Anthony Bird (DCLG) gives evidence on BRE testing program development. Questioned about survey methodology yielding only 13 responses, design of testing options, aggressive lobbying between mineral wool and polymeric insulation manufacturers, and why test results didn't identify specific products like aluminium composite panels.
00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr anthony bird formerly of the department for communities and local government so would mr bird come
00:00:42 local government so would mr bird come in please
00:00:55 good morning mr bird good morning sir all ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr billy mr chairman thank you good morning to you good morning to the members of the panel and mr bo good morning to you
00:01:06 morning to you now on thursday evening when we finish the hearing you may recall that you were helping us with the structure of the functional requirement and how that worked in
00:01:17 requirement and how that worked in tandem with adb both in the 1992 and the 2000 uh editions of that document and you told us about the circumstances in which the word
00:01:28 the word uh adequate or adequately came to be in the 2000 edition which whereas it had not been in the 1992 edition or version of the functional requirement
00:01:39 or version of the functional requirement b41
00:01:41 b41 my question is do you have any insight into why it was that the original version of the building regulations in 1985
00:01:53 building regulations in 1985 as past
00:01:54 as past contained the word adequate and indeed the words of the functional requirement said the external walls of the building shall offer adequate resistance to the spread of fire over the walls first did
00:02:07 spread of fire over the walls first did you know that no no i did not sir right my second question is are you able to enlighten us as to any institutional knowledge within the department about the reasons why
00:02:18 the reasons why the word adequate was originally in the building regulations and then came out of the functional requirement in 1992. i'm afraid i i cannot you don't right so
00:02:29 i'm afraid i i cannot you don't right so from your perspective is this right that the word adequate was introduced in fact reintroduced in 2000 for the reasons you told us on friday on thursday yes right thank you now can we then go
00:02:41 yes right thank you now can we then go to where we were um on thursday evening which was the literature review bre four zeros one three five three please i'll just put the first page of that
00:02:52 i'll just put the first page of that document up again for you so you can see it in fact that's the covering letter but can we go to the first page page two of the document
00:03:02 maybe page three of the document just to
00:03:14 to see the document
00:03:29 i think
00:03:34 all right can we go to page four please we can just
00:03:39 see the title there and the date 30th of march 2000. now can we go to page 27 in it please
00:03:47 now there is the conclusion and we looked at
00:03:52 at this uh on thursday but if we look at the second conclusion there it says this the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external cladding systems
00:04:03 performance of external cladding systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified is it possible that that conclusion was in some way based on the
00:04:14 in some way based on the misunderstanding rehearsed in the report that diagram 40 restricted the combustibility of the external walls of buildings over 18 meters as we saw before i wouldn't have thought so sir
00:04:27 before i wouldn't have thought so sir why is that this was forming part of the initial work in the form of a literature review they would have found feedback and understanding
00:04:38 feedback and understanding therefore
00:04:45 as it was only tantamount to a literature review i don't think they would have wanted to say anything too much until they had completed the undertaking of the work so
00:04:57 so the questions that you took me through on thursday
00:05:04 spoke about the word combustible in relation to diagram 40. and i wouldn't have thought something is in the way of that statement would have
00:05:15 in the way of that statement would have then fed and drawn them to this conclusion in number two as we see here what were the remaining issues which had not been addressed
00:05:26 not been addressed by the 2000 revision of approved document be in some way but which the literature review concluded would be clarified by the review of br135
00:05:38 recollection there was a need to look at how we would utilize a full-scale test and therefore the past criteria
00:05:49 and therefore the past criteria would be going into br 135 there were considerations i believe you'll have to forgive me so this is some 21 22 years
00:06:02 forgive me so this is some 21 22 years ago
00:06:03 ago there would have been um considerations about all of the relevant section of the building regulation section 13. so it would have been considering diagram 40 external services but also
00:06:15 diagram 40 external services but also the guidance then provided in the 2000 edition in relation to external wall construction so
00:06:22 so i
00:06:23 i it would be quite a wide consideration yes
00:06:28 yes in the world issues issues of fire performance which will be addressed and the review of br135 would help to clarify any remaining issues by issues what does that what did that mean does that mean
00:06:40 that what did that mean does that mean problems did it mean disputes
00:06:43 disputes what does that mean i i don't recall right but it could relate to
00:06:49 relate to questions that had been raised it would have been cognizant of the points raised by the select committee as well right so how would the review of br135 help to clarify any remaining issues whatever they were
00:07:01 they were my understanding would be that br 135 was being revised and it could offer additional guidance that could support the industry and its appreciation
00:07:12 the industry and its appreciation of
00:07:13 of external wall construction um and cladding testing would it i mean vr 135 as revised provided a set of objective criteria which were pass fail
00:07:25 which were pass fail against it which against which the results of the bsa414 then part one test would be judged is that not but my understanding and recollection and safe please forgive me sir
00:07:36 sir is that
00:07:37 is that it also provides broader guidance on the types of installation types of thermal insulation and points to note such as cavity barriers right i see
00:07:48 cavity barriers right i see now during the course of this project was any consideration given to limiting all elements all elements of the external wall construction to materials of limited combustibility or
00:08:00 materials of limited combustibility or to non-combustible materials
00:08:05 from recollection i don't know however
00:08:09 however when you look and you kindly allowed me to take you through section 13 of the exam
00:08:15 exam adb 2000 as amended on thursday statements in paragraph 13.7 already covered that to some degree i
00:08:26 already covered that to some degree i think this was very much looking as to what where are we now comments coming forward from the select committee
00:08:35 committee and the undertaking of testing to see what sort of performance some of those products that were in the marketplace or coming onto the marketplace how they would perform
00:08:47 how they would perform was any consideration given at the time to requiring all elements of the external wall construction to be materials of limiting
00:08:58 to be materials of limiting combustibility
00:09:01 that would typically be a matter sorry sir to answer your question not that i recall no i don't believe so right and why is that because this is a piece of research work with a publication at the end to offer
00:09:13 with a publication at the end to offer further guidance if there were to be a consideration for something to be required that would typically be for the purposes of consideration under any sort of review of the building regulations
00:09:25 of review of the building regulations and the approved document b ultimately
00:09:33 now let's go to bre 3041887
00:09:43 this is a project report prepared for you dated the 24th of july 2000 and its title is survey summary and options report let's go to page three
00:09:54 options report let's go to page three executive summary you can see there that it outlines the results of the bre cladding survey and it provides various options for the large-scale experimental studies that
00:10:06 large-scale experimental studies that have been proposed in the original bid documentation yes yes yes now if we go to page six of this document you can see there's a heading survey responses and the report
00:10:18 and the report at the foot of the page page six
00:10:36 that says survey responses and
00:10:40 and in the first sentence and second sentences it says 45 questionnaires were issued of these 17 responses were received figure 1 summarizes the categories and responses received the
00:10:52 categories and responses received the number of responses received were less than expected in fact it's right isn't it there were only 13 responses received from recollection yes yes and we have a
00:11:04 from recollection yes yes and we have a spreadsheet which shows that i can take you to it if you like but take it from me that it does now my question is this with only about a third of organizations responding to the bre survey do you know
00:11:16 responding to the bre survey do you know how the bre and through them you could have gained a proper and comprehensive understanding of the current industry practice in relation to the over cladding of existing building stock in the uk
00:11:28 stock in the uk from recollection we
00:11:31 we it would be my understanding looking back that we would have utilized the industry advisory group and as we discussed on thursday it was a large group it
00:11:41 it certainly would have been quite correct in terms of having regulators building control bodies and the relevant trade associations who represent those parts of the
00:11:52 who represent those parts of the industry that make these products so
00:11:55 so in addition to actually bre going back out
00:11:58 out and trying to re-engage with those people they originally approached and through a discussion i i envisaged with the iag it ultimately would have given us sufficient
00:12:09 us sufficient confidence to move forward right so who took the decision to proceed without issuing further surveys to other organizations
00:12:17 i can't recall but ultimately as i say there would have been a discussion within
00:12:23 within around the iag and
00:12:26 and a retry back out to the industry and that final decision would have rested with the department at the end of the day but under best advice if if i may so just to add it you might have
00:12:39 may so just to add it you might have noticed over the course of the inquiry this industry is not the best at responding at times um to such surveys and similar and we've found and so
00:12:49 and so you know sometimes even when we've reviewed approved documents sometimes we've you know it's been you know we haven't always got the responses we thought we were likely to achieve this sort of thing wasn't necessarily
00:13:00 sort of thing wasn't necessarily uncommon right when this report came in did you or anybody in the department suggested the bre that more data than 17 or in fact as it turned out 13
00:13:11 17 or in fact as it turned out 13 responses was needed and more surveys should be sent out um
00:13:15 um i can't recall but i would envisage that this would have been reverted back to the industry advisory group for consideration well wasn't the industry advisory group there to assist the department rather
00:13:26 there to assist the department rather than
00:13:27 than to advise the department on what was necessary by way of survey the industry advisory group so was there to best advise the operation of of of this particular contract so
00:13:39 of of this particular contract so i envisaged we would have or bre would have engaged with the iag to get further understanding and appreciation to try and build dr col dr colwill told say sorry i cut you off
00:13:51 dr colwill told say sorry i cut you off no not at all dr colwell told us that the bre referred this back to the department and asked what you wanted to do about it that was transcript day 232 page fifty eight lines nine to twenty do
00:14:02 page fifty eight lines nine to twenty do you remember that i can't recall it no do you say she's wrong or you just can't recall i can't recall but i wouldn't i couldn't
00:14:10 couldn't see us not re-engaging with the iag to to further understand what we had and if they could offer any further advice right the benefit of having the industry advisory group there especially with the trade
00:14:22 group there especially with the trade associations and local authorities is that they could have potentially lent on people to further participate in that consultation now if we go to page 10 of this document
00:14:33 now if we go to page 10 of this document mr bird we can see that there's a heading survey conclusions is there in the middle of your screen and it concludes as follows based on this survey it would appear that although the number of responses have
00:14:45 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 in the public housing sector on what basis was that conclusion reached
00:14:59 envisage after discussions with and consideration of the responses they had back on the survey and potentially having tested it also with the industry advisory group it
00:15:10 with the industry advisory group it doesn't say that it says based on this survey
00:15:14 survey that although the number of responses is limited they provide sufficient data to form a consistent view there's no reference there to adding to that data the views of the iag
00:15:27 that data the views of the iag is there no there's not why is that i don't know because to the naked eye it looks as if the survey conclusions was based solely on the
00:15:36 on the 13 strong population of survey responses i could see how it could look that way and as i say i thought some 21 22 years later i would be most surprised if the iag
00:15:49 i would be most surprised if the iag hadn't engaged on this but i agree with you so it doesn't it doesn't read that way they may have engaged on it i can see that but they didn't carry out their own survey did they and then add the results of that survey to this no sir no
00:16:01 results of that survey to this no sir no um
00:16:03 um we can see in fact if you go to page seven of this document that
00:16:08 that the
00:16:09 the there's a figure we may need to have it enlarged
00:16:12 enlarged please if we could just expand it a bit you can see figure one questionnaire is returned by respondent type and
00:16:19 and you can see the different color coding move is issued and then burgundy is returned and beige is nil return and then there's no response
00:16:30 no response in
00:16:32 in i think light blue yes and if you look at that you can see that the number of surveys actually returned by local authorities in england was five three in scotland one in wales yes yes a total of eight
00:16:44 total of eight uh and there's an acknowledgement later on in the
00:16:47 on in the report lower down on page seven that some of the information might be duplicated let's just look at that if we can if we scan out um specifiers and suppliers
00:17:00 um specifiers and suppliers you can see that there may there's a risk of duplicates there
00:17:06 it's quite a long way isn't it on its face from the quotes comprehensive survey of the uk building stock close quotes that was proposed in the bid for this document
00:17:17 the bid for this document yes it is
00:17:18 yes it is do you know why that is
00:17:21 again from recollection the attempt was made to gather this data by means of this consultation one presumes there were further attempts
00:17:33 one presumes there were further attempts reaching back out and i tend to be insinuated by what you've kindly just shown me
00:17:37 shown me um and through discussions as i say the iag but i believe this is the best that they could achieve with the engaging of this particular part of the industry
00:17:48 this particular part of the industry if we go to page 10
00:17:51 you can see on that page second bullet point
00:17:57 down under survey conclusions it says whilst no one clear system was identified the majority of systems used by local authorities appears to be the render-based systems with rain screen
00:18:08 render-based systems with rain screen systems representing around 12 percent of the market because you yourself really consider that conclusions based on such a limited data set some of which might have been duplicated
00:18:20 might have been duplicated and in rain in terms of rain screen systems represented such a such a fraction of the market could could be considered to be representative or reliable
00:18:29 reliable i can't recall but i believe i would have considered that and again by virtue of who we had on the industry advisory group which i recognize here isn't referred to
00:18:41 referred to this would have been tested with both local authorities that we had on the group representatives from building control
00:18:47 control and
00:18:48 and the relevant trade associations the question really is did you consider at the time that such a a data set as it was with the limitations that i think you've accepted should have provided such
00:19:00 should have provided such a basis for a government-funded experimental testing program of such importance to fire safety i
00:19:08 i i can't recall but i i would have considered that but again
00:19:13 but again and i forgive me i i couldn't find any further information or minutes of meetings or emails from the iag
00:19:22 considerations would have taken place that whilst limited in terms of responses with the further engagement and discussion there would have been a feeling
00:19:32 feeling and an understanding that this was representative going forward did anybody to the best of your recollection on the iag advise you or anybody else in the department that notwithstanding this small data set it
00:19:44 notwithstanding this small data set it was fairly representative to form a robust and reliable base for going forward with government-funded experimental testing with importance to life safety i cannot
00:19:56 with importance to life safety i cannot recall
00:19:57 recall looking back if we can at the screen can we scroll up a little bit higher up page 10
00:20:01 10 and we see there fire breaks do you see yes and it says uh but the final group of questions concentrated on fire prevention mitigation and incidents the
00:20:12 prevention mitigation and incidents the use of fire barriers appears to be very sporadic and typical responses included only fitted when asked or unknown fortunately when asked about fire incidents the majority had found no
00:20:23 incidents the majority had found no problems with external fire spread although they had all experienced fire attack
00:20:30 now did the first sentence and second sentence there cause you any concern namely the response along the lines of or including only fitted when asked or
00:20:42 or including only fitted when asked or unknown did that cause you any concept it would have piqued my interest um having a background in building control and that's something um that ultimately did go forward um
00:20:54 um that ultimately did go forward um because there was a discrete piece of work on cavity barriers ultimately let in between this period of work and what led into the 2006 uh revision of the approved document b
00:21:05 uh revision of the approved document b but that would have piqued my interest and that would have formed part of the discussions right the industry advisory group right and what was that piece of work
00:21:13 work um
00:21:13 um from
00:21:14 from recollection um because of a need to re-look at the provision of cavity barriers within voids and around window openings bre
00:21:25 voids and around window openings bre undertook that work um it might have been dr coverwell actually ultimately um looking about how better advice could be provided in the approved document be and that would have been published and fed
00:21:37 that would have been published and fed into from recollection the 2006 revision okay can i um then ask you to look at page 12 of this document and paragraph um the second paragraph under the heading procurement and it says this it
