Brian Martin from DCLG gives evidence on building regulations policy, desktop studies, combustible materials guidance, and department responses to fire safety concerns.
00:00:22 would you ask mr martin to come back in please thank you
00:00:36 all right mr martin yes sir right thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr chairman uh mr martin i'm going to move uh forward in time to a little bit later in 2016 uh particularly the mayor that year
00:00:47 year and your invitation to speak at an nhbc uh event in the july which was entitled facade buildings and you addressed this in your statement at page 50. if we can please go to that
00:00:59 at page 50. if we can please go to that paragraph 143.
00:01:03 and you say at 143 at the foot of the page on 27th may 2016 i received an invitation from steve evans of nhbc to speak at a seminar they were organizing on facades total buildings
00:01:15 on facades total buildings focusing on the use of combustible materials and routes to demonstrate compliance such events across the regulations are commonplace and i regularly receive
00:01:26 commonplace and i regularly receive invitations to speak where the department can we try to and support them providing they are putting forward a message with which we agree mr evans went on to chase my boss richard harrell at which point i responded saying i was
00:01:38 at which point i responded saying i was not happy to attend based on some of the assessments or engineering solutions that were being used i did not think that it was for me to tell building control bodies what they could or could
00:01:49 control bodies what they could or could not do
00:01:50 not do discussion followed during which i accepted that i was happy with the four options set out in the b 2015 bca guidance note 18 with which i am still happy to this day but asserted that i felt that some of the assessments and
00:02:02 felt that some of the assessments and engineers solutions were not as robust as they should be i'd recently had conversations with some professionals that have expressed this view now just pausing there if we can mr martin what was it about some of the
00:02:13 martin what was it about some of the assessments or engineered solutions that were that were then being used that made you unhappy enough to decide initially at least not to attend um i'm pretty sure it revolved around a
00:02:25 i'm pretty sure it revolved around a conversation i'd had with a building control officer um
00:02:30 um who was concerned that
00:02:35 assessments were being accepted um
00:02:39 um without challenge um
00:02:43 um which again is something that i think reflects the the way the building control world had evolved um i'd certainly dealt with assessments when i'd been a building control officer
00:02:54 when i'd been a building control officer um and they're sometimes a necessary part of um
00:03:00 the process um but we always felt comfortable to to go back to somebody done an assessment and say are you sure about this what about you know
00:03:10 you know provide some sort of challenge and i think it was on the basis of that and perhaps another conversation it was kind of hearsay it wasn't i hadn't seen any assessments i had no reason to see any
00:03:21 assessments i had no reason to see any assessments but on the basis of some conversations i'd had i was a little concerned and to some extent um
00:03:34 i was trying to use the invitation to the um
00:03:38 the um event as a leaver to press nhbc on the issue right what was it about these assessments or engineered solutions that led you to think they weren't as robust as they should be
00:03:50 weren't as robust as they should be or at least the conversations with professionals that you'd had about that i don't remember anything specific right um i i think it was more that um
00:04:01 um they were being accepted without adequate challenge um fire safety engineering is a very subjective subject probably always will be um and you need a degree of challenge
00:04:16 be um and you need a degree of challenge in the process so um to get to the right answer um and i think that was something i was i'd become concerned about um and
00:04:27 i'd become concerned about um and that was part of the reason why i think i
00:04:30 i um
00:04:31 um wanted to use it as a leaver with nhbc to say are you are you approaching these things properly or not when had you first become concerned by any such reports i think it was quite i think it was quite close to this period um
00:04:45 was quite close to this period um i i i i
00:04:47 i i i i have a very vague recollection of a telephone conversation with a building control officer is that
00:04:53 is that the professional who had expressed that view or were there others um
00:05:06 it would have been more here saying rumor so
00:05:09 rumor so there may have been a couple of people but not not not a large number of people right um one or two people you say in the brackets there i had recently had conversations with some professionals that had expressed this view which or
00:05:21 that had expressed this view which or who were the professionals
00:05:29 i think they probably were both building control offices both
00:05:35 i think i don't think i spoke to anyone else i think it must have been building control officers right
00:05:42 generally those are the people we spoke to the most i think over time um i think as i said last week when shona dunn took over as head of division um
00:05:53 division um we'd been discouraged from spending too much time with general inquiries um because the the way that the team had been resourced
00:06:04 the way that the team had been resourced and i think the approach we tended to take was
00:06:08 take was um
00:06:09 um direct
00:06:10 direct to direct designers and um and engineers to their building control bodies but if the queries coming from a building control body then we ought to be try and be more supportive so it tended to be
00:06:21 be more supportive so it tended to be building control people that we spoke to the most when you say you spoke to them what was the occasion on which you spoke to them i think it was over telephone i have a vague recollection of one conversation and i think i was talking
00:06:33 conversation and i think i was talking to a building control officer about a different issue um and he mentioned this in passing and so so it wasn't a significant body of evidence did they ring you up at your
00:06:44 of evidence did they ring you up at your desk or on your mobile how did these conversations uh i think you should i think this was a
00:06:52 um it could have been a telephone call into the department at my desk um or i might have been calling somebody in response to an email right was it quite quite routine that you would have these telephone discussions with bcos yes
00:07:05 telephone discussions with bcos yes right
00:07:08 they would just ring you up or send you an email with a problem and ask you to yes i mean and in general well i mean most building control officers understood that the department couldn't tell them what to approve and what not
00:07:20 tell them what to approve and what not to approve um they would very often ask us and one of the things that we did at the department was um determinations and appeals so in some circumstances where there's a
00:07:31 so in some circumstances where there's a disagreement between the building control body and the the design of the applicant the secretary of state um has a role in determining an argument
00:07:43 a role in determining an argument um
00:07:44 um and
00:07:45 and the building control bodies used those whilst they have no legal status in terms of precedent um
00:07:53 um in practice most people they're often published um in in journals or on the department's website and it's a way of building control bodies seeing
00:08:04 building control bodies seeing you know the approach the secretary of state takes to a question um relates to you know the way that they perhaps should as well and they would often ask us have we dealt with a case recently that's very
00:08:15 dealt with a case recently that's very similar to to the one that they're looking at um when they're trying to decide how to approach a problem um or it might be that
00:08:24 that we've been involved in some research or aware of some activity in the industry that they might not be so they they rarely asked just for a direct answer um because they understood that we weren't always able to do that but
00:08:36 always able to do that but we could often point them in the direction of more guidance or information had you read any of the particular reports
00:08:43 reports which the professionals you were speaking to about concerned no why not why didn't you have a look at them see what the problem was um
00:08:57 i guess it's twofold is one is that um i had no authority to um check somebody out to check one of these reports um and it
00:09:05 it would definitely have flown against the advice we had from the department's legal department in terms of um not getting directly involved in individual cases
00:09:16 cases somebody sent me a report and asked me to comment on it i'd
00:09:20 i'd be in a position where i'm saying whether i thought something was adequate or not
00:09:24 or not which i was expressly told not to do no no but just to understand the nature of the problem have a look at one of these desktop reports and see what the nature of the problem was did
00:09:35 what the nature of the problem was did you not want to do that um
00:09:41 well as i say if i'd have done that then i'd have flown in the face of of instructions that we've been given um and
00:09:48 and ultimately it was for the building control bodies to make those decisions so
00:09:52 so um
00:09:53 um no did you escalate this problem that you'd heard about no
00:09:59 no was that
00:10:00 was that um as i say it it's a
00:10:05 it's a from my point of view i saw this as another routine debate about building regulations which there are many right can we go to nhp four zeroes one three
