Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Monday 28th February 2022 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:28 would you ask mr bird to come back in please

00:00:41 all right mr bird ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes yes thank you mr chairman mr bird can we now go back to the radar report part two clg 50951 and go to page six

00:01:01 uh there is table six possible option for transposition of classes for reaction to fire performance uh now those are the suggested transposition options aren't they all points yes yes

00:01:12 points yes yes uh now while we're on this document do you know who's made the handwritten notes on this copy i believe they're mine

00:01:19 mine they're yours right now um

00:01:22 now um if we look at the proposal in table six that was to equate class naught with euro class b or better yes yes was that your tick yes right and what was it

00:01:34 right and what was it you you ticked it why did you tick it i think it was just as you probably noticed on the rest of this document i when i when i do read things i have a habit of going through just to register that i've seen it i

00:01:45 just to register that i've seen it i might put a mark through right that's not uncommon for me right uh

00:01:50 uh and what was what did the tick signify recognition of what the recommendation was for as a possible option you didn't take the others why is that

00:02:00 i don't know sir if we move to page eight at the very top of the page little c we see this any reference to class naught being

00:02:12 any reference to class naught being equivalent to euro class a2 would severely restrict the market choice in terms of materials for specifiers and clients this applies to virtually all organic containing materials in germany and france the authorities have a single

00:02:24 and france the authorities have a single classification ie b1 or m1 now just pausing there you've put is that why it looks like your squiggle yes but i don't know what it's pertaining to what is it what is it i've

00:02:35 pertaining to what is it what is it i've got no idea i know what it is right no thus euro class b could be a cross-border compromise which is supported by the high product density obtained at the class naught to euro class b transposition point

00:02:46 class b transposition point was there a view at this time that only few products achieving class naught would be capable of achieving euro class a2

00:02:55 a2 i can't recall at this time if that was the case but of course what i would say this was warrington's recommendation and this was

00:03:06 warrington's recommendation and this was a precursor ultimately to considerations by

00:03:10 by the likes of the brac and similar but i can't recall in relation to the question was it your view that that equivalence would severely restrict the market at the end of any period of coexistence

00:03:22 at the end of any period of coexistence i don't believe i had i considered that point right you didn't consider it even though it's in the report it is in the report but from my perspective these are hugely

00:03:34 but from my perspective these are hugely important pieces of work that feed into then a wider consideration and ultimately a public consultation is it right that if you said that class naught should be

00:03:45 if you said that class naught should be equivalent to euro class a2 that would have been likely to have met with serious resistance from the industry potentially yes yeah was that was that a factor in your consideration of the

00:03:56 factor in your consideration of the transposition points at this time no why is that how can you have excluded it well from from my perspective what's the the purpose of the research at hand was for

00:04:07 purpose of the research at hand was for them

00:04:08 them the researchers with testing and similar to come up with recommendations of what good and appropriate might look like and so

00:04:17 so the the the net effect going forward would be something i'd consider typically as a backdrop to what decisions are made following engagement with brac and public consultation

00:04:28 with brac and public consultation thereafter is it right that equivalence from class naught to a2 at the end of any period of coexistence would mean would mean that buildings over 18 meters would be clad in

00:04:40 over 18 meters would be clad in materials that were safer less likely to burn

00:04:46 if you are only utilizing a comparator of the national classification and the european classification i diagram 40 yes yes but again i'd predicate it that

00:04:57 yes yes but again i'd predicate it that if from a national perspective we were still looking where needed to supplement that class naught with additional provisions like limited combustibility

00:05:09 uh were you where where in the regulation well by by again hacking back to this would have been the adb 2000 as amended to the discussion we've been

00:05:20 amended to the discussion we've been having about that care and consideration should be given to

00:05:27 given to cladding materials which are combustible especially in relation to tall buildings and the discussion we had about reverting back to the functional requirement i see so it's that yes right we may have to find a shorthand for that yeah but i understand that

00:05:39 yeah but i understand that um so of course it wouldn't it be the case just developing that theme a little bit more that if you were to identify the transposition point as class naught to a two

00:05:49 two um then you would be um providing a linear route which would have a greater chance of achieving the functional requirements so why not go for that

00:05:59 for that again this is a research report making a suggestion of consideration that's something that would have been considered as the consultation document itself would have been developed and out for public consultation i mean

00:06:11 and out for public consultation i mean was it this was this a question standing back a little bit from this of balancing public safety and on the one hand and market choice on the other

00:06:22 the other the backdrop to ultimately the consultation on the european supplement as i sort of said was to bring about visible recognition to the new european test methodology

00:06:33 test methodology in terms of parochial to the european test methodology we didn't want to offer a transposition between national and european

00:06:42 european that itself saw a lowering of safety and so it's trying to find the best fit being cognizant that they were different methods of tests develop developed in different times

00:06:53 different times and in effect different reference scenarios as to what might best look like to offer that that that visible recognition yes but and in that exercise you had a

00:07:06 yes but and in that exercise you had a choice as we can see from the table and the choice uh was made to transpose at class b or between class being sorry between class naught and class b

00:07:18 between class naught and class b and my question is why did you choose b as opposed to a2 that would have been subject to consultation with the building regulations advisory committee

00:07:29 building regulations advisory committee working party and ultimately going out for consultation to the public well that all that answer tells me is that people thought it was a good idea that's not the answer to the question the question is

00:07:40 is what was the rationale for the choice of b the government adopting b as opposed to a2 from recollection from

00:07:53 we we're talking about at the end of the procedures after we've been through public consultation and similar the ultimate decision the ultimate decision in the end was to do exactly what this report says which

00:08:05 do exactly what this report says which is which was to uh i think arrive at a compromise uh at the class naught euro class b transposition point now my question really is what was the rationale

00:08:17 rationale for the decision to transpose there class naught for the recollection it was to ensure that that was a reasonable point of transition to not lower safety for when utilizing the

00:08:29 lower safety for when utilizing the euro-class transposition position

00:08:34 and it was picked on the basis of different products performing different ways but it was felt that that was the appropriate transposition point

00:08:46 transposition point the reality is isn't it as we can see from this paragraph is that b is a compromise balancing on the one hand public safe fire safety and on the other hand

00:08:55 hand a risk of restricting the market is that is that fair

00:09:01 could you repeat the question yes b

00:09:05 b yes as the transposition point is a compromise balancing on the one hand public fire safety and on the other a risk of restriction to the market

00:09:17 it was felt that b was a good level of performance from this work and therefore it was felt that

00:09:25 that in from recollection that it was appropriate for the purposes of transposition it it would sit more naturally with class naught um however again to reiterate a point

00:09:38 um however again to reiterate a point reiterate a point that

00:09:41 that these changes by the european supplement weren't

00:09:46 to give visible recognition to the new european classes but shouldn't unduly distort the marketplace sorry let's try and get at this a different way what was the objection to

00:09:58 what was the objection to using a2 rather than b i think it was perhaps too demanding for

00:10:05 for to equate to class naught and therefore when we were looking for when we were controlling typically linings and equating it to something and where you could use glass b products it

00:10:16 you could use glass b products it equated more appropriately to where you could currently use class naught products thank you

00:10:31 i see now can we move then to clg 407308

00:10:40 which is back to the um part b working party minute of the 10th of may

00:10:45 of may yes and

00:10:46 yes and we've already seen this but if we go to page 2 and look at paragraph 3.3 we can see that you outline there the main aim of the cpd and it goes on which is to break down

00:10:57 and it goes on which is to break down technical barriers to trade between member states of the eu it is not underlying the purpose of the directive to harmonize building regulations member states will remain free to set their own building regulations what the cpd will

00:11:08 building regulations what the cpd will do is harmonize methods of fire testing i.e reaction to fire and fire resistance the cpd will have a huge impact it will it will affect how products are tested labeled and moved around europe and

00:11:19 labeled and moved around europe and manufacturers are beginning to realize this

00:11:22 this yes and would you agree that the extent of the impact on manufacturers in practical terms would depend to a large extent on decisions made by the department first about transposition and

00:11:33 first about transposition and equivalence between the two systems yes yes and secondly the transposition period when the two classification methods would co-exist yes yes now can we then in the light of that

00:11:45 now can we then in the light of that then turn to paragraph 3.7 on the next page page three

00:11:51 and here you are recorded as explaining that the uk differs from some other ms's member states member states in the in that we already have functional requirements therefore subject to the

00:12:03 requirements therefore subject to the requirements the uk could probably already accommodate harmonized methods of test but we need to give a visible recognition of this in quite some quotes it was not proposed that the wp revisit the technical aspects of adb since the

00:12:15 the technical aspects of adb since the ad was only recently revised and came into enforce into force in july of last year 2000 members agreed yes did you mean by uh that that the functional requirements

00:12:28 uh that that the functional requirements could just be adapted to refer to the harmonized test methods

00:12:33 what i was saying is by virtue of a functional requirement you can you can follow the common guidance in the approved document b for the more common situations or if you could make the case you could use

00:12:46 if you could make the case you could use the european tests already as a way of showing compliance in the uk market so why not just go straight to the european tests

00:12:55 tests against the background of what you said about the functional requirements because the primary intent of this document excuse me sir was to recognize that we these new methods of test which actually

00:13:07 methods of test which actually they form part of a package so how the construction products directive excuse me

00:13:15 excuse me works is that it's driven by harmonized product

00:13:19 product and so that's the first part so what we're looking to do is harmonize product standards for for typical construction products like doors or windows for example

00:13:30 example the next important part of that is how you then test those products could we please do that in a in in in a unified way and then there after the third part would be how you classify both those

00:13:43 would be how you classify both those those products in relation to using those

00:13:46 those those new methods of test and so from that perspective we had to give recognition in an approved document because it's statutory guidance because it was recognized that there was only

00:13:58 it was recognized that there was only national references to test methods there and while c marking was not mandatory in the uk at this time it was felt that we wouldn't want to be infracted or taken to court because we

00:14:11 infracted or taken to court because we hadn't recognized these new european tests and the point i was trying to make here is that the potential benefits of a functional system of regulations is if you can draw together and provide the proof

00:14:24 together and provide the proof then you could use tests from around the globe

00:14:27 globe if it had shown that the product in that environment in that type of building would help secure and meet the functional requirement

00:14:49 was there any discussion of

00:14:52 of this at this meeting of making express reference to the euro classes in br135 in the context of external fire spread in order to achieve visible recognition

00:15:03 in order to achieve visible recognition of accommodating harmonized methods of test

00:15:07 test sorry so just understand that was a discussion about putting the euro classes into br13 yes i can't recall that now at this time is it right that the intention was that national standards

00:15:18 intention was that national standards would be withdrawn following the transposition of the directive

00:15:25 it was felt that at a some point in the future

00:15:29 future the national standards or the recognition in the statutory guidance to the to the national standards would fall yes yes and if we go to 3.10 at the foot of this very page you can see this it

00:15:40 of this very page you can see this it says anthony bird uh explained how the withdrawal of national standards would work the commission considers that dates for withdrawal of the bs will be driven by the product standards therefore planning for this was not

00:15:52 therefore planning for this was not relevant um what did you mean there in that second sentence the commission considers that dates for withdrawal of the bs will be driven by the product standards therefore planning for this was not relevant

00:16:04 was not relevant i believe what i was trying to refer to there was a situation that in terms of how we control building work in england we have our building regulations

00:16:15 we have our building regulations how

00:16:16 how the construction products directive was being overseen was by a discretely separate piece of legislation and how it was utilized and implemented into the united kingdom and so it wasn't necessarily for the

00:16:27 and so it wasn't necessarily for the building regulations to regulate the cpd that's a different piece of legislation and therefore what we had to make sure is that we weren't a technical barrier

00:16:38 is that we weren't a technical barrier to trade to products coming in from around europe who have utilized these new european test methodologies and therefore notwithstanding as long as we were no