00:21:49 heading procurement and it says this it is evident that the insulation industry has a number of highly active lobbying groups the approach taken by the two main factions the mineral wool manufacturers and the polymeric core
00:22:01 manufacturers and the polymeric core suppliers has been one of highly aggressive marketing against their opposition this is this has led to several articles in the construction press
00:22:09 press did you know were you told of the identity of the companies this report was referring to in this section i wouldn't have known that the specific companies
00:22:20 companies but in my experience of engagement with the industry i was very much aware of this going on and the general disagreement between these two entities both in terms of
00:22:31 both in terms of thermal performance and fire performance i'd i'd spoken at events as a regulator and i'd seen um sort of these two entities shout across the floor at each other in terms of
00:22:43 the floor at each other in terms of their their respective products it was well known in the industry did any element of that um
00:22:51 um highly aggressive marketing to use the word in the report involve
00:22:55 involve making extravagant claims for the fire safety of their product above 18 meters not that i can recall it was more a matter of just wanting to undermine each
00:23:06 matter of just wanting to undermine each other's products more generally right so it's product disparagement rather than um overblown statements about one's own product from recollection now looking at the next next um
00:23:17 now looking at the next next um paragraph it says this should the department choose choose to partner these companies for the supply and installation of their products for this project they should be aware of this background experience suggests that the industry sector will
00:23:29 suggests that the industry sector will wish to ensure the maximum publicity from this work to the detriment of their opposition and this may prove difficult to manage in addition it is important to ensure that the work is independent and free from undue commercial influence
00:23:40 free from undue commercial influence which is difficult to control when partnering with industry whilst we are happy to work with these organizations it may be more politically expedient to purchase the materials and services on the open market in order to ensure that
00:23:51 the open market in order to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in the marketplace
00:23:55 now as you say those companies weren't known to you by name and indeed they're not named in the report but but isn't it the case that the department would need to know who they were in order to be able to be informed
00:24:07 in order to be able to be informed properly when making decisions on whether to partner with industry for the supply of
00:24:12 supply of uh products for this project um
00:24:16 um not necessarily i as i understood i'm reading and being reminded of this what what was being discussed here was more about as it says under the heading of procurement how best to obtain
00:24:28 of procurement how best to obtain product
00:24:29 product we had various options we could have gone through the various trade associations and they would have definitively known which products they were provided and similar from either the plastic space side or the or the mineral fibre and i
00:24:41 side or the or the mineral fibre and i took this to be a very sensible suggestion that actually we should go to the open market and bring these products in
00:24:48 in because it had to be transparent and and robust without any of this
00:24:54 of this sort of
00:24:56 sort of lobbying potentially from either side i see
00:25:02 what was one of the concerns that these industry bodies uh whether manufacturers or trade bodies might attempt to bring undue commercial influence to bear on the research
00:25:14 influence to bear on the research necessarily commercial influence on the research they're more about actually making claims against one another
00:25:21 another why would that matter why would that matter when you were selecting products because i wouldn't from a personal perspective i wouldn't want the work to be detracted by
00:25:32 by press
00:25:33 press um
00:25:34 um and claims and counter claims when we're undertaking a piece of research which is looking at what is potentially being experienced in the marketplace it would be far better to obtain it from
00:25:45 it would be far better to obtain it from the marketplace
00:25:58 i'm so not sure i really understand why the fact that one faction was making disparaging remarks against the others product
00:26:04 product would somehow distort the way in which the department would acquire these products for the purposes of the testing program
00:26:12 program in short say what you buy the polymeric and test it and you buy the mineral wool and you test that does it matter did it matter what the organization selling these products were saying about each other's
00:26:23 products were saying about each other's products
00:26:25 being purest potentially not but it could amount to a huge distraction when what we were trying to do is answer questions following the select committee
00:26:36 following the select committee and so it was felt more expedient to undertake
00:26:40 undertake the
00:26:41 the purchase of these products from the marketplace i see so is that a delicate way of saying that when carrying out the testing you didn't want the department to be
00:26:52 you didn't want the department to be seen to be enthralled to one or other faction
00:26:56 faction no
00:26:57 no i mean from our perspective we sit there as a regulator um you know we set the regulatory vehicle in place that is the building regulations typically we don't ban products or
00:27:08 typically we don't ban products or similar we set provisions to control the use to make sure products can be used safely to meet the functional requirements
00:27:16 from my perspective and from recollection it was felt that it would be easier to procure them in this manner um and not suffer with the potential um distraction that might then
00:27:28 potential um distraction that might then follow
00:27:29 follow the distraction being what oh so typically if there was mudslinging going on between in the marketplace um
00:27:38 um it could it could call into question even potentially the work that was happening i suggest that could have been a risk
00:27:45 a risk but
00:27:46 but it's just something we didn't want to get into this was a piece of fundamental research to be undertaken right so again let me try this again it was the idea of getting this going this route simply to clear away what you
00:27:57 route simply to clear away what you might regard as what might call white noise to distract from the outcomes of the tests yes let's turn to the testing program then can we please go to page 12 of this
00:28:08 can we please go to page 12 of this document for lower down and under the survey summary and options report we can see two design options right at the foot of your screen now in the middle of your screen option one fine note 9
00:28:19 fine note 9 and it says this 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 program is proposed this
00:28:31 experimental program is proposed this option does not provide any indication of the performance of built up systems or preformed insulation panels the tests will be carried out in accordance with bre far note 9 using the existing test facility at bre cardington and then you
00:28:44 facility at bre cardington and then you have this system type 1 u-value equivalent to proposed draft br 262 guide requirements and you have set one rendered systems no fire barrier
00:28:55 rendered systems no fire barrier standard fixings and there are three tests under that mineral fibre expanded polystyrene insulation and phenolic phenolic foam insulation and then repeat of set one tests two and three with fire
00:29:06 of set one tests two and three with fire barriers
00:29:07 barriers and then if you turn the page to page 13 system type 2 equivalent new values for system one system type one set two there are four tests there metal
00:29:18 set two there are four tests there metal faced on metal rail mineral fiber insulation test two non-combustible panel or wooden battens mineral fiber insulation test three class naught panel on metal rails mineral fiber insulation
00:29:29 on metal rails mineral fiber insulation test four class naught panel on wooden batten batten mineral fiber insulation and then repeat test set two tests three and four with fire barriers and then there's a cost
00:29:40 barriers and then there's a cost um now
00:29:42 um now who designed that testing program option one that would have been bre it would have been bre do you remember that they came to you with this in there in the report from from well from
00:29:55 in the report from from well from recollection but this would have been first developed by bre and potentially thereafter tested with the iag but it's coming through to me as client on the basis of what the best potential
00:30:08 on the basis of what the best potential options for tests would be did you have any involvement yourself or input into this
00:30:14 this uh testing program i would have received it as a client after due consideration by bra right do you know how the various components were chosen not in the sense of their branded
00:30:26 not in the sense of their branded product but looking at what's on the screen the metal faced panel or metal red you know what the methodology was by which the bre uh selected i one would imagine it would have taken it back to
00:30:37 have taken it back to the
00:30:38 the review of the marketplace albeit i acknowledge the discussion we've just had on limitations and testing again with the iag as to are these the relevant products that are being experienced or coming onto the
00:30:50 being experienced or coming onto the market so there would have been i would have expected consideration behind it did the br did the department ask the bre to test specific considerations not that i recall right
00:31:06 now dr colwell told us
00:31:11 i should show you this in the transcript so we have her exact words can we please go to her evidence of day 232 page 76
00:31:27 and if you go to line two
00:31:32 uh she says
00:31:35 she says there was discus that was discussions with the industry group with the department and with ourselves fundamentally it was the department's decision as to which route they wanted to take because they were sourcing the products that were being tested question
00:31:47 products that were being tested question what was the rationale behind the approach which was eventually taken to do these 14 tests including some on composite systems how do they explain that to you it was answer it was based on the information and guidance they had about
00:31:58 information and guidance they had about the types of systems that were in the marketplace and needed they needed to understand what those looked like in practice on the large-scale test question at line 16 did they have information which you didn't have about
00:32:10 information which you didn't have about the types of systems that were in the marketplace and that they needed to understand or was there information all coming from you and the survey that you had done answer line 21 i believe they were
00:32:22 answer line 21 i believe they were having their own discussions internally as well i would suggest that they were obviously taking their own soundings i would expect them to have been doing that question at 25 was the ultimate program
00:32:34 question at 25 was the ultimate program decided before testing began or did it change as the experimental program was running and then she says she doesn't remember now
00:32:45 now down to the foot of the previous page we can just go back to page 76. mr bird um is there anything in the evidence of sarah colwell there that with which you would disagree yes
00:32:56 would disagree yes what please from my perspective as a client as a regulator we would have looked to bre with the industry advisory group to discuss and consider and then come
00:33:07 to discuss and consider and then come forward
00:33:08 forward with recommendations for the test program ultimately yes as the client i would have signed off on that is the agreed program
00:33:18 program however it would have been informed by the experts at bre by the industry advisory group they're in i would also please forgive me so touch upon and this came up i believe in the
00:33:29 upon and this came up i believe in the start of my evidence on thursday there is a blend going on of of a series of tests that were originally envisaged and from recollection it was then extended to to do more testing and this
00:33:41 extended to to do more testing and this does add to a blend here so it's not all in relation to what you've just shown me sir no that's that is that we've seen that we may come to that in can you course in august 2001
00:33:52 that in can you course in august 2001 there was a change in the program but your answer i think is that um in fact the experts would have done their own work assisted by the iag as to what in the market were the relevant configurations to be tested yes
00:34:04 relevant configurations to be tested yes sir that's your recollection yes
00:34:08 [Music] right
00:34:12 right taking the bre alone was it your expectation that they were designing the program based on their own knowledge of what was common in the market
00:34:21 market yes but with an expectation that they would engage and inform that further through through reaching out to to industry and the likes of the iag
00:34:32 industry and the likes of the iag was it your understanding at the time that the bre although a testing house and essentially a scientific advisory and experimental organization as we've
00:34:44 and experimental organization as we've been told
00:34:45 been told nonetheless had enough links to industry and your iag to be able to inform themselves about what was and what wasn't common in the uk built
00:34:56 wasn't common in the uk built environment that required testing yes and by virtue of that as an example one would envisage that the bre were undertaking commercial testing of products in the marketplace with private clients and that too would
00:35:08 with private clients and that too would have i presume informed some of their understanding and appreciation of the market did it inform your understanding at the time of the basis of their understanding i would have expected it to have fed into the reports coming
00:35:19 to have fed into the reports coming forward and and the testing criteria i see there's a slightly different answer to my question but but nonetheless pertinent so when you took when you received this document was it your
00:35:31 received this document was it your expect was it your understanding at the time
00:35:34 time that these tests were based on what the bre had gleaned either through themselves or through their contacts or through the iag about about common construction systems yes sir yes thank you looking then can we go back please
00:35:46 you looking then can we go back please to the um report page 12
00:35:49 page 12 option two right at the foot of your screen and we need to roll up please uh
00:35:56 uh find out option to modified fire note 9 and that says in the first paragraph during discussions it has become increasingly obvious
00:36:05 that there are several issues relating to the use of built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels that should be addressed as part of this project it should also be noted that the joint bridge standards committee working on
00:36:16 bridge standards committee working on the fire note 9 test method is recommending that a part 2 of the standard be developed to address the testing of built up preformed insulation where no masonry wall is present and curtain wall systems we currently have
00:36:28 curtain wall systems we currently have no experience of their fire behavior in this scenario now according to end note 8 just next to the word discussions the the the text of which is at page 15.
00:36:41 the the the text of which is at page 15. let's just go to that you can see there that the discussions referred to and
00:36:46 and at end note nate were on the same day as the report meeting at detr 24th july 2000 you see that yes and that's the same day as the date borne by the report itself as we've seen do you recall that
00:36:59 itself as we've seen do you recall that meeting
00:37:00 meeting no i don't do you recall there being a meeting on the very same day the report is dated
00:37:06 is dated we would have had meetings over the course of this contract have you any recollection of the discussion that's referred to no i do not but just uh this won't have passed you by sir but that was 22 years
00:37:18 passed you by sir but that was 22 years ago i know it hasn't passed me by no no no sir no uh and i i understand that but um but i'm really here just to dig around in your memory showing you documents at the time and seeing if they
00:37:29 documents at the time and seeing if they can trigger a recollection of any kind do you recollect the discussions i do not recollect discussions but i would add given the way in which we worked with our contractors if it's down here as having a meeting
00:37:40 if it's down here as having a meeting then i'm sure it would have happened so right okay now can we um could you tell us what the issues were relating to the use of built-up systems and pre-formed insulation panels that needed to be addressed as part of that proposal
00:37:52 addressed as part of that proposal i cannot recall as i've said but i should imagine there would have been a discussion along the lines is what do we need to do as part of what the original contract was to cover
00:38:03 what the original contract was to cover in response to the house of common select committee recommendations and then it might have amounted to a further discussion as to what else might be needed going forward and maybe in the form of additional testing
00:38:15 in the form of additional testing now looking at the final paragraphs of page 13 if we can go back to that please two pages it says this
00:38:23 under the last paragraph there it says accepting the budgetary constraints associated with this project the large-scale experimental program may be better served by considering a modification to fire note 9 to allow
00:38:35 modification to fire note 9 to allow built up systems and preformed insulation panels to be tested in order to undertake this change in test scenario a new test facility would be required the construction of such a facility would
00:38:46 construction of such a facility would reduce the budget available for the purchase and supply of full-scale systems but would provide a good basis on which to expand the scope of the existing guidance given in br 135 to cover the emerging market trends for if
00:38:59 cover the emerging market trends for if we go over the page which we have currently have no data this data could also be used to support the british standards activity it is not possible to offer fixed budgetary figures for this option but
00:39:11 budgetary figures for this option but should this proposal be considered worthy of further consideration a costing could be obtained did it concern you at the time that there was no data in respect of emerging market trends
00:39:25 as a regulator it would have it would have piqued my interest to understand that and therefore as i say going forward we would have considered what we could do within budgets to
00:39:37 what we could do within budgets to further glean that information so yes it would have it would have been i i
00:39:44 i i i can't recall reading it at the time but that would have interested me sir right
00:39:49 right what did you do about it from my perspective that was that was a point that's the benefit of undertaking research
00:39:56 research is to a point of learning to think about what further we might need to do in the future going forward now given the lack of data on emerging market trends and given also that the data could
00:40:08 and given also that the data could support the conversion of far note 9 into a british standard which i think was running parallel with this work at the time early 2000s did you consider proceeding with 509 sorry option two and modified fire note
00:40:21 sorry option two and modified fire note 9.
