you had a new mechanism for downward fire spread

01:11:04 mechanism for downward fire spread or mechanical failure leading to danger to those standing below it

01:11:11 no

01:11:15 mr milita i'm sorry to interrupt you but i've got one eye on the clock and i wonder whether we ought to be having a break about this time mr chairman that that's right i was going to i've got about a page and a half to

01:11:26 to i've got about a page and a half to get to the end of the topic but i'm very happy to take the break now but if it's not too inconvenient i think otherwise the second half of the morning will become indeed unreal yeah

01:11:35 yeah we'll take a break martin um i think it's time we all had a break so we'll stop there we'll resume please at midday and uh while you're out of the room

01:11:47 and uh while you're out of the room please as before don't talk about your evidence or anything relating to it to anyone else all right yes sir all right thank you very much well if you'd like to go to the air show we'll see you at mid-day please

01:12:06 thank you very much mr millet um midday thank you thank you thank you mr chairman

01:28:21 amazing

01:28:29 well mr millet uh if you're ready perhaps we could invite the usher to ask mr martin to come back into the room yes mr chairman thank you very much may we please have mr martin back thank you

01:28:52 mr martin are you all ready to carry on i hope yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller when you're ready thank you mr chairman um mr martin um two pieces of evidence uh

01:29:04 martin um two pieces of evidence uh which have been given to us during the course of the inquiry first sarah colwell told us day 232 page 100 line 16-21 that she couldn't see that acm would be

01:29:16 that she couldn't see that acm would be an appropriate product for use on high-rise buildings now did you discuss that topic with her at the time and when i say at the time at any time in between

01:29:27 say at the time at any time in between may 2001 and mid-september 2002 no

01:29:34 no debbie smith told us day three five page eleven lines seven to thirteen that acm with a pe core should never ever be used on tall buildings

01:29:46 ever be used on tall buildings did you discuss that topic with dr smith at any time between may 2001 and mid-september 2002. no

01:29:55 no not at all not not that i remember did you consider yourself by september 2002 that the use of aluminium composite material panels with

01:30:07 aluminium composite material panels with a polyethylene core on a high-rise building

01:30:11 building would present anything other than a grave risk to occupants in the event of a fire

01:30:17 it was not something that i gave any consideration to at the time and can you just explain why that is so

01:30:27 um the opportunity never arose to have that consideration my

01:30:33 my the only knowledge i had of this material was a five-minute conversation with a colleague following the the test um

01:30:43 um i guess at that point it was clear that it failed the test um and the view was it was therefore inappropriate views on a high-rise building but i never gave it any more consideration after that point

01:30:55 any more consideration after that point you say you never gave it any more consideration after that point we're going to come later in your evidence to look at br-135 but is what you're telling us that at no time before br 135 in its

01:31:07 that at no time before br 135 in its second edition was published in 2003 only a year or so after this report but you didn't consider that question the question of the the safety of the

01:31:19 the question of the the safety of the use of acm with a polyethylene core panel

01:31:23 panel yourself

01:31:24 yourself or with colleagues it's not something that i discussed with anybody or just never cropped up notwithstanding these results

01:31:31 results i

01:31:32 i i can say well you'd ask me that question but i can only answer honestly which is not something that that

01:31:38 i considered now

01:31:43 now we've seen that not a single one of the five rain screen systems tested under fire note 9 the full tests passed

01:31:53 passed those tests did you know that at the time

01:32:00 i don't remember it being discussed but it seems likely that i might have known yes i mean how how could you have written or contributed to br135 without knowing that

01:32:11 knowing that um i think my recollection of the drafting work that i did on bl 135 was to talk through with dr colwell what

01:32:22 what issues we needed to address in the guidance

01:32:26 guidance and

01:32:27 and we discussed different ways of trying to present that so does that tell us that the

01:32:34 the failure of all five rain screen panels and what i might put as the shocking failure of the panel of the rain screen panel with acm of the pe core simply didn't come up for discussion while you were preparing br 135 the next year it

01:32:47 were preparing br 135 the next year it sounds hard to believe but that's right it does sound hard to believe

01:32:53 yes um

01:32:58 now we know from the reports that only two of the 14 systems tested included fire barriers do you know why that was no

01:33:08 no we do you remember that one of the stated objectives of this contract was to understand the contribution of any fire stopping present within the cladding systems we saw that in the bid document

01:33:19 document 23rd of december 2000 do you remember that

01:33:22 that sorry 1999 do you remember that yeah say um

01:33:26 um if we go back to the analysis report 19th september bre 3041882 please page three paragraph seven

01:33:37 paragraph seven at the foot of the page it says that

01:33:43 uh paragraph seven the full scale test was the only method which satisfactorily assessed the system performance including detailing such as fire barriers

01:33:52 barriers now that's one of the bre conclusions from the project as we can see did you have any any part to play in coming to that conclusion or drafting that

01:34:01 that paragraph there i knew that that was the conclusion that dr colwell had come to on on the basis of the work that they've done right it's right isn't it they in fact that that's just a statement

01:34:13 that's just a statement of

01:34:14 of reality which is the bench tests and intermediate scale tests can't because of their nature assess the performance of cavity barriers only a full-scale test can do that

01:34:31 i i guess in terms of fire barriers it it's the interaction between the the fire barrier and the rest of the cladding system is what you need to understand you can test the fire resistance of the

01:34:42 you can test the fire resistance of the of the fire barrier in isolation but it doesn't really tell you how it would impact on the the actual fire spread in the system as a whole no but i mean what i'm saying what i'm putting to you is that