00:16:49 notwithstanding as long as we were no longer

00:16:50 longer a barrier to trade then ultimately the decision as to when it was taken by ministers

00:16:54 ministers that

00:16:55 that for the purposes of building regulations we would stop referring to national standards would be something for them to consider

00:17:03 consider what would happen in the marketplace is that as the

00:17:08 the for example has happened in 2013 we've turned from the construction products directive to the construction products regulations to place a product on the uk market you

00:17:20 to place a product on the uk market you had to bear the ce marking at the time and now ukca marking therefore it would be the cpd at that point that would drive national manufacturers

00:17:31 national manufacturers to actually undertake european tests to get a declaration of performance to allow them to place that product on the market it wasn't the the building regulations and the approved document that was making you do that in a

00:17:43 that was making you do that in a sentence if you can what do you mean by planning for this was not relevant planning for withdrawal of the bs why was that not relevant

00:17:54 because the building regulations would not be dictated to by a british standard necessarily being withdrawn

00:18:04 because it was it was implemented by virtue of the construction products directive

00:18:10 directive that is the driver for controlling products placed in the market yeah but there's a difference isn't there between putting class b in and therefore giving visible recognition

00:18:21 and therefore giving visible recognition to

00:18:22 to the um to the directive cpd on the one hand and taking class naught out which wasn't

00:18:29 wasn't so why was there why was there no need to plan for the withdrawal of class naught

00:18:35 naught from

00:18:49 i think from there the commission we're considering that by virtue of withdrawal of national standards around europe that itself

00:18:59 itself would therefore naturally drive the marketplace for placing products on the market to utilize the new euro classes that's what i believe i was referring to there

00:19:21 right well let's see how this goes if we go down to page seven in this document you can see that there's paragraph 5.8 and this is dr smith

00:19:30 smith and she says this debbie smith went on to point out that a direct equivalence between uk classes and euro classes was not possible problems arise as radar 2 is based on a small data set and certain products such

00:19:42 small data set and certain products such as aluminium foil phased insulation products are problematic concern was also expressed that that in radar the radar 2 proposal the uk class 2 had been equated with euro class c

00:19:53 2 had been equated with euro class c together with uk class 1 this could be seen as lowering standards dr smith reassured the members that in the draft european supplement they had not done this uk class 2 is equated more readily

00:20:05 this uk class 2 is equated more readily to euro class d members agree that we must not be seen to be lowering standards

00:20:10 standards by whom was it agreed that quotes we must not be seen to be lowering standards

00:20:16 standards well

00:20:16 well i think as i've already explained to some degree sir the bottom line is is that we're bringing about recognition to the new european classification system

00:20:27 classification system it was there to remove technical barriers to trade but we didn't want to place it

00:20:31 place it in a position whereby its citation itself would lower safety standards and you could utilize the european classification system to lower standards more generally yeah i

00:20:43 to lower standards more generally yeah i understand that but what really what i'm after here is why did you why was it said

00:20:48 said that that we must not be seen to be lowering standards as opposed to we must not lower standards it's just in the reporting i suggest from what's being said here can we go to page 9 and paragraph 6.8

00:21:00 page 9 and paragraph 6.8 which i just want to look at with you um it says requirement b4 external fire spread is to remain unchanged dr smith explained that the current diagram 40 in adb 2000 on the restricted use of

00:21:12 adb 2000 on the restricted use of materials based on bs 476 part 6 performance can no longer be used and we must agree what to put in its place dr smith suggested replacing before the performance requirement index i

00:21:23 performance requirement index i uh not more than 20 with class c now um

00:21:28 now um and then there's something about roofs but then she goes on to say therefore for the time being the current national test methods and classification systems are to prevail can you help us with why this says that bs476 could no longer be

00:21:41 this says that bs476 could no longer be used

00:21:43 used no i cannot and as at the date of this meeting may 2001

00:21:47 2001 that wasn't the case was it no no was it envisaged at this point that there would be a period of transition ultimately yes as to when that drew to a

00:21:58 ultimately yes as to when that drew to a close and the national classes from the building regulation statutory guidance when they would when that would fall that was still to be determined when but ultimately that would have been

00:22:09 when but ultimately that would have been the intention and did you have an opinion of your own at the time about what might be an appropriate transition period no i did not if we go to page 11 paragraph 6 point 20 there it says on page 15 an

00:22:22 point 20 there it says on page 15 an amended diagram 40 needs to be produced and anthony ferguson questioned the last line of the final para which states that index i not more than 20 should be replaced by class c debbie smith could not recall exactly where the figure came

00:22:34 not recall exactly where the figure came from and remarked that there was a general lack of data action bre to investigate this information now this i think is a discussion about the content of the draft european supplement to the approved document

00:22:45 approved document is that right i believe so yes were you concerned that there was no data about how that figure had been derived the um the figure uh index i not more than 20. i s

00:22:57 i s not necessarily no what i understood this to mean is that there was a need to go back and understand where

00:23:06 where this derived from and better understand um

00:23:10 um why those decisions were taken hence bre were asked to investigate further now going back if we can for a moment to this question of equivalence and what

00:23:21 and what debbie smith has said earlier on that a direct equivalence between the systems wasn't possible

00:23:28 possible um

00:23:29 um one of the reasons dr smith gave to the working party at this meeting we go back to page seven if we can you'll see it at paragraph five point eight uh is uh in the fourth line that

00:23:41 uh is uh in the fourth line that some products certain products are problematic do you see that uh whereabouts third line certain products such as aluminium foil phase insulation products are problematic

00:23:52 products are problematic now just holding that in your mind if you would let's go back to the radar report itself clg five zeros 951 page nine

00:24:01 nine and look at paragraph 4.5 this is under a heading cellular plastics sector and you'll remember maybe you wait but i'll tell you that

00:24:12 i'll tell you that that there were i think six kinds of product grouped together with a key um

00:24:19 key um there was wood there were paints and this there was also cellular plastics and this is the particular part of the radar 2 report about that right now if we look at paragraph 4.5

00:24:33 it says in the short report in part one ref three which accompanied the presentation of the data on the comparisons between the euro class system and the uk fire assessment procedures two conclusions were drawn concerning cellular plastics products

00:24:45 concerning cellular plastics products these were one for the product group as a whole no correlation was obtained between the euro class system and the uk system

00:24:53 system two for steel and plasterboard-faced products there was a good correlation with the uk class naught values corresponding to a euro class b now just looking at the first bullet point

00:25:03 point product group as a whole no correlation was obtained were you surprised by that not necessarily no why why is that because they were two discreetly different sets of tests one being the

00:25:15 different sets of tests one being the the national tests that have been around for quite some time the latest state-of-the-art fire tests that were emanating at a european level and they had

00:25:26 and they had as i said already different aspects in terms of

00:25:30 terms of the degree of fire placed upon the test and material etc so

00:25:37 etc so you know

00:25:38 you know they didn't develop the european tests with a mind on how it might equate to any national classes it was developed to be the right type of test for those sorts of products yes

00:25:48 yes now um so you weren't surprised by the absence of correlation overall

00:25:53 overall um if we look at b on this page it says uh products 405 and 412 which also give class naught on the uk system give respectively euro classes c and d

00:26:04 give respectively euro classes c and d in the european assessment they're just pausing there that's a reference to the table we saw before table two um

00:26:12 um both of these products have relatively thin aluminium foil-faced flexible foam laminates respectively based on polyisorate and phenolic foam with these products it was observed that in the sbi test

00:26:24 in the sbi test the aluminium foil facing with penetrated such that the underlying frame was then available to contribute to the heat rate of heat release calculation whereas in the uk bs 476

00:26:35 calculation whereas in the uk bs 476 part six the heat release found in that test was not sufficient to displace the classification away from the uk class naught

00:26:43 naught yes yes

00:26:45 yes yes and then it goes on clearly the introduction of a simple replacement to the uk class north by a euro class b requirement in any regulatory procedure would discriminate against products 4.05 and 412

00:26:58 against products 4.05 and 412 against the practical experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications

00:27:07 now uh were you surprised to have read that no

00:27:14 no had you previously been aware that although several of the products which had achieved class naught in the uk national classification system achieve class b in the european system such as steel or plasterboard faced products

00:27:28 foil faced pir and phenolic foam insulation products achieve class naught but only got class d and c respectively in the european system did you know that

00:27:39 in the european system did you know that yes from here well you're not surprised by that no why is why were you not surprised again different materials and products will behave differently right i see and then if you look at this final

00:27:51 i see and then if you look at this final sentence

00:27:53 sentence on the basis of that answer and this passage

00:27:57 passage i'll read it to you again it says clearly the introduction of a simple replacement of the cl of uk class naught by a euro class b requirement in any regulatory procedure would discriminate

00:28:08 regulatory procedure would discriminate against products 4.05 and 4.12 against the practical experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications what did you understand the reports to

00:28:19 what did you understand the reports to mean there by the words discriminate against

00:28:23 against i understood that to mean that if that was a transposition chosen then it would discriminate in the future those products if and when the approved document only

00:28:34 and when the approved document only referred to the european

00:28:37 european test method so in other words they would become unacceptable where previously they had been widely accepted or accepted

00:28:45 accepted on the basis of having achieved class naught yes uh

00:28:49 uh what was the problem with discriminating against those products on the basis that their fire performance was poor when subjected to the single burning item test

00:28:58 test again from the perspective of what we were trying to achieve here was to give visible recognition to these new european methods of tests it wasn't it was agreed that it wouldn't

00:29:10 it wasn't it was agreed that it wouldn't amount to market distortion it was to recognize these tests were coming we had the test methodology but certainly the product standards were still coming through and you know many more to follow but it recognized it was

00:29:23 more to follow but it recognized it was for some products a much more difficult test to get higher classification

00:29:33 when this was discussed were only what were the factors in making this decision we can see here that it's clear that the test itself

00:29:43 itself um operated in favor of these products the

00:29:47 the national classification test class nought

00:29:50 nought but the euroclass was harder to achieve i think yes what were the factors other than the density around the transposition point statistically which

00:30:02 transposition point statistically which we've seen for deciding on uh on class b as opposed to a2 or c again from recollection this is the driving report

00:30:13 the driving report that would have fed into rat considerations which you've started to show me and a public consultation that we would have ultimately had to put out

00:30:23 out a proposal of what the transf the transposition could look like but we'd then test the marketplace to see what the market thought but

00:30:33 but you know as i believe we had a look at the start of the minutes to the european working party brac meeting it wasn't the intention to undertake a fundamental review of part b fire safety

00:30:47 fundamental review of part b fire safety this was all about what does the transposition look like right so does it come to this that this harmonization project wasn't actually a harmonization project at all

00:30:58 actually a harmonization project at all it was a rough equivalency project

00:31:02 project and you had to give visible recognition to the euro standards so you plump for class b on the basis that it was it was roughly right when you looked at class naught

00:31:10 naught it was for to give visible recognition to ensure that well england because other regulators had to do the same that england wasn't in any way um being a barrier to trade

00:31:21 in any way um being a barrier to trade to these new products tested in this way for being placed on the market but also vice versa that uk manufacturers although seeking to supply in the uk would would still be able to supply

00:31:33 would would still be able to supply in accordance with the uh

00:31:36 uh with class naught as a standard even though in fact um it it didn't perform as well as a possible equivalent euro standards

00:31:44 standards now can i go to clg 401109

00:31:48 401109 this is uh an email from a man called wilf ball broofman you'll have heard of broofman at the time i have to you yes 31st of january 2002. mm-hmm uh subject cpa fire group meeting

00:32:02 mm-hmm uh subject cpa fire group meeting to discuss the cpa response to the european supplement proposal for approved document b and uh

00:32:11 and uh brookman just to be clear was the british rigid urethane foam manufacturers association now the ima yes yes yes uh and they were i think members of the iag for the radar project