00:10:16 can we go to nhp four zeroes one three two five please this is the correspondence you're that you're referring to in your statement and if we can scroll down please to page eight of this email run we can see that at
00:10:30 9 39 in the morning of the 27th of may 2016 steve evans sends you an email subject nhbc seminar on facades to tall buildings
00:10:39 buildings importance hi hi brian you see that and
00:10:45 and uh he
00:10:46 uh he says
00:10:49 says [Music]
00:10:51 [Music] that
00:10:52 that nhbc are organizing a seminar on the facade to tall buildings which will focus on the use of combustible materials and routes to demonstrate compliance two sessions and then in the next paragraph you can see in red regulatory
00:11:05 paragraph you can see in red regulatory requirements relating to the facade of tall buildings dclg question mark 15 minutes
00:11:11 minutes and it appears that that's the invitation for you and if we go to page seven
00:11:15 seven we can see various emails where um
00:11:19 um steve evans chases richard harrell for a response
00:11:26 and richard harrell then at the top of the screen gets on to you on the 20th of june 2016 brian i'm being chased by steve evans on this are you happy to speak
00:11:34 speak and if we go to page six we can see the email sent by you on the 20th of june [Music]
00:11:40 [Music] at the foot of the screen hi steve sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this i've been in two minds about this i'm not entirely happy that some of the assessments or engineering solutions that are being used in the industry meet
00:11:51 that are being used in the industry meet the objectives of part b it's not for me to tell building control bodies what they can or can't accept but i'm reluctant to be seen to be endorsing something that i'm unhappy with perhaps i'm worrying unnecessarily but on
00:12:03 i'm worrying unnecessarily but on balance i think i'll decline your kind offer
00:12:08 and then above that summarizing mr evans's response he asks for a call so that he can understand what the problem is
00:12:15 is and if we then run to page five please um at 15 20 on the 21st of june you can see there hi steve not really near a phone until tuesday i'm comfortable with the principle set
00:12:27 i'm comfortable with the principle set out in the bca guidance note the four options are a matter of fact i'm a tad concerned that some assessments and engineered solutions are not as robust as they should be this is why i'm a bit conflicted options three and four are a
00:12:39 conflicted options three and four are a matter for designers and bcbs and then above that you can see that steve evans comes back to you and says could we talk thursday what time would be good and then he says in the in the next paragraph i would be
00:12:51 in the in the next paragraph i would be comfortable with you being critical at the seminar in respect of what you would ideally want to see in terms of a robust solution as a pointer for the builders in the room are there any nhbc schemes
00:13:02 in the room are there any nhbc schemes where you feel we may have fell short i would certainly like to think not but if you have i'm keen to understand where you feel we could have done better in terms of a more robust solution and if we go to page four and your
00:13:14 and if we go to page four and your response to that 23rd of june
00:13:18 looking at the second paragraph you say this i should make it clear that i have no specific evidence of a problem on one of your sites i would tell you i've just grown concerned that some desktop studies as they've become known
00:13:30 desktop studies as they've become known and engineered approaches i've heard about make me wonder if the right people are doing them sometimes i know you've had some communication in the past about problems you've had with the bba certificate for a kingspan product again i only have part of the story so i guess
00:13:42 i only have part of the story so i guess that makes me nervous most of my information quotes on quotes comes from building inspectors public and private sector who are presented with submissions many do not appear to cover important details like window
00:13:54 cover important details like window reveals maybe it would be better if i do come to your event i've got an appointment on 7th july but i should be able to move it sadly there's no one else nobody else in the team that could easily cover this subject matter i'll
00:14:05 easily cover this subject matter i'll get back to you now again what were the desktop studies and engineered approaches you've heard about are they the same thing you've referred to in your statement yes yeah as i said i didn't have a
00:14:16 yes yeah as i said i didn't have a big body of evidence i it was hearsay from from a couple of conversations i'd had with um right which which had made me a little uncomfortable
00:14:28 a little uncomfortable um
00:14:30 um and where were the projects do you remember
00:14:32 remember oh i wouldn't have known i mean people are very cautious to name names and so when you do speak to people they'll very rarely
00:14:39 rarely mention a particular construction project right and when you use the word information in quotation marks there in this penultimate paragraph is that is that because it isn't really
00:14:50 is that is that because it isn't really information it's it's hearsay yes that's the point i'm making there i think is is is that i i i'm not sitting here with a pile of documents demonstrating that things are wrong
00:15:01 demonstrating that things are wrong right um it's more i mean
00:15:05 i mean self-evident now that the problem that we had as a as a policy team is that we had no mechanism to interrogate the system i guess the system was designed that that was
00:15:18 system was designed that that was the the architects of the system in in the 1984 building act were trying to exclude government intervention that was one of the stated objectives of the act um and so we didn't really have a
00:15:30 um and so we didn't really have a mechanism to to investigate things so it it would tend to be just hearsay in conversations with people um
00:15:43 how are you able to assure mr evans that the concerns didn't relate to any any nhbc site
00:15:52 well i didn't have any evidence of any of a particular site
00:15:58 uh no but um
00:16:04 i see so these two conversations you had with these vcos were you clear in your mind were not on hbc projects i didn't know where they were
00:16:15 right
00:16:21 did this information that you had gleaned from building inspectors indicate to you that issue one of bca's technical guidance note 18 option three
00:16:33 option three which we looked at last week which had amended the the kinds of people who could do desktops um
00:16:41 um did you not have a concern that it had been diluted to such an extent that they were now not being done properly
00:16:48 i don't think i'd registered that that was linked to the the text in the bca guidance note um i think
00:16:58 fire safety engineering as part of the design of a large building um
00:17:03 um often means that the building isn't following prescribed guide um a set of rules um that's um again the system is designed to allow
00:17:15 again the system is designed to allow people to do that and at various points over the years governments have encouraged people to use fire safety engineering as a way of you know increasing efficiency
00:17:27 and again as i said earlier my experience is that where you're taking that kind of approach whether it's an assessment or a fire engineered
00:17:38 it's an assessment or a fire engineered design or whatever
00:17:43 you need some challenge in the system and that's what you want the building control body to be doing is is challenging um the assumptions that people have used in their designs or the approaches
00:17:54 in their designs or the approaches they've taken so that your both sides are satisfied that you've got a robust solution but given the very thin spread of information that you've got in fact it's not information
00:18:05 you've got in fact it's not information at all it's just word on the street what is it that you were going to be able to tell
00:18:10 tell the attendees at the event as you had some proper empirical basis for telling them
00:18:19 and well i think i was talking um
00:18:23 the section that they wanted me to talk about was explaining the regulations which is something i would be able to do right
00:18:32 but it looks as if your discovery about the weakness in desktop studies was what had made you change your mind
00:18:43 was what had made you change your mind is that right um
00:18:47 i think discovery is a strong point i was i was
00:18:52 was i was concerned um
00:18:56 it probably reflected my general concerns in the way the building control world had
00:19:00 world had shifted in that it was quite common i i'd heard building control bodies saying well i approved that because it was signed off by a chartered fire engineer um and
00:19:11 and that was contrary to what i'd been trained as a building control officer that you kind of um the qualifications of the person drafting the report was neither here nor there you needed to satisfy yourself that it was acceptable
00:19:22 that it was acceptable um
00:19:25 um so i think that's part part of um my thinking at this point is um i was concerned that um building control bodies might be accepting an assessment
00:19:37 bodies might be accepting an assessment report
00:19:40 without challenge without really giving it any thought just saying somebody signed it off they've got letters after their name it's fine and that's in my view not what building control bodies should do
00:19:52 bodies should do um if you look at the foot of the email you say sadly there's nobody else in the team that could easily cover this subject matter
00:20:00 matter that was correct was it at july 2016 there was nobody else in the division who oh no there's not been anybody with any other i mean i mean
00:20:10 mean to be fair i i'm i'm a a construction generalist with a with a more above average experience in fire safety i'm not fire safety specialist is probably stretching the