01:34:53 what i'm putting to you is that paragraph seven is not a conclusion that you needed to reach as a result of testing it's the statement of the obvious isn't it you don't need data or a test program to to tell you what's said there

01:35:11 i suspect there would be people that would have argued differently well do you know as a fact whether they were i don't remember at the time you know can you explain how the full-scale test methods method satisfactorily

01:35:22 test methods method satisfactorily assessed

01:35:23 assessed detailing such as fire barriers in circumstances where only two of the full-scale tests carried out contained any

01:35:34 i can't answer that question

01:35:40 now at this time this is 19th of september 2002. i showed you two reports 16th and 19th this is the analysis report of the 19th of september 2002. now at that time

01:35:52 19th of september 2002. now at that time um

01:35:53 um the version of adb was in circulation then current was the july 2000 version wasn't it

01:36:01 wasn't it yes

01:36:02 yes yes yes and that stipulated that as we've seen i think that the external walls

01:36:07 walls external surfaces of walls of buildings with a story over 18 meters were to achieve class naught yes yes yes the class naught is not a full system test is it

01:36:18 system test is it that's correct it's an intermediate or bench test yes and it doesn't allow a satisfactory assessment of the of system performance does it

01:36:28 that's correct so

01:36:31 so did the conclusion that paragraph 7 here not indicate to you in clear terms that the provisions in adb were insufficient because

01:36:39 because um the full-scale test was was the only method which could satisfactorily assess the system performance

01:36:50 i think that was bre's position that

01:36:53 that the only

01:36:54 the only the only reliable way of assessing the system would be to test the system at full scale yes and that therefore class naught

01:37:01 naught by that very fact would not do so yes yes or the linear route for one of a better term yes or the linear route yes absolutely and you agreed that at the time did you

01:37:13 and you agreed that at the time did you and you say this is bre's position you were an employee of the bre and engaged on this or at least in part on on this project yes so that was the so the view of my employing organization was that you yeah

01:37:25 employing organization was that you yeah the best option is to use a large scale test yeah what was your view personally

01:37:36 i'm not sure if i had a view at that time to be honest but i i think i i tended to put to recognize that a large scale test was the the best option well you say you didn't have a view or you're not sure what were

01:37:48 have a view or you're not sure what were you doing there what were you actually doing at the bre um

01:37:55 um quite a wide range of different things well in relation to this project cc 1924 this testing what was your what were you doing um the testing as i say i didn't have an awful lot to do with the experimental program on this part of the

01:38:06 experimental program on this part of the project and the drafting of br135 um

01:38:10 um i was working with dr carlwell to try and find a way of translating

01:38:18 findings into the the guidance document that became bl-135

01:38:27 when you say her findings do you mean these two reports the analysis report and the closing report which contain her findings um and the general conclusions there is yes

01:38:41 you say and the general conclusion say the answer is my the answer to my question is yes yes i see okay well we'll come back to that later um in a while before we do can i ask you

01:38:53 um in a while before we do can i ask you um some questions about intermediate and bench scale tests um you told us you weren't present at or didn't carry out the full scale tests were you present at all did you observe the carrying out of the small scale or

01:39:04 the carrying out of the small scale or bench scale tests the intermediate and bench scale tests i'm sorry i don't remember i've seen a number of those types of tests carried out over the years and i don't

01:39:16 the years and i don't recall

01:39:17 recall seeing the ones specifically related to this project but i may have done if we stick in this document please this is the 19th of september 2002 analysis report and go please to page 11.

01:39:29 report and go please to page 11. we can see a heading bs 476 part 6 and 7 under the heading at the top of the screen results and it says and the results um from

01:39:41 and it says and the results um from the bs 476 part six and seven are presented in table two the results from these tests were not as expected with only four of the eleven products achieving class naught all of the materials tested were believed to be

01:39:53 the materials tested were believed to be class naught products when purchased for this project you see that now just focusing on what is said um there not as expected um we know that it was the bre who had

01:40:06 um we know that it was the bre who had bought the products through a third party and then invoiced the department for them did you know that no but that's not unusual approach though it seems reasonable if we go to page 12 we can see the data which

01:40:17 page 12 we can see the data which reflects

01:40:18 reflects the results in the final column of the table and you can see n and y under the heading class naught um you can prob can you see that the final

01:40:27 final heading there class naught or is it obscured by the thumbnail it's slightly obscured but right except that's what it says all right um i can see it now yeah thank you and you can see y and n uh yes and no respectively

01:40:41 apart from being unexpected just looking at that what do these results tell you

01:40:55 looked like something that to be looked into as to as to why um

01:41:01 um quite a lot of these apparently classo products weren't classo did you consider that at the time did you wonder about that at the time no i don't remember seeing this data right

01:41:14 i don't remember seeing this data right i mean let's just work out the possibilities one possibility is that seven of eleven companies were not telling the truth about their product classifications that's that's one possibility did that occur to you at the time no because i didn't see this data

01:41:26 time no because i didn't see this data okay all right if we go to page 19 and first paragraph headed class nought it says

01:41:34 the results from bf 476 part six and seven tests were expected to confirm the class north performance of the products used in this project as the results show all the materials achieve the required

01:41:45 materials achieve the required performance levels in the fire propagation test bs476 part 6 but a significant number did not achieve the required surface spread of flame classifications there does not appear to be any one reason for this lack of

01:41:57 be any one reason for this lack of performance do you remember what the reasons were from which no one particular factor could be picked out as the cause no

01:42:06 do you remember when you first saw these results

01:42:09 results um i think in preparation for coming to the inquiry well so what not in preparation to do one br135 i certainly don't remember them right