00:32:22 members of the iag for the radar project weren't they uh if if you say so i i i do say so okay so yes sir okay now in the let's go to page one bottom paragraph he says this mr ball does

00:32:33 paragraph he says this mr ball does furthermore there are foil-faced polyurethane products which obtain a class naught in the uk testing and then therefore available for internal linings of other circulation spaces including the common areas of flats and masonettes

00:32:45 the common areas of flats and masonettes and that's a quotation that give in the radar testing only a class d similarly a foil-faced phenolic product with a class naught in the uk system only obtained a class c in the european classification so they would not be able to also be

00:32:57 so they would not be able to also be used in this classification which they have previously been accepted in so previously acceptable safe products would be prevented from continuing in their application and in other cases

00:33:09 their application and in other cases products that have been established as dangerous in that application before would now be permitted unless some mechanism can be introduced to correct these anomalous situations i think you will agree this should not happen

00:33:20 will agree this should not happen did you

00:33:21 did you or do you now agree with bruhma's position that as it said this should not happen

00:33:30 from my perspective just understand the context of this letter quite clearly when i look at the title of the email i was just about to embark to go and give a presentation

00:33:41 to embark to go and give a presentation on the consultation version of

00:33:44 of the european supplement mr ball clearly couldn't make the meeting and so he was wanting to make clear to me of his thoughts as to what could be acceptable

00:33:55 could be acceptable or not

00:33:56 or not and therefore from mine out of it i would have looked upon it as something that's come forward with concerns from the industry that they don't want to be undermined and you know things should be able to

00:34:09 and you know things should be able to prevail

00:34:10 prevail under the current national system and then not to be unduly affected by the new european system emails discussions like this did happen from time to time

00:34:22 from time to time and

00:34:23 and i don't i don't recall this email but i would have kindly suggested that mr ball feeds his comments into the construction products association who is an umbrella body that represents all of these many

00:34:35 body that represents all of these many many associations and probably putting his own breath submission to the consultation

00:34:46 he says in the fifth line up from the end of that paragraph previously acceptable safe products would be prevented from continuing in their application yep in fact isn't it

00:34:57 their application yep in fact isn't it the case that previously acceptable safe products were actually only as safe as class naught said they were

00:35:06 yeah yes but class naught as you've accepted and as i think was commonly known at least by the pre was not a reliable classification uh in relation to external fast spread

00:35:19 uh in relation to external fast spread um

00:35:20 um and you you know you knew that from 2001 where and the and the cc 9024 test but from the again we can have to come up with the shorthand version sir but from a

00:35:31 but from a class naught was not the only consideration in relation to the external service and the external or the product arrangement where for example you were

00:35:43 example you were you'd have to consider meeting the functional requirements and the performance statement and therefore it could be supplemented with things such as suggestions that parts of the cladding system should be of limited combustibility but but mr berg that's

00:35:56 combustibility but but mr berg that's not the topic he's on here he's looking at class naught alone he's not looking at a wider question of whether even if you achieved

00:36:07 question of whether even if you achieved class naught or any other eurograde you nonetheless had other hoops to go through yes his complaint here

00:36:15 here is previously acceptable save products that means class naught he's not saying previously acceptable if you not only have class naught but also go through all the other hoops to arrive at the

00:36:26 all the other hoops to arrive at the satisfaction of the functional requirement is he no he's not no and therefore although i take your point uh

00:36:34 uh you knew by this point that class naught within its four corners failed the sbi tests by a wide margin achieve no scientific correlation and therefore wasn't acceptable

00:36:46 therefore wasn't acceptable no no i don't agree why is that because again from from our perspective and our experience we had a national system in place

00:36:56 place and

00:36:57 and what's interesting here i didn't raise it at the outset but the example that mr ball gives here furthermore there are foil faced polyurethane products which obtain a class naught in the uk testing and therefore

00:37:09 naught in the uk testing and therefore are available for internal linings of other circulation spaces including the common areas of flats most nets that gave in the radar testing only a class d now

00:37:20 now you know i've worked construction for 33 years you typically wouldn't use a foil-faced polyurethane product inside a block of apartments flats that's not a common product use there

00:37:32 that's not a common product use there but i actually think he's because he's representing the urethane sector which is polyurethane and polyester anyway his concern was if we put it at a suitably high

00:37:45 if we put it at a suitably high classification by his concern euro class b ultimately in times to follow his product ranges that he represents in brathma

00:37:56 brathma wouldn't be able to be used potentially in some of these environments i think that's the concern he's actually raising but from my perspective you'd never use products such as foil face polyurethane

00:38:08 products such as foil face polyurethane products in that environment anyway in that way that's a specific instance of the particular use of a particular product yeah the wider point is what i'm focusing on the second part

00:38:19 is what i'm focusing on the second part of the of the paragraph is his he doesn't like the idea that class naught products or previously acceptable products for which reed class naught as he refers to

00:38:31 which reed class naught as he refers to would be prevented from continuing in their application his complaint is that good old class naught known to all which was accepted to be safe could no longer apply

00:38:43 could no longer apply and and vice versa and my question really is did you not see the this letter as an example of industry trying to cling on to class naught despite what you now knew of its proven

00:38:56 despite what you now knew of its proven unreliability in relation to the first part of your question in terms of wanting to cling on to the national approach yes i agree yes

00:39:08 did the the fact that these types of material achieve euro classes c and d at least on occasions if one looks at the spread

00:39:16 spread not lead you to think uh of the possibility that they might well be inappropriate for use over 18 meters despite the fact that they had class naught

00:39:25 naught sorry could you ask the question again please

00:39:28 please yes did you not think that the fact that these types of material products achieve classes your euro classes c and d when tested under the euro regime uh

00:39:39 uh not lead you to think that they might very well be inappropriate for use over 18 meters i don't believe you're allowed to use euro classes c and d above 18 meters that's the very point

00:39:51 d above 18 meters that's the very point but you are allowed to use class naught yes but that is a national classification that stood there is no or very little correlation there was certainly no development of the european test methodology

00:40:05 the european test methodology to be sort of to be cognizant of how products perform under the uk national test they are two discrete testing approaches and different tests and so i i didn't think in the way

00:40:17 and so i i didn't think in the way you've described well let me try it slightly differently we know in the end we'll probably come to this shortly that what went into the

00:40:26 the um the version of diagram 40 revised in 2002 was class naught or

00:40:33 or european

00:40:34 european classification class b s s3 d2 or better yeah

00:40:39 yeah right yes

00:40:41 right yes um as a result of that and and and everything we've seen that would mean wouldn't it that a building owner would would opt for class naught because

00:40:54 would would opt for class naught because it was easier to achieve than class b in relation to his particular panel potentially but again within the spirit of the guidance is the approved document b the

00:41:05 guidance is the approved document b the class b

00:41:07 class b alone

00:41:08 alone might be all that is needed to be undertaken but there are still provisions when you utilize the national class naught approach where you might have to for example

00:41:19 where you might have to for example provide limited combustibility in terms of the thermal insulation that sits behind but forget about that for the moment i've got coming back to the the building owner who is doing

00:41:30 the the building owner who is doing carrying out the work has a panel they test they test the panel yes it gets a a d yes car doesn't comply with diagram 40. don't worry we'll test it under under

00:41:42 don't worry we'll test it under under bs476 part six and seven and it gets class naught that means it's all right that means it's all right for the under diagram 440. yes now that's my point

00:41:54 that's my point why have a system uh where one alternative is uh

00:42:00 is uh in relation to reaction to fire tests easier to achieve than the other because we were given joint recognition to both methodologies there was not an

00:42:11 to both methodologies there was not an intention at this time to to remove reference to the national classification we had to give reference to the new european classification system and the classes that as derived

00:42:22 system and the classes that as derived from those tests

00:42:25 now let's go to clg 50720

00:42:30 50720 that's a later meeting of the part b working party in april

00:42:34 in april 2002 just a few months on from the wilf ball email and a year or so on from the 10th of may 2001 meeting again you attended as did debbie smith

00:42:45 again you attended as did debbie smith as you can see from the list of attendees if we go to page three please paragraph 6.7 we can see that discussions returned there to the investigations that the bre had carried out in in relation to the index

00:42:57 carried out in in relation to the index figures for class naught yes you'll recall the minutes and actually what you're discussing here is the very minutes of the 10th of may 2001 meetings paragraph 620 because you could see the reference in the brackets

00:43:10 reference in the brackets and it says this it has not been possible

00:43:12 possible to conclusively answer the question over the index i criterion of diagram 45 of adb that's obviously a typo it must be diagram 40. yes um it was suggested that by stipulating an index value of not

00:43:23 by stipulating an index value of not more than 20 the original authors of this requirement straight guidance were attempting to exclude a certain type of material whose performance would have been on the poor performance side of 20. it is not clear which type of material

00:43:34 it is not clear which type of material this would have been but was likely to have been one used extensively in external cladding it was also acknowledged that much of the guidance straight regulation for external claiming developed as a result of the summerland fire

00:43:45 summerland fire august 1973 post-meeting note the fire propagation test has existed since 1963 and the index i not more than 20 provision was first introduced into the

00:43:56 provision was first introduced into the building regulations in 1972. the department no longer holds the brac stroke fap papers from around that time now um the effect of this i think is

00:44:07 now um the effect of this i think is isn't it the the stipulation in diagram 40 that below 18 meters a material with an index less than 20 should be used was unknown in the mist lost in the mist of time and couldn't be recovered

00:44:19 time and couldn't be recovered from what's reported there yes it's right to think isn't it that this particular stipulation was nonetheless left unamended in diagram 40. yes in relation at least to those parts of the

00:44:30 relation at least to those parts of the building under 18 meters yes yes was it a matter of concern to you that nobody understood you were still you you were still putting out diagram 40.

00:44:43 putting out diagram 40. even after a second look at an amendment in the summer of 2002 which still contains something the rationale and roots of which um were lost to you um yes it wasn't it was far from ideal

00:44:55 yes it wasn't it was far from ideal however

00:44:56 however as the provision it could still be tested so it would still be testing in the same way

00:45:03 and so it was still available for use but yeah i agree um it's unfortunate um

00:45:12 um but we continued in its use again

00:45:15 again because

00:45:17 because you could still test to it still derided performance and

00:45:21 and at that time we felt that that was that was adequate for the purposes for diagram 40. right and that was specifically thought through was it

00:45:32 through was it exactly the fact that it would have been discussed

00:45:35 discussed here within the working party those discus those discussions would have been considered well i'm on the point of looking into the looking back into the mists of time

00:45:46 the looking back into the mists of time did anybody at this time seek to explore why it was or how it had come about that class naught which was a a test based on a reference

00:45:58 a test based on a reference scenario of a room and time to flash over which was directed at the use of linings ceiling and wall linings

00:46:09 ceiling and wall linings was suitable as a test to be transposed for the external walls of a building i don't believe that would have been considered at this point was it ever considered did anybody ever ask the question how

00:46:20 did anybody ever ask the question how come we're using class naught as a metric for the reaction it might well have been considered but but from my perspective the iso room corner test is the reference scenario for the euro classes

00:46:33 reference scenario for the euro classes not an external cladding system and so actually they both are derided from internal lining arrangements yeah that's that that is true but it was a matter of discussion point but yes um

00:46:45 matter of discussion point but yes um was that the reason at the time why nobody thought to investigate the origins of class north at all i can't recall but i don't believe that was considered at this point um further

00:46:56 was considered at this point um further on in the minutes of this meeting if we gave police to page four paragraph six point eleven um you can see there towards the top of the screen jen i think is general uh anthony bird sought the approval of the

00:47:09 anthony bird sought the approval of the members that future records of the working party meetings will be on the basis of mainly non-attributable notes rather than detailed and attributable minutes the members approved this notion