00:20:22 specialist is probably stretching the point with me i think uh it probably did that's probably a matter of opinion um
00:20:28 um but
00:20:29 but there was no nobody else in the division that had any fire safety training at all other than i mean mr harrell was a trained architect so he would have had some experience of of um of fire protection design but not not
00:20:43 of fire protection design but not not not to the level that i would have had and about bob no he's not any construction training at all
00:20:50 all now we know that you went on to meet steve evans and diane marshall on the 30th of june 2016. remember that yes um let's look and see what mr evans says about that meeting in his statement this
00:21:02 about that meeting in his statement this is at nhb403020 page 117
00:21:08 page 117 paragraph roman 6
00:21:15 and he says there the foot of the screen my recollection of that meeting was that i explained what nhbc were trying to achieve with the 2016 guidance note i recall that his response that's your response
00:21:27 response was that this seemed sensible as that was akin to the deemed to satisfy quotes unquote's principle which is an accepted principle within the building regulations i also recall confirming arrangements for the facades for tall
00:21:38 arrangements for the facades for tall buildings conference and tell them about the other speakers and likely attendees i cannot recall us discussing his concerns beyond what is set out in the email chain mentioned above we did not
00:21:49 we did not as far as i can remember have a wider discussion about combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters or the route to compliance uh now
00:22:01 uh now is it right that you told him that nhbc's aims were in the document were akin to the deemed to satisfy principle this is the new that the nhbc's guidance note that it is
00:22:14 that the nhbc's guidance note that it is and i i we're going to look at it and i should have introduced the document to you but before asking the question but it is
00:22:19 it is do you remember saying that nhbc's aims were akin to the deemed to satisfy principle
00:22:26 in terms of what what its effect would be yes what did you mean by that um so if you go to the older iterations of building regulations pre-1985
00:22:41 they often had deemed to satisfy provisions where they would
00:22:46 would specifically describe a form of construction in detail and say somebody building this thing that way with this stuff would comply with the building regulations and that had
00:22:58 regulations and that had um
00:22:59 um that was actually drafted in the statutory instrument so had um sort of direct legal effect um
00:23:06 um and
00:23:09 so you you'd have a form of construction that everybody in the industry said if it meets that it definitely complies and that's something that was essentially removed in 1985
00:23:20 removed in 1985 and replaced by the functional system with the proof documents um so i think i was just saying what nhbc doing here was saying we've got these constructions which we've now
00:23:31 got these constructions which we've now reviewed
00:23:33 reviewed on many occasions and are satisfied that they comply and nhbc was saying to their clients
00:23:39 clients um
00:23:40 um if you follow if you use these constructions again we've already checked them we don't expect you to jump through as many hoops as perhaps you would have done in the past so i could understand why they were doing that
00:23:51 understand why they were doing that and it seemed from their point of view a sensible approach
00:24:02 right i'm going to come back to that answer in a moment um because i want to unpick it a little bit before i do can we look at your statement on this uh you say in page on page 51 in paragraph 145
00:24:14 paragraph 145 as follows
00:24:17 145 at the foot of the screen i've been shown a powerpoint presentation prepared by steve evans entitled external facades to tall buildings roots to compliance i cannot definitively state whether he
00:24:29 i cannot definitively state whether he delivered this presentation at the 7th july 2016 nhbc seminar but i believe he did on behalf of the building control alliance the presentation set out what for me had been the entire point of
00:24:40 for me had been the entire point of attending
00:24:41 attending the slide on the not so positives of the bca experience this reported that some fire engineers were still basing assessments on opinion rather than fact and amongst other issues that there were
00:24:52 and amongst other issues that there were no tests using lightweight metal claddings these were all real issues and i was happy to see mr evans raising them on behalf of the bca i hope that such a presentation would improve the industry's understanding and provide
00:25:04 industry's understanding and provide clarity until the issue could be addressed by way of a review of adb were you already aware before you went to the seminar that there were no full-scale tests under bs8414 on systems
00:25:17 full-scale tests under bs8414 on systems incorporating what you describe here as lightweight metal claddings um
00:25:24 i wouldn't have been aware i mean i don't regularly see fire tests reports from them from anyone i didn't at the time so
00:25:32 time so i wouldn't have been aware at all right so this is something that you learned during mr evans presentation at the at the seminar is that right i guess so um
00:25:43 um yeah
00:25:44 yeah his presentation was promoting
00:25:48 promoting best practice as i saw it so i thought that was a good thing
00:25:53 in what way did you consider or hope that mr evans presentation would improve industry's understanding understanding of what specifically um
00:26:03 um as i recall that the the point that i'm referring to here was um nhbc had received assessments which they weren't happy with and
00:26:14 weren't happy with and i assume rejected um because they didn't have the necessary evidence base um and so
00:26:24 and so they were in in the seminar saying these are the things that you shouldn't be producing assessments without an adequate
00:26:32 adequate evidence base did you consider whether it might be appropriate for you on behalf of the department to take on the role of taking steps to improve industry's understanding of the guidance on
00:26:43 understanding of the guidance on external fire spread well i did i was one of the other speakers and that's what i was trying to do
00:26:49 do um do you
00:26:51 um do you or did you at the time consider that that seminar might have been the perfect opportunity to explain to a wider audience than had been present at the cwct5 group meeting on the 17th of march
00:27:03 cwct5 group meeting on the 17th of march 2016.
00:27:05 2016. that the guidance in 12.7 was poorly written
00:27:08 written and misleading
00:27:11 did that occur to you
00:27:14 not in those terms i mean i was there to try and promote best practice and people understanding the objective of the regulations and how to approach compliance yes but we don't see uh anything and
00:27:25 yes but we don't see uh anything and we'll look we'll look at what you said shortly but we don't see anything where you take the opportunity to broadcast to the audience in the room the fact that 12.7 was poorly written
00:27:36 the fact that 12.7 was poorly written misleading misleadingly titled and was not intended to refer only to insulation materials but all parts of the external wall arrangements over 18 meters
00:27:48 wall arrangements over 18 meters why is that um
00:27:53 i i i can't remember i know that you've got a transcript of the day i can't remember what i said um but i was i was there as part of a group of people all trying to promote best practice and covering different subject matters right
00:28:05 covering different subject matters right i mean did it occur to you that this was the perfect platform the perfect opportunity if you couldn't get an faq out or some kind of circuit or get any traction with anyone in the department at least just
00:28:16 anyone in the department at least just talk to industry on a wider basis and say
00:28:19 say look 12.7 appears to have been misunderstood let me tell you what it what the intention underlying it is and that is that filler extends at least to the core of a rain screen panel
00:28:33 i think that was effectively covered by one of the other speakers i think because they're talking about the building control alliance guidance note but i
00:28:38 but i um
00:28:40 um by supporting this event that's what i was trying to do i wouldn't have stood up and said the government publication's got mistakes in it um i'm sure i wouldn't have said it in those terms but
00:28:51 have said it in those terms but getting involved in these seminars was one way of raising
00:28:55 raising awareness of the regulations and promoting best practice but why leave it to other speakers your government coming along to lend authority
00:29:06 authority to
00:29:08 to the occasion and to explain the regulations why didn't you we had the transcript but why didn't you anywhere in that transcript explain in very simple terms to those assembled uh what the underlying
00:29:20 assembled uh what the underlying intention of 12.7 was and clarify what for two years now had been crying out to be clarified
00:29:36 i think i just did did my part of the seminar i was looking at the seminars as a whole and seeing whether it was a positive thing or not you weren't told what to say there were you by mr evans you had no no so why
00:29:48 you by mr evans you had no no so why didn't you take advantage of the liberty given to you by the speaking slot and
00:29:55 and tell the audience what it was that you that you now understood 12.7 to mean and tell them that's how they should understand it pending
00:30:06 understand it pending eventual revision and i think i was thinking of it in in in that way why is that um i think as i say is um i'm thinking about
00:30:19 the whole issue of fire safety with facades not this specific question um
00:30:28 nor do you say anywhere that we can find that acn with the polyethylene core and particularly the normal core the 100 call should