01:42:21 i certainly don't remember them right do you remember anything about what anthony burr's reaction was when receiving

01:42:26 receiving this

01:42:27 this these conclusions and this discussion here you have 11 uh purportedly class naught products um which fail the part 7 test in significant numbers for various

01:42:39 in significant numbers for various reasons do you not remember anything about a discussion about that within government no i don't or about the implications no

01:42:52 no i don't remember whether anyone contacted the manufacturers to ask them or to tell them that their alleged class nor products had failed significantly to meet class north i don't remember any of

01:43:03 meet class north i don't remember any of this i'm afraid trading standards advertising standards authority did anybody contact them do you remember no right so as far as you remember it um this was a conclusion which simply

01:43:16 um this was a conclusion which simply which did not trouble the government or the bre as far as you know in any way

01:43:24 i would expect it to have been something that was discussed but i don't have any recollection of it it may be that they discussed it without me doing this now one of the four products did you know this that one of the four out of

01:43:35 know this that one of the four out of the 11 products which did achieve class naught mr mr martin was the acm panel with a polyethylene core did you know that

01:43:45 that i know that now i'm not sure i knew that at the time well let's just look at page 11

01:43:49 11 back to page 11 under the first paragraph under rain screen panels it says the aluminium cladding panels achieved a class naught performance when tested to bs 476 part six and seven both

01:44:01 tested to bs 476 part six and seven both their performance in the fire propagation test and the surface spread of flame tests show that they fully met the requirement of this classification now um

01:44:09 now um given the disastrous performance of that product at full scale which i put to you 20 meter flames termination at 5.75 minutes do you remember

01:44:22 seeing these results or being hearing about them with surprise no i mean this is something i've thought about

01:44:30 about as you as you might imagine um over the certainly the last few months um i've heard

01:44:36 heard other people's evidence um i still find it hard to understand why it wasn't uh something that was discussed uh higher to a higher degree but i don't have any

01:44:48 to a higher degree but i don't have any recollection of it at all and when miss cop but dr colwell came to york came to you uh after the disastrous performance of the acm polyethylene called panel in the full-scale test and showed you what had

01:44:59 full-scale test and showed you what had come off the test was there any discussion about the fact that it was nonetheless a class naught panel or at least that the manufacturer had claimed class north for it do you not remember any

01:45:11 north for it do you not remember any conversation like that

01:45:16 i'm not sure i don't think i remember any that was that conversation do you remember any conversation along the lines of how it could be the case um that although the aluminium sheeting system achieved the poorest

01:45:27 system achieved the poorest classification in both tests it was the only one

01:45:30 only one or the only product to achieve class naught in the british standard tests you remember no discussions about that at all

01:45:38 all i don't i still don't understand why that's the case but that that's that's it that's my i can only tell you what i remember i'm afraid you see as the adb man do you accept that this

01:45:49 the adb man do you accept that this would have been critical information for you to

01:45:51 you to receive because you needed to interpret it translate it to use your own words and take it back to government so as to know whether or not a change needed to

01:46:02 know whether or not a change needed to be made it made in the next edition if not before the next edition of approved document b

01:46:12 i think i agree i i i just don't understand why it wasn't given the

01:46:17 given the the prominence that it clearly deserved given the the the results but at the time it wasn't something that came to my attention with

01:46:28 attention with that degree of prominence

01:46:32 what did it come to your attention at all i don't think it did all i can remember is is this short conversation um with dr carwell

01:46:43 with dr carwell i mean

01:46:45 i mean you really can't think of a single reason why neither mr bird nor miss colwell dr cole willis i think she had become by then maybe she hadn't would keep this from you and not say to you look brian um this is catastrophically

01:46:58 look brian um this is catastrophically failed the fire note 9 test and yet it's got class naught we really need to think about whether class not safe and have another look perhaps at the select committee's recommendation now can you think of any good reason

01:47:10 now can you think of any good reason why that conversation wouldn't have happened

01:47:13 happened no something i've given a lot of thought about and i i i don't really understand why that didn't happen i mean would you agree with this

01:47:24 i mean would you agree with this proposition now that these results suggest in clear terms looking at the pieces of paper we've been looking at that it would be dangerous to allow national class milk to be used on

01:47:35 national class milk to be used on buildings as a standard for assessing fire performance above 18 meters certainly if you're using classo in isolation yes well we'll come back to the qualification in isolation in due

01:47:47 the qualification in isolation in due course

01:47:49 course because i'm interested in what you say about that but i think you but subject to that you agree and and and i think that would mean that if evaluated only on the basis

01:48:00 if evaluated only on the basis well let me try again the pe called aluminium products could never have been deemed suitable adequate

01:48:08 adequate to use the word for use on a building above 18 meters if evaluated only based on the euro classes either

01:48:17 because it would only get a b or d actually

01:48:24 um yeah i think d it is

01:48:29 you need to recognize that the core material is a key component of the behavior of the of the product and yet

01:48:36 and yet would you agree that if evaluated based on the national national classification system alone looking at diagram 40 an acm of the pe core because it gets class naught

01:48:47 class naught was considered suitable for use on buildings of any height yes

01:48:55 i think at that time that would have been the case yes and therefore used on high-rise buildings in apparent compliance with the provisions of approved document b at the time it would have met the approved document

01:49:06 it would have met the approved document it wouldn't have met the functional requirement yes

01:49:15 and you do i take it from your answers thus far that neither you nor to your knowledge

01:49:21 knowledge anyone in government or anyone at the bre ever considered that the national reaction to fire classifications should be withdrawn in relation to external walls of high-rise buildings