00:40:22 9. i can't recall sir but we would have gone back to i think in time to the budget holder within our division which was caroline cousin at the time and maybe looked upon working up
00:40:33 and maybe looked upon working up any potential for more funding to be made available to extend this contract did that happen from recollection
00:40:44 from recollection and given the work that was happening in bsi for a bs 8414 part 2
00:40:51 2 i believe it did not until 2005. i think okay so it came out in 2005. now the testing program that was eventually undertaken and reported was different
00:41:02 different from either of these options options one or two uh wasn't it i can't recall i mean the total of 14 full-scale tests was carried out yes if you say so sorry
00:41:14 if you say so sorry right do you not remember that no right and there was a third set of tests on on composite panel systems which was included
00:41:22 included you don't remember that not definitively but i have no reason to doubt if it's here sir can can you explain why the testing that was done differed from what had been proposed in this document
00:41:34 been proposed in this document i envisaged that would have been a discussion between bre and the iag maybe learnings were gleaned along the way that allowed them to pivot and think about undertaking alternative
00:41:45 and think about undertaking alternative methods of test right do you know how the testing program that was eventually settled on was uh was decided again that would have been further consideration of bre in its understanding i envisaged they would
00:41:57 understanding i envisaged they would have used the iag and then a recommendation to me as client for final say so would have come forward so you would have been the person within government taking the ultimate decision to go with the testing
00:42:09 ultimate decision to go with the testing system as ultimately carried out yes yes i see but you can't remember no what led to the changes between or from the system as proposed and the system
00:42:20 the system as proposed and the system has eventually carried out i can only presume it was further consideration um again when you're working to a budget and i'm no expert on undertaking research of this nature but if
00:42:32 but if they can
00:42:33 they can alter some of the tests which allows them to then gather data which precludes one of the other tests which unlocks that space for to test some other product that's how
00:42:44 to test some other product that's how they're trying to work
00:42:47 to work the arrangements but if that happened i i can't recall can we go then please to bre 406285
00:43:00 and this is an email of this of the 10th of august 2001 which i think you touched on earlier in your recollection and it's from sarah colwell to you copy to debbie smith and peter field subject contract cc 1924 fire performance of external
00:43:13 cc 1924 fire performance of external cladding systems now do you remember that this was mid program
00:43:18 program which i think it started in the may of 2001 and ran until november i i can't recall right now if we um cast your eye down
00:43:29 now if we um cast your eye down the email it's long and complex but if we turn please to the second page page two
00:43:34 two we can see that in the final three paragraphs on that page
00:43:39 page um she's proposing in outline terms proposing changes to the testing program mid program do you remember that as a an event uh no i do not but as i described before you
00:43:51 i do not but as i described before you showed me this document so that might not be uncommon because as you start to gather data and actual test data the learnings increase and it might then allow
00:44:00 allow uh consideration of what's to come in terms of testing it might be felt actually something else isn't needed right so they'd make the change and have to come to client to agree that right and then the last paragraph she's proposing a meeting at which to discuss
00:44:12 proposing a meeting at which to discuss the changes to the project and and the financial uh impact of that do you remember that uh i don't remember the meeting but if as i say we enjoyed a good relationship
00:44:23 as i say we enjoyed a good relationship with our contractors and given the amount of public spend on contracts such as this i have no doubt the meeting took place
00:44:30 place right now um do you
00:44:34 do you did you in fact approve uh these proposals
00:44:38 proposals for changes relating to the testing program
00:44:41 program i envisage i would have ultimately yes now um
00:44:45 now um we'll come back to this email in due course but if you go please to page one you can see that there is an identification of some of the products say for example mid way down your screen
00:44:58 say for example mid way down your screen you can see that um
00:45:01 um underneath the first list of six system types there's a reference in the second sentence there the reso plan it says reso plan was used as the class nought product
00:45:11 product and lower down the page there's a reference as you can see in the last paragraph on your screen there to rock panel
00:45:17 panel you see that yes um
00:45:19 um we can see those specific products we don't see identification of the aluminium panels referred to in item
00:45:27 in item three on the on the page in the middle of your screen aluminium panels on aluminium rails no fire breaks we don't see that yeah i do so yes yeah now why do you know why that product
00:45:38 now why do you know why that product wasn't identified no i do not um if we uh look
00:45:45 look at
00:45:46 at the penultimate paragraph on that page it says this um the results from the test to date show that the aluminium panels produce a significant fire
00:45:57 panels produce a significant fire now given that the aluminium panels produced a significant fire as dr colwell was telling you did you not think to ask what that product was
00:46:07 i i cannot recall um
00:46:10 um i should imagine we'd have spoken this through um and sarah would have explained all aspects of this so it might have come up in in the discussion right but nothing nothing in your head right now
00:46:23 in your head right now now going back to the suggested options for full-scale testing can i just ask when you read aluminium panels what did you understand that to me
00:46:34 that to me as written sir but the fact it produced a significant fire as i say probably would have led to some discussion as to what insulation might have it might have been
00:46:45 it might have been affiliated with in the test or
00:46:48 or in terms of it being a panel what it might have in it is its core but
00:46:55 but yes sir
00:46:56 yes sir yeah thank you right well just just building on your answer to the germans question
00:47:02 there are two parts to it one is curiosity about what the insulation was with which the panel was affiliated and the other was what it might have in its core
00:47:13 its core does that tell us that at this time so august 2001 you at least were aware that there were out there in the market aluminium rain screen panels with a core
00:47:26 from recollection there would have been panels that had
00:47:35 that had polyurethane and poly isoscinerate potentially within i'm trying to recall but again
00:47:43 but again typically at this time it would have been in relation to what sort of thermal insulation material it
00:47:53 in readiness for for appearing i have come back and looked at some of these papers
00:47:57 papers and there are references to aluminium panels and aluminum sheets but i there would have been a discussion at some point certainly with the iag as to
00:48:09 as to why that would have been a significant fire yes we'll come to that shortly yes i'm just interested in the state of your knowledge to the best you can recall it in late
00:48:18 in late summer 2001 about the presence of aluminium
00:48:23 aluminium composite material panels in the uk built environment at that time it primarily would have been in relation to what we more typically call sandwich panels
00:48:35 typically call sandwich panels so potentially aluminium with as i've said already polyurethane and polyester cyanurate
00:48:41 cyanurate that have been that would have been my understanding of the types of products at that time right you typically called them sandwich panels it was were those products used
00:48:52 it was were those products used to the best of your recollection and knowledge at the time on the external face of a building potentially they could have been but were they
00:49:04 and was it was it your understanding that they were out there on the external face of high-rise buildings not necessarily on the external face of high-raised high-rise residential buildings but
00:49:15 buildings but those are the sorts of products with polystyrene as well that were being utilized on large single-story retail buildings and similar
00:49:25 not necessarily yeah in relation to those sorts of out-of-town developments for shops and and
00:49:32 and diy stores what if they were only being used on
00:49:36 used on single-story buildings then why test them under this test program which was a test program designed around the bs8414 test i say rounded designed on the basis of
00:49:48 i say rounded designed on the basis of the principles contained in it but as you showed me on thursday sir this was one example of a potential product that was coming forward i think there were costs affiliated with the architect's
00:50:00 costs affiliated with the architect's journal so i just envisioned that that fed in to help formulate what the test regime might look like
00:50:11 might look like now can we um go please
00:50:14 go please to
00:50:17 uh well
00:50:20 well let me take it more shortly in fact the ventilate
00:50:25 the tests that were set out in uh under the rendered system tests in set one which were tests two and three we saw earlier weren't all repeated with fire barriers were they
00:50:36 fire barriers were they not that i can record no do you know why that was
00:50:39 that was no i don't and similarly the ventilated rain screen systems in set two tests three and four they also were not repeated with fire barriers again do you know why that was uh no i do not know
00:50:50 uh no i do not know in fact did you know that of the 14 full-scale tests undertaken in the end only two
00:50:56 only two render
00:50:57 render and rain screen one render one rain screen contained fire barriers did you know that
00:51:03 know that i would have at the time yes and there would have been discussions with the iag as to why that be the case and what was the upshot of those discussions i should imagine there was interest in testing the actual
00:51:16 there was interest in testing the actual product itself in terms of the outer external part of the product and therefore one would envisage that you would get better performance if you had
00:51:27 had fire cavity barriers within the voids right that's that's me just trying to recall right and do you remember who you discussed this with at the iag for my recollection it would have been
00:51:38 for my recollection it would have been discussed generally overnight and
00:51:41 and when you refer to testing the actual product itself do you mean small scale or bench scale tests um as opposed to a full system test
00:51:53 um as opposed to a full system test it apologies is this not the full system this is the full scope this is the full system yeah well you wouldn't typically utilize cavity barriers in small scale and bench tests necessarily no so what
00:52:04 and bench tests necessarily no so what would you exactly that's right so i i i visited you yeah i visited you it would have been in relation to the full-scale test right oh i see right um now can we then go to bre
00:52:16 um now can we then go to bre eight 3041882
00:52:20 and we can see on page one that this is an analysis report we'll we'll wait for it to come bre three series four one eight eight two
00:52:28 two client report analysis of iso 9705 european and british standard fire test data for br135 project and it's prepared for you and it's dated the 19th of
00:52:40 for you and it's dated the 19th of september 2002 and note the date mr bird and i'm going to call it the analysis report but remember it bears that date if we go to page five of this document
00:52:52 if we go to page five of this document there is an introduction section and
00:52:57 and if you look at it it tells us in the second paragraph there that 14 full-scale fire tests were undertaken using the fire note 9 test methodology the results from this work are presented in bre report 209 169 revision 1.
00:53:12 in bre report 209 169 revision 1. the systems identified and tested at full scale were also assessed at intermediate and bench scale using the following test methods and there are as you see the first two bullet points to the national
00:53:23 bullet points to the national classification which would lead to a class naught classification and the last three are part of the euro-class testing regime
00:53:30 regime yes
00:53:31 yes yes
00:53:33 yes um
00:53:34 um if we go
00:53:36 if we go we're going to come back to this document in in due course probably back and forth but if we go for the moment to the bre's closing report for this project dated three days beforehand the
00:53:47 project dated three days beforehand the 16th of september 2002 that is at bre 30 41895
00:53:53 41895 can we go to that i'll show you the first page of that it's called odpm closing report prepared for you dated the 16th of september 2002. yes so you got these
00:54:06 september 2002. yes so you got these reports three days apart um
00:54:09 um if you go to page nine in that you can see that there is a list there uh of the 14 full-scale tests which were carried out under table one initial experimental program you see that yes five under
00:54:21 program you see that yes five under range screen five under render and four under composite panel systems with the description of each of the main components in each test now again you can see identification of the rock panel and reset plan
00:54:33 of the rock panel and reset plan products
00:54:35 products and rockwool as a core as you can see from for example uh the render system test item five do you know why the other specific products are not identified by reference
00:54:46 products are not identified by reference to the product's name and manufacturer no i do not did it strike you at the time that that is something you want to know
00:54:57 i suppose when you look at the name rockwell it's quite synonymous in the marketplace as being the largest player but
00:55:06 but it's only you you're pointing it out now so that i i see it there in terms of it being treated the same way it would have said
00:55:14 said mineral fiber yeah mineral fiber or rock fiber so no i wasn't aware of that you weren't and no it would follow from that i think that you didn't at the time know the identity of the specific products and
00:55:25 identity of the specific products and manufacturers and didn't ask correct
00:55:36 not that i can recall there might have been
00:55:40 been discussions with bre as to
00:55:46 some of the products i can't recall so well let's see how we go focusing on the specific products dr colwell told us in her evidence and i'll just give you the reference it's
00:55:57 i'll just give you the reference it's day 232 page 84 lines 5-15 that that information was known at the time
00:56:05 time but it was the department's decision not to put the actual manufacturing det manufacturer's details or full specifications into these types of reports that was that was her evidence is she right about that yes
00:56:17 is she right about that yes so there was a decision not notwithstanding that the department knew what these products were not to identify them on the face of um the bre's report oh sorry i'm getting
00:56:28 um the bre's report oh sorry i'm getting confused are you in relation to not identifying these products in the
00:56:34 the closing report just for the department or are you talking more generally about not actually setting out who the manufacturers were for the wider consideration by
00:56:47 for the wider consideration by iag and similar uh well you're asking me
00:56:55 me well which is it i mean first of all let's take it in stages is she right i think you agreed that she was right that the the identification the identity of the product and the manufacturer was known
00:57:07 manufacturer was known to the bre at the time it would have been known to the bra was it known to the department at the time i can't recall but i right now i can't was the decision taken by the department
00:57:19 was the decision taken by the department not to identify these the products on the face of the report given by the bre to the department there was no decision made by us to say do not place
00:57:31 do not place the names of products in there what i was referring to so was in relation to the wider availability of ultimately the work to the iag and ultimately the
00:57:42 the work to the iag and ultimately the bsi committee as we touched upon at the start given the concerns and their their essay the mudslinging going on between the relevant parts of the industry it was
00:57:53 relevant parts of the industry it was those reports where they weren't providing definitive trade names they should have been providing discrete but suitably detailed
00:58:05 suitably detailed definitions of what they had tested
00:58:10 when you saw this report did it occur to you to ask the bre to identify the for example the aluminium sheet by by product and by manufacturer in the same way that they identified rock panel
00:58:21 same way that they identified rock panel rockwool and reza plan i don't recall but
00:58:25 but it's only you pointing out that it says rockwall there now that i realized it wasn't named there right so is it your evidence that although the bre knew knew what this was there was no decision by the department not to know
00:58:37 decision by the department not to know it for itself it was correct that's right yes sir now we looked earlier at the advice given by the bre to the department of the survey summary adoptions report
00:58:48 the survey summary adoptions report relating to partnering with manufacturers and the potential dangers in that
00:58:52 in that had the department decided to follow that advice yes
00:58:57 yes do you know who funded the full-scale testing it would have been the department no partnering with industry then
00:59:02 then not from recollection no no it would have been departmental publicly funded so can you be clear there were no manufacturers or industry organizations involved in funding any of these tests
00:59:13 involved in funding any of these tests that's correct
00:59:18 and can you confirm that the products which were incorporated into these tests whether or not identified were bought on the open market from recollection
00:59:29 from recollection bre
00:59:30 bre engaged a third party to help them do that so that is correct you know who that was no i don't did you do any due diligence on whether they were the sorts of people who should be um involved in that sort of uh
00:59:41 um involved in that sort of uh procurement exercise i can't recall if i did but
00:59:44 did but typically i wouldn't have undertaken such work because the expectation and the contract resided with the bre and i had and they were used to undertaking such tasks to bring products in for
00:59:55 such tasks to bring products in for testing so you had no oversight of that and no
00:59:59 and no supervisory role in relation to that procurement exercise and then
01:00:04 and then sticking with table one looking at set two if we can um which is entitled brain screen system set two
01:00:13 set two which was set to in the report item five aluminium sheets and were you aware that this was a polyethylene cord acm panel not that i could recall that was sarah
01:00:25 not that i could recall that was sarah caldwell's evidence and in fact it's clear in the bre analysis but but you weren't you don't recall being aware of that thing you know you may not recall it but can you deny it sitting there now no i can't
01:00:37 you deny it sitting there now no i can't deny no sir did you attend the test of that product yes i don't believe so no now looking more closely at the results of the testing on the rain screen system with the pe called aluminium cladding can we go to
01:00:49 aluminium cladding can we go to um
01:00:50 um page 23
01:00:53 page 23 of bre triple zero four one eight eight two which is the uh analysis report that's bre three zero four one eight eight two page twenty three
01:01:03 three this is table eight uh and you can see the results for test five aluminium sheets mounted on aluminium rails no fire barriers and then across the page
01:01:15 then across the page there are some figures now um
01:01:20 now um looking at those figures are you able to understand them yes
01:01:27 do you agree that that system reached the far note 9 failure criteria as it then was
01:01:31 then was extremely rapidly yes and if you if you look along row 5 you can see that the time to external failure was 3.0 minutes yes yes
01:01:40 yes yes and the time to internal failure which is insulation was through 4.34 minutes yes yes that is a very poor result isn't it my understanding is sir were you surprised by it
01:01:53 it would have warranted discussion well yes were you surprised by it yes yes
01:02:00 yes now this was a class naught product wasn't it