00:47:20 why did you make that proposal um from recollection that amounted to a change that generally started to happen in brac minutes

00:47:31 in brac minutes be it for main brac and its working parties because there was a move to ultimately publish these minutes and therefore the broad agreement is that they would typically be unattributable which is as is of the

00:47:42 unattributable which is as is of the case today did you not consider that detailed and attributable minutes had an obvious benefit in ensuring transparency i do

00:47:52 i do but but from the perspective of the building regulations advisory committee it is a non-developmental public body it is a scientific committee but people attend it

00:48:04 but people attend it not as employees of a company of an institution they attended as professionals in their own right and from recollection it would have been done for the purposes of recognizing

00:48:15 done for the purposes of recognizing that because potentially people could come forward and offer views on building regulation matters which might not chime with their employer now if we look further down the page

00:48:26 now if we look further down the page paragraph 10 if we can scroll up down please and have a hold of that paragraph thank you it says this anthony bird went on to make the very important point that at present ce marking is

00:48:37 point that at present ce marking is underlined not mandatory in the uk the uk is one of five member states in the eu have not made ce marking mandatory the others being ireland finland sweden and portugal the uk currently utilizes

00:48:49 and portugal the uk currently utilizes our own british standards mainly the bs 476 suite of documents however this will eventually sorry these will eventually be withdrawn now

00:48:59 now this is um 2002 april 2002 mr bird was there by this point any settled intention by the government that the bs 476 suites of documents would be

00:49:12 the bs 476 suites of documents would be withdrawn from citation in in the

00:49:18 well withdrawn wholesale there's two different discrete points here

00:49:25 here by virtue of new european harmonized standards when they arrive in the member states through the likes in our case of the bsi

00:49:36 through the likes in our case of the bsi the british standards institution there will be a period of coexistence whereby after a certain date any conflicting national standards would be

00:49:47 be withdrawn still available for sale but they would be withdrawn that is from a standardization perspective from a building regulations perspective which was not the enforcer this is in

00:50:00 which was not the enforcer this is in broad terms of the construction products directive as it was actually when we would

00:50:08 we would consult agree with ministers as to when these dates for withdrawal will actually happen

00:50:13 happen that's a subtly different consideration and would be one for discussion and consultation within the approved document b

00:50:24 what did the words eventually be withdrawn mean there that i from recollection that there wasn't an agreed date for the purposes of the regulations of when that would happen

00:50:35 happen it was a it was a process at a standardization level for withdrawing conflicting national standards

00:50:43 standards set out

00:50:45 set out by agreement at the european standards gathering sen and similar so that would naturally happen and when a period of coexistence for a new

00:50:57 for a new harmonized product standard was met then all of the member states national standards bodies would would in effect withdraw if that's the term they use we use withdrawal in the uk conflicting national standards right

00:51:09 uk conflicting national standards right well let's this will develop this point as we go through the documents moving down to paragraph 12 it says members were members asked whether it would be possible for construction products to be acceptable

00:51:21 construction products to be acceptable in the uk when they are deemed unacceptable in other member states it was confirmed that this is possible although that situation currently exists with the individual national regimes in place

00:51:31 place the products must be shown to satisfy the building regulations of each member state

00:51:36 state whether the ce markings are fixed or not i'm going to read the next two paragraphs to you as well one member was concerned that although the ce marking is a fix to a product that product may not be acceptable in all member states

00:51:47 not be acceptable in all member states if some states set higher standards of performance in order to satisfy their own building regulations which could be a technical barrier to trade it was explained that for the purposes of the construction product directive

00:51:59 of the construction product directive this would not be a technical barrier to trade the different standards of performance in each member states are a commercial reality which would be for manufacturers to consider they're just pausing there i think that's the point you've just made

00:52:10 you've just made is that right in effect

00:52:13 in effect yes yes in light of this members expressed concern that if the uk were to continue by not making ce marking mandatory it would become a quote dumping ground on quotes for inferior

00:52:25 dumping ground on quotes for inferior products that could not be sold in other member states anthony bird explained that this would be no different to the situation that exists today and that for example the building regulations provide

00:52:36 example the building regulations provide a means of control over materials and workmanship through regulation seven the construction products directive has brought about the first step in removing the complications faced by a manufacturer having to test to 15

00:52:48 manufacturer having to test to 15 different tests to be able to market their product through the 15 member states

00:52:54 states who who was it who expressed concern that the uk might become a dumping ground for inferior products if ce marking was not mandatory i don't recall do you accept the accuracy of the record

00:53:05 do you accept the accuracy of the record that your view of your view that this would be no different to the situation that exists today

00:53:11 today i have no doubt it was said in that way because it was a quote but what i'm trying to convey here is that

00:53:19 is that there was no requirement no agreed european approach to european building regulations and so

00:53:28 and so if a product created wherever in europe and then tested in europe if we take fire doors as an example tested and achieved e30 30 minutes fire resistance

00:53:40 e30 30 minutes fire resistance but the receiving state such as the uk in its national building regulations wanted 60 minutes or suggested 60 minutes in its statutory guidance that

00:53:51 minutes in its statutory guidance that would still need to be met and therefore that product whilst bearing ce marking still couldn't be used for the purposes of showing compliance with the building regulations and vice versa

00:54:02 regulations and vice versa yes

00:54:03 yes yes

00:54:05 yes so even if you just meant that the situation relative to other eu member states wouldn't change would you accept that the concern expressed would still be a valid concern that the uk might be a dumping ground for inferior

00:54:16 might be a dumping ground for inferior products that couldn't be sold elsewhere in the union the uk is a very open environment from a trade perspective you could bring a product in but

00:54:27 but in the case of building regulations it would still need to show the requisite performance and proof of that for it be able to be considered as assisting with showing compliance

00:54:38 as assisting with showing compliance with the building regulations per se yes yes which is which is back to back to the point we we we keep we keep going over again and i understand why you say that but again looking at the four corners

00:54:49 corners of diagram 40 and what became 12.6 in 2006 of the proof document b it the reality i think was wasn't it that um

00:55:00 was wasn't it that um a an acmp called panel to take an example of a product um might be required to meet a standard in france or spain

00:55:10 spain that it wasn't required to meet in the uk because you could you could class naught was acceptable here and the class north being an inferior standard to let's say a2

00:55:21 let's say a2 meant that it could be sold here but not in other member states it could be sold but by virtue of the building regulation regime

00:55:29 regime it should not be incorporated because it wouldn't show compliance of meeting the functional requirements it would if it was

00:55:37 was it would it would show compliance with cl with diagram 40 and the linear route wouldn't it only diagram 40 in the part of the linear route well you say only diagram 40

00:55:49 diagram 40 that

00:55:50 that meeting the linear route uh was as we've been through before was the way it was the guidance given to people carrying out the work as to how they were going to meet

00:56:02 they were going to meet the functional requirements and although you might say it's not conclusive which is the point you you keep making it's at least half a foot if not a whole foot in the door isn't it it's not a whole foot

00:56:13 the door isn't it it's not a whole foot in the door it's part of your considerations for the external surface of the cladding you have to read and be aware of the entirety of the guidance partner in the in the approved document

00:56:25 partner in the in the approved document be that is relevant to that product and showing compliance in that part of your design right does that tell us

00:56:36 that when it comes to a particular product

00:56:39 product let's take a panel let's take diagram 14.

00:56:45 the decision as to whether you should meet class b or class naught is not simply a matter of free choice

00:56:56 is not simply a matter of free choice for the person carrying out the work but is a decision which must be taken in light of the need to meet the functional requirements including the height

00:57:07 including the height use and position of the building yes and therefore it's not simply a question

00:57:14 question of it's class naught i'm within diagram 40.

00:57:19 40. or i'm

00:57:20 or i'm i i've got class b i'm within diagram 40. are you saying i think you are the the choice between class norton class b

00:57:29 class b was itself mediated by

00:57:33 by the functional requirements so that a further consideration about that choice needed to be made in other words the building owner had to understand the

00:57:44 the building owner had to understand the bs 476 test its limit and its limitations in comparison with what achieving class b meant when deciding whether or not to use a class naught panel

00:57:55 use a class naught panel yes

00:57:56 yes and so by taking the example of the euro class

00:57:59 class b

00:58:01 b again meeting the guidance in diagram 40 the decision was taken that a material of limited combustibility would be a2

00:58:12 of limited combustibility would be a2 also included in the approved document b and then by virtue of utilizing i've got a product i'm going to use it on the external face of a building i'm going to utilize and realize i'll be using it

00:58:23 utilize and realize i'll be using it above 18 meters so it should be euro class b i've achieved that you could still circle back utilizing the guidance in the approved document and suggest that is still

00:58:34 and suggest that is still not a material of limited combustibility it is combustible therefore you could consider if that is sufficient in its own right as well and therefore

00:58:45 in its own right as well and therefore even using the euro classes you might actually when you look at a situation you look at the design you look at the height and potential risk of a building and location that yeah it gets euro

00:58:56 and location that yeah it gets euro class b but we should really be using a2

00:59:03 and it's the logic of that that you might use the same analysis in relation to a material as a2 yes

00:59:14 yes and how do you determine what the ultimate requirements of the functional karma b41 are

00:59:25 karma b41 are well again is in terms of by virtue of looking at the benchmark and the guidance for the more common situations but

00:59:35 but if the approved document b as it does for above 18 meters suggested that euro class b

00:59:40 class b is what is suggested for the more typical situation and if you then look at the provisions and

00:59:48 and and the type and nature of the building etc that actually that too might not be sufficient alone then you would need to consider potentially looking at supplementing that

01:00:00 looking at supplementing that an insulation product or a product generally with an a2 provision

01:00:07 well i see that i'm just wondering how the

01:00:09 the person who's seeking to understand and apply adb actually knows whether a product will in the event satisfy b41

01:00:22 in the event satisfy b41 they would yeah i completely understand how that

01:00:27 how that that question sir but that is something that we've been doing by virtue of a national approach since 1985. that facility has been there and by the same volition that would

01:00:39 and by the same volition that would still be there for utilizing a european approach

01:00:45 well we'll see how we'll come back to the wording of diagram 40 specifically shortly i think okay shortly in light of that helpful explanation

01:00:57 in light of that helpful explanation just go back to the document for a moment there's a reference there as you can see to regulation seven yes now do you mean regulation seven per se or do you mean approved document the approved document governing regulation

01:01:08 approved document governing regulation seven

01:01:09 seven yeah you know i typically always revert back to the relevant regulation and then the approved document that supports it i know that by now you mean the regulation which is just a very simple governing regulation about quality of materials

01:01:21 regulation about quality of materials and workmen it does but it is supported also by a statutory guidance document it was it was it in reality obvious that if you didn't see emac but continue to

01:01:32 if you didn't see emac but continue to allow class naught on external walls above 18 meters at least so far as the four corners of diagram 40 were concerned the uk market would be open to cladding products of

01:01:43 would be open to cladding products of inferior reaction to fire performance quality

01:01:46 quality it would be open to products that perhaps

01:01:51 perhaps test to the highest national classification that might not perform in quite the same way in terms of the european classification yes in not quite the same

01:02:02 classification yes in not quite the same way you mean worse yes potentially yes and manufacturers might know that and seek to exploit it potentially yes they might regard the uk as something of a soft touch

01:02:13 as something of a soft touch they may

01:02:14 they may um but if you go looking at fire statistics for fire occurrence and for deaths and injuries in fire the the uk tends to perform very well

01:02:25 the the uk tends to perform very well and so that that might not be the data there to show that actually you know we yeah it might show that our regulations are more robust than other member states but that's not

01:02:37 than other member states but that's not something we necessarily get into for us it's making sure that we have the appropriate regulation for our needs in the uk

01:02:47 in the uk how did you think that regulation seven was any kind of guard against the risks of a soft market if class naught based on the uh bs476 tests as they were and with its