01:49:32 external walls of high-rise buildings because they were risky

01:49:40 not in those terms i mean as i say the bre's view was the most appropriate way to testing cladding tester cladding system was at large scale and what would be the point of having something that meets the approved document but doesn't

01:49:51 meets the approved document but doesn't meet the functional requirement what is the point of diagram 40 then at least applicable to this product

01:50:04 i think it's a point making is you need to consider what's below the surface which is what subsequent editions of the approved document we're trying to do oh what's below the surface it's a polyethylene core mr martin yes what is an earth let me ask you is the point of

01:50:17 an earth let me ask you is the point of permitting this through diagram 40 above 18 meters in circumstances where it would not meet the functional requirement

01:50:29 i don't think that's a thing that you'd want to do but no indeed but it was because the july 2000 version and indeed all versions up to 2018 of diagram 40 um resolutely permitted a class nor

01:50:41 um resolutely permitted a class nor product to be used above 18 meters and what was the point of that if a class north product would include an acm panel with a pe core which would never meet the

01:50:52 core which would never meet the functional requirements um well subsequently the the class naught was not used in isolation i see

01:51:06 um

01:51:10 now i just want to ask you one or two questions about the bsi and the iag see if you can help us with that can we go please to bre three zeros four two zero four five

01:51:34 um now this is a document entitled generic data supporting the revision of br135

01:51:41 br135 prepared for the industry advisory group for the revision of br135 and the joint working group for bsi technical committees fsh-217 and fsh-227

01:51:52 fsh-217 and fsh-227 for the fire performance of cladding systems

01:51:55 systems and it's dated the 26th of june 2002. so about

01:52:00 so about three months before the closing report and the analysis report we've seen from mid-september 2002 that was sent to mr byrd do you remember seeing this document at the time i don't remember it now

01:52:12 the time i don't remember it now if we go to page

01:52:18 three we can see the contents introduction summary of generic test data and then ventilated cavity systems render systems yes you see that yes

01:52:29 render systems yes you see that yes um now that only lists as you can see five tests under ventilated cavity and five tests under render systems the composite systems are emitted altogether and aren't dealt with take it from me anywhere in this report at all

01:52:41 from me anywhere in this report at all can you explain why not no have you seen when did you first see this report have you ever seen this report

01:52:48 report i have no recollection of ever seeing it right can you think of a reason why you wouldn't have seen it at the time given that it comes from the bre and goes to the iag

01:53:02 i think it would have been something that had been collated by dr colwell and sent direct to the iag um it's conceivable i might have been copied into it well it's not just conceivable and given that you were

01:53:13 and given that you were one of the authors of br135 is there any any conceivable reason why you wouldn't have been copied into it there's no reason why i wouldn't have been no right

01:53:25 right if we go to page five you can see that there's a table of generic test data for the ventilated cavity and the render systems there and you can see under the third item down ventilated cavity

01:53:36 ventilated cavity there's a there's a word aluminium under external finish do you see that yes and at page eight under system three

01:53:44 those are described there as

01:53:47 as aluminium based clouding panels can you see at the top of the screen yes um do you know why they are described in that way aluminium-based chatting panels

01:53:59 um i can assume is it this the consistent policy of avoiding directly describing a particular manufacturer's product well why not say aluminium

01:54:08 aluminium skinned with a polyethylene core cladding panels that wouldn't identify the manufacturer i agree that would have been more helpful is there was there some delicacy perhaps about identifying

01:54:19 some delicacy perhaps about identifying with any greater degree of precision this product not that i'm aware of

01:54:30 i mean do you accept that on one view that description is misleading because it does not identify the fact that these panels had a polyethylene core

01:54:42 panels had a polyethylene core i agree it's it's unhelpful did it occur to you at the time that that

01:54:47 that description might need a reader to conclude that the cladding panel was composed throughout of aluminium i don't remember seeing this report in in to

01:54:58 in to make a proper assessment of or comparison of the performance of different systems the reader of this report would need to know wouldn't they that the aluminium-based panels in fact had a polyethylene core

01:55:11 panels in fact had a polyethylene core i agree

01:55:13 i agree did that occur to you at the time no i don't remember seeing it were any members of the iag other than government or of the bsi joint committee actually told

01:55:23 told that these panels were acm with a polyethylene core i don't know is there any reason you can think of

01:55:31 think of why they wouldn't have been i see no reason not to not to have told them i'm surprised nobody asked why this system was behaving in the way it did was there any reason

01:55:43 it did was there any reason why that information would be withheld on the face of the document then not that i can think of i think it would have been fine to describe it generically as a composite panel with a polyethylene

01:55:55 a composite panel with a polyethylene core

01:55:59 was there any discussion that you remember at the time about the test results

01:56:04 results for the system incorporating what are described here as aluminium-based panels no i don't remember

01:56:16 was there any discussion at the bre within the bre to your knowledge about whether any steps needed to be taken for example by government to address the dangers which had been revealed by that test not

01:56:28 which had been revealed by that test not to my knowledge did nobody at the iag or the bsi committee raise the suggestion that national class naught should not be used as the standard for fire performance of the external walls of high-rise

01:56:40 the external walls of high-rise buildings given what this at least suggested

01:56:43 suggested no and and again i find it hard to understand how as i understand it this report was circulated quite a large group of people it was the iag and a series of standards

01:56:55 it was the iag and a series of standards committees um and no one had picked up that there's this what you might call an outlier a system that was behaving very differently to

01:57:06 that was behaving very differently to the others but one reason might be that the presence of polyethylene was concealed from them

01:57:18 um knowing what i know now if i saw this report now i would be asking the provider of the report if if it's aluminium and glass wall what is it that's burning that would be the question that would come to my mind well