00:30:39 the normal core the 100 call should never be used in any external wool build up of above 18 meters under the linear route
00:30:45 route you don't say that either take it from me that you didn't my question is why didn't you um i suppose i wasn't thinking that i needed to list all the things that weren't allowed um
00:30:58 weren't allowed um this was not was it's not an important and pertinent thing that was not allowed given
00:31:02 given the history that had built up over the last 18 months about acm fires we've had the torch in dubai
00:31:13 dubai 2015 we've had the address in dubai new year's eve 2015. we've had la crosse fire at the in november 2014 and we've just had a fire in the uae at the end of march
00:31:25 march all acm cladding fires are the pe corps the warnings are out there and it's been covered expressly by the cwc teams what i'd like
00:31:36 expressly by the cwc teams what i'd like to just to understand is why wasn't that at least on your radar for discussion or mention at this this conference
00:31:44 i was thinking about external wall construction in its broadest sense um i was focused on a range of issues there are lots of other fires that occurred with other forms of construction so um
00:31:55 with other forms of construction so um i wasn't focusing on a single form of construction i think again if you if you only think about acm yes it's clearly an important point and um
00:32:08 i'm not sure if anyone mentioned it on the day
00:32:12 but yeah i i i was thinking of of the building regulations in its broadest sense and it's an application to all external wall constructions not one specific one
00:32:28 why would the application of the building regulations in its broad in its broadest sense
00:32:35 sense to all external wall constructions be of interest to a group of specialists and hbc building control officers who could be assumed fairly to know that
00:32:47 know that that wasn't it wasn't a building control center the seminar was for um designers and as a much broader cross-section of people in the audience it wasn't wasn't for building control officers so all the more reason if you
00:32:58 officers so all the more reason if you were going to get to a broad cross section of people to spell out to them the one thing that you now needed you knew needed to be spelt out which was well whatever these ma these mean you can't use a combustible core in the rain
00:33:10 can't use a combustible core in the rain screen panel um
00:33:12 um i
00:33:14 i i was thinking about the other issues as well like cavity barriers and and selecting the right insulation and all the other issues that you need to consider now let's go to your
00:33:25 now let's go to your presentation it's an
00:33:28 it's an inquiry one four eight one two
00:33:33 and a page six
00:33:38 uh you say
00:33:52 uh
00:34:11 uh if you can go back to page five please
00:34:15 please you say
00:34:20 back to page five i'm sorry mr martin this is rather an unwieldy document for some reason but if we can go back to page five
00:34:28 page five i need to start at the start yeah and here this is the start of your address you say my name is brian martin i'm in the building regs and energy performance division of dclg that's the
00:34:41 performance division of dclg that's the small but perfectly formed team that deals with policy on building regulations for england then separate teams for wales and sometimes scotland and ireland do essentially the same as us amongst other
00:34:52 essentially the same as us amongst other things i hold the i think i should say pen
00:34:55 pen on approved document b and then it's my fault basically that some things change now just just pausing there and there was obviously an element of lightheartedness about that introduction
00:35:07 lightheartedness about that introduction understandably but that revealed a deeper truth isn't it that in fact you were in you were in charge of approved document
00:35:15 document at least there wasn't anyone else so it must have been me yeah now let's then move then to um
00:35:24 page
00:35:29 seven
00:35:32 uh and you've got a presentation and just below halfway down looking at the pictures on the right hand side you say the one we've all seen a lot of various incidents again in dubai
00:35:44 various incidents again in dubai they've had a bit of a bad time of it recently with cladding fires in a way it's been an opportunity for us all to learn about cladding fires and what not to do if you like we've had our own in the past as well garnet court in
00:35:55 own in the past as well garnet court in glasgow back in 1999 when i was a wet behind the ears fire investigator working for bre at the time now
00:36:04 now it's clear from that that the dubai fires the acm polyethylene cord fires but not only on your radar you actually made a virtue of mentioning them at the conference yes yes yes
00:36:16 them at the conference yes yes yes and what we what were you saying what was the point of mentioning them
00:36:21 i was just highlighting the what external fire spread looks like yes
00:36:30 yes and then go to page eight final paragraph on that page cladding fires generally you see that you say cladding fires generally if you look at a lot of cladding fires certainly the ones in dubai and some of
00:36:42 certainly the ones in dubai and some of the other ones we've experienced over the years they tend not to kill people so why are we even worried about these things
00:36:48 things that's probably because we've been very lucky they're just pausing there and going back to the show me the bodies discussion uh that we had this morning and the evidence of mr of uh uh that we looked at uh earlier
00:37:02 uh that we looked at uh earlier that's
00:37:03 that's that rather indicates that the absence of fatalities was what was driving the department's attention or lack of attention on cladding fires
00:37:15 or lack of attention on cladding fires was that there i i think i'm sort of presenting this rhetorically um uh
00:37:22 um uh i'm
00:37:24 i'm i'm presenting the question that i'm then going to answer so i'm saying you know
00:37:29 know it is
00:37:31 it is the vast majority of the international um cladding fires that we'd seen had resulted
00:37:36 resulted a bit the buildings had been evacuated without difficulty
00:37:42 and because the fires on the outside of the building and the escape routes tend to be away from the outside of the building and i'm trying to explain to the audience why we should still take the issue seriously yes
00:37:54 issue seriously yes and
00:37:55 and we've come on to see that that you say that's probably because we've been lucky very often you can say that we're lucky in the if we've got an otherwise well-designed building and we get a cladding fire there's a good
00:38:06 get a cladding fire there's a good chance most people will be able to evacuate the building certainly moving away from the cladding going downstairs and leaving the building now just pausing there was it your understanding in july 2016 that
00:38:18 your understanding in july 2016 that fire and rescue services would advise evacuation in the first instance in the case of a fire in a clad high-rise building or rather a cladding fire
00:38:30 and for a stay put type building who you're speaking about i'm guessing uh you are guessing correctly um
00:38:40 i would i would have expected fire service to see a cladding fire um if cladding fire was was developing um
00:38:52 if cladding fire was was developing um quickly i'd expect them to recognize that
00:38:57 that there's a
00:38:58 there's a potential that the staple would no longer be appropriate and for them to evacuate the building i'm not saying that's
00:39:05 that's you wouldn't design with that intention um but i
00:39:09 um but i my expectation would be that's what firefighters would do when faced with a building where um fires
00:39:16 fires where there was clearly fire spread across the building well what was that expectation based on um
00:39:28 combination of my experience um and conversations i'd had with firefighters over the years um
00:39:39 and when's this 2016 and and the conversations we'd had following the leck on a house fire
00:39:46 i thought that was well i'm that as far as i was concerned that was a well understood principle um
00:39:52 um that
00:39:54 state the state put it's a it's a complex issue i know the staple approach is
00:40:00 is in general certainly was at that time and still is at the moment considered to be the best strategy for a block of flats um
00:40:08 um but
00:40:08 but where firefighters um can see that fire is spreading in a way which would um mean that stay put it's not going to
00:40:19 mean that stay put it's not going to work or it's not going to be safe for the residents then you'd initiate an evacuation where is that reflected anywhere in approved document b it's not because it's not a guidance document for firefighters it's a building design
00:40:30 firefighters it's a building design document
00:40:31 document where is anything in approved document be consistent with the idea that if you have a cladding fire and stay put has to be revoked then the fire and rescue services will
00:40:43 then the fire and rescue services will be able to to do so um i don't think we the way adb had been drafted up to that point um had been to focus on the design
00:40:55 issues um without providing a narrative to explain stay put and i think that's something which i know when i was working with bsi on bs
00:41:06 i know when i was working with bsi on bs triple nine one we talked about trying to provide a narrative along those lines i think i nearly drafted one um and then that
00:41:13 that i think that got rejected in the end i can't remember why um but um
00:41:20 but um possibly because the fire service were concerned they didn't want designers to presume that that there was the fire brigade had another option up there up their sleeve so to speak can we agree on this that
00:41:32 can we agree on this that stay put or defending play strategy was effectively enshrined into the building regulations so far as concerned uh a building over 18 meters uh in reliance upon compartmentation