01:02:03 wasn't it i understand so yes yes we're going to come on to it it is confirmed in this report at page 11 but we'll look and we'll look at that in a moment but um if we go to page three of the closing report three days
01:02:15 three of the closing report three days before that's bre three zeros four one nine eleven four one line one one at page three we can see the detailed observations from this test
01:02:26 observations from this test the results of which we've just seen yes there they are yes rain screen three aluminium plus iso wool on metal and there's a number
01:02:37 and there's a number do you know who recorded those observations no i do not and you can see that at three minutes and five seconds molten aluminium drops off front face
01:02:48 molten aluminium drops off front face yes yes do you remember reading that particular observation i don't remember reading it it's really reading the set of observations no i don't but the data you showed me previously sir
01:03:00 the data you showed me previously sir had shown me uh the pace of which the the the test had proceeded but i don't specifically remember reading this do you remember seeing that
01:03:13 do you remember seeing that at four minutes and 20 seconds the flames had reached the top of the rig 10 meters
01:03:19 meters i i don't recall seeing it uh as i've already said but as i say i envisage that given all of the results this would have been discussed with the iag
01:03:30 with the iag and similar so it i believe visited a discussion would have taken place and
01:03:37 and looking at the results two down from that five minutes flame approximately twice height of rig 20 meters do you remember noting that i i'm sure i did what did you conclude
01:03:50 i i'm sure i did what did you conclude from it
01:03:51 from it um i suppose the backdrop to this of course is well that this is a full-scale test
01:03:56 test and it is being utilized to work through what the past fail criteria should be for ultimately and i would have thought in addition to the other failures that
01:04:07 that it was imperative that obviously this insight and learning fed into the work that was to take next place within bsi and on br 135 to make sure that this was captured so
01:04:18 this was captured so in the undertaking of a full-scale test this would fail
01:04:24 yes and one could describe the results in different human terms but would you agree
01:04:28 agree that this is a catastrophic escalation of a fire it's a very fierce fast fire yes and
01:04:35 yes and were you alarmed when you saw the results and the chronology did you have any as i say i'm trying to recall but given
01:04:47 as i say i'm trying to recall but given this
01:04:48 this there would have been discussions where this was described to us by bre so i would have it would have focused my attention yes and in focusing your attention do you
01:04:59 and in focusing your attention do you recall
01:05:01 recall the bre
01:05:02 the bre communicating their own sense of shock that they had felt when observing this test and its results no i cannot who was it
01:05:13 no i cannot who was it within the bre with whom you discussed this result
01:05:17 i can't recall but i would envisage it would have been at whatever point with the iag or in providing an update it would have been dr caldwell right now who at the
01:05:29 been dr caldwell right now who at the iag would you have had these discussions
01:05:34 again i'm trying to recall in terms of making the information available to the iag there could have been just a broad discussion as to where they were finding
01:05:45 where they were finding results that would be of concern or of relevance but
01:05:51 but thinking about who we had on there the other regulators my equivalents would have had an interest in this the representative from building control and some of the relevant trade
01:06:03 and some of the relevant trade associations i believe we had the relevant trade association for the aluminium sector so i envisaged they would have had interest in this too
01:06:14 interest in this too and what did they say i can't i can't i can't even recall the discussion so did you have a structured system of meeting them after the results and these reports came in did you have a
01:06:26 did you have a a formal meeting with them to discuss the results and what should be done about it
01:06:30 about it i i i should imagine it would have been a blend of meetings and emails and similar i
01:06:37 similar i i i can't recall right
01:06:41 do you remember what what the iag told you about this test no i can't recall whose responsibility was it to brief you or explain to you the
01:06:53 to brief you or explain to you the significance of these results that would have been bre
01:06:58 did they
01:07:02 i can't recall ever being told in terms of the severity of what was witnessed but that's not to say i i wasn't taken through some of the broad findings but i
01:07:14 through some of the broad findings but i can't recall sir did the severity of what was witnessed leap out at you from the documents
01:07:23 i think it would have the time in addition to the other areas of potential failure
01:07:28 failure and what that might mean for the approved document and the past fail criteria for what we have before us here do you accept that as a result of this test
01:07:37 test what you saw on the page and your discussions perhaps with sarah colwell and the iag that that
01:07:44 that you
01:07:45 you the the british government was aware from this time on 2002 how acn with a polyethylene core panel could behave in a fire
01:07:57 could behave in a fire i would recognize yes sir that we had more insight in terms of this type of performance i don't recognize or i wouldn't have recognized at the time it would have been called an acm
01:08:10 been called an acm but there would have been insight and sufficient um learning for us
01:08:16 for us to then ensure that this go forward into bsi for consideration for past fail criteria in the writing of the new national standard and i would have gone back and reminded myself of the
01:08:28 gone back and reminded myself of the guidance that sits in and supports the approved document b would you have realized that this panel looking at approved document would be
01:08:39 looking at approved document would be notwithstanding its performance on a full-scale test nonetheless had class naught
01:08:44 naught and therefore would have been permitted was permitted under what was then i think uh
01:08:50 uh well it changed but what was then i think 13.6 of approved document b and diagram 36. from my perspective i
01:09:02 from my perspective i and this is where i can't recall the discussions with the likes of the iag and similar but this sort of product would not have been acceptable under the building regulations because of the guidance in section 13 of the approved
01:09:13 guidance in section 13 of the approved document b
01:09:17 was any consideration given to
01:09:26 making it clear that this kind of product
01:09:30 product should not be used above 18 meters as i say sir it is my understanding and recollection of the adb 2000
01:09:41 recollection of the adb 2000 and the guidance therein that this product wouldn't have been allowed
01:09:47 allowed did you sit down with the result on one side of your desk and
01:09:52 and adb 2000 dating from july of that year and work through the language of adb to satisfy
01:10:00 satisfy yourself that this product would not have been allowed by adb i can't say i'd have undertaken that explicit task sir but i just looking at the results it wouldn't have met
01:10:11 the results it wouldn't have met the functional requirements of the approved document did you
01:10:16 did you did you did you take anything from the fact that even though it wouldn't have met the functional requirements for obvious reasons i think we can agree that
01:10:24 that nonetheless the product bore class naught
01:10:28 naught and let it be assumed had successfully passed bs 476 parts six and seven that would have con form part of my consideration um but i again i you know not just the
01:10:39 um but i again i you know not just the functional requirement i would have drawn back to a statement in paragraph 13.6 which talks about the dangers on tall buildings of combustible material
01:10:51 buildings of combustible material and specifically within 13.6 as well it refers to the fact an acknowledgement that these products might also be class naught
01:11:00 naught now just just follow this through with me it sounds as if you gave consideration after this test to the fact that there was a risk posed to occupants of high-rise buildings
01:11:11 to occupants of high-rise buildings where acm polyethylene panels had been applied as part of the external system i would have considered these results and the other failures
01:11:23 and the other failures as would i envisage the iag members which as i say covered those that would have had concern
01:11:31 concern and i would have circled back to think about
01:11:35 about could they be used are they being definitively used above tool buildings and actually with the focus on the large-scale testing it was you know from my
01:11:46 testing it was you know from my perspective it was good that this has been found and it can go forward for consideration in the bsi committee and in the past failed criteria for br135
01:11:57 br135 right
01:11:58 right now you told us just to be fair to you you told us earlier that your experience in the main of these kinds of panels was as sandwich panels on low story buildings
01:12:09 buildings it sounds from what you're telling us that
01:12:12 that even though that was the case you nonetheless did apply your mind at the time
01:12:17 time to the risks to life of the use of these panels in buildings above height above 18 meters that consideration would have taken place right
01:12:28 place right now this product was being used in a government-funded experimental program specifically because it was either typical or at least an emerging product in the high-rise cladding market
01:12:39 product in the high-rise cladding market and therefore fit to be tested in the public interest yes
01:12:45 yes did anybody in the department consider alerting industry or local authorities or building control bodies or building owners um to this result and the obvious
01:12:56 um to this result and the obvious dangers posed to occupants of buildings which had been clad with this material all the people that you've named were certainly on the industry advisory group
01:13:08 advisory group and by virtue of albeit generic data being moved into the the bsi committee information had been shared therein but again from my from from recollection
01:13:22 there would have been my consideration the ig's consideration that actually
01:13:29 the approved document circling back to the functional requirements and the performance statements that this this wasn't being utilized in those sorts of environments
01:13:40 utilized in those sorts of environments so again i can't recall but there could have been a discussion with building control rep on the iag potentially and maybe some greater understanding as to
01:13:50 to how these products were being actually used in the marketplace and actually how popular they were
01:13:59 and how commonplace you say there could have been a discussion along those lines i can't you can't recall recall sir now given the extremely i i'm suggesting to you extremely concerning results of this
01:14:10 extremely concerning results of this test was any consideration given by government you in particular about whether any specific intervention into the use of pe called acm on buildings above 18 meters was necessary
01:14:30 again i i can't recall specifically but there would have been consideration of of the findings and the fact again it was shared out to the iag members and
01:14:42 it was shared out to the iag members and to bsi
01:14:44 to bsi and
01:14:45 and the discussion oh sorry my appreciation that it wouldn't have met the functional requirements
01:14:54 meant that i was just happy that it was going uh going forward to ensure that pass fail criteria for the large scale meant it would never pass and that actually the functional
01:15:06 and that actually the functional requirements and the and the extent to prove document b at the time was sufficient mr chairman we're we're mid topic but um is now a convenient moment for
01:15:17 but um is now a convenient moment for the morning break yes i think it is we'll have a break at this stage then mr bird will come back half past 11 and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of
01:15:28 about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you sir thank you very much
01:15:38 thank you just a minute how fast 11 please
01:32:54 would you ask mr bird to come back in please okay
01:33:07 all right mr bird yes sir to carry on thank you yes mr miller thank you mr chairman yes mr bird we are at mid-september 2002 and we've been looking at the closing report and the analysis report of the 16th and the 19th
01:33:19 analysis report of the 16th and the 19th of september respectively now at the time as a result of seeing this test result and perhaps your discussions with the bre and the iag at the time did anybody in government consider trying to
01:33:30 anybody in government consider trying to ascertain how many buildings had already been clad with acm panels with a polyethylene core
01:33:37 from recollection again this would have been a point that i envisaged what we would have explored with the industry advisory group just to see the propensity of of of use of these documents
01:33:50 products sorry sorry products sorry
01:33:56 but i don't recall any further discussion to that right would it not have added to the importance of having an accurate survey of building types to know what was out there definitively
01:34:07 know what was out there definitively in the built environment i suggest that would would have been of assistance sir and therefore thinking through obviously
01:34:18 therefore thinking through obviously benefit of hindsight now as well perhaps a recommendation to look at further work could have been uh useful but again i would revert back that
01:34:30 i would revert back that those sorts of discussions we i'm sure we would have discussed them amongst the regulators and and the industry on the advisory group did you come to a conclusion regardless of what and when and with
01:34:42 regardless of what and when and with whom those discussions might or might not have taken place did you come to a conclusion that no
01:34:50 that no survey of the built environment was necessary
01:34:53 necessary i don't believe i came to that conclusion did you did you therefore come to the conclusion to the opposite effect that such a survey was necessary
01:35:08 again i can't recall the discussion all my considerations at the time but
01:35:16 perhaps perhaps consideration of something further
01:35:21 further to understand what was happening in the marketplace in addition might have happened but i think looking at the findings we had and the fact that
01:35:32 and the fact that in my opinion it didn't meet the building regulations and the fact that this was going forward and being raised with the relevant bsi committee and similar there would be additional
01:35:44 there would be additional engagement with the industry there too
01:35:49 there too you see on the one hand your view was that this
01:35:52 that this product or type of product wouldn't comply but on the other hand you were testing it and one of the reasons you were testing it was because of the architect journal's identification of this product as as one
01:36:05 identification of this product as as one which you thought in the bre thought was worth testing those are in conflict aren't they not necessarily sir as we covered on thursday it's it's useful to understand what's
01:36:16 it's it's useful to understand what's happening in the marketplace and whilst that type of system was referred to in the aj
01:36:23 the aj from recollection of the table you showed uh in the bre report there was no indication of these products being used as you know the the degree of use or where
01:36:34 you know the the degree of use or where they were being used um and so it's reasonable to test products that do come forward but given that it's reasonable to test such products
01:36:44 products and given the result why wouldn't it be reasonable more than reasonable essential
01:36:49 essential now then to find out well where are these products being used on high-rise buildings where they might be a danger to life
01:36:55 to life is this a one-off or are these just is this a negligible handful which we can address on a one-by-one basis or is there an endemic problem i could see how it be viewed in that way
01:37:07 i could see how it be viewed in that way but i i can't recall such discussions or thoughts
01:37:13 and considerations right now the bre um
01:37:17 um colwell's evidence of day two three two line page 105 lines seven to 17 was to the effect that um they expected um
01:37:28 um they expected um you
01:37:33 to uh tell them whether or not that was something that you wanted advice on sorry sir could you repeat the question let me try it slightly differently do you agree that
01:37:44 that uh or do you know that it was the bre's view that having made you aware of the result it was up to you to decide what you wanted to do with it i i wasn't aware of that um
01:37:55 aware of that um but by virtue of the work hadn't been completed yet with the view of the likes of br 135 being prepared and engagement with the bsi
01:38:05 bsi relevant joint committee and
01:38:09 and from recollection some dissemination by dr colwell in a
01:38:14 in a it might have been a series of uh presentations to industry one would envisage that it wouldn't just be
01:38:22 be to me as the within the department to sort of engage the industry as to what we'd learned from these full-scale tests and there were other failures there too it it was a collective
01:38:35 it it was a collective to
01:38:36 to understand and where relevant perhaps informed marketplace of these findings were you aware that the bre's view dr smith's own view
01:38:48 dr smith's own view was at the time that acm panels with a polyethylene core should
01:38:53 should never ever be used on an external wall above 18 meters i can't recall having that discussion but given dr smith's expertise
01:39:06 but given dr smith's expertise and looking at the performance it doesn't surprise me that she would have thought that no i'm really asking you whether you knew that that was her opinion
01:39:18 opinion or the bre's opinion at the time that acm panels with a polyethylene core should never ever be used above 18 meters
01:39:28 meters i can't recall having that definitive discussion but looking at the performance and then by virtue of its performance in the full
01:39:39 by virtue of its performance in the full test setting path failed criteria that would ensure it wouldn't pass going forward
01:39:44 forward i could see that that would be there yeah do you know why that view was never enshrined into government policy
01:40:00 as i said prior to the break sir
01:40:05 when one looks at what was then the extent to prove document be and the way i read it as a regulator both in terms of the provisions within section 13
01:40:17 section 13 and of course the function requirement and performance statement i suggest it was
01:40:23 was within
01:40:24 within and contained the building regulations and guidance there too so it shouldn't have been used on tall buildings
01:40:34 was that your view at the time
01:40:38 yes i believe it was and we'll come back to that answer in due course i think a number of times perhaps as we go through the various iterations of approved document b
01:40:51 approved document b but do you accept that the government's failure to act on that research made possible the situation where acm panels with a polyethylene core could be used in
01:41:02 core could be used in refurbishment of tall buildings such as grenfell tower i i i would suggest not sir for the reason being that such refurbishments would have to
01:41:13 would have to comply with the building regulations of the day
01:41:16 the day and in terms of the extent guidance in 2000 and
01:41:19 2000 and 2000
01:41:21 2000 that would have suggested that they shouldn't have been used
01:41:26 i'm sorry to interrupt you mr miller but i think it's worth just flushing a point out here um we've seen that the diagrams suggest that a class a class naught product is acceptable over 18 meters
01:41:40 product is acceptable over 18 meters we've also seen that there is what we've described as the linear route to compliance which is a step-by-step process so to speak culminating in the class naught for the
01:41:52 culminating in the class naught for the rain screen panel as i understand it your evidence is that that is all overridden by the warning
01:42:02 warning in whichever paragraph it is depending on the edition that there may be diff there may be problems if you use combustible materials um together yes sir right
01:42:14 together yes sir right and your
01:42:16 and your your view i think this is what you're telling us is that that warning was sufficiently strong and clear to override the express permission to
01:42:28 to override the express permission to use class naught materials yes sir
01:42:35 yes sir i'm sorry to keep doing this but when i refer back to section thirteen point five of the third thirteen point six and the overarching provision there that talks about that
01:42:46 provision there that talks about that any combustibles could be problematic could be problems could be problematic right for the purposes of life safety i believe it's that same paragraph that then alludes that doesn't allude it sets