01:57:30 question that would come to my mind well you were on the iag i think weren't you um i knew a lot less about the subject than i do now um why were you on the iag then

01:57:41 why were you on the iag then um as part of the project team right right part of the project team but not part enough of the project team to ask the bre

01:57:50 the bre what this was why it was there or explore it with anthony bird not at that time no so

01:57:59 um and yet you were the person with sarah colwell who was going to write the revision to the bre why the in curiosity mr martin um i don't remember seeing it

01:58:10 mr martin um i don't remember seeing it well i know but why the in curiosity why not find out what what the tests were what had been done and what had been shown by them given that you were going to write

01:58:19 to write a not just a publication but a publication that was going to be referred to as the standard the standard in the next edition of approved document b itself

01:58:31 b itself um

01:58:31 um i think at the time i left the experimental side of the project was something that dr colwell was dealing with um she explained to me what the um

01:58:43 with um she explained to me what the um generic findings were and i worked with her to try and produce a guidance document that addressed that

01:58:54 can we then move to the conclusions and recommendations in the analysis report back to the 19th of september 2002 just a month or three months after this document this is back

01:59:05 months after this document this is back at bre three zero four one eight eight two page twenty four we've already looked at conclusion seven on that page i don't need to go back to that with you but can we look please uh at paragraph

01:59:16 but can we look please uh at paragraph five here

01:59:20 you can see there that it says the aluminium sheet

01:59:26 i'm so sorry um

01:59:30 yeah item two the aluminium sheet product satisfied class naught requirements but in the full scale intermediate scale and single burning item tests proved to be one of the worst performing products

01:59:42 performing products now that

01:59:43 now that follows doesn't it from what we saw before

01:59:45 before in this report yes yes

01:59:50 yes uh

01:59:50 uh was that not something that you and anthony bird had a conversation about when he got this report on the 19th of september

01:59:59 september no

02:00:00 no you're sure about that yes i would have remembered it i'm sure

02:00:05 and was that not a conversation that you had with dr colwell at any time before putting your name to br135 the following year

02:00:13 year no

02:00:14 no really

02:00:16 really let's get to the closing report then br e

02:00:19 e 3041895

02:00:21 3041895 page 13

02:00:23 page 13 paragraph five which links to what i've just shown you the aluminium sheet product satisfied class naught requirements but in the full scale intermediate scale and single

02:00:34 full scale intermediate scale and single burning item tests proved to be one of the worst performing products has the current guidance in approved document b asks for class naught performance in diagram 40 these issues may require further consideration

02:00:47 further consideration now

02:00:47 now let's be clear whatever your role in this project was it was

02:00:52 it was at least to be the adb man yes to interpolate the results and put them into regular regulatory language yes yes yes

02:01:02 yes yes and therefore you would have been interested if if in nothing else then in this conclusion here at paragraph five yes

02:01:10 yes yes yes

02:01:12 yes yes can you explain why all this says is that this may require further consideration that's all

02:01:22 no i can't i i it probably needed well it clearly needed to be raised in in stronger terms i think why wasn't it i don't know and given that the test resulted

02:01:34 given that the test resulted in

02:01:35 in as we can see from the figures a catastrophic full-scale failure twice the height of the rig before six minutes and yet

02:01:43 and yet achieve class naught one of only a handful to do so why was this recommendation expressed in such feeble terms

02:01:54 i don't know i mean that's the slight sense mr martin here that there's some sort of problem

02:02:01 problem about coming clean with government and telling them that class naught was a problem diagram 40 is a problem and it's dangerous because once some products which achieve class naught

02:02:12 some products which achieve class naught are tested to full scale they are dangerous

02:02:16 dangerous spectacularly so that's the sense one gets is there anything in that

02:02:24 no um i

02:02:27 um i don't believe anyone at the department or anyone at bre would have deliberately concealed this and i don't i can't think of any reason why either group of people would have wanted to do

02:02:38 group of people would have wanted to do so

02:02:39 so the sense of the last sentence there is along the right lines isn't it government needs to rethink class naught but it doesn't spell out does it in clear terms to

02:02:50 spell out does it in clear terms to government that if they don't review class naught in diagram 40 people might die i might really what i want to know what we all want to know is why doesn't it do that given the results of the test

02:03:04 that given the results of the test i wish i had a better answer i don't know

02:03:06 know was there any any follow-up by government in response to the the advice that the issues may require further consideration

02:03:20 i don't remember any did you find out whether the department was going to give that matter further consideration or did you just leave it to the department

02:03:34 i don't remember giving it any consideration at the time did you not even try to find out what the department thought about that recommendation whether it even moved the needle whether it had come

02:03:45 moved the needle whether it had come onto anybody's desk i think if i'd fully understood what happened in the large scale test i think i would have probably done so but that's not

02:03:57 that's not something that i experienced and so didn't didn't do that

02:04:01 that well

02:04:02 well even

02:04:03 even taking the four corners of paragraph five here and nothing else was this not something this was this not to you knowledge that you needed to make sure your

02:04:16 that you needed to make sure your colleagues at the government knew they were new was on their desk and followed through

02:04:27 i don't remember this paragraph it's specifically my only the the

02:04:34 what i generally recall and i can't fix it a time in that is is that um

02:04:43 any design advice needed to take account of the fact that um classo shouldn't be used in isolation that's that's all i can remember from that time you see just just

02:04:55 you see just just looking at the chronology we've had the select committee and their recommendation we've had it rejected we've been through the harmonization exercise and we've had the 2002 amendments to the 2000