00:41:44 uh in reliance upon compartmentation that was a basic design yes and had been since i think probably 1960s or something yeah and that um nothing in approved document b
00:41:55 nothing in approved document b uh
00:41:56 uh catered for the contingency that stay put might have to be revoked or abandoned and a full-scale evacuation or rescue
00:42:04 rescue ensue
00:42:06 ensue no that was always regarded as being an operational issue
00:42:12 was it your view in 2016 when you spoke these words that a stay-put strategy was inherently incompatible with buildings which had been clad in combustible materials
00:42:23 um i think you've left several steps forward and i mean it's incompatible with um extensive external fire spread um you
00:42:35 extensive external fire spread um you could cloud a building in combustible materials and still avoid um
00:42:41 avoid um extensive fire spread that's essentially the point of bs8414 was to try and deliver a building that would do that um
00:42:50 um but yes if you've got x if you've got extensive external fire spread then
00:42:57 then i'd expect the building to be evacuated as quickly as possible did yeah yes when did you first form the conclusion that if you have extensive external fire spread because
00:43:08 external fire spread because because the building has been clad in combustible materials which have not
00:43:13 not uh passed the br135 criteria then a full-scale or substantial partial evacuation would have to ensue i think i thought in terms of the bl 135
00:43:24 i think i thought in terms of the bl 135 criteria um i think i probably i had a general understanding of the stay put principle or the time i'd been working with building regulations i think
00:43:34 think um
00:43:35 um during the after the lack on a house fire as you might imagine there's some discussion about the stay put approach um
00:43:45 um and the conversations i'd had with um senior and for that matter junior firefighters was that there was an understanding that
00:43:56 that there was an understanding that where um
00:43:59 a fire was spreading further than um you would expect in a block of flats eye beyond the flat of origin then evacuation was something that the commander would be on scene would be
00:44:10 commander would be on scene would be considering that's a really difficult decision to make at which point you should decide to do that
00:44:17 do that but i'd certainly met firefighters that had done it did anybody ask you for your views uh on the draft of gra 3.2
00:44:29 uh on the draft of gra 3.2 which was in the process of being revised
00:44:31 revised in the summer of 2013 and eventually got published in february 2014.
00:44:38 i don't know if i ever saw the draft i remember talking about it to people i mean because it was an operational issue it was kept to some extent separate from us but i
00:44:49 to some extent separate from us but i think i think we would have spoken about it i
00:44:52 it i recall talking about it who did to do who did you have a conversation with about it do you remember i i can't remember i'm sorry is it was it les britsman does that name ring a bell i remember the name but i probably spoke to less elizabeth a range of things so i
00:45:04 to less elizabeth a range of things so i couldn't
00:45:09 and it goes on uh
00:45:12 uh you say that's probably because we've been very lucky and i've read that to you and if we turn the page to page nine you say certainly moving away from the cladding going downstairs and leaving the building that doesn't mean to say
00:45:24 the building that doesn't mean to say you've had a good that means we aren't we lucky that we design the rest of the building properly it's not a good way to rely on things fire safety like all safety measures is about having layers of safety every time
00:45:35 about having layers of safety every time you lose a layer of safety you significantly increase the risk of something
00:45:38 something might go wrong in the case of the fire in azerbaijan last year 15 people were killed as a result of a cladding fire the product substitution at some point during that product project what they clad the
00:45:49 product project what they clad the building with was an entirely inappropriate material
00:45:55 and and it goes on like that
00:45:59 again did it occur to you at the time um that clatting the use of combustible cladding materials
00:46:06 materials in external wool buildups um as a result of people misunderstanding 12.7 presented a risk that might very well not be mitigated
00:46:17 that might very well not be mitigated by the state policy in the case of a building which wasn't as well designed as the dubai buildings
00:46:28 um and you've put it in a very specific way um
00:46:32 way um yes i i i'm not sure if i can answer that question i i understood that external fire spread was one of the one of the risk factors that you needed to address when you were designing a
00:46:43 to address when you were designing a building and if you didn't you put the occupants at risk
00:46:50 yes so does it mean that you understood at the time that if you're going to have combustible cladding then in order for the stapled assumption the staple design assumption to hold good
00:47:01 assumption to hold good you have to have a lot of other or a number of other reliable redundancies layers of protection
00:47:12 um
00:47:14 i suppose you're using the phrase combustible cladding which i i well i'm trying not to be pedantic but you have a tendency to re return to something i've agreed with so i can need
00:47:25 something i've agreed with so i can need to
00:47:26 to take care with with the language you're using um
00:47:30 using um it's if you've got a cladding system which is going to present a risk of fire spread then
00:47:36 then um well you shouldn't do that is the simple answer um but
00:47:42 but if you've got a fire like that then you become reliant on those other measures
00:47:48 let's go to paragraph 146 of your statement
00:47:54 you say there page 52 at the 7th july 2016 seminar the nhbc launched a document entitled acceptability of common wall constructions containing combustible materials in
00:48:05 containing combustible materials in high-rise buildings and then then you go on this document provided specific guidance on option three of the 2015 bca guidance note 18 as to how to achieve compliance with requirement b4 the
00:48:17 compliance with requirement b4 the document provided at appendix 3 has a section on acm panels the guidance section provided that nhbc would accept that a certain makeup of a facade would meet requirement b4 and then went on to set out what a
00:48:29 and then went on to set out what a specification would be from inside to out
00:48:33 out having reviewed the document i was satisfied that this was a reasonable approach to satisfying the functional requirements of the regulations i was happy to see the nhbc warning that substitution with a less fire resistant
00:48:44 substitution with a less fire resistant product did not take place on site now
00:48:50 now when did you first read nhbc's 2016 guidance note
00:48:57 i think it was in advan the meeting i had with nhbc in advance of the seminar right so the 30th of june 2016 with steve evans and diane marshall i believe so right
00:49:09 who did you understand that the guidance note was intended for who was the intended audience um i think that was for nhbc's building control clients right let's go to it nhb 6065
00:49:29 can you just confirm for us that that is the document you're referring to um
00:49:34 um yes
00:49:36 yes yes
00:49:36 yes now um
00:49:38 now um it's entitled acceptability of common wall constructions containing combustible materials and high-rise buildings and if we stay on page one and look to the right-hand column of the text
00:49:47 text towards the bottom of page one under the heading common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc it says this the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhbc
00:49:59 constructions are acceptable to nhbc without the need to provide an option three assessment providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set out in the following appendices and then you
00:50:10 in the following appendices and then you can see that there are three appendices one brickwork facade two timber paneling and three aluminium composite panels now
00:50:20 now do you remember but in simple terms and we'll look at the note in detail but it in simple terms it significantly widens the roots to compliance for the use of certain combustible materials over 18
00:50:31 certain combustible materials over 18 meters
00:50:38 i'm not sure if it does widen the route to compliance but what they were trying to do is to say that these are constructions that they have already reviewed and concluded that they meet one of
00:50:50 and concluded that they meet one of those routes to compliance right well let me put it differently do you agree that it was um creating an alternative to producing a desktop which was itself an alternative to using uh uh uh uh either materials of
00:51:04 to using uh uh uh uh either materials of limited combustibility above 18 meters or passing a full-scale test under bs8414
00:51:10 bs8414 um yes yes let's look at appendix 3 then
00:51:16 page 4
00:51:19 and under the heading key issues if you look at the left hand side it says this
00:51:26 it says similar to cement based panels mineral called aluminium composite panels tend to crack and break up under sudden flame impingement etc and then if you look at the next paragraph it refers to br 135 and then the next paragraph
00:51:40 to br 135 and then the next paragraph says
00:51:41 says uh
00:51:42 uh sorry the end of the second paragraph it says with the measures below it is considered that an aluminium composite panel facade finish will meet these criteria and those are the criteria mbr135
00:51:55 mbr135 and
00:51:57 and then it goes on to say
00:52:02 with the measures below et cetera and then that goes on to say these appropriate measures include the use of minimum class b in accordance with bsen 13501 1 aluminium composite