01:02:59 uh bs476 tests as they were and with its demonstrated inferior standard of react of reaction i can't recall why i said this at this time but there are provisions in regulation seven that talks about

01:03:11 seven that talks about products performing robustly over the course of their likely life and similar so you would always they're not mutually exclusive you'd always have to meet the building regulations section one

01:03:23 section one technical part such as part b regulation seven is always there to recognize that the materials should be appropriate and then the workmanship to install those materials should also be

01:03:34 install those materials should also be appropriate i was probably referring to the fact that quite a bit of the the guidance on ce marking actually resided within the approved document supporting regulation seven so

01:03:46 document supporting regulation seven so that might have been one of the reasons as well

01:03:48 as well now going on to the next meeting of the brac working party the part b working party this is the following month at clg four zeros one four six two the date of this meeting is the 2nd of

01:04:00 the date of this meeting is the 2nd of may 2002

01:04:02 may 2002 and you can see that uh and we can also see mr bird that you were present yes and

01:04:08 and at page 2 please paragraph 6.1 we can see this

01:04:12 see this um debbie smith this is on against item seven debbie smith uh consider explain that the radar project is all we have but despite its criticisms it is considerably more than most member

01:04:23 considerably more than most member states have undertaken the action proposed in the wp paper was agreed what do you remember what were the criticisms of the radar project i can't recall at this time it may have been

01:04:35 been around that there wasn't a natural transposition some products performed better or worse than others but i really can't recall um do you know who had voiced those

01:04:46 um do you know who had voiced those criticisms no i do not did you share them do you agree with them uh i would have recognized that there wasn't an easy or direct

01:04:57 there wasn't an easy or direct transposition between the national and the european um but that wasn't necessarily necessarily just the nature of the exercise the exercise was as i've said to bring about recognition to the new

01:05:08 to bring about recognition to the new european test methodology and their classifications without unduly without lowering safety and so i don't know if that was the criticism being referred to but it wasn't necessarily always a

01:05:20 to but it wasn't necessarily always a perfect fit i think that might have been what was trying to be said here right let's go to page three paragraph six point seven on that page uh you can see there this is under the heading plastisol so it's places all

01:05:33 heading plastisol so it's places all revisited i think and you introduced this it says anthony bird introduced this issue by reference to the three letters from chorus formerly british steel he explained that what is being sought by chorus is a

01:05:44 what is being sought by chorus is a deemed to satisfy provision for plastisol products these products which may currently achieve class naught under the relevant british standard test are showing that they will generally only achieve class c under the new european

01:05:55 achieve class c under the new european test the transpositions proposed for adb are for class b to be substituted for class naught in time yeah what was meant by in time

01:06:06 what was meant by in time exactly that there hadn't been a predetermined date for the purposes of the building regulations as to when we would

01:06:15 we would make the shift and only european methods of test would be the displayed way within the statutory guidance as showing compliance

01:06:26 guidance as showing compliance so

01:06:27 so i mean was the transposition period actively being considered by government at this point may 2002 or was the subject just as it were simmering away on a low light

01:06:39 as it were simmering away on a low light there there have been two considerations here there have been the consideration for transposition periods under the construction products directive and therefore that would naturally happen by timing and circumstance

01:06:51 happen by timing and circumstance because

01:06:52 because once once the process of publishing a new harmonized standard landed there will be an agreed period of coexistence and then conflicting national standards would be withdrawn that's with regards to sea marking and

01:07:05 that's with regards to sea marking and placing products on the marketplace as to when guidance in approved document b would ultimately just refer to new european methods of

01:07:16 just refer to new european methods of tests that was something that was still open for consideration that was up to you

01:07:22 you it's actually up to the government up to government yeah now

01:07:26 now um but of course if the transposition period for cpd came in uh in a fixed period of say three years then it would follow wouldn't it that

01:07:37 it would follow wouldn't it that approved document b would have to be revised not necessarily no why is that because

01:07:42 because from a building rights perspective supporting a functional system if it was felt that an existing system that had been in place for some time and there was no evidence that that

01:07:54 there was no evidence that that was a problem in maintaining that reference

01:07:58 reference and how it can help show compliance with the functional requirements then it could continue with citation in the statutory group there are two qualifications in that answer

01:08:08 answer i think but i mean

01:08:12 they would have to be satisfied before allowing

01:08:17 allowing the national standard to continue yes now further in that in the paragraph of the minutes you see that it goes on just after the break the working party members expressed some sympathy with

01:08:28 members expressed some sympathy with chorus's concerns however they agree that there are many products that may not meet the proposed european classifications and to make exceptions for individual products could open the floodgates for a raft of manufacturers

01:08:40 floodgates for a raft of manufacturers to request similar privileges the members also acknowledge that the period of coexistence would give the manufacturers time to re-engineer their products if they wanted to attain a higher european classification whilst

01:08:51 higher european classification whilst continuing to specify in relation to the existing british classification until the coexistence ends the agreed action is not to make a special case for plastisol

01:09:01 plastisol did you share the sympathy expressed here for chorus i don't think i expressed sympathy i recognized that the concern was because of the new methods of test coming forward and they measure

01:09:13 coming forward and they measure different things in different ways at different times from recollection it's the thin coating um

01:09:22 um on this product in question is but one example is because it does burn and flash off i think it immediately places it

01:09:29 it into a lower classification so it wouldn't have i would it wouldn't have been sympathy it would have been recognition that this is a potential issue for that manufacturer yeah would you agree just

01:09:40 manufacturer yeah would you agree just looking at that that there were members of the working party uh members of the department that were well aware that there were many products on the market at the time which would not be capable of achieving class b

01:09:53 of achieving class b yes

01:09:54 yes and a flood of them in fact because even because the concern about opening the floodgates if an exception was made for chorus potentially yeah yes did that not make it essential to decide on a fixed end date for the

01:10:06 to decide on a fixed end date for the transition period so as to encourage manufacturers to re-engineer their products

01:10:11 products at least so far as the proof document b is concerned um

01:10:18 again for it

01:10:21 for it it is pertinent it is relevant but

01:10:24 but the building regulations being functional and similar if there was a situation whereby the guidance was still felt

01:10:32 felt to show

01:10:33 to show that if followed would tend to meet the function requirement then why couldn't you use it by the same token as i say approved document b is not deemed to satisfy you can completely ignore that

01:10:44 satisfy you can completely ignore that document and bring in a northern sort of a north american test standard as an example and if you could prove that you've met equivalence and it would still meet the functional requirement

01:10:55 still meet the functional requirement you would still be free to do that no matter what was happening at the time within europe and the european scene marking approach because one is meeting functional regulations

01:11:06 functional regulations to ensure building regulations show compliance and the other was about price placing a product on the market at which time c marking was not mandatory in the united kingdom yes thank you mr chairman is that a

01:11:17 yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yeah we're going to turn to another document mid topic yes very well we'll we'll take a break at that point then yep we'll have a break we'll come back at hop on three please and again please

01:11:28 at hop on three please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right thank you thank you very much

01:11:39 thank you miss doing it for three please

01:28:11 would you ask the bird to come back in please

01:28:25 all right on we go yes yes sir good thank you yes thank you mr chairman uh now um can we go please too clg four zeros one four six four

01:28:40 uh and that is the final regulatory impact assessment for the proposed amendments to approve document b as you can see yes uh and if you look at the second line of the small print right at the very top of the document it is dated

01:28:51 the very top of the document it is dated the 30th of may 2002 yes yes were you involved in the drafting of this document

01:28:57 document from recollection how it would normally work we'd bring in uh somebody with expertise

01:29:02 expertise in impact assessments um to help us but input would be provided by the building rigs team as well so i would have been looking at this document and

01:29:15 have been looking at this document and an offering comment right um if we go please to clg four zeros one four six eight

01:29:23 uh this is an email from uh darren hobbs who i think was on the the um committee the be part b working community he was my deputy he was your deputy i was going to ask you right uh it's to you

01:29:35 to ask you right uh it's to you uh and to others including debbie smith as you can see and it's dated the 14th of june 2002 subject proposed amendment of approved document b

01:29:46 document b ladies and gentlemen following a very productive working party meeting on 10th june i attached the latest versions of the draft riaa and approved document has agreed at that meeting and you can see the foot of

01:29:57 meeting and you can see the foot of the

01:29:58 the put of the letter if you just scroll just a little bit further down it's cc to you and caroline cousin at the dtlr yes yes now caroline cousin i think you've explained who she was just would you

01:30:09 explained who she was just would you just remind us she was the head of technical she was head of technical uh and uh

01:30:15 and uh this reads if we scroll up sorry scroll down again i'm so sorry her writing

01:30:21 writing i'm so sorry anthony i've taken a look at the ria see my comments it looks like it was done in a rush which of course it was it doesn't

01:30:32 it doesn't to me clearly i think give or gist the message that the building regs are only the messenger not the reason for the changes caroline 18th

01:30:43 18th june

01:30:45 june is it right that the riaa was done in a rush as she says no that was not my

01:30:53 my thought in any way right um

01:30:56 right um well she seems to think that it was and i have to you know i acknowledge that that

01:31:02 that was

01:31:03 was is there an attachment to it you were going to come to that okay it was no it was not my um experience that was to be the case typically you develop a regulatory

01:31:15 typically you develop a regulatory impact assessment for to support public consultation and then you would further refine the impact assessment for final publication and sign off so

01:31:27 so just wanting to be sure that can i just check the date again of this please well this email is the 14th of june 2002 and the riaa on which she's commenting as we think it is is uh is the 30th of may

01:31:40 think it is is uh is the 30th of may it's two weeks before which is at clg four zeros one four six four i'm just trying to get my head around whether she whether it was the final ia or it was a

01:31:51 whether it was the final ia or it was a consultation i presume it was the final right does it help that at the top you've written i think it's yours writing caroline adb papers as promised anthony 17th

01:32:02 anthony 17th uh june not really let's go back then to the document you're giving her which is

01:32:09 which is clg401464

01:32:15 that's that's the ria itself thank you

01:32:28 i mean i'm asking you was it done in a rush no it wasn't in my experience in my opinion

01:32:34 opinion what did you understand by her comment that the building regulations are only the messenger not the reason for the changes

01:32:41 changes i

01:32:42 i believe that would relate to the the point that we were doing this by virtue of the construction products directive and the need to not act as a barrier to trade so the approved

01:32:55 barrier to trade so the approved document had to be changed primarily because of the cpd that i mean that's my presumptions to what she was meaning

01:33:06 what she was meaning does that mean that this the um that adb had to be changed in order to give visible recognition yes sir in other words it was a vehicle yes it could be done in some other bit of regulation

01:33:17 regulation uh it could have well given this is the pertinent document in england

01:33:25 england for

01:33:26 for construction works i think this was i believe this but it's definitely the the correct vehicle for it right i fear i feel that what caroline may have been saying was that

01:33:39 caroline may have been saying was that um you know this was we had to do this because of other activity

01:33:44 activity in the in the european context so that's maybe the point she's getting too did you understand the point she was getting at i i

01:33:52 at i i i we would have had a discussion i'm sure right and you would have understood it she would have certainly have told me yes

01:33:59 yes well

01:34:02 well does it mean that whatever obscurity uh still clings to these words now you understood them at the time um yes and that's not to say i didn't disagree with her either right can you recall at all what it is she said to you

01:34:14 recall at all what it is she said to you i'm afraid not no well let's look at the document if we scroll down to page three we can

01:34:20 we can see there that um there are a number of paragraphs uh one on page three uh

01:34:30 sorry at 15 it says this to assist manufacturers in of construction project products in adapting to the new test methods in support of applying the ce marking the european commission proposes to introduce them in three stages one

01:34:42 to introduce them in three stages one from a date to be decided all national fire regulations and supporting technical documents in this case part b must specify standards of fire performance in terms of the new tests while also retaining their existing