02:05:07 amendments to the 2000 uh version of adb and the deregulatory environment was a decade off into the future

02:05:16 what possible reason was there for government in whose offices you sat half the week not acting on the advice there oblique there may have

02:05:27 the advice there oblique there may have been

02:05:31 at that time i don't think there would have been any reason not to act on it and and

02:05:38 again it sounds awful but it just i think it just got missed i don't i don't understand how a result of that magnitude didn't get more

02:05:49 didn't get more um

02:05:50 um prominence at the time um

02:05:56 and so i don't think anybody that i was talking to recognized the need to do more i'm going to put five things to you which are

02:06:07 which are by way of

02:06:08 by way of conclusion from the evidence we've looked at thus far and i see if you accept them would you accept that just on the documents

02:06:17 documents government knew by september 2002 as follows first that the national reaction to fire classification systems in general and class naught in particular were not able

02:06:29 class naught in particular were not able to detect the fire hazard associated with the use of some apparently common combustible rain screen cladding products

02:06:36 products yes based on the available documents yes second that despite being able to achieve a class naught reaction to fire classification according to the national classification system

02:06:48 system acm of the pe corps presented a clear external fire spread hazard yes yes and that a pe called aluminium rain screen cladding thirdly was likely to

02:06:59 screen cladding thirdly was likely to present a very real danger with respect to external fire spread at height yes yes

02:07:05 yes fourthly that class naught was not itself

02:07:09 itself therefore a safe and appropriate classification to ensure that the functional requirement was met indeed as you told us you might have a

02:07:20 indeed as you told us you might have a class naught product but not meet the functional requirement yes yes yes and then finally the government now knew

02:07:27 now knew if it didn't know before that fire safety compliance testing was either flawed or not reproducible or technical loopholes were being exploited by manufacturers um to make false claims about fire safety

02:07:43 i think that last conclusion may be going far how else to explain the claim for class naught on 11 products when only four obtained that classification um

02:07:58 i think that's more of a question about the repeatability of those tests and i think that's a it's a it's a known problem with fire is that repeatability can be a problem

02:08:10 is that repeatability can be a problem but then that would provide another reason why class naught was not necessarily safe and appropriate as a classification for use at height but equally applicable to almost any other classification i think that's the

02:08:23 other classification i think that's the well other than non-combustible i suppose

02:08:27 suppose which is what of course uh

02:08:29 uh the select committee had recommended it's probably more repeatable what would i thought

02:08:38 now there's those at least four facts that you've agreed with were there any of those shared with industry or with building control or housing providers to your

02:08:50 control or housing providers to your knowledge

02:08:51 knowledge not to my knowledge now

02:08:58 it's right i think isn't it that the detailed reports and data from this project have never before this inquiry been released into the public domain

02:09:10 uh that's my understanding yes i think so they were circulated quite widely to the iag and some standards committees but they weren't published do you know why not

02:09:21 do you know why not i'm not sure um my experience over the years in the civil services is that getting

02:09:28 getting research published can often be a problem um

02:09:34 um it's something we've had difficulty with all the time i've been working in the department um for various um procedural rules um my own view is that there ought to be

02:09:46 my own view is that there ought to be a more rigid and prescribed system where government research is always published in the same way that government statistics are do you know who decided that these

02:09:57 do you know who decided that these reports and the data from this work should not be disseminated outside government and the bre and perhaps the iag

02:10:04 iag to the extent that they saw them um i'm not aware of anyone did making that decision did you yourself ever have caused to raise that question with anthony bird or richard harold at a later stage and

02:10:16 richard harold at a later stage and suggest to them that things have developed such that now these relate these results should be publicly disseminated so that the industry could understand precisely

02:10:26 precisely what they showed um

02:10:30 um i'm not 100 sure but i think i i believed that they had been published because that was the normal practice would be to publish government research so i probably assumed they were

02:10:41 assumed they were published you assumed they were published where where would why would you make that assumption

02:10:48 the general policy is that all publicly funded research gets published um that was that's been the policy as far as i'm aware for some time um

02:10:59 um i probably didn't give it any thought just assumed that that information was in the public domain

02:11:07 so you is this right you say that you would see you assumed that they were published did you i don't think i gave it any direct thought but if somebody had asked me i would have assumed they would be

02:11:18 would have assumed they would be somewhere

02:11:19 somewhere available

02:11:22 available what about after grenfell i mean when grenfell happened had you had you forgotten about these tests

02:11:30 um

02:11:32 i hadn't forgotten about them um i think at some point after grenfell i tried to track down the reports and couldn't find them

02:11:40 them and eventually

02:11:44 several months after the fire i think dr smith found some records of them and shared them with us

02:11:54 with us right

02:11:55 right and we'll may come back to that topic later

02:12:01 but are you able to explain why these test reports only came out during the course of this inquiry as part of the inquiry's own investigations and not

02:12:10 and not earlier

02:12:13 earlier no but it reflects my experience of trying to get research published in that it's um

02:12:18 it's um it can be problematic mr martin are you able to give us an assurance that you and anthony byrd did not sit on this data or your knowledge of it for the full nine years that you were a full-time civil servant hoping and

02:12:30 full-time civil servant hoping and praying fervently that it would never see the light of day um i can assure you that neither of us would have done that is there any innocent explanation for why this data was sat on between september 2002

02:12:44 was sat on between september 2002 and

02:12:45 and disclosure to the inquiry for phase two tragically i think it just got forgotten and fell between the gaps how could it possibly have been forgotten given what

02:12:56 possibly have been forgotten given what it showed

02:12:59 i've been asking myself that question for

02:13:02 for quite some time

02:13:08 slightly different point during the course of this project which ran from may