00:52:15 with bsen 13501 1 aluminium composite panels which provide a class naught surface spread of flame and then the use of a cement particle board behind the insulation minimum class b
00:52:23 class b etc and then the use of reputable and robust cavity barriers etc and then it says restrictions on use the use of polythene or polythene mineral cored aluminium composite panels
00:52:35 mineral cored aluminium composite panels which do not achieve a minimum class b combustibility classification fall outside the scope of this guidance note now reading the words polythene there for polyethylene
00:52:46 for polyethylene listen i wonder if we could scroll down a bit because i've only got the first two lines on my screen so i'm saying yes you're quite right
00:52:54 right thank you
00:53:00 sorry now put your question again if you'd like to making allowances for the words polythene there which should be read as polyethylene uh
00:53:09 uh how did you understand that paragraph when you read it um
00:53:16 um i remember this being explained to me in in the nhbc specifically wanted euro class b
00:53:24 class b um
00:53:25 um as a minimum performance as opposed to class b or class o
00:53:34 it allows doesn't it or did you understand it as allowing for the use of polyethylene called acm so long as those those panels achieve euro class b
00:53:45 or better um yeah as i unders as i understood it this was based on the information that nhbc had received over a an extensive number of projects um
00:53:57 of projects um so i
00:53:58 so i i presumed um i think wrongly now um that there had been some testing to demonstrate that i just want to get your
00:54:09 i just want to get your evidence about how you read this did you read it as allowing for the use of polyethylene called aluminium composite panels as long as those panels achieved euro class b
00:54:25 um yes
00:54:27 yes yes
00:54:28 yes so not therefore as saying that acm panels with a polyethylene core are not permitted
00:54:38 i i think my understanding at the time was is that the only class b products were ones that had some sort of fire retardant material inside them but that's an
00:54:49 material inside them but that's an understanding about what was out there and available yes that's sort of what i didn't have a great deal of understanding what was out there and available but nhbc had dealt with an extensive number of projects um
00:55:01 with an extensive number of projects um where they'd received a lot of information from the various engineers that were supporting the applications and nhbc was satisfied that
00:55:13 satisfied that a panel that met this specification um would achieve the criteria in br135 did you read anything on this page as saying that
00:55:25 anything on this page as saying that an acm panel with a polyethylene core was effectively banned
00:55:37 i think i looked it in those terms i looked in
00:55:40 looked in i
00:55:42 i i saw that i i remember the um i can't remember who it was at nhbc um i spoke to it might have been um john lewis the fire engineer um and he said that it was
00:55:53 fire engineer um and he said that it was important that it was euro class b and not class o um
00:55:57 um as
00:55:58 as the class b separated out the the poorer performing acms so that was my understanding of how this worked which seemed reasonable to me class b is not uh limiting combustibility though is
00:56:10 not uh limiting combustibility though is it no it was to say this was based on as i understood it a lot of large-scale testing um because otherwise how would they have
00:56:18 they have reviewed all of these buildings did they tell you that
00:56:23 i don't think they directly did um i think
00:56:27 think what they explained to me is that they dealt with a lot of projects um that they'd been um reviewing them
00:56:36 and they they've been dealing with lots of projects
00:56:40 projects with a wide range of different forms of construction and there were certain forms of construction that had become more common um and they were satisfied with the evidence that they'd been presented that
00:56:51 evidence that they'd been presented that um
00:56:52 um these
00:56:54 these these particular constructions met the performance criterion vr135 so i guess i presumed that meant that at least some testing was involved um
00:57:06 least some testing was involved um i i now understand i don't think there was any testing on acms certainly not to bs 8414 but at the time i think i presumed that there had been i didn't see how else you could do
00:57:17 see how else you could do how you could do an assessment or a desktop as it's become known um for construction involving a um a range screen panel if no one had ever
00:57:29 a range screen panel if no one had ever tested one did you
00:57:32 did you this would be clear about your evidence just now
00:57:34 just now when you were shown this and discussed it with diane marshall and steve evans did you just assume that there had been full-scale tests under bs8414 which had
00:57:46 full-scale tests under bs8414 which had passed the br135 criteria where an aluminium composite material panel with a polyethylene core had been used as part of the system
00:58:00 where that panel was class b yes that's that's that that's what i was presuming from from this is that they'd seen sufficient evidence to be able to
00:58:11 seen sufficient evidence to be able to confidently say because that's what they were doing was that a a class b um
00:58:17 um acm panel would meet those criteria so i assumed that that was satisfactory had you forgotten cc 1924 and the results of the tests in 2001
00:58:30 and the results of the tests in 2001 particularly with the acm panel with the pe corps
00:58:33 pe corps that had had to be terminated before five minutes was up with flames going up 20 meters as i mentioned to you when you asked me about that before i wasn't aware of the full extent of that failure
00:58:45 aware of the full extent of that failure and
00:58:48 i i presume that this was a different material why because it's class b and they've reviewed hundreds of buildings and come to the conclusion it met the bl 135 criteria which
00:59:01 if i had been that aware of that that test um all those years before then i would have recognized that wouldn't have been likely to be true but i only had the scan knowledge of that that test as i've told you before
00:59:14 that that test as i've told you before you have
00:59:16 you have if we turn to the right hand side please in the last bullet point above the word the use of reputable you see that it says minimum class b when assessed to bs en
00:59:26 en 13501 aluminium composite material boards with a class naught surface spreader flame classification now again it's right isn't it class b would not under
00:59:36 under approve document b count as material of limited combustibility would it that's correct no is that specification there in two places
00:59:48 in two places and particularly here using a minimum class b acm
00:59:54 acm board
00:59:55 board not wholly inconsistent with the requirement for all elements of the build-up including external facings to be material of limited combustibility it is as far as i was aware they were basing this on um a series of um
01:00:10 basing this on um a series of um projects they'd dealt with where they'd satisfied themselves that it met the performance criteria in br 135 but i think the answer to my question the first part of your answer is yes yes yes
01:00:23 and we can also see if we scroll down a little bit what the rest of this list says
01:00:32 just above it it says we can scroll up sorry we can scroll up insulation maximum 140 millimeters thick comprising one of kingspan k15 celitex rs 5000
01:00:45 one of kingspan k15 celitex rs 5000 extra therm srrs now those are all combustible insulation materials aren't they yes not materials of limited combustibility correct so this guidance was blessing
01:00:58 so this guidance was blessing the use above 18 meters of two important elements of a cladding system both of which were regulated by adb that were not materials of limited
01:01:09 that were not materials of limited combustibility yes
01:01:12 yes absolutely yes but without any testing of those
01:01:16 of those elements
01:01:19 the way it was explained to me is that these forms of construction that sat in this guidance note were ones that nhbc had reviewed in detail on many occasions and had
01:01:31 detail on many occasions and had satisfied themselves that they met the performance criteria of bl-135 and on that basis um they would be acceptable in terms of requirement b4
01:01:42 in terms of requirement b4 um i i was under the i don't see how you could possibly um have done that without some large scale testing
01:01:51 how is the blessing of combustible insulation above 18 meters either alone but particularly when combined
01:02:00 combined with a
01:02:01 with a cladding panel with a polyethylene core of minimum class b
01:02:08 consistent with the linear route to compliance it's not
01:02:13 not no
01:02:18 and indeed do you accept that
01:02:22 if this guidance note was acceptable at least so far as these materials were concerned you wouldn't need to amend or review adb it [Applause]
01:02:36 um i i think there were still quite specific limits here um and
01:02:44 i said i was under the impression that this was based on um perhaps more detailed consideration than perhaps the evidence you've now seen shows but
01:02:54 shows but um
01:02:59 i can see the point you're making is is is it showed that this this type of insulation and that type of cladding um
01:03:09 they were very confident that within the constraints that they set out you they they would meet the performance criteria of bl-135 and so that that seemed
01:03:20 and so that that seemed that that was that's a good thing
01:03:24 now scrolling down if we can again so you've got the whole thing um can we start at the foot of page
01:03:31 of page four