01:34:53 while also retaining their existing national test specifications this is the start of the transitional period two a number of years after this conflicting national test methods in this case probably much of the bs 476

01:35:04 this case probably much of the bs 476 series must be withdrawn by the relevant national standards organization in this case the british standards institution and all new products would have to be tested to the new harmonized standards existing products with certificates can

01:35:16 existing products with certificates can continue to be sold three a number of years after this there will be a requirement that only products tested to the new harmonized standards can be placed on the market and then if you go down to the top of

01:35:28 and then if you go down to the top of the next page please page four paragraph 16 based on the current available information it is felt that the most likely start date of the transition period will be 2002

01:35:39 transition period will be 2002 stage 1 and that the transition period will have a duration of at least three years stage two in this transition period it will be possible to use products tested either by the existing british standards or by the new european

01:35:51 british standards or by the new european harmonized fire test and therefore during this time both test methods must be covered by the approved document now was the timing of these stages a decision for the department or was it

01:36:02 decision for the department or was it one dictated by the commission i believe it would in effect be dictated by the availability of the harmonized product standards

01:36:11 standards so as they come online and published there would be a period of coexistence that would have been agreed and it is at that point at the end of that term that conflicting national standards

01:36:22 that conflicting national standards would be withdrawn you say the availability of the harmonized product standards those were already available no some of them there are some 400 from recollection

01:36:34 are some 400 from recollection harmonized product standards and some still haven't been published to this day right but in relation to fire reaction to fire tests subtly different so you had the

01:36:45 subtly different so you had the harmonized product standards pertinent to individual products you then had a suite of european tests that you should utilize to test those products and then you'd have a

01:36:57 products and then you'd have a classification document telling you how you could then classify the findings from those tests so the driver the the true sort of driver is the

01:37:08 the true sort of driver is the harmonized product standard for the purposes in our case of the construction products directive it's right to think nonetheless that the transitional period wouldn't be mandatory now in other words step two

01:37:21 mandatory now in other words step two stage two was a date to be set by which national classifications must be withdrawn but nothing limiting them from being withdrawn before that i think this is conflicting both the building regulations with the construction

01:37:33 regulations with the construction products regulations again there would become a date where for the purposes of sea marking there would be an expectation that you would not

01:37:45 that you would not utilize national classes you'd be placing products on the market that would have been tested to the new european methods of tests and classified as such but as i say i would add here

01:37:57 mandatory ukca ce marking didn't arrive until 2013 we we are discreetly dealing with implementation of a european directive and national building regulations

01:38:10 and national building regulations and

01:38:11 and you could still utilize whatever happened ultimately in terms of of c marking

01:38:19 marking the approved document could offer guidance on what it thought thought was relevant for helping to show compliance but it would be if you wanted to place c

01:38:30 but it would be if you wanted to place c marking on a product that after this period of coexistence if you wanted to place it on the market in those countries where sea marking was mandatory you'd have to follow that european approach

01:38:43 that european approach yes but there's nothing my point is when it comes to approved document b there's nothing to

01:38:53 to limit government from withdrawing the national standards before the end of the transition period um they could do that i mean one of the biggest problems

01:39:04 that i mean one of the biggest problems that comes with potentially doing that was

01:39:07 was these these periods of coexistence again from memory please please forgive me this was again close to 20 years ago um

01:39:17 um we're all about being mindful of the size

01:39:20 size of the marketplace the amount of products in the marketplace so a great thought was given to those involved in setting the periods of coexistence

01:39:31 setting the periods of coexistence because manufacturers those that wish to export

01:39:35 export around europe would have to get their products tested and there is only only so many test centers

01:39:44 centers around europe that could undertake this work so it wouldn't take a meaningful amount of time for products that want to get through and get to see marking to get in line and have that happen at all events

01:39:56 at all events a transitional period of three years is what was proposed wasn't it uh in this document suggested i think yes suggested yes and that would mean transition between

01:40:07 and that would mean transition between 2002 and 2005 or by 2005. are we talking about removing citation of national classes in the approved document yes yeah i believe this is conflating with

01:40:19 conflating with what you need to do for sea marking and placing products on the market under the cpd well help me then let's go back a page because you say this it's the second time you've said that yeah

01:40:30 and it says the european commission proposes to introduce them that's the new test methods yes in three stages and then the the first one is from a

01:40:42 and then the the first one is from a date to be decided all national fire regulations and supporting technical documents in this case part b must specify standards of fire performance etc whilst all say remaining while also

01:40:53 whilst all say remaining while also retaining their existing national test specifications this is the start of the transitional period now

01:41:00 now is that not saying that the transitional period begins on a date to be decided by somebody for

01:41:09 the specification of standards of fire performance no

01:41:13 no it is saying that but this is not quite correct because as i say the construction products directive at the time

01:41:24 the time is is that vehicle that would bring about

01:41:27 about sea marking of construction products that is driving activity in terms of the availability of harmonized product standards test methodologies and classification documents

01:41:39 classification documents ultimately for placing products on the market and bearing the sea marking this is pertinent in terms of timing the national um

01:41:51 um building regulation documents whether it be for

01:41:54 be for england or any of the devolved administrations or anything that could relate to

01:42:00 offering guidance such as specialist guidance on hospitals and schools that because ce marking wasn't mandatory in in the uk a decision at european level

01:42:12 a decision at european level about sea marking didn't override national subsidiarity and what you could do under national building regulations okay

01:42:21 okay just to see if i've understood this just help me with this would it be right to understand that the um

01:42:29 um the building regulations are concerned with

01:42:32 with internal laws about what can or cannot be used in a building yes the construction products rules related to what can and cannot be sold

01:42:44 related to what can and cannot be sold within as

01:42:46 within as within the eu yes so you can have so long as you're prepared to allow products to circulate within your state

01:42:57 products to circulate within your state which comply with the euro testing requirements that doesn't stop you having your building regulations coached in terms of national class

01:43:09 in terms of national class tests correct or euro class tests or both and indeed there was a period uh before the parental tower fire when uh

01:43:19 uh if not our building regulations are at guidance span both of those yes that's right that's correct sir good thank you

01:43:30 when was the idea of a transitional period abandoned i don't believe a transitional period necessarily for the construction products directive was ever abandoned

01:43:44 now if we go to page five of this document

01:43:48 document you can see paragraph 21 reaction to fire tests and there's the table which i think we've seen in a different form before transposing from class naught to class b

01:44:00 transposing from class naught to class b yes yes

01:44:02 yes yes uh paragraph 21 in a nutshell i think s says that the situation is more complex because the standards don't mirror each other yeah i've summarized it but that's what it says now before producing

01:44:14 that's what it says now before producing this document did anybody actually and actually analyze the frequency of the use of the four class naught products which failed to achieve class b in the tests we saw in the radar report not that i'm aware of so how could this

01:44:26 not that i'm aware of so how could this impact of this transposition be reliably understood unless you knew how commonly used the failures were as a percentage of the totals

01:44:39 sorry sir could you repeat the question how could the impact of this transposition be reliably understood unless

01:44:45 unless you knew government knew how commonly used the

01:44:50 the failures to meet class b but nonetheless obtaining class naught were as a percentage of the totals tested again from the information that we had available through discussions with the building regulations advisory committee

01:45:03 building regulations advisory committee it was felt that there was sufficient information there to make what the likely transposition looks like um please forgive me sir as i say it's some 20 years ago the table 1 is entitled

01:45:16 20 years ago the table 1 is entitled proposed transposition if this was the final impact assessment for the final document i would have thought that would have referred to it being

01:45:27 referred to it being um

01:45:30 um the approach being adopted um

01:45:33 um not necessarily for me to ask you sir but i can't remember when the approved document be european supplement came into force uh i think i think october 2002

01:45:46 think i think october 2002 it's dated 2002. i think i'm i the evidence has been so far that these sorts of revisions came in yeah i think you said it april and october yes they were and then we

01:45:58 october yes they were and then we typically looked to have the completed documentation available to the marketplace finalized both the approved document and the impact assessment wherever possible six months before

01:46:09 wherever possible six months before so that

01:46:10 so that it might appear to be yes sorry i just i was just trying to get my head around while they're using the words proposed right okay well sorry did before finalizing this document do you remember did anybody examine whether

01:46:22 you remember did anybody examine whether the kinds of class north products which failed to meet class b or better in the radar testing were used in particular places cladding products

01:46:33 in particular places cladding products insulation products internal wallpaper ceiling linings etc i think there would have been consideration as to both the winners as it were and the losers of this direct transposition so

01:46:44 losers of this direct transposition so there would have been some consideration given to it as part of the the process of public consultation and we would have got comments back to that effect as well formal comments

01:46:55 that effect as well formal comments and

01:46:59 whilst i can't recall definitively i i believe there would have been some consideration of it now going back if i may to this question of transposition period transition periods

01:47:11 periods standing back from the complications of the different potential transition periods as between the cpd on the one hand and changes to the approved document be on the other

01:47:23 approved document be on the other let me ask the questions as simply as i can

01:47:28 when did you think class naught would be removed

01:47:39 i wouldn't have had a date to mind but there would have been a backdrop of understanding that all that was needed for sea marking harmonized product standards and similar were in place

01:47:51 standards and similar were in place and time had been taken to ultimately ensure those products had had time to undertake testing and similar at that point there could have

01:48:02 similar at that point there could have been a consideration as to

01:48:05 as to should now for want of a better term the approved document b give primary recognition to the euro classes so i didn't have a definitive debate but there would have been a few

01:48:17 debate but there would have been a few sort of points to fall into place does it come

01:48:20 it come leaving aside the complexities that we've discussed on the basis of this document does it come to this that there wasn't actually a transition period

01:48:28 period for class naught for the phasing out of national standards in approved document b at all

01:48:33 b at all um

01:48:33 um this time in your mind but that one might come one might be conceived once the transition period under the cpd had taken effect potentially that could be

01:48:45 taken effect potentially that could be a time that one could consider it yes i see that and was that what you were were those your thoughts and was that your understanding at the time of this document may 2002

01:48:57 from recollection it would have been on that order right so

01:49:01 so so the phasing out of class naught is set was essentially parasitic on the commission's setting at the pace for the phasing in of the new standards no the decision would be made because there

01:49:13 the decision would be made because there was recognition that these were the new euro classes and you know to be welcomed as methods of tests what it would have needed would have been a full review of approved document b

01:49:26 a full review of approved document b where it was considered a full technical review as to what should go forward in relation to the use of the euro classes so i think i wouldn't have had a

01:49:38 so i think i wouldn't have had a definitive date but there would have been an expectation that going forward it it would be coming up over the next one or two cycles i presume for the recollection of the approved document but i wouldn't have had a date right so

01:49:51 but i wouldn't have had a date right so that would have been long term though nonetheless yes now let's go to uh clg one four zero five zero six

01:50:00 this is a submission which went to ministers in relation to the cpd in august 2001 so the previous year from you to caroline cousin paul everal and alan whitehead

01:50:12 and alan whitehead dated 5th of august 2001. yes now if we go to page 3 in this document paragraphs 12

01:50:19 12 13 and 14

01:50:21 13 and 14 um there's quite a lengthy passage there um

01:50:24 um it appears from that is this right that the view of the working group was that for resistance to fire as opposed to reaction to fire it was possible directly to transpose the existing requirements

01:50:36 existing requirements it wasn't directly in fact the european method of fire resistance test was actually a harder test so for example fire doors from recollection were achieving about 26 minutes

01:50:47 minutes periods of fire resistance from a european perspective but were classified as 30 minutes under the national it was a harder test but the general feeling amongst

01:50:58 but the general feeling amongst industries that they would just develop their products a little to to meet the harder tests to come up to that period but not looking at the words in bold towards the top of the screen it says it was therefore agreed that a