02:13:13 may well the testing ran from may 2001 and the reporting on it in september 2002 what was your understanding about whether the department would follow the select committee's recommendation

02:13:25 select committee's recommendation in 1999 that all external cladding systems should be required to be either entirely non-combustible or tested to full scale my understand is that the department had

02:13:36 my understand is that the department had decided that fully non-combustible was unreasonably onerous

02:13:43 did you or any others at the bre during the life of this project consider that it was a possibility that the recommendation of the select committee might be uh

02:13:54 uh followed or implemented at some stage or was it your view that the government had firmly shut its door on removing class naught and insisting that

02:14:05 that all external planning systems should be entirely non-combustible or tested to full scale i'm not sure we discussed it any any any point i recall but i think we

02:14:17 point i recall but i think we if you'd have asked me at the time i think i would have said um it's a dish's decision that's been made and be won't be revisited until there's a reason to review it what would the reason to review it be um if it came up

02:14:29 reason to review it be um if it came up in a technical review of part b of the building regulations right was it was it do you remember whether revisiting the select committee's recommendation was logged

02:14:40 was logged for

02:14:41 for further consideration when the next review of approved document b came round as it did in and after 2004

02:14:51 it wasn't something that was on our as a list of subjects to look at in for the review that became the 2006 edition does that tell us therefore that the decision made by made by government

02:15:02 the decision made by made by government in the april of 2000 not to follow the select committee's recommendation based as it was on evidence

02:15:09 evidence that it had heard was final and effective and not thereafter ever again to be revisited um i guess no government decision is final um

02:15:21 um but we would have only have revisited it in that review if the department had asked us to what would it have taken to get the department to ask ask you to you being the bre i take it for

02:15:32 you to you being the bre i take it for this purpose um so about that time when i was working for bre and starting that review um if the department had said to us this is one of the subjects we want you to look at then we would have put it on the agenda

02:15:45 the agenda now i want to turn to br135

02:15:50 and i want to ask you about the revisions to vr135 itself and the preparation of the second edition and before we do can i we just look at some basics um

02:16:01 some basics um you told us and we know and let's have it up on the screen so others can see it and then in 1992 the functional requirement was in absolute terms can we look at that

02:16:12 absolute terms can we look at that please bla four zeros five four eight two page 72

02:16:20 and i'd like that on the screen there if it could be expanded can we also have at the same time please clg one six zeros 12 page 86.

02:16:33 uh

02:17:03 that's um clg one six zero is twelve page eighty six here it comes i hope yes thank you now um just to be clear on the left-hand side of your screen we

02:17:14 the left-hand side of your screen we have the 1992 version of the regulation

02:17:19 okay you can see that yes first of june 1992 and on the right-hand side the version

02:17:25 version of the regulation as of the 1st of july 2000 and if you look at the left under the heading external fire spread b4 sub 1 it says the external walls of the building shall resist the spread of

02:17:37 the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building yes yes and on the right hand side although it's a bit a bit dark it says

02:17:48 although it's a bit a bit dark it says the external walls of the building should adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building so the word adequately has gone in

02:18:00 adequately has gone in now my question is did you have any involvement in the changes to that wording

02:18:07 no but i remember it happening what do you remember um

02:18:12 um i have a

02:18:13 i have a recollection speaking to an official in the department um and i think at some point um the drafting lawyers that work on the

02:18:24 the drafting lawyers that work on the draft in the regulations had been concerned that there was an inconsistency in the way the different functional requirements were written some of them included the term reasonable or adequately

02:18:36 reasonable or adequately and others were written as you say in in more absolute terms um and the lawyers took the view that there should be a consistency and they should all include um either the term adequately or

02:18:47 um either the term adequately or reasonably right and did you

02:18:51 did you have any particular understanding about what the word adequate connoted

02:18:57 um well insofar as the change the intention was not to make any difference uh in in

02:19:02 uh in in the the

02:19:03 the the the regulation the regulations could only require what was reasonable or adequate

02:19:11 so in terms of adding that word it was

02:19:16 just a

02:19:18 a good drafting practice to use a consistent consistent language in all of the um and all of the functional requirements um

02:19:27 um and the term adequately and reasonably uh really relates to the way that functional requirements work yes um

02:19:36 yes um why why why reasonably why adequately why not absolutely why shouldn't the external walls of the building resist the spread of fire as opposed only adequately to have to do so

02:19:49 adequately to have to do so are you able to help us with that um i think you're reading more into it than

02:19:54 than than was intended um well i'm just reading the word on the screen adequately and i'm just really wondering wondering why you are telling us that as you said um that the functional requirements work

02:20:06 um that the functional requirements work on the basis that that the requirement is

02:20:09 is one of adequacy and reasonableness as opposed to clarity and absolute outcome um i'm probably not the right person to talk to you about

02:20:20 the right person to talk to you about the the

02:20:21 the the nature of legal drafting but that was the conclusion that the department's lawyers

02:20:27 lawyers had concluded right and um i think all of the all of the safety related um provisions in schedule one are all limited by i think it's regulation eight

02:20:38 limited by i think it's regulation eight um which states that nothing can be required beyond what's reasonable to achieve i think it's to achieve reasonable standards of health and safety so the term reason voice effectively applies to

02:20:49 term reason voice effectively applies to all of the safety related requirements whether it says so in within the requirement or not right um did you understand is looking at the words on the right hand side once the word adequately

02:21:01 hand side once the word adequately re-enters

02:21:02 re-enters uh the

02:21:03 uh the regulation that the words having regard to the height use and position