01:42:58 then alludes that doesn't allude it sets out to the reader and that includes products that might meet diagram 40 if it was diagram 40 and achieve class naught
01:43:07 naught so what it was expressing to the to the to the reader is think about what you've got
01:43:13 got uh even if you show compliance with the external services diagram still think about what else might be beneath it or included within
01:43:24 beneath it or included within the system well this is why i'm suggesting that if i understand your evidence it is that that warning was sufficiently strong and clear
01:43:35 was sufficiently strong and clear to override the linear route provisions including class naught
01:43:43 so as to ensure that the functional requirement was preeminent yes sir did it ever occur to you that there might be people reading adb who would not get that message
01:43:54 that message because it was not sufficiently clearly worded
01:44:01 i suppose there is all that always that potential risk and i can only speak of a time when i was working building control and then i became a regulator is that
01:44:12 is that we were always taught to read all of the approved document on the relevant parts but yes so that risk that is a possibility and sometimes you have to write guidance or even rules
01:44:24 guidance or even rules for the sort of people who are not as careful as you are yes sir
01:44:29 yes sir did that cross your mind i don't believe it did at the time sir right well i'm sure we're going to come back to this and we'll have to come back to it in the context of the actual language that's of course but i just
01:44:40 language that's of course but i just wanted to yeah get that clear yes mr william sorry it's interrupted no it's on point and my question was about to be did you after seeing these results sit down
01:44:51 sit down and ask yourself whether the reader of approved document be and in this case it would have been sectional paragraph 13.7 of the 2000 uh version of adb whether the the words
01:45:04 uh version of adb whether the the words in thirteen seven which told the reader uh
01:45:08 uh that
01:45:09 that uh the use of combustible materials in the cladding framework or as use in over-cladding or ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings notwithstanding the provisions
01:45:21 notwithstanding the provisions in diagram 40 as it as it was at that stage and then remained may have been satisfied did you sit down with those words and ask yourself whether those words and
01:45:32 and ask yourself whether those words and the rest of approved document b were sufficiently clear so that the reader would know that a class nor acm polyethylene called panel was banned
01:45:46 i believe i would have sat down and looked through and to pick up chairman's point as well in terms of those that might be interpreting it which could have included
01:45:57 included of course designers and specifiers but by the same token building work is controlled under building regulations and so it would have been amounted to an application to building control
01:46:09 building control and
01:46:11 and well anybody quite frankly has been working in the realm of building control knows full well that you always revert to to the functional requirement and so yes looking at the calibre and the
01:46:22 yes looking at the calibre and the levels of competency in the industry maybe some people didn't interpret it that way
01:46:28 that way but the catch thankfully that exists within the building regulation system is that there was building control sat behind that to consider it therein so with the collective
01:46:39 so with the collective of designer specifiers and building control
01:46:42 control i would have felt it it would have been caught it would have been seen
01:46:48 been seen now it's right isn't it that not a single one of the rain screen systems tested one to five under the rain screen systems that we saw in uh the analysis report passed
01:47:00 saw in uh the analysis report passed these full-scale tests and met the requirements of bre far note 9 as it then was
01:47:06 then was that's my understanding yeah and that was regardless wasn't it of the combustibility uh or the national or european classification of the rain screen product and regardless of the provision of fire barriers cavity
01:47:18 provision of fire barriers cavity barriers from recollection yeah did that surprise you did that that overall result surprised you
01:47:26 i would have noticed the the degree of failure
01:47:29 failure um
01:47:30 um that would have perhaps teased out as well the role of cavity barriers and installation but one supposes
01:47:41 but one supposes at the time looking back um to have that data was really useful to then make sure that again
01:47:51 again for the full-scale test situation it could be considered
01:47:58 but again i would have put it in the context of with that i've shown compliance with what we call the linear route
01:48:03 route so yes to answer your questions it did surprise me but
01:48:09 but i felt that the guidance in the approved document and the the regulations um would deal with it because of the words i read to you from 13.7 that would be part
01:48:22 read to you from 13.7 that would be part of it but again the reverting back to the functional requirement and the secretary of state's performance statement talking about the use of controlling the um
01:48:33 controlling the um parts of a system in terms of heat release yes and the performance requirements which sit between yes the functional requirements and the guidance
01:48:44 guidance were you aware at this time say september 2002 of dr smith's view debbie smith's view that class naught was at least questionable as a classification
01:48:55 least questionable as a classification for a product to be used as or as part of the external wall over 18 meters
01:49:02 you asked me this question or a variant of it on thursday and i i couldn't quite recall but by virtue of thinking back and reappraising looking at papers and
01:49:14 reappraising looking at papers and similar
01:49:15 similar um
01:49:16 um yes i am aware that dr debbie smith would have thought an alternative test might have been more befitting right i mean her view is set out in her statement let me let's go to it rather
01:49:28 statement let me let's go to it rather than am i trying to paraphrase it bre four zeroes five six two four please page eight paragraph twenty four
01:49:38 um you can see uh that she uh says uh having referred to the at the nasally heights fire in 1991
01:49:49 at the nasally heights fire in 1991 uh in the middle of the paragraph this was a clear recognition that it was not possible to rely on small-scale fire test data on individual elements
01:50:00 test data on individual elements materials or components in a cladding system as a means to try to predict and thereby control the fire performance reliance on small-scale fire tests had been tried and had been shown to be inadequate
01:50:11 inadequate did you know that that was her opinion in
01:50:16 in 2002
01:50:17 2002 i don't know if i knew it in 2002 definitively but over the course of certainly discussions and developments in the european test methodology
01:50:28 methodology that would have become clear right now that exercise we're going to come to due course because that was happening in in 2001 wasn't it from recollection yes may and 2001 and then again in april 2002. so that discussion already
01:50:40 2002. so that discussion already happened by the time you received the um
01:50:44 the um closing report on the 16th of september and the analysis report on the 19th of september 2002 wouldn't it so you would have known it by that point i would have thought so yes thank you now if we go back to the analysis report please at
01:50:57 back to the analysis report please at bre 30 41882 paragraph
01:51:01 paragraph uh sorry page 11.
01:51:06 um you can see that there that uh there's a heading bs 476 part six and seven and it says this the results from bs476 part six and seven are presented in table two the results from these
01:51:17 in table two the results from these tests were not as expected with only four of the 11 products achieving class naught all the materials tested were believed to be class naught products when purchased for this project
01:51:28 when purchased for this project now just pausing there did you ask what the basis was for the bre's belief that all of those products were class naught genuinely class i can't recall but given the importance of the comment we we would have
01:51:40 of the comment we we would have discussed that right and what what did dr colwell tell you or the bre tell you
01:51:46 tell you as i say i can't recall but the things we would have considered would have been
01:51:52 were the correct products definitively gleaned from the marketplace and purchased
01:51:59 and if so what are the potential reasons for these class naught products potentially that's tested not passing the requisite
01:52:10 that's tested not passing the requisite part six and seven in the right way to achieve class naught what did you conclude
01:52:20 i can't recall
01:52:24 as you say
01:52:27 we might have had a discussion certainly if dr debbie smith was also involved as to what that might mean and what we could glean from what was happening under the radar work
01:52:40 happening under the radar work um
01:52:41 um but for me there was we we would have discussed it both in terms of
01:52:46 terms of what that might mean broadly to the marketplace but we'd have also discussed it for the for almost the here and now of the work underway
01:52:57 underway to see what we should do about those that were tested if they were class not
01:53:01 class not what recourse they needed to be to explain this
01:53:08 unexpected rate of failure did you consider the possibility that seven out of the 11 suppliers
01:53:15 suppliers and manufacturers had misrepresented their product classifications did you consider that possibility
01:53:25 it it i can't recall but it must have been a consideration another consideration was that there were very serious reproducibility issues
01:53:36 were very serious reproducibility issues with testing to bs 476 parts six and seven did you consider that as an alternative possibility i can't recall but potentially i did i mean either of those possibilities do you agree would have been a matter of very serious
01:53:48 have been a matter of very serious concern
01:53:52 i agree is there any other explanation for
01:53:56 for these unexpected results other than other than we weren't testing class naught products um as i say they were they were achieved through a third party
01:54:09 through a third party and so
01:54:11 and so one would envisage that there was some recourse there to make sure that we they were testing the appropriate products
01:54:19 products and from recollection as to say running concurrently some crossover with the radar work perhaps there was some work undertaken to just compare what the
01:54:30 work undertaken to just compare what the results were like coming from that work as well yeah i mean what i'm really putting to you is either of these possibilities either the manufacturers were weren't telling the truth about the class naught classification
01:54:41 class naught classification um
01:54:42 um which they claimed for their product which would be one serious concern and the other serious concern would be that they had genuinely tested it to 476 part six and seven and got a genuine class naught classification but um when when
01:54:55 naught classification but um when when the bre did it it they didn't which is a reproducibility problem that would also have given rise to a very serious concern it would have yes is there any alternative to those or further alternatives to those two possibilities
01:55:08 alternatives to those two possibilities that i've just put to you not that i can think of well sat here so that would that tell us that whatever the reasons for these unexpected results they came
01:55:18 they came as something of to put it neutrally a surprise to government
01:55:30 as i say i can't recall the considerations but i think that would be a
01:55:34 a fair statement sir was any consideration given to you by you or anybody else in government at the time to withdrawing diagram 40 from approved document b
01:55:45 diagram 40 from approved document b not that i can recall note that what about the reference uh within diagram 40 to class naught in fact i think at this time i think i'm right in saying uh this being september
01:55:58 this was a month before the october revisions which introduced class b as the alternative the problem we would have had if we'd had undertaken that though is that
01:56:10 that whilst the european tests methods were coming
01:56:14 coming many products may not have actually been tested to those uh potentially and so we we couldn't just as your question says just remove class naught necessarily if we thought that was right
01:56:26 necessarily if we thought that was right and that would be subject to probably in further in further consideration and so
01:56:32 and so again
01:56:33 again it would have been down to future considerations as to what we do or don't do in relation to the guidance and approve document p right but we're going to come to uh the um harmonization project with
01:56:45 uh the um harmonization project with which i know you were involved and the the transition periods in due course in your evidence but i'm getting ahead a bit a little bit in topic terms but given the surprising results from bs476
01:56:56 given the surprising results from bs476 part 6 and 7 at this time september 2002 was any thought given to
01:57:03 to making sure that class naught was removed from diagram 40 removed from adb all together at this time because of the because of the the empirical evidence you've seen
01:57:16 empirical evidence you've seen no i don't believe it was from recollection but that
01:57:21 but that wouldn't have precluded and i don't forgive me i don't know if this discussion happened whether some more additional work could have taken place as you've already offered and suggested sir that perhaps
01:57:33 sir that perhaps it wasn't particularly a large sample that was tested here of whether other work could be undertaken to consider the actual performance of products that were being placed on the market and you
01:57:45 were being placed on the market and you know i've already said it and sorry to repeat myself but that might well have fed into some discussions of what was coming forward from the radar work if we were seeing similar happenings there
01:57:56 similar happenings there you may not have precluded it but do you recall any positive decision to get on and do further tests about the adequacy of bs 476 part 6 and 7 the adequacy and safety of class naught in continuing to
01:58:08 safety of class naught in continuing to regulate the nature of the surface of an of an external wall above 18 meters
01:58:16 no i don't but i you won't be surprised for me to again say
01:58:22 again say depending upon the use of the product its location its use the building in question
01:58:29 question class naught quite often doesn't sit alone as the only provision and i understand the concerns about the performance of class naught but if it was felt that
01:58:40 it was felt that additional control was needed such as using materials of limited combustibility or similar that was an option that was conveyed within the approved
01:58:51 that was conveyed within the approved document b
01:59:00 i don't i'm not sure i've forgiven enough i understand that sorry sir um when you say it was felt that additional control was needed
01:59:08 needed if it was felt additional control was needed
01:59:11 needed that was an option that was conveyed within the approved document b forgive me what i'm trying to say sir is that
01:59:18 that if there were concerns over just class naught
01:59:21 naught that's not necessarily the only provision that one considers when trying to show compliance with the building regulations
01:59:31 there's the rub isn't it and that's the point when you're looking at external walls other than the general statement of the need to comply with the functional
01:59:42 need to comply with the functional requirement what else is there other than class naught and after october 2002 class b
01:59:50 class b there is the guidance in the approved document in section 13. which just takes you back to the functional requirement uh no it says more than that so it talks about the dangers of using all the potential
02:00:01 dangers of using all the potential dangers of using combustible material in an external wall but for a builder and building control to know whether that danger is present what do they look at in a proof document b
02:00:13 at in a proof document b they look at that guidance and what what in it do they look at they look in it that they've been told that combustible material in a cladding system
02:00:23 system can be a problem for health and safety of occupants in tall buildings that's a statement of the obvious though isn't it it's not guidance it's statutory guidance
02:00:34 it's statutory guidance the way i was taught to utilize examples of that in the approved document is that actually think about what you have in hand and if you feel that actually
02:00:47 and if you feel that actually it might not meet fully it might not then follow the further guidance given in the approved document about the types of products or the types of situation where combustible insulation
02:00:58 situation where combustible insulation is being used you are still allowed and should
02:01:01 should revert back utilizing that broad statement utilizing the function requirement and utilizing the
02:01:08 the performance specifically let me try this with you
02:01:11 with you i am a
02:01:13 i am a a building owner because it's my responsibility to comply yes i've got a class naught panel rain screen panel in my hands with a polyethylene core i want to put it above
02:01:24 polyethylene core i want to put it above 18 meters yes can i
02:01:28 can i um that will be a discussion for you and your building control authority discussion about what as to whether it shows compliance with the building regulations because amounting to putting a product of that nature
02:01:40 a product of that nature onto a building is building work and it would be subject to an application to building control and what tells me that i can and what tells me that i can't use my class naught panel with a polyethylene core assuming it generally
02:01:51 polyethylene core assuming it generally genuinely to achieve glass not what tells me i can use it and what tells me that i can't what
02:01:59 what if
02:02:00 if prior to 1985 we had a prescriptive book of rules that set out what was acceptable what was not there was a decision made to move to a far more innovative functional approach
02:02:15 far more innovative functional approach there are
02:02:15 there are in my opinion there is sufficient guidance in the statutory guidance to say think about using any combustible material on an external
02:02:26 material on an external cladding environment of the type to which you refer and therefore between the interactions of building owners the designers and specifiers and the backstop that is building
02:02:37 and the backstop that is building control
02:02:39 control one would
02:02:41 one would expect a discussion to be held that through an application where they're proposing to use a product be it in relation to polyethylene or polyurethane or poly isolate
02:02:52 polyurethane or poly isolate there would be a consideration as to whether this shows compliance and if if the if the building owner or the designers felt that oh i think that that's acceptable that would then obviously pass through
02:03:04 that would then obviously pass through for consideration by building control and it was my expectation it was my understanding them being the experts in building regulations and and guidance that they would interrogate that and question and
02:03:15 would interrogate that and question and and suggest perhaps that does not show and meet the requirements of the building regulation leave aside the expertise of building control it's for the building owner to satisfy the building regulations isn't it it's
02:03:26 building regulations isn't it it's carrying out the work yes yes not building control building control are there to enforce they're not there to do it are they uh they're not that yes they are potential well local authorities are able to
02:03:37 well local authorities are able to enforce
02:03:38 enforce but
02:03:39 but it's not sorry we've got
02:03:43 and i'm the building owner and i want to know why i can't use it on my high-rise building even though diagram 40 says i can
02:03:50 can what is it in the regulation tells me i can't use my class naught panel and the regulation then typically building control and when i used to be a district surveyor you would write back to an applicant informing them that for
02:04:01 to an applicant informing them that for whatever specific reason that it does not show compliance with the functional requirement now i've got a class naught panel what is it that tells me that even though i use it i'm not going to comply with the functional
02:04:13 not going to comply with the functional requirement in in adb i've got adb in one hand i've got a class naught acm polyethylene panel in the other right i see class naught in approved in in diagram 40.