01:51:09 says it was therefore agreed that a direct transposition in relation to the periods of fire resistance that are suggested with an approved document b should be made yes yeah now in contrary distinction to that look at paragraph 13 the working party could not reach such a

01:51:20 the working party could not reach such a conclusion with regard to the reaction to fire tests as the situation is more complex

01:51:27 and it says transposition is more difficult as the british standard includes tests for spread of flame fire propagation and non-combustibility and these are not criteria directly tested for under the harmonized european tests

01:51:39 for under the harmonized european tests now there's no mention here of phasing out the national class system why is that um from recollection this is a submission supporting and requesting the minister

01:51:48 minister to approve a package to go for consultation this was not the final sign-off submission for the final european supplement right i see but they would have been would there a

01:51:59 would have been would there a recommendation to the minister in the final version i i can't recall um but such issues would have been covered i would have thought was it up to you as it was it up to the department to

01:52:10 it was it up to the department to recommend to the minister a a a period of uh sign of phasing out as it would have related to the building regulations it would have formed part of

01:52:21 regulations it would have formed part of recommendations within any full review of the approved document b and so that would be touched upon

01:52:29 upon and drawn out to the minister's attention typically that actually as part of the consultation as part of the moving forward this would now be the time that we'd refer primarily to the european methodology

01:52:41 european methodology now then let's look at approved document b as it stood in 2002 with the euro amendments this is clg one five zeros four seven sorry seven four

01:52:53 five zeros four seven sorry seven four zero clg one five zeros seven four 740

01:53:00 and if we go please to the bottom right hand corner you can see this is 2000 edition consolidated with 2000 and 2002 amendments yes and if

01:53:13 with 2000 and 2002 amendments yes and if we go please in this to page 91 we can see the change there's diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces of walls

01:53:24 walls and if you look at the bottom right hand corner

01:53:27 corner you can see the middle shading class naught national class or class b s3 d2 or better european class yes yes

01:53:36 yes and that's the section isn't it which would apply to the external services of buildings with a habitable story over 18 meters

01:53:42 meters yes this is now um there's small print because for the first time there are some notes yes yes those didn't appear in the 2000 version they now they're now coming

01:53:53 coming in this version yes yes let's look at uh the first note

01:53:59 note it says this the classif national classifications do not automatically equate with the equivalent european classifications therefore products cannot typically assume a european class

01:54:11 cannot typically assume a european class unless they have been tested accordingly do you know who came up with that form of words

01:54:17 of words it would have been developed but within that they would have been developed by

01:54:26 by those of us working on the approved document and that would have fed into consideration of the brac working party and

01:54:35 and forgive me because i can't recall that

01:54:39 that if it was there at that point would have gone out for public consultation as well so it would have been actually in effect looked at within the working party right can you can you identify an individual who drafted that or perhaps

01:54:51 individual who drafted that or perhaps produced the first draft it might have been officials

01:54:58 officials it might have been

01:55:02 i can't recall if dr smith was actually assisting us with the writing of the document she she was there as as an expert advisor i can't recall but it it might it might have been

01:55:14 but it it might it might have been officials that started with that and offered it to the working party which officials who are who were they well it would have been myself or darren hopps

01:55:24 hopps right

01:55:26 right now dr debbie smith told us that she had been involved in the drafting and the discussion of this draft she said that on day 236 at page 31 she called it an aunt sally which was

01:55:37 she called it an aunt sally which was put up for um for discussion okay if that's the right expression but um do you do you recall it that way um if you've confirmed to me that that debbie

01:55:48 debbie smith was

01:55:49 smith was providing advice to the department in the preparation of this supplement so if if she said that she developed the first cut i have no reason to question her and but nonetheless i think your evidence is

01:56:01 but nonetheless i think your evidence is whoever actually produced the first edition or version of this no you were involved in the drafting process we would have been involved in the drafting process and there and thereafter into the working party

01:56:13 and thereafter into the working party you would have gone now this doesn't explain does it the complexity is referred to in the ria the regulatory impact assessment or the class and the fact that the classifications

01:56:24 and the fact that the classifications don't mirror each other does it it doesn't here no it doesn't anywhere does it um it might have done in the supporting covering submission that would have supported the consultation document well it's not in

01:56:35 document well it's not in this is the final version that's published yes yes so the reader would not know that the classifications don't mirror each other

01:56:44 okay yes i mean it tells us as you can see that the claimed equivalence is not automatic yes now these words say don't they that class naught is is equivalent to class b

01:56:56 is equivalent to class b but not automatically um

01:57:04 in effect yes why and the way i read it the point getting across here was to say that you can't claim

01:57:15 that you can't claim a class b just because you've tested previously to class naught and vice versa unless you've undertaken the appropriate tests to make those claims

01:57:28 tests to make those claims well that's uh that what you've just said is is clear enough but let's just look at the words on the page and i want to focus with you at risk of

01:57:39 and i want to focus with you at risk of a myopic

01:57:40 a myopic grammatical exercise on the words do not automatically equate with the equivalent okay and first of all what does the word equivalent in in what was it intended to

01:57:51 equivalent in in what was it intended to denote there

01:57:55 i think it was to suggest that they are not of equivalent performance one is a national test and one is a european test but why use the word equivalent what does the word equivalent

01:58:07 what does the word equivalent denote i think it's i think it's because it's referring to when you read the box to which you referred me the class naught or class b we wanted to tell the readership that

01:58:18 we wanted to tell the readership that actually they're not equivalent they are separate methods of tests and might actually behave differently but didn't anybody drafting this think that the word equivalent there might

01:58:29 that the word equivalent there might lead people to think that they were equivalent

01:58:33 but it says the national classifications do not automatically equate with with the equivalent well what is the equivalent european classification i think it's referring to the equivalent

01:58:44 think it's referring to the equivalent as provided here in diagram 40 and the the classification note there but but that's the point class naught is not equivalent to class b and class b is not equivalent to class naught so why

01:58:56 is not equivalent to class naught so why use the word equivalent i i don't know i can't recall i mean do you do you accept that it's a misleading word because it might lead people to think that they are equivalent but just not

01:59:07 that they are equivalent but just not automatically say it could be read that way but that wasn't the intention and looking at equate what were the circumstances it says

01:59:16 says let me let me try this again the national classifications do not automatically equate with the equivalent european classifications in what circumstances would class naught equate

01:59:27 circumstances would class naught equate with

01:59:29 with class b they wouldn't they had discretely separate methods of test so how would the reader know whether the class nor product that it that they were considering did or didn't equate

01:59:40 considering did or didn't equate to class b

01:59:43 i can see how it how it could be read but that

01:59:48 but that that was not our understanding of what that was trying to say of course this is merely diagram 40. there is an annex annex a to the approved document which covers

02:00:00 to the approved document which covers off typically methods of test reaction fire fire resistance combustibility etc there may have been further clarifications in there but my understanding of that note one was to

02:00:12 understanding of that note one was to basically say you couldn't claim class b just because you've tested your product to class nord that was the intention why not say that

02:00:23 intention why not say that sat here in hindsight i can understand that but all i can tell you is that this is what was developed and would have been discussed and this is what we came forward with

02:00:35 is what we came forward with and you say that last answer of course this is merely diagram 40. what was mere about it diagram 40 is what is written in to what was then i think

02:00:46 in to what was then i think 13.5

02:00:48 13.5 which is the linear route to compliance it is part of the linear route to compliance

02:00:56 well it's the linear route to compliance as an alternative as the first of a number of alternatives one being the full-scale test criteria to bl-135 and the other being a holistic fire-engineered solution

02:01:09 a holistic fire-engineered solution there isn't any other way of complying is there

02:01:11 is there there could be other ways to comply if you wanted to meet the functional requirements in some other way but i i agree that that is yes saying some other way isn't exactly

02:01:22 saying some other way isn't exactly guidance is it no but it is understood that it's the status of the functional requirements you can you can see the point i'm really trying to get get from you which is there's nothing near about diagram 40.

02:01:33 diagram 40. if it is

02:01:34 if it is what people are driven to look at and comply with if they want to adopt the linear route to compliance

02:01:42 with um

02:01:44 um with the functional requirement uh please accept my apologies for the turner phrase of mir but i believe i use it in the context that when referring back to appendix a

02:01:55 that when referring back to appendix a there might be additional guidance here that would help you understand the classifications and actually the obligation where you wanted to claim right i put a level of performance you

02:02:06 right i put a level of performance you would have to test so forgive me well you may you may be right i mean scholars have approved document b of which i am not might agree or

02:02:17 of which i am not might agree or disagree with you but but where would the

02:02:20 the um

02:02:21 um with the plain speaking ordinary person wanting to carrying out the work know that in order to understand what lay underneath this lack of automatic equation with a non-equivalent they

02:02:32 equation with a non-equivalent they would have to look somewhere else and approve document b um

02:02:36 um yeah i i hear what you're saying so but it was my understanding from what we've written there what we were trying to say that

02:02:47 that they do not equate to each other and if you wish to lay claim you'd have to test

02:02:54 now i mean standing slightly back from the grammatical semantic exercise it uh

02:03:01 uh you knew i think two things at this point

02:03:03 point uh

02:03:04 uh first the data set on which the quotes unquotes equivalence i use that word

02:03:10 word in this context had been based was small and unrepresentative of the range of products on the market are we talking about the the radar work the radar work it

02:03:22 it this was the 43 64. 64 products i'd suggest that's not insignificant but yes i acknowledge that there is a larger marketplace yes and and the class

02:03:33 marketplace yes and and the class naught's products could achieve and indeed did achieve ratings in the euro norms as low as e from recollection yes yes nonetheless

02:03:44 from recollection yes yes nonetheless um did you have any concerns against that background about the inclusion in diagram 40 uh

02:03:52 uh of the retention about the retention of national class naught as a potential alternative to adoption of class b i had i did not have concerns at the time of retaining class naught why is that

02:04:03 that because it was the established methodology and it was what we were trying to do here which was not a full technical review of approved document b

02:04:14 approved document b was to look at how we give visible recognition to the new european methodology now you say you didn't have concerns because it was the established methodology

02:04:26 the established methodology is that a good reason because we've because it's been there for a long time we'll keep it um

02:04:33 um typically when we come forward with reviews there'll be you know a relevant sort of scope or locus there in and as i said when we started discussing

02:04:45 and as i said when we started discussing this particular part of my evidence we were to bring about recognition to the new european methods of test to do that we had undertaken work with warrington and the industry

02:04:58 work with warrington and the industry where they provided testing back to back to show

02:05:02 to show where and how the various products might be classified and where they may sit so this was all about giving visible recognition to the new european test methodology offering

02:05:13 new european test methodology offering classes for the purposes of the guidance offered in diagram 40 without bringing about undue market distortion

02:05:25 now of course as we've seen already in your evidence from this morning by this time this is late to 2002. you were aware of the results of the full-scale tests in cc1924

02:05:38 full-scale tests in cc1924 yes and the performance of the acm polyethylene core product in those tests yes where the flames had reached 20 meters twice the height of the rig knowing that did you not

02:05:50 knowing that did you not pause

02:05:51 pause and ask yourself well is it really safe to continue to have class naught in here where it's governing the external surfaces of walls above 18

02:06:02 external surfaces of walls above 18 meters

02:06:03 meters again from my perspective again not not wanting to to up not to keep repeating the class naught existed in diagram 40

02:06:15 the class naught existed in diagram 40 there were provisions in place within the statutory guidance and the functional requirements that i would have thought

02:06:22 thought i would have believed that actually that that was an acceptable route what we were trying to do here at this time was to give recognition to the new european approach that i understand

02:06:34 approach that i understand and you've made that you've given that evidence already and i'm not really asking you about that what i am asking you about is this that this was an occasion