01:03:32 four with the bullet points i'll come back to the paragraph above it in a moment but it says um it says the following precautions are incorporated into the specification design and installation and then from inside to out this is what
01:03:44 and then from inside to out this is what i want to focus on in this question a double layer of 12.5 millimeter plasterboard minimum 100 millimeters lightweight steel frame internal leaf combustible non-combustible insulation
01:03:56 combustible non-combustible insulation and then no less than 12 millimeters thick cement particle board of minimum combustibility class b and then insulation which i've read to you
01:04:05 you drained and ventilated cavity aluminium support rails and then again minimum class b aluminium composite material boards with a class naught surface spread of flame classification and then
01:04:16 spread of flame classification and then cavity barriers and then some other things underneath that which you can see but looking at it do you agree that it's no more than a list of products and dimensions
01:04:36 um it is a list of products and dimensions i guess yes so do you agree that any bco building control officer could quite fairly pick up this document and approve a clouding system on a horiz
01:04:47 and approve a clouding system on a horiz building anywhere any high-rise building that contained a class b 100 polyethylene called acm panel and rs 5000 or k15 as the insulation
01:04:59 and rs 5000 or k15 as the insulation behind it
01:05:04 well it being i mean this is an nhbc policy document so any nhbc building control officer is essentially getting an instruction from an hbc that they
01:05:15 an hbc that they it's telling everybody that nhbc will accept that form of construction yes yeah
01:05:21 yeah so and on bba paper at least and leave aside the problems with the certificate at the moment that's what was on grenfell tower wasn't it kingspan k15 celatex rs 5000
01:05:34 kingspan k15 celatex rs 5000 and apparently a class b aluminium composite panel with a class naught surface spread of flame classification and one which could be regarded as such
01:05:46 um i mean i don't know the exact specification of the the construction on grenfell tower um but as i say as far as i was aware this had been subject to a lot of scrutiny by nhbc and
01:05:59 subject to a lot of scrutiny by nhbc and had been evidenced as as meeting the performance criteria of br135 i i i understand now that that's not entirely accurate but that's not
01:06:10 entirely accurate but that's not what i'd been led to believe did you understand at the time i should just tell you there's an irony here of course because the 7th of july 2016 was the very day
01:06:20 very day when rbkc's john hoban signed off the certificate of practical completion on the grenfell tower refurbishment but it would have been possible for him if he had been let's assume he'd done
01:06:33 if he had been let's assume he'd done the work to have discovered this document
01:06:36 document looked at it done an investigation of what was on grenfell tower and seen that the very products listed as acceptable here as meeting requirement b4 were on his
01:06:48 meeting requirement b4 were on his building
01:06:49 building and gone ahead and signed that practical completion certificate yes
01:06:57 yes i guess so yes yes this guidance note essentially delivers the builder and the building control officer a linear approach to compliance which doesn't require any of the
01:07:09 which doesn't require any of the external elements to be materials of limited combustibility and doesn't require the insulation to be of limited combustibility either
01:07:22 yes i mean it's quite specific about the particular insulation materials and they are the better performing insulation materials that were on the market in terms of fire performance and um
01:07:34 and um i'm sorry to repeat myself but my understanding was is that this had been assessed thoroughly by nhbc you lent your approval to this document even informally
01:07:46 even informally did you not want to see from nhbc at least the test data from the tests incorporating any of these materials or products and understand from nhbc how the
01:07:58 and understand from nhbc how the extrapolation had been made to the desktop which supported their use in different tests different structures and on top of that the basis on which it was thought safe
01:08:09 the basis on which it was thought safe to apply it across the board well it wasn't for me to check the detail um
01:08:16 detail um what the conversation i'd had with nhbc was about you know are they are they happy that the assessments that they're looking at um
01:08:27 um um are appropriate and are they checking assessments thoroughly and and i i was reassured that they were taking a responsible attitude to
01:08:38 to looking at assessments and that was part of the reason for their seminar was to
01:08:44 make sure that people were submitting adequate
01:08:49 submissions to them and
01:08:53 and and they said and that they'd had a lot of assessments um which and they'd already assured me that those assessments were based on test data
01:09:03 data um so
01:09:06 um so they and they said these are particular constructions that they'd seen a lot of and that they were satisfied met the performance criteria so that seemed an entirely reasonable approach for them to take
01:09:20 you not remember the words in the 2013 edition of br135 in both annexes a and b to the effect that the results of a test
01:09:31 test full system test under ba bs8414 could not be transliterated to a different system
01:09:41 did you not remember that um
01:09:44 um your
01:09:44 your mixing
01:09:45 mixing terms here what the what bi135 is talking about is that you can't claim a classification to bl-135 for a construction that isn't the one you tested which is true
01:09:58 but as i think several people have said including myself as it's a reasonable approach having
01:10:06 having if you have sufficient data um from large-scale tests to interpolate between them and that's where assessments are appropriately used
01:10:17 where assessments are appropriately used and regularly used across the industry for a wide range of different things so
01:10:24 so i saw this as being reasonable they'd seen a range of assessments on a large number of buildings and they were going through the same process repeatedly
01:10:35 process repeatedly and concluded that there were certain constructions where they were so confident they'd seen enough data that they could come up with this deemed to satisfy type approach well
01:10:46 deemed to satisfy type approach well just tell me with this um did it not strike you was very odd that um they were accepting constructions which simply would not begin to comply with
01:10:58 would not begin to comply with the linear route under adb and later because that was the whole point of bs8414 was to provide an alternative to the linear approach to these weren't based on a lot
01:11:11 approach to these weren't based on a lot of eight four one four tests they were based on previous assessments which were themselves said to have been based on eight four one four tests which you and possibly nobody else had seen did it not raise
01:11:24 nobody else had seen did it not raise some sort of warning flag um if i'd realized the lack of testing involved so yes it would have done but i i was under the impression that quite a lot of testing had been done in support of those assessments which if
01:11:36 in support of those assessments which if you the bca guidance note is quite clear and the process of assessment you can't you can't interpolate between two tests if you haven't done the two tests
01:11:47 if you haven't done the two tests um
01:11:48 um and
01:11:49 and but that appears to be what has happened in some of these cases but this is this all depends doesn't it on the quality of the assessments that they were themselves extrapolating from
01:12:00 themselves extrapolating from in order to produce this yes sir document and that those assessments as i understood it were carried out by organizations with the right sort of experience and they were being they'd been reviewed
01:12:13 they were being they'd been reviewed carefully by nhbc's fire engineers yeah all right thank you you referred to the mr chairman i've got five minutes left yeah you referred to the deemed to satisfy
01:12:25 you referred to the deemed to satisfy uh in your last answer and also in your statement
01:12:28 statement but you explained to us very helpfully this afternoon that the deemed to satisfy
01:12:32 satisfy concept was one which had been removed by the 1984 building act and the 1985 building regulations how come it could be relevant now um
01:12:42 um [Music]
01:12:44 [Music] in the case of nhbc it's a very large approved inspector that does a lot of work on very similar buildings so it comes across the same question frequently
01:12:56 frequently and
01:12:58 it's something government encourages building control bodies to do is to be consistent in its assessment of applications um
01:13:07 um that's something which is in the enforcement conclude and the regular i think it's the regulator's code but government policy on on two two uh enforcers which hbc effectively is is to be more consistent
01:13:21 effectively is is to be more consistent so i saw this as them trying to be more consistent on forms of construction that they were dealing with regularly so it sat well with um government policy
01:13:33 with um government policy now there's a further point if we can scroll down please to the guidance at the bottom left-hand corner
01:13:41 corner uh i read some of this to you but not all of it
01:13:44 all of it and it pre it precedes the bullet point list of products and specifications and it says this where a building has a floor level exceeding 18 meters from outside ground level a class b aluminium composite panel finish is specified and
01:13:56 composite panel finish is specified and the builder can demonstrate that the following precautions are incorporated into the specification design and installation of the facade nhbc will accept the build up as meeting requirement b4
01:14:08 requirement b4 1.