02:04:25 diagram 40. where else do i look to tell me that even though it's in diagram 40 and tells me i can use it above 18 meters in fact i can't with this building what tells me that
02:04:37 the statutory guidance that is adb if utilized read and understood would suggest it could be very much an issue in the section 13 to which i just referred
02:04:49 referred then it is a matter of going back to the functional requirement and the performance statement saying in effect be be careful in terms of using combustible products but in terms of a binary
02:05:00 but in terms of a binary yes or no you can use a product or not that's not the way in which the approved documents provide guidance so tell me what is it that either building owner have to take into account
02:05:11 into account to decide whether i meet the functional requirement notwithstanding that i've got a class naught panel
02:05:19 they would have to consider the risk that that panel may place upon it's when used in a building of a certain height or a certain situation right
02:05:32 and where are those risks identified that have to be considered by the person carrying out the work by virtue of the functional requirements and the performance statements and the
02:05:43 and the performance statements and the guidance they're in well that refers to three things doesn't it the height the use and the position of the building yes is that it or are there more uh things to add to that list
02:05:54 uh things to add to that list no because obviously the start of the function requirement b4 one talks about adequate resistance to the spread of fire over the surface of a building so
02:06:05 fire over the surface of a building so right
02:06:06 right so your
02:06:08 so your understanding at the time when considering the potential safety of aluminium composite panels of the pe core is that even though there was class naught attached to this panel
02:06:19 naught attached to this panel the building owner has to go back to the functional requirements and test the safety of that panel against the height
02:06:28 height the use and the position of the building in terms of yes for their own consideration but by virtue of you know a building owner won't
02:06:39 you know a building owner won't typically themselves go off and come up with a design they will appoint a professional designer specifier so there would be potential for consideration of those issues
02:06:51 consideration of those issues by an architect or a designer they too i would expect and have been trained if they're qualified and suitably competent on the building regulations and the approved documents and then whilst you've asked me to forget building
02:07:02 you've asked me to forget building control put them to one side ultimately this is building work and therefore an application would go into building control for their consideration and if for whatever reason
02:07:13 consideration and if for whatever reason not just in terms of polyethylene but if there are other types of combustible insulation being used in a tall building in in the cladding system but where building control felt
02:07:24 system but where building control felt that by doing that in the way in which it was incorporated within the installation that it didn't show and meet the requirements of the building regulations then they would reject
02:07:34 reject that design does that tell us that whether or not i can use my class naught panel on my building
02:07:41 building depends on among other things the people occupying it and their nature their age
02:07:49 their age their vulnerabilities matters of that nature um was that how you understood it well by virtue of we look at the potential for
02:08:00 virtue of we look at the potential for risk and similar in relation to certain types of buildings that would be a consideration the height is very relevant certainly for engagement of the brigade in terms of dealing with fires at height
02:08:11 in terms of dealing with fires at height and similar so they are developed over time and understanding and the guidance offered depending upon ultimately the risk to the people in question mr bird can i just um
02:08:24 mr bird can i just um invite your view on this um isn't one of the difficulties that we have the building regulations coached in very broad terms as we know the whole point of adb is
02:08:37 the whole point of adb is in effect to tell people how they can comply with the regulations and therefore it may not be very helpful to say that it's not a binary question you either can or can't you've got to go
02:08:49 you either can or can't you've got to go beyond that and go back to the regulations that doesn't seem from what we've heard how people actually read them
02:08:56 them and we for example we've heard witnesses who are concerned with build control functions tell us that they couldn't ask for more than was required by adb now that may or may not be right but
02:09:08 now that may or may not be right but it's an illustration of how people actually approach it isn't it it's an illustration that perhaps over time how things might have been changing it's a fair point to raise serve
02:09:21 it's a fair point to raise serve indeed
02:09:22 indeed but competence features heavily in the application of the building regulations both in terms of the competence of designers and specifiers and building control i can only speak as in my experience
02:09:34 i can only speak as in my experience when i came in as a trainee district surveyor and ultimately a regulator is that the approved documents are not deemed to satisfy
02:09:45 deemed to satisfy they are guidance for some of the more common situations and the moment you step away from that or from the moment that you're coming up with a design which
02:09:55 which you know those competent enough to determine
02:09:58 determine might mean that the functional requirement will not be met then that is that that is the duty that comes with a functional system and there might be those that might prefer to go back to a
02:10:09 might prefer to go back to a prescriptive book of rules and there might be those now uh in terms of those that believe adb is in effect you know if followed will show compliance
02:10:20 compliance but that is incorrect and
02:10:22 and sorry so no no sorry it won't stop you no and so and that is something i suggest
02:10:28 suggest it might come up as we move forward with my thoughts as to perhaps where we are now
02:10:33 now in terms of aspects of the competency of those in the marketplace and what is needed
02:10:38 needed to ensure robust appreciation and use of a regulatory system well i understand all that but it seems that one possible view might be
02:10:50 that one possible view might be that it argues in favor of including an adb what you might call a child's guide to the uh preeminence of the regulations
02:11:01 to the uh preeminence of the regulations and rather than giving the impression that here it is you can follow this rule book is that that's a that's a fair view sir and actually if we need to support
02:11:12 actually if we need to support more
02:11:13 more uh understanding and appreciation in that way that could be something that could be considered right
02:11:18 right thank you very much no thank you sir yes sister can we then
02:11:24 go to page 19 of this document
02:11:31 and i'm going to come back to the answer you've just given to the chairman uh later i think in your evidence but here here on the page we have class naught and it says this the results from the bas 476 part six and seven tests
02:11:43 the bas 476 part six and seven tests were expected to confirm the class not performance of the product used in this project as the results show all the materials achieve the required performance levels in the fire propagation test bs476 part six but a
02:11:54 propagation test bs476 part six 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 performance now does that last sentence tell us that there was no
02:12:05 there was no singular particular reason that had been identified from what spread there in terms of does not appear i would agree
02:12:15 yes and and what was your own reaction can you recall to these results when you first learned of them
02:12:24 i i think we've already touched upon this already so in terms of yes it was surprising to be such a number of of not meeting the classes
02:12:35 of of not meeting the classes what might the reasons be and we've already spoken and i've suggested re-engagement with the procurer of the products
02:12:43 products and thereafter potentially what else another considerations could happen and you know not to repeat myself again but is this is there items that we could learn from the radar 2 work that was underway for for that contract as well
02:12:57 underway for for that contract as well and did you consider asking the bre to contact the manufacturers of the seven products that didn't achieve class naught i can't recall but
02:13:06 but in my experience where we've had things of this nature there is typically if there's a relationship with the manufacturer of course that can be shared directly
02:13:18 course that can be shared directly but
02:13:19 but if not thereafter it could be a discussion to be had with local trading standards
02:13:25 standards but i can't recall if that discussion took place but that's something that we've done previously do you know whether trading standards or perhaps the advertising standards authority had been contacted about this i'm not aware right was that
02:13:37 about this i'm not aware right was that was this problem raised with ministers at the time this is september 2002. i don't believe so no sir
02:13:49 we don't have any evidence at least any documentary evidence or any witness statement evidence from anybody that those steps were taken contacting the manufacturer contacting trading standards do you know why if we're right that no start steps were
02:14:01 we're right that no start steps were taken do you know why that is no i don't now can i then turn to the class north for the aluminium panel product itself
02:14:12 panel product itself um as you'll have seen i think and i'll now show you again uh one of the four products which did achieve class naught was the acm polyethylene called panel yes if we go back to page 11
02:14:23 yes if we go back to page 11 um you can see what's said there under the second paragraph there under the heading rain screen panels in the first paragraph it says the aluminium cladding panels achieve the class naught performance when tested to
02:14:35 class naught performance when tested to bs 476 parts six and seven both their performance in the fire propagation test and the surface spread of flame tests showed that they fully met the requirements of this classification now
02:14:46 now keeping that in your head mr bird if we go down please to page 14 in this analysis report to the last paragraph under the heading rain screen panels there it says
02:14:58 it says the aluminium system generated high rates of fire growth and in both cases was extinguished early due to excessive temperatures and fire growth this is reflected in the indicative classification of d s 2 d naught
02:15:12 now on then on page 19 you can see in the penultimate paragraph on that page um we have the react european reaction
02:15:23 um we have the react european reaction to fire and the iso 9705 tests and it says this
02:15:28 says this uh
02:15:29 uh the aluminium sheeting system do you see the penalty they do the aluminium seating system achieved the poorest classification in both tests although it was the only system to achieve class naught in the british standard tests
02:15:41 standard tests um did those results for acm surprise or concern you in any way not necessarily no why is that because they are discreetly two different
02:15:51 different tests
02:15:52 tests and therefore what it was showing me is that
02:15:56 that in the national test it performed in a certain way in the new more modern latest european tests that were coming forward they performed differently yes well why did that not concern you
02:16:08 yes well why did that not concern you or is it something you already knew i didn't know it definitively and that was the basis of the radar one and two work that
02:16:16 work that when you test things in a different way and subject to the nature in my understanding the severity of of the test you're putting the size of the flame front the size of the radiant panel
02:16:27 panel um
02:16:28 um they could perform very differently did these results not suggest to you in the clearest of terms that that there should be you should have very grave concerns about continuing class naught uh to be used as
02:16:41 continuing class naught uh to be used as a standard for fire reaction to fire performance on high-rise buildings
02:16:48 from my perspective i recognize that we got in effect very different results you could in very simple terms you could say
02:16:57 say i would have envisaged that that's because they are different types of tests
02:17:02 of tests it didn't necessarily call into question from my perspective the reference to class naught given to some of the other aspects we've discussed about additional provisions in the approved document
02:17:14 the approved document of where perhaps you need more than just a class naught performance but again
02:17:20 but again the radar work was looking very much at the transposition of how products
02:17:28 products would perform both in the national classification and into the new european classification you say it was in fact that work had been completed by them yeah and the euro amendments to approve
02:17:41 and the euro amendments to approve document b we're just about to go out but just just looking at it do you agree that on these results um a
02:17:48 um a an acm panel with a polyethylene core would not have been deemed suitable for use on any building above 18 meters and
02:17:57 and if evaluated only based on the euro classes
02:18:01 classes sorry could you repeat the question yes if
02:18:05 if evaluated only on the euro class system under the european testing regime on this result a polyethylene called aluminium
02:18:13 aluminium uh composite material panel would not have been permitted to be used above 18 meters as far as diagram 40 is concerned correct as far as there isn't anything else other than diagram 40 is
02:18:24 anything else other than diagram 40 is there well you're talking about a product including polyethylene you don't just use diagram 40. classo on its own
02:18:34 its own is is not the provision for a tool building um and in a functional system and hence
02:18:40 and hence there would be other provisions where above that height consideration would be given for things like yes the surface spreader flame or the surface would achieve class naught but you would
02:18:51 would achieve class naught but you would still revert and look at what was inside the material would that amount to a risk um
02:18:58 um for
02:18:59 for if it were to be utilized and not meet the functional requirements of the building
02:19:02 building well that's a slight divergence from the from the point i'm putting to you um just looking at the four corners of diagram 40 for the moment do you accept that you don't pass go
02:19:14 do you accept that you don't pass go uh if you test these panels under the euro regime because you only get a d but you do pass go because you get a class naught under the national classification no because if i look at diagram 40 as was written
02:19:27 diagram 40 as was written from recollection as you moved into that document
02:19:31 document forgive me it's quite trying to remember the various iterations some of which i directly work with or not there would always be an expectation that you would look at other provisions
02:19:42 that you would look at other provisions that might be necessary in the in the situation you described sir i'm sorry
02:19:48 i'm sorry maybe it's my fault for not not asking the question um looking at the four corners of diagram 40 i want i am a building owner and i like these panels i want them on my high-rise
02:20:00 these panels i want them on my high-rise building yep uh you now know that if i test it under my under the euro regime i only get a d and therefore i don't comply
02:20:11 therefore i don't comply with diagram 40. but if i test it under the national classification i get class naught
02:20:16 naught so i do comply did that dissonance not occur to you at the time
02:20:21 the time when you saw these results no why is that because and again forgive me if you just look at diagram 40 i understand it's class naught that would
02:20:32 understand it's class naught that would appear to be i can meet the need i can use it
02:20:36 use it for that part of your material consideration but that's not meeting the building regulations that's not following the guidance that's part of diagram 40 in a guidance document that shows you some of
02:20:47 guidance document that shows you some of the ways of showing compliance but we'll take a bill that will take a building owner who hasn't got that that competence necessary and depth of understanding yes they could have looked at approved document b diagram 40 and
02:20:59 at approved document b diagram 40 and gone
02:21:00 gone yeah i can use it if i've got class naught but i can't if i have tested to the european i can that i understand so and i agree with you
02:21:09 with you but what i'm saying as a former user of the approved documents and then the regulator your consideration is broader than that i understand that well the point i'm putting to you is that under the euro
02:21:20 putting to you is that under the euro regime you don't get to first base under the national regime you do get to first base all you're saying is there's a second base as well i agree sir right but as a result of that though did you
02:21:32 but as a result of that though did you not have cause to consider whether class naught was an appropriate and safe metric measurement system for external surfaces of high-rise buildings given the actual performance of this product in this test
02:21:47 sorry could you ask the question again yes did did these results not cause you to to can to go back in a sense to the harmonization work that had been done and to which we
02:21:59 work that had been done and to which we will return and re-examine it and and ask yourself well really why do we need class naught it's it's uh it's not an equivalent uh to class b
02:22:10 uh to class b uh and it provides an easier way of satisfying the linear requirements uh than if we were to if we were to insist on the european regime did these tests not
02:22:19 not uh fix in your mind the need to revisit that question i can't recall if i had that thought but as you quite correctly state the radar
02:22:30 as you quite correctly state the radar work had finished and what we've seen that the new european tests coming online albeit an awful lot of manufacturers hadn't used them were a more demanding test and therefore
02:22:41 were a more demanding test and therefore in time yes you know the national class could fall and the new european test methods could be um a more befitting test method going
02:22:52 be um a more befitting test method going forward right
02:22:55 we're going to come back to those time frames later on can we look at the conclusions and recommendations from the testing program and if we stick with this document and go on please to page 24 we can see
02:23:08 page 24 we can see those set out here this is the analysis report of the 19th of september 2002. uh now it's headed conclusion and recommendations if you just cast your