02:21:11 position of the building assist in

02:21:14 assist in defining or circumscribing what is quotes adequate unquotes yes that's the intent i think i mean one of the

02:21:25 of the the problems i have with requirement b4 um is that it it addresses the two different facets of external fire spread in one paragraph and so that's

02:21:37 and so that's fire spread between buildings and fire spread on the surface of buildings

02:21:42 buildings so it's not entirely clear which of those two these different considerations are intended to apply to well it applies to well all right we can argue about the wording yes um

02:21:54 argue about the wording yes um with other people but um does it tell us that if as you understood it at the time the word adequate was coloured flavored if you like by the words having regard to

02:22:06 you like by the words having regard to the height use and position of the building

02:22:08 building does that mean that that what might be adequate resistance to external fire spread to for a building used in one way might not be adequate for a building used in another way

02:22:21 for a building used in another way yes so

02:22:22 yes so what is adequate say for an 18 meter building used to house olympic athletes or an sas crack unit might not be adequate for a 67 meter residential block which is home to many elderly or

02:22:34 block which is home to many elderly or vulnerable people that's the general principle yes right so is this right then that to the your way of understanding the guidance in adb um which might presumptively

02:22:46 um which might presumptively satisfy or allow the satisfaction of regulation b41 for one building might well not do so for another it all depends depends on the height depends on

02:22:57 depends depends on the height depends on the use and depends on the position of the building yes ultimately that's that's what the designers in the building control body should be considering right did you always see regulation 4-1 that way

02:23:12 yes i think so yes right so it was was this is this right that it was always your view right from the start of your career or once you became familiar at least with diagram 40 class naught to prove

02:23:24 diagram 40 class naught to prove document b more widely and the regul and the functional requirement but the class naught panel might be

02:23:32 might be safe for one building but unsafe for another building depending entirely on its height its use and its position

02:23:45 its height its use and its position yeah i mean that's a principle that i was taught as a as a trainee building control officer is that you should always revert back to the functional requirement when you're when you're so you're you understand the objectives that you're trying to meet

02:23:57 objectives that you're trying to meet um when you're looking at the the specifics of a particular building do you agree well rather let me let me did you understand

02:24:09 did you understand that the word adequate in the context of a stay put policy or defending place strategy would should mean no flame spread

02:24:21 i don't think i ever considered it in those terms i think

02:24:25 i think as a building control officer if i was presented with um

02:24:31 um a design

02:24:33 a design [Music]

02:24:34 [Music] where there was some doubt over the external

02:24:37 external wall performance i would have taken more care over a block of flats than i would have done in office building i guess is the best way i can describe there i might read that right

02:24:49 right and is that because any external flame spread

02:24:52 spread on the exterior of a building invalidates the assumption that it's safe for residents not on the fire floor to stay in place stay put

02:25:12 i think you need to take that into account with the fact that if you've got a fully developed fire on the

02:25:18 on the on one floor the flames are likely to attack

02:25:22 attack the next floor up regardless of the construction of the external wall well it depends i mean would you accept this that where a building had a stay put policy in place and therefore its use could be described as

02:25:35 therefore its use could be described as a stay put use the only kind of fire spread over the walls of the building which would be adequate

02:25:42 adequate was none

02:25:47 well that's impossible to achieve without having no windows so there will there always be some if you get a fully developed fire the flames emitting from the window are going to potentially attack the next

02:25:59 are going to potentially attack the next floor up and that's that's a matter of um unavoidable fact that's the coanda effect isn't it in part that's impossible yeah i think that fire dynamics is a really complex

02:26:11 that fire dynamics is a really complex subject too but yes it is but that's that's not the same thing though is it as a as the surface of the building on fire is

02:26:18 fire is it that's right yeah they're two different things exactly and therefore where the surface of the building is not resisting the spread of fire at all

02:26:27 at all the use of a building where stay put is in place uh is endangered isn't it um

02:26:35 i understand the point you're making um as a building control officer i would have

02:26:40 have looked at the approved document to get an understanding of what the secretary of state

02:26:45 of state yeah was looking for as a as a reasonable standard well yes but given the assumption in any state put strategy that the flame won't spread beyond the compartment of origin can we agree that any for any vertical

02:26:59 can we agree that any for any vertical flame spread across the facade up or down

02:27:03 down up or down would undermine the provisions inherent within a statement policy undermine the assumptions underpinning a state policy

02:27:18 oh and yes it would done it would it would

02:27:21 would negatively impact on the on the success of that strategy yes and was was that something that was ever discussed at the time

02:27:32 at the time to your knowledge within the bre or within the department or between the two organizations government and the bre

02:27:45 probably not in those terms when when we were looking at br135 um

02:27:53 um and the design of the fine note 9 test what the fire note 9 test which event eventually became vs 8414 test is is seeing is

02:28:03 seeing is um

02:28:05 um will the fire so if you accept that the flames from a fully developed fire will attack the next floor up which if you've they tend to because of the things we've just been talking about the

02:28:16 things we've just been talking about the next question is will it get to the next window

02:28:19 window and that's what the fire note 9 test is is trying to measure so it's not an absolute no combustibility but it's preventing the flames getting to that next window

02:28:36 yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment for the break thank you mr miller yes i think it is so um

02:28:46 mr martin will we'll stop at that point uh give us all a chance to get and we'll resume please at two o'clock and as i've said to you before please don't talk about your evidence or

02:28:58 don't talk about your evidence or anything relating to to anyone over the break all right i understand thank you very much so we'll see you at two o'clock we'd like to go with the usher please yes sir

02:29:15 thank you very much mr millet two o'clock jesus thank you mr chairman thank you

02:29:26 you