02:06:43 occasion on which to come back to and examine class naught per se because you were you were looking at it you were looking at its its limitations you looking at how it worked and you were looking at it particularly in the

02:06:54 were looking at it particularly in the context of revising approved document b and diagram 40 itself but you are now doing so i'm suggesting to you in the light of knowing the results of the cc 1924 test

02:07:08 was this not the opportunity knowing what you now knew again with the empirical data about class norton to have a good look at class nought and ask yourself well is it safe

02:07:20 ask yourself well is it safe to continue to retain it as opposed to going straight to class b and no i don't believe i had that thought right and why is that because

02:07:33 thought right and why is that because again this was there for the benefit of giving visible recognition to to euro class b right this had to go on into the document early on there would be a large range of products

02:07:44 there would be a large range of products that wouldn't actually have been tested in terms of the market so by its own volition that would have actually potentially brought about market distortion and

02:07:54 and again

02:07:55 again of relevance i believe is that we couldn't even at this point cite the revised br 135 or the first part of bs8414 part two

02:08:07 or the first part of bs8414 part two because they hadn't been published either did you give any thought i understand that did you give any thought to putting a warning into this revision given that it was being revised

02:08:18 being revised about acm products with a pe core specifically or a warning along the lines of of brigade big red letters which say the fact that it has a class naught

02:08:31 the fact that it has a class naught classification is no guide at all to its safety

02:08:37 safety that's the last line of paragraph 13.5 did you at the time look at it in the light of the 1924 tests and this revision exercise and ask yourself

02:08:48 revision exercise and ask yourself whether the ordinary reader of this guidance would would consider that as a clear

02:08:54 clear warning

02:08:55 warning mr millick could we quite kindly scroll up to the top of this diagram please yes absolutely i'm sorry you're quite right you can't see it yes yes so when you read diagram 40 provisions for external

02:09:06 read diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces of walls yes it is there in terms of the guidance for the surfaces but the first point you come across is a reference back to paragraph 13.5 and

02:09:17 reference back to paragraph 13.5 and 13.6 it is and therefore i suggest it would be unadvisable not to read that guidance and it is that guidance in 13.5 which sets out the very

02:09:29 guidance in 13.5 which sets out the very point you make that notwithstanding the surfaces

02:09:33 surfaces here

02:09:34 here in achieving class naught might still mean that they are potentially problematic as a product i'm not sure that's right can we go back to page 90.

02:09:45 you've picked up on the words thirteen point five and thirty sorry i do apologize

02:09:50 apologize let's take it more slowly yes because it's important we get your evidence right apologies go back to page 91

02:09:58 yeah um at the very top left hand corner under the words diagram 40 you have quite rightly identified c paris 13.5 and 13.6 let's look at those if we go back a page to page 90.

02:10:14 yes i i was wrong um

02:10:19 but but of course in terms of external surfaces

02:10:22 surfaces it would take you to this point but again reading with the approved document and similar you'd have to follow the flow and it would be 13.7 to which i was referring so apologies no no but

02:10:34 so apologies no no but no need to apologize but doesn't that rather highlight the problem that

02:10:39 that 13.5 and

02:10:40 13.5 and 13.6 are mutually referential the reader of this might think that they didn't need to look at 13.7 if they felt that they were entering

02:10:51 if they felt that they were entering guidance in support of the approved document that was talking about external walls

02:10:56 walls i think

02:10:58 i think it highly unlikely they would just read 13.5 and 13.6 they have to take into account what they need to do to meet the building regulations then immediately

02:11:09 building regulations then immediately would move you into 13.7 and so i understand that could happen but again

02:11:17 but again if it did happen which is disappointing at design

02:11:20 at design and specification stage then of course if no consideration was given to the actual external wall construction then i'm sure we're relevant that is something that through the application

02:11:33 something that through the application for building regulations approval that would have been picked up

02:11:46 um can we then move on to a different document kin 6060

02:11:57 now this is a kingspan technical bulletin

02:12:00 bulletin which has the title new european fire classification system and then a big red stamp the plain facts uh and you can see right at the top right hand corner very tiny print it

02:12:11 right hand corner very tiny print it says may 2003 yes have you ever seen this document before i don't recall seeing it let's look together at page five

02:12:18 five and there's some text here about delay and implementation and in the large large red text on the left hand side there's a a sentence which says existing national

02:12:29 a sentence which says existing national fire standards are not set to be withdrawn for five to ten years yes yes and in the uh well first of all was that correct as at may 2003

02:12:39 may 2003 a date hadn't been determined for the purposes of building regulations in terms of national standards as i've explained because we were dealing with some 400 national standards in that

02:12:52 some 400 national standards in that overarching time yes not all of them would be available and have gone through a period of coexistence so this is i think referring to the end-to-end process of all of those

02:13:03 end-to-end process of all of those national standards um published by the bsi

02:13:09 i don't think that's referring necessarily to the building regulations right

02:13:13 right do you know where the five to ten years comes from maybe they there was an estimation of when they looked at the timetabling of publication of those national harmonized standards

02:13:25 harmonized standards that when they saw the likely timetable of when they entered and were published and the starts of periods of coexistence one two or three years from recollection to take that to the very end

02:13:37 to take that to the very end that would mean it could be potentially five to ten years right i presume but that's just me thinking aloud so i see right yeah don't do that do the best you can with your recollection but that that is i i

02:13:49 your recollection but that that is i i that might be us given where they were with the harmonized standards right that could could have been the sorts of figure figures that people might have perceived it would take in terms of time now in the text underneath it

02:14:01 the text underneath it it says the euro class system and the fire test standards that underpin it are not being introduced on the same time scale as the product standards existing national fire standards are not set to be withdrawn for five to ten

02:14:13 set to be withdrawn for five to ten years furthermore hm government has stated that it will not implement the new euro-class system until the industry is ready to adopt it had the government made that statement as far as you are aware by may 2003

02:14:26 as far as you are aware by may 2003 i believe government there would have been statements made that actually

02:14:33 the market would need to be prepared and ready whether they made it quite that way i can't recall did it accurately reflect the government's position

02:14:44 government's position at any stage

02:14:52 no because the government wouldn't necessarily be bound just by industry because you could get those that were running ahead doing it very quickly because they wanted to

02:15:04 very quickly because they wanted to um

02:15:05 um actually get the sea marking and to get the the the passport for whatever better term to to move products more readily around europe and there are those that might lag and might not

02:15:16 might lag and might not um and so to wait for industries is you know it's ready in its entirety i suggest i can't speak for government that wouldn't necessarily have been

02:15:26 have been uh there would be agreed to be bound by that

02:15:31 that do you have any idea how or where or from where king span had picked up that idea

02:15:37 idea not that i can recall now was the transition period and the withdrawal of national standards a matter that you or any of your colleagues in the department ever discussed with kingspan at any time not that i can recall now did you have any

02:15:49 that i can recall now did you have any discussions about these matters with any manufacturer

02:15:54 we might have i

02:15:56 i my colleague might have had discussions when we've spoken at events and similar probably not dissimilar to some aspects of today where we were talking about the difference between a regulatory system

02:16:07 difference between a regulatory system and the building regulations and

02:16:10 and the placing of products on the market and the construction products directive

02:16:16 very broad discussions of that might that might have happened moving forward in time then to july 2004 can we go please to bre-407802

02:16:41 bre407802 this is a milestone progress report

02:16:45 report from the bre to the um the department by now i think called the odpm and it's for the period first october 2003 to the 16th of july 2004

02:16:57 2003 to the 16th of july 2004 and it's approved by debbie smith as you can see on the first page now these would come into the department wouldn't they yes they would they ordinarily come to you

02:17:06 um at this time they typically would yes so if we go to page nine and look at the second paragraph or second set of bullet points rather on

02:17:17 second set of bullet points rather on that page you can see that there was a march meeting and

02:17:27 it says uh on page nine there the the progress

02:17:35 uh

02:17:39 of this meeting sorry sir where are you reading it's a good question and it's the second time i've i've i've had trouble with this document

02:17:47 document um

02:17:55 yes

02:18:08 forgive me no not a tool sir if it helps at all i believe in recollection emv118 i found it sorry page 8. it's my fault um

02:18:20 i think it's what you might call a transposition error um this is uh the about a quarter of the way down your screen and it's uh it says this the progress of the april meeting was as follows the secretary agreed to

02:18:31 was as follows the secretary agreed to explore the options available as alternatives to the outright withdrawal of ps476

02:18:36 of ps476 now um

02:18:38 now um i want to give you the context of this um this is if you go back a page to page seven

02:18:43 seven fa fsh22 fire resistance tests uh

02:18:50 uh and that's as you can see what it says halfway down your screen yes um if we go back to page eight and the first indent there

02:18:58 there and the first bullet point um

02:19:01 um was this in relation to reaction to fire or in relation to resistance to fire if it was fsh-22 i'd presume it would be resistance to fire from recollection

02:19:12 resistance to fire from recollection were the exploration of alternatives being carried out in relation to reaction to fire sorry could you yes was reaction to fire also the subject of discussion about

02:19:23 also the subject of discussion about withdrawal yes i i would have thought they would have been right now let's go to page 13 which might help a bit better um if we go to page 13 third full paragraph on the page and this is two

02:19:34 paragraph on the page and this is two after the heading fsh21

02:19:38 yes uh you can see at the top of the page fa ssh 21

02:19:43 ssh 21 4.

02:19:45 4. yes

02:19:47 yes and

02:19:55 uh it

02:20:00 if we go back a page

02:20:04 to page 12

02:20:07 12 you'll see a paragraph fsh21 and two lines under that or two paragraphs under that a commercial need was seen do you see that sorry just just yes thank you the commercial need was

02:20:19 yes thank you the commercial need was seen for the continuing availability of the bs 476 standards in relation to business outside europe and this is being discussed with b12 fire coordination the preferred option being to declare them obsolescent in the case

02:20:30 to declare them obsolescent in the case of part six a modification will be needed to replace asbestos board likely to be unavailable from the end of 2004 any development work would be need to be done by the test laboratories themselves

02:20:41 done by the test laboratories themselves now were you conscious of any such commercial need from recollection this is a discussion within bsi bsi being the national

02:20:52 within bsi bsi being the national standards body would be obligated that when they published a harmonized product that subjects to reaching the period of coexistence they would have to typically withdraw

02:21:03 withdraw any conflicting national standards and i believe this is referring to the to the point that when that point is hit there would be this obligation but recognizing that

02:21:15 but recognizing that national standards that is the bs 476 series were used beyond the uk shores there were other countries around the the world that were using bs-476 and it might have also been

02:21:27 bs-476 and it might have also been record sort of recognition that there are a number of products that wouldn't ultimately be covered by a harmonized product standard and what would what could you do for

02:21:38 and what would what could you do for those products but that is just me sat here interpreting what you've shown me so i think there was it was recognition what do we do about those countries that still want to use 476 outside of europe

02:21:53 reading that

02:21:56 right now mr chairman we're shortly before 4 30 and i'm about to go to a different document but we're somewhere away from the end of this topic we might do best to stop at that point i was going to suggest we should

02:22:07 suggest we should yes because i'm not going to finish this witness this evening in any way can you give me any idea of uh how long you might need to be with him tomorrow certainly in the morning i'm afraid uh certainly in the morning

02:22:19 certainly in the morning right well probably into the afternoon as well all right my friend well mr but i i'd hope that we might finish your evidence today and argue that as well and i'm afraid we haven't managed it so i'm going to have to ask you to come

02:22:30 i'm going to have to ask you to come back again tomorrow and it sounds to me as though we might finish by lunchtime but we might not so can you make arrangements accordingly yes i will say all right well then we'll stop at that point and we'll resume

02:22:41 we'll resume these at 10 o'clock tomorrow and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it okay thank you sir thank you very much

02:22:59 thank you mr millet 10 o'clock tomorrow then thank you mr chairman thank you