02:23:20 recommendations if you just cast your eye down the seven paragraphs that comprise that section um you can see i think and agree with me uh
02:23:27 uh that there are no actual recommendations in this section i agree yes now if we look at paragraphs one two and three of the conclusions it says this the results from the
02:23:38 it says this the results from the british standard tests show that although purchased as class naught products only four of the eleven products tested satisfied class naught requirements two the aluminium sheet product satisfied class naught requirements but
02:23:50 satisfied class naught requirements but in the full scale test intermediate scale and single burning item test proved to be one of the worst performing products
02:23:56 products three
02:23:57 three correlation between the euro class and iso 9705 date data based on figure calculations proved to be acceptable for the range screen and render systems however no
02:24:09 screen and render systems however no acceptable correlation was found for the composite panel systems uh uh now going back if we can i've shown you that i want there's a question coming but we need first to look at the closing report of three days before bre
02:24:22 closing report of three days before bre three zeros four one eight nine five please
02:24:25 please and the recommendations and conclusions there page 13
02:24:31 and what we see there
02:24:33 there is and there are recommendations here if we go please to page 13
02:24:41 you can see in paragraph five at the foot of the page the aluminium sheet product satisfied class naught requirements but in the full scale intermediate scale and
02:24:52 in the full scale intermediate scale and single burning item test proved to be one of the worst performing products and then it says this as the current guidance and approved document b asks for class naught performance in diagram 40 these issues
02:25:04 performance in diagram 40 these issues may require further consideration
02:25:08 now um may require further consideration now the background to this is that the acmpe panel
02:25:18 panel had
02:25:19 had resulted in a catastrophic full-scale failure before six minutes um how did you understand these words these issues may require further consideration
02:25:32 i again like 20 some years ago i cannot recall
02:25:40 i acknowledge and
02:25:43 and with the benefit of hindsight looking at this here it's not a particularly strong recommendation and perhaps doesn't capture as you describe the nature of the fire
02:25:55 as you describe the nature of the fire that we saw um
02:26:08 but even so it is a recommendation uh albeit
02:26:13 uh albeit predicated with use of the word may um
02:26:16 um i believe
02:26:19 i think it would have again going forward it would have been something that would be just would be considered in a future full review of the approved document b but
02:26:30 but it doesn't quite capture it's not a particularly strong recommendation but it again
02:26:39 it again it would have been considered in the next
02:26:42 next recollection the next review of the approved document for full of review of the technical guidance which wasn't due for another three years uh wasn't due for another three years
02:26:53 uh wasn't due for another three years but typically from recollection looking at the work that certainly bre were undertaking it
02:27:00 it started in 2004 but i didn't take that as an so i took it that this is something that could be considered as part of that
02:27:12 considered as part of that it wasn't exactly saying something needs to be done now
02:27:20 we can agree on the wording is that how you took it at the time not an urgent red flag something to be pondered
02:27:27 pondered in the fullness of time yes
02:27:32 who in your department was supposed to interpret and understand the data the science that you were given by the bre
02:27:43 that you were given by the bre as the lead desk officer i would receive these reports so is that you it would be me sir um i can't recall the number two on fire safety darren
02:27:54 the number two on fire safety darren hobbs had arrived by that time and so
02:27:59 and so that would have been uh darren would have looked at these as well we might have discussed them with other regulators we had fairly regular meetings with the other regulators around the uk
02:28:10 around the uk i'm not saying that this was something that was just sort of considered here but internal with inside the department it would have been myself and my deputy
02:28:21 it would have been myself and my deputy and looking at the data as well as this recommendation notwithstanding its uh terms
02:28:31 uh terms were you left in any doubt at all at this time that the use of aluminium uh rain screen panels with a polyethylene core when used at height presented a serious risk to life
02:28:48 i'm tr truly trying to recall what i considered at the time um
02:29:01 but recollection would have considered and discussed it with the iag and similar
02:29:08 similar and felt that whilst they performed poorly and a number of them did that the provisions i'm sorry to keep repeating that the provisions that is
02:29:19 repeating that the provisions that is the building regulations and the guidance in there in would provide the protection uh that was necessary because they wouldn't show compliance and i envisaged
02:29:30 wouldn't show compliance and i envisaged i would have thought about it was quite timely
02:29:33 timely and correct that the learnings from this would feed in to set the ultimate pass fail criteria right for these sorts of products okay now i know you've repeated that answer a number of times and i've not been
02:29:45 number of times and i've not been critical of you at all but but i want to be absolutely clear do we take it that at this time and perhaps from this time notwithstanding your knowledge of the performance of acm of the pe core
02:29:56 the performance of acm of the pe core in full-scale tests in contradistinction to the small-scale tests which permitted it to have class b uh class naught you thought that that the
02:30:07 you thought that that the that adb
02:30:09 that adb essentially prevented their use above 18 meters because of the general words in 13.7
02:30:17 in 13.7 but because of the guidance and the provisions they're in yes
02:30:23 yes and again
02:30:24 and again it because it is so long ago and
02:30:27 and the iag i'm sure there have been discussions with the representatives from building control the other regulators i felt confident well that actually it was suitably controlled
02:30:40 actually it was suitably controlled because of those general words well because of those words i mean it is statutory guidance
02:30:51 yes okay i just want to be clear about those about the words it's the words in 13.7 that we looked at on on thursday uh it's the words in 13.7 and the functional requirement and the
02:31:03 and the functional requirement and the performance statement right okay now just drawing the threads together um
02:31:09 um do you accept that this project demonstrated through these two reports to you
02:31:15 to you uh latest september 2002 and i'm going to put four things to you first that the national reaction to fire classification system in general and the class naught
02:31:27 in general and the class naught classification in particular was not able to detect the fire hazard associated with the use of some possibly common combustible rain screen cladding products
02:31:38 cladding products i agree
02:31:40 i agree with that sir on the basis of only using that national classification to assess the product yes yes do you agree that from that this time latest september 2002
02:31:52 latest september 2002 government was aware that although such a product could achieve a class naught reaction to fire classification according to the national classification system
02:32:03 system nonetheless it presented a clear external fire spread hazard again yes if only utilized on its own the national classification methodology
02:32:15 the national classification methodology uh
02:32:16 uh same question again and by all means add the qualification that a pe called aluminium rainscreen cladding product was likely to perform dangerously with respect to external
02:32:28 dangerously with respect to external fire spread hazards
02:32:33 considering the test that we saw which was one test then therefore there was evidence as we saw that this could be an issue if only utilized in relation to
02:32:46 if only utilized in relation to class naught and not in relation to the other
02:32:50 other provisions and in relation to the statutory guidance and again the circling back to the function requirement and performance statement and finally that fire safety compliance testing was
02:33:01 that fire safety compliance testing was either flawed or because it wasn't reproducible or there were technical loopholes which were being exploited by manufacturers or
02:33:10 or else they were making false claims about their products um
02:33:14 um in terms of if you're referring to the data about class norton and the
02:33:20 the examples
02:33:22 examples that
02:33:23 that were perceived to be claiming class naught and then didn't achieve it that of course that was raised um and so that's something that we would have again
02:33:35 have again considered as part of or maybe we did as part of the radar work could you break your question down there afterwards yes of course absolutely there are three parts to it yeah there are three alternatives i'm putting
02:33:46 there are three alternatives i'm putting to you as known by government as of the autumn of 2002 the first is that fire safety compliance testing was was flawed because of reproducibility problems
02:33:57 because of reproducibility problems i
02:33:58 i couldn't say i knew that but from the from what was tested here with as you've rightfully suggested which was a small amount of of products for this i i couldn't say i agree that we thought
02:34:11 i i couldn't say i agree that we thought it was flawed the alternative is that there were technical loopholes being exploited by manufacturers to achieve class naught did you consider that
02:34:23 can i ask what you mean by technical loopholes yes testing the foil on the surface of the product without exposing the whole thing to a class naught test that's been known yes for some some time that subject to the
02:34:35 some some time that subject to the thickness of the outer skin of a composite product it could achieve class naught
02:34:42 naught and again hence the reason to revert back to the guidance and appreciate what might be under that uh in terms of combustible material and then the third is manufacturers making
02:34:53 then the third is manufacturers making false claims about fire safety wouldn't say it was commonplace that i was aware of that we spoke earlier in my evidence about
02:35:04 evidence about what was going on between the plastics-based fraternity and the mineral fibre in terms of whether they were making known claims about performance um
02:35:16 known claims about performance um i wouldn't have been aware of if if you know they were doing it fortunately or not
02:35:21 or not now mr bird the these two reports and the data from this project have never before this inquiry began to investigate been released into the public domain have they no they have not do you know
02:35:33 have they no they have not do you know why that is i can only envisage that it is in effect falling between bre and the department is typically government policy with public money that
02:35:45 government policy with public money that these should be published and looking at it and you know with the benefit of hindsight
02:35:52 hindsight a natural point to even release the generic data for the full scale testing would have been when we published br135 in the following year in the summer 2003
02:36:05 in the following year in the summer 2003 and by the same token in terms of another opportunity could ultimately have been when citation of br 135 and 8414 were proposed in 2005
02:36:17 proposed in 2005 consultation document for adb so that would have been another opportunity and so from my perspective i didn't realize that they hadn't been published
02:36:28 that they hadn't been published but i agree they should have been published
02:36:31 published and for me it's something that's in effect falling down between the department and bre
02:36:39 bre how
02:36:41 how how would how could it have fallen down between those two this is government data yeah
02:36:48 yeah absolutely sir if you look at the amount of testing and research we undertake
02:36:53 undertake in relation to approved document b it's considerable and therefore by virtue of
02:37:03 then trying to draw it together which we did in 2000 in 2005 for the consultation it should have formed part of of of that suite of
02:37:12 suite of of research that was published by ourselves by bre and other research providers was the bre themselves were the bre themselves free to publish this without
02:37:24 themselves free to publish this without the consent of government uh typically they wouldn't do that they would have asked if they could have published it do you know whether that question was raised with are you or anybody else in the department i don't
02:37:36 anybody else in the department i don't believe it was sir now if it was as i think you say typical because it was funded by public money
02:37:44 money um that this these reports would be published
02:37:49 published can you ascribe a reason for why that typical
02:37:52 typical uh policy or route wasn't taken i i can't i can only presume it was it formed part of a huge amount of research uh that ultimately fed into the 2006
02:38:05 uh that ultimately fed into the 2006 approved document b did you yourself give any consideration to
02:38:12 to putting this these two reports which are quite lengthy and quite striking out into the public domain so that industry could know of them um i can't recall but if i had they would have been there
02:38:25 if i had they would have been there as i say when we published the approved document b consultation in 2005 it's still there there's a web page on the bre website which lists all of the research that fed
02:38:37 which lists all of the research that fed into the adb review both
02:38:40 both bres and governments in terms of the building disaster assessment group work and what was originally the forward and backward look that we undertook as part of that first step to reviewing part b
02:38:52 step to reviewing part b quite simply it should have been there yes was there was a decision taken not to publish this data i don't believe so no
02:39:02 so no now
02:39:03 now we know that in and after 2013 there were i think after 2012 in fact there were fires in the middle east the uae involving aluminium
02:39:13 aluminium uh composite material with a polyethylene core and there were also fires in dubai in 2014 and 2015 and the lacrosse in melbourne in 2014 as well
02:39:26 melbourne in 2014 as well even after that can you explain why this data was not put into the public domain uh no i cannot um
02:39:35 um but from my perspective
02:39:38 we'll come on to that i'm sure there were um revisions made to the approved document in 2006 coming into fourth 2007 that would have
02:39:49 that would have further guided on such things but given those fires no i can't recall why then this wasn't then published can you explain why this data wasn't
02:40:01 can you explain why this data wasn't published after the grenfell tower fire itself in june 2017. i thought your respect so i left in 2013 and so i wouldn't have the answer for that
02:40:14 yes given that's unusual given the fact that not publishing it was unusual was there a cover-up no there was not sir how do you know from my perspective sat here today there
02:40:26 from my perspective sat here today there was no cover-up from my perspective right
02:40:30 right see some people looking at this and the importance of the results your evidence today might think that the government had deliberately covered up the test results showing that acm panels with a class naught badge performing
02:40:42 class naught badge performing disastrously at height was covered up and the government let them be used at height for another 17 years
02:40:50 years what would you say to them i can see how that might appear and why people might think that i can only provide you with my assurance that that is not what happened
02:40:59 happened from my perspective and they might all say put to you the fact that the reason why there was a cover-up was because of the fear of what industry might do
02:41:10 again i can see why people might think that but from my perspective there was no such cover-up or that the government might know that releasing these results would immediately trigger a cladding crisis i
02:41:24 from my perspective and we didn't really explore it too heavily but this work albeit in generic form did indeed go out back to the iag
02:41:35 back to the iag and to the bsi joint committee looking at developing the 8414 test part part one and then part two so
02:41:45 so some of the generic data did indeed go out so so that's the point i would add and ultimately sorry so ultimately a pass fail criteria was set which would ensure that
02:41:56 ensure that if these types of systems were tested they would have failed yes
02:42:04 can we then turn to a harmonization a topic we've covered a little bit earlier this morning radar i think stands for research on the proved document b and revision doesn't
02:42:15 proved document b and revision doesn't it it does uh and uh i'm going to summarize i think it's right that is correct if i'm wrong here as a result of the european construction products directive the department had to
02:42:28 products directive the department had to consider amendments and updates to approve document b yes yes and they had to do that in order to allow
02:42:35 allow for the presence of the european fire test methods that's correct what we had to remove were technical barriers to trade technical barriers to trade and the radar research was initiated to help the department understand how these new
02:42:47 department understand how these new european standards and classification systems should be implemented into the uk regulatory environment yes sir yes and and also to explore the impact of doing so on industry
02:42:59 doing so on industry to a degree yes yes yes now again this is um
02:43:03 is um this is material i'm expecting you to say yes to but just so we're clear about your own understanding radar was research commissioned by the department carried out by warrington fire yes uh and there were three parts
02:43:15 fire yes uh and there were three parts radar one fire resistance radar two reaction to fire and radar three roofing and testing relating to roofing products yes sir yes is it right that the focus of the research was on comparing the
02:43:27 research was on comparing the classifications achieved by various products when tested under the euro class system against the classifications achieved by the very same product when tested under the relevant parts of the british standards
02:43:38 standards uh to achieve particular classifications under the existing national class yesterday yes now i think it's right also that there are two reports from radar 2 in may 2000 let me just put both of
02:43:50 in may 2000 let me just put both of those up on the screen the first is clg 50950
02:44:04 and if we turn to page two in that please you'll see that it has the date of the 23rd of may at the very bottom right corner uh and it's this is part one uk and
02:44:17 uh and it's this is part one uk and european test data and comparisons between classification systems and the second one there's a part two which is at clg 50951 we can go to that please
02:44:29 and that has page one there and the date there is 26th of may 2000 yes and it's called part two proposals for the european supplement to approve document b
02:44:40 document b now my first question for you is were you familiar with these documents at the time in may 2000 i i would have been yes right
02:44:47 right now the radar project was a pii partners in innovation project wasn't it it was that meant that 50 of the funding came from the department and 50 from industry
02:44:58 from the department and 50 from industry yes yes um do you know which industry partners contributed to the to the funding of the radar 2 project
02:45:07 i i can't recall but typically there was a large suite of testing undertaken so when we talk about contributing to the cost
02:45:15 cost it would have been from a number of parties manufacturers bringing their products forward at their cost ultimately to be tested and assessed so it had been quite a sizable number
02:45:27 sizable number but this was again this because this was all about undertaking um testing to inform how we might best give visible recognition to the new european method of test
02:45:40 to the new european method of test um
02:45:41 um it it was taken on in this way and of course it was a huge amount of testing as well and so it for it to be undertaken with industry a sharing of the financial burden was it was was
02:45:52 the financial burden was it was was suitably important now you've said in the last answer that um the contribution would have been for a large number a number of parties manufacturers bringing their products forward at their cost
02:46:03 their products forward at their cost ultimately to be tested yes now i think 64 products were tested okay um were they all put forward by manufacturers i don't know i i would envisage you
02:46:14 i don't know i i would envisage you would have been a discussion between
02:46:18 between warrington and the manufacturers as to what should come forward because warrington having expertise in in research would have wanted um
02:46:29 would have wanted um the relevant sort of thematics and types of products to to help them best inform ultimately again another industry advisory group that
02:46:39 that you know we can take comfort in in the degree of testing undertaken and the amount of products undertaken for certain types of product to be aligning material or similar right now go to page
02:46:51 material or similar right now go to page four please in this table two here we see the transposition of uk class naught to euro classes you see yes uh and at the bottom of the table
02:47:02 yes uh and at the bottom of the table there is a range of results that we can see for some um 35 products yes um encountered them which achieved national class naught and tested under the euro norms and
02:47:13 tested under the euro norms and retrieved results in a range a1 through to e yes yes now that includes a number of products four in all as you can see at the foot of the table yes uh which
02:47:24 at the foot of the table yes uh which tested below euro class b they got a c yep two got a d and one got an e yes sir yeah
02:47:30 yeah did you consider that the data in that table was representative of the range of products actually available on the market at the time again this would have been a consideration
02:47:42 a consideration within the industry advisory group and that's something that warrington would have thought through in detail to make sure that they had suitable representation
02:47:53 representation and and products to test right really what i'm asking is what you thought i mean did you assume at the time that that the um these products were
02:48:04 that the um these products were representative of what was actually available on the market in common use or or
02:48:09 or are you interrogated and asked the question
02:48:13 i can't recall if i interrogated it but i'd be very surprised if it wasn't representative of the marketplace because that would have amounted to quite a material consideration
02:48:25 quite a material consideration for
02:48:26 for the work at hand
02:48:30 now let's look at the minutes of the brac meeting on the 10th of may 2001 the following year and we're going to flip between these two reports i'm afraid this is a clg 407308
02:48:46 i'm afraid this is a clg 407308 i'll show you for the first page of that of course
02:48:52 um you can see that it's a minute of the minutes of the part b working party meeting
02:48:58 meeting 10th of may 2001 in eland house or is it is it ellen house or england england
02:49:05 england and on the right hand column you can see that under debbie smith's name appears your name anthony bird yes right now if we then go please to um page seven
02:49:16 page seven under paragraph 5.7 under the heading radar 2 reaction to fire you can see um that it records dr smith explaining that there's a problem
02:49:28 that there's a problem and
02:49:29 and she says in the second line dr smith explained that one problem was that there was an uneven distribution of products submitted for testing since pii is 50 industry-led industries sent in the products that it wanted to send in
02:49:41 the products that it wanted to send in there is a natural reluctance by industry to put in poor performing products
02:49:46 products now just just looking at that doesn't that suggest or did that suggest to you at the time that the data set in table two that we've been looking at the 35 products
02:49:55 products in the transposition point um it was unrepresentative or might be unrepresentative of the market uh dr smith raised that as a potential point
02:50:06 as a potential point but i wouldn't necessarily say according to question the
02:50:10 the um the robustness of what had been undertaken and tested why would it not because
02:50:17 because we would have looked at it from the perspective of what products to make sure that we had sufficient focus from recollection in relation to the the breakdown of what
02:50:28 in relation to the the breakdown of what would have amounted to comparing products to class naught one two and three so
02:50:35 so an observation from from from debbie smith
02:50:39 smith but
02:50:40 but again
02:50:41 again i should imagine this is a report this is the minutes of the meeting there would have been discussion yes
02:50:48 yes um
02:50:50 um i mean given the way in which these products came to uh came to warrington namely by selection by the industry who made them
02:51:01 made them uh
02:51:02 uh does it does it follow from that that it was at least possible that although table 2 records the majority of class naught products tested as having achieved class b or
02:51:13 tested as having achieved class b or better
02:51:14 better in reality many products not submitted for testing but available on the market and perhaps in common use might not have been able to achieve a class b rating under the euro class system
02:51:25 system they might not have been able to achieve it yes
02:51:28 it yes what work had been done in order to identify how commonly used the class naught products at the bottom of the table which had achieved c d and e
02:51:38 c d and e were in the uk i i don't know what considerations were given at that time as as you probably saw from the front cover of the warrington report you showed me
02:51:49 of the warrington report you showed me um tony edwards was still a principal fire safety professional and whilst i attended some of the radar work not all of it that sort of that
02:52:01 not all of it that sort of that discussion i envisaged would have would have taken place the other thing to say of course if i may is that if you don't want to bring forward a poorer performing product that's
02:52:13 poorer performing product that's for you to consider but ultimately when there comes a time for something that needs testing you will have to test that product so i understand that you'll say but we
02:52:24 understand that you'll say but we weren't at this point making the european test methodology as far as you can make such a thing in the approved document be the only way to follow
02:52:34 to follow but if people didn't actually bring products forward because they fearful they might not perform ultimately that would come out in the marketplace in fact that would have come out in the marketplace when the the
02:52:45 out in the marketplace when the the department the government made c marketing mandatory which required you to produce performance classifications based on the european test methodology if it did no it did it did in 2013. yeah
02:52:58 if it did no it did it did in 2013. yeah 2013. yes yes that's right 12 years later yes yes
02:53:05 but coming back to my question i think the question is none but just to ask it again
02:53:11 again had any work been done to identify how commonly used what the frequency of use was of the class naught products tested which had achieved classes c d and e not that i can recall
02:53:22 that i can recall so for all you knew product ref 103 uh which achieved an e could have been a market leader above 18 meters
02:53:33 potentially but because it achieved class naught it could continue to be used the primary intent of the the european supplement was to give
02:53:44 the european supplement was to give visible recognition to the new european test methodologies that were coming forward under the auspices of the construction products directive yes and the methodology selected for transposition was one of
02:53:56 selected for transposition was one of i think the phrase used here is is product density not in the physical sense but cluster statistically density of cluster points around the transposition point
02:54:09 around the transposition point yes yes and we can see that from um figure one if we if we look later on in this document but given that that is the way it was done why was no examination undertaken of
02:54:21 why was no examination undertaken of whether or not those products which had um had fallen outside the the range at the top of the bell curve as it were were nonetheless say frequently used um that that you
02:54:33 that that you it would be dangerous to allow this method to continue um i don't quite necessarily understand why it would be dangerous to allow it to continue because if if we are suggesting that
02:54:45 if if we are suggesting that those that coming forward with a product didn't want what they perceived to be a poorer product being tested you therefore only have the national classification which i acknowledge
02:54:56 classification which i acknowledge sir
02:54:56 sir but if it was to be used in an environment whereby
02:55:00 whereby it could form a risk because it included an element of combustibility then there were other provisions in the in the approved documents and the regulations that would have addressed
02:55:11 regulations that would have addressed those
02:55:18 and is that what you referred to before that's back to the functional requirements and the performance requirements what consideration was given to the possibility in relation to the eventual decision to transpose class naught to as euro class
02:55:31 transpose class naught to as euro class b
02:55:33 b to the possibility that those products which had achieved class naught but nonetheless achieved classes c d and e were frequently used in the uk market again
02:55:42 again the whole purpose of the construction products directive was to allow a harmonization of test methodologies uh uk government at that point had not
02:55:53 uh uk government at that point had not made c marking mandatory under the cpr but what we couldn't do is be a barrier to trade
02:56:00 to trade and therefore it was imperative that we moved forward to offer a transposition between national and european classes that could be utilized so we didn't preclude the use of products coming in
02:56:13 preclude the use of products coming in but there was still a choice as to what methodology you might decide to pick going forward as far as the guidance and the approved document was concerned
02:56:24 did anybody examine whether the kinds of class naught products which failed to meet class b uh or better were used in particular places and were they cladding products were the insulation products were they
02:56:35 were the insulation products were they into internal wallpaper or lining products there would have been consideration of the broad type of product it would have been generically captured as to what it was used um
02:56:48 but again i mean the thing with what we have here is that we have two whilst they're used for the purposes of measuring fire spread in terms of
02:56:59 measuring fire spread in terms of aligning materials they are subtly different tests and therefore there was an expectation that
02:57:07 that being
02:57:08 being let's be quite clear a more modern more demanding test there would be winners and losers depending upon the type of product at hand did you question the methodology of using this bell curve
02:57:19 methodology of using this bell curve type of
02:57:20 type of approach to transposition without knowing the frequency of use or the intended use of these four class naught products which had not achieved class b we would have had discussions about this sort of approach but what we
02:57:32 about this sort of approach but what we were trying to find was a best fit in terms of a transposition between national and european
02:57:41 now i think at the time you and the part b working party were considering the the radar 2 reports um in the context of approved document b
02:57:53 um in the context of approved document b uh 2000
02:57:55 uh 2000 yes the 1991 uh building regulations but with the adb 2000 yes
02:58:02 2000 yes from recollection yes sir and that only suggest that only contained one suggested restriction for the use of cladding panels on the external face of buildings over 18 meters namely class naught within diagram 40.
02:58:14 40. sorry could you ask a question again please sir yes there was only one restriction or there's only one um uh item of guidance if i can use a more neutral expression namely not class naught
02:58:25 expression namely not class naught in terms of in terms of what the linear route to compliance was class norm for cladding system yes in addition to the provisions we've spoken about yes yes yes
02:58:36 spoken about yes yes yes now were you aware at the time so this is may 2001 that the fire at nosley heights 10 years before in 1991 had spread up the external
02:58:48 in 1991 had spread up the external face of the building in its entirety despite the fact that the cladding panels used had achieved class naught as i explained on my evidence on thursday i became aware of knowlesley
02:59:00 thursday i became aware of knowlesley heights
02:59:02 as part of preparations for the select committee
02:59:07 committee from what we were doing here with the european supplement was removing technical barriers to trade it wasn't in effect a full technical review of the approved document b what we
02:59:20 of the approved document b what we needed to do was to provide transposition between national and european tests but
02:59:26 but from our perspective knowing what we learnt from the radar work that we found that the european test was a more typically a more demanding test
02:59:37 more demanding test and therefore we had to make sure that the comparisons of what class naught equated to was suitably positioned and so we didn't want the european class being uh brought forward in a way that
02:59:48 being uh brought forward in a way that lowered levels of safety but other than that this was not a full technical review of the approved occupant b no i understand that but given your reference to the select committee given you knew by this point i
03:00:00 committee given you knew by this point i think
03:00:01 think may 2001 and had known for a year that the select committee's recommendation uh was to substitute class naught with a full-scale test yes yes um
03:00:15 full-scale test yes yes um against that background and against also the background of the fact that some class naught products of unknown frequency in use got class naught but not class b but did worse
03:00:26 worse did they against that background did the results
03:00:29 results in the radar report not prompt you to consider whether the department should now move to implement the recommendations of the select committee for recollection this document would
03:00:41 for recollection this document would have gone out in [Music]
03:00:44 [Music] oh
03:00:45 oh i forget which year it went out for public consultation sir but
03:00:50 sir but we only had access to bre 135 and the pass fail criteria in
03:00:57 in the summer of 2003. bs 8414 part 1 was published at the end of 2008
03:01:06 of 2008 so there would have been no possibility of including
03:01:11 that package of of the full-scale testing option within this document then why not advise the government why not advise your
03:01:22 why not advise your seniors and take the decision that in the light of the work done by this harmonization group in the light of
03:01:32 light of the fact that there were a number of products that failed to achieve class b even though they achieved class naught and in the light of the select committee's original recommendation to move straight to getting rid of class
03:01:43 to move straight to getting rid of class naught as soon as the full-scale test was adopted by the as the british standard at the end of 2002.
03:01:51 2002. well there's a there's a number of components there so from the european supplement perspective it was to remove technical barriers to trade it was to bring about
03:02:03 trade it was to bring about in effect no market distortion and therefore it was all about how best to accommodate the european test methodology and the classifications there too and
03:02:14 and the classifications there too and how it compared to the national classifications
03:02:19 from this point there may have been considerations that adb would then be subject to a full technical review starting it would have been late 2013
03:02:31 starting it would have been late 2013 2014.
03:02:33 2014. um so that would have been a material consideration there the other point to say is that without a full-scale test methodology with past fail criteria and i've given that was 20
03:02:44 fail criteria and i've given that was 20 end of 2012 and 2013. we couldn't immediately mobilize in my opinion into requiring as much as you can require in statutory guidance
03:02:55 you can require in statutory guidance only using the european test methodology because
03:03:00 because it had only just arrived and as we were seeing here the radar was the first foray where we were having manufacturers come forward and test their products to the new european methodology and so
03:03:12 the new european methodology and so that would have brought about market distortion um and wouldn't have met the agreed backdrop that this was to amount to a transposition which would bring about
03:03:24 transposition which would bring about removing technical barriers to trade
03:03:28 is that a convenient moment yes i think it is we'll stop there now so we can all have some lunch mr bird we'll resume please at five past two and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of
03:03:39 about your evidence when you're out of the room thank you sir all right thank you very much
03:03:49 five past two please okay
03:03:58 you