01:14:09 1. did you did you read that paragraph probably yeah did you not ask steve evans or diane marshall on what basis they would accept these buildups as meeting the functional
01:14:20 buildups as meeting the functional requirement not just not just satisfying the guidance but but actually meeting the functional requirement and well they were working on um i'm sorry to repeat myself but they
01:14:32 um i'm sorry to repeat myself but they were
01:14:33 were working on the basis that they were satisfied by the evidence they had seen that this form of construction met the performance criteria in br135 and therefore demonstrably
01:14:46 didn't contribute to external fire spread oh no that's that last part of that answer that i'm interested in you say met the performance criteria in 135 and therefore demonstrably
01:14:59 135 and therefore demonstrably didn't contribute to external fire spread it's the therefore did you think that if you followed adb
01:15:11 that if you followed adb whether through the linear route or for the or the full scale test method and had got a br 135 pass under the alternative method you therefore
01:15:22 you therefore met the functional requirement without more
01:15:26 more [Music]
01:15:27 [Music] um
01:15:27 um [Music]
01:15:29 [Music] ultimately there's always the the duty to think broadly um so you'd have things like the mechanical performance report from br135 so again if you were doing an
01:15:40 from br135 so again if you were doing an assessment you would want to look at the mechanical performance in case there was something um untoward there that you were concerned about what about i think what that would be but that's something that an engineer
01:15:52 but that's something that an engineer doing that sort of work would want to do and where do we see in this document anything that says that you should consider
01:15:59 consider the use of king's bank a15 or celetex rs-5000 or an aluminium composite material board with a polyethylene core having regard to the height use and
01:16:10 having regard to the height use and position of the building
01:16:15 i think it's broadly the whole document is trying to do that isn't it no well it's trying to do that but where do we see it the reason i'm putting this to you is because as it says nhbc will accept the build up
01:16:27 as it says nhbc will accept the build up as meeting requirement b4 did it occur to you at the time that nhbc had left
01:16:36 left from
01:16:37 from meeting
01:16:38 meeting the approved document b guidance statutory guidance to satisfying the functional requirement without pausing to think whether satisfying the but guidance did meet
01:16:50 did meet the requirement in every case
01:16:53 i think they dealt with bill
01:16:56 fairly there was a lot of repetition in the kind of work that they dealt with so
01:17:02 so um
01:17:03 um i think
01:17:05 i think i i don't think i considered that in detail at the time um but but there's a lot of repetition in the type of work they were doing um and my experience of them was they were they were like quite competent uh as a
01:17:17 were like quite competent uh as a building control but because it was a large organization and they had access to people um like mr lewis they had fire engineers and most local authorities didn't have access to a chartered fire engineer
01:17:27 engineer it's more fundamental than that it's more fundamental than that did you not read this as telling nhbc bcaas that they no longer needed to worry about the height use and position at the given building above 18 meters
01:17:41 at the given building above 18 meters provided this list of materials and dimensions was used i think this is saying that nhbc had felt about those issues and concluded this form of construction was acceptable
01:17:52 this form of construction was acceptable on every single building above 18 meters regardless of its height use and position um is that what you thought well the height is above 18 meters it says it there um and um the use of the building
01:18:03 building nhbc mostly do domestic premises is the nature of their business i don't know if it says blocks of flats anywhere on this guidance note
01:18:11 and its position is more relevant to fire spread between buildings and not um external fire spread do not accept that this was a thoroughly dangerous and irresponsible document because it signaled to a large population of
01:18:22 signaled to a large population of building control officers operating under the nhbc banner that they could tick off
01:18:28 tick off a cladding system comprised entirely of combustible material and what is more do so on the assumption without more that it adequately resisted the spread of
01:18:39 it adequately resisted the spread of fire over the walls
01:18:43 at the time i saw this as being a reasonable approach to dealing with a form of construction that they had dealt with on numerous
01:18:54 that they had dealt with on numerous buildings
01:18:55 buildings and they had satisfied themselves looking at the information they'd been given that it it met the requirement
01:19:10 you knew that no lightweight cladding panels had actually been tested to be s8414 you told us that mr evans confirmed that in his own presentation she did i don't remember making the connection at the time i wish i had
01:19:24 on what possible basis could it be appropriate for the nhbc to accept such panels for use over 18 meters without any full-scale test data to support their use
01:19:33 their use um i don't think they should have done um and
01:19:36 um and and i don't think anyone should have been doing an assessment without
01:19:42 at least some full-scale testing of the planning panel involved um i'd still find it hard to believe that any anyone doing an assessment would have been willing to do that you see you told mr jenkins on the
01:19:54 that you see you told mr jenkins on the 17th of february 2016 that you weren't sure that even acm products were the flame retardant core would meet the rule of thumb
01:20:00 of thumb in the approved document and doubted whether or not they would get through an 8414 test and yet here we are six months later you endorsing the use of such products over 18 meters without full-scale
01:20:12 over 18 meters without full-scale testing is now under the impression that someone had tested them well just because on the just on the basis of this document on the basis of what nhbc told me when they were planning to present this documentary let's be clear did they tell you
01:20:25 let's be clear did they tell you that there were recent tests with acm with the pe corps that had met the br 135 correct probably not as directly as that and in hindsight i wish i'd challenged them on that um but i
01:20:37 um but i they talked about uh in fact they'd reviewed a lot of buildings um they talked about the approach they were taking to cladding which seemed a responsible one and because they dealt with a lot of
01:20:49 and because they dealt with a lot of projects with very similar forms of construction they were satisfied that this form of construction met the functional requirement and
01:20:58 and i think i must have assumed that the only way you could have done that with is with some sort of large scale i don't see how you could possibly do that without doing some sort of large-scale test
01:21:09 test at least one i i
01:21:13 i i i was
01:21:14 i i was when i discovered that um
01:21:17 um this all these assessments had been done without
01:21:21 without that kind of what i would regard as a minimum
01:21:24 minimum level of relevant data i was shocked i still am did you mention this note or your endorsement of it as a reasonable approach
01:21:35 as a reasonable approach to melanie dorsey's office when summarizing the guidance for her in the wake of the grenfell tower fire when you said that aluminium pe was effectively banned
01:21:49 i can't remember i don't think i did no why not
01:21:53 why not it was a very intense period um and on
01:21:58 when you're briefing a permanent secretary to answer the questions they ask you um and that's not it's not an excuse it's an explanation um
01:22:07 um and i think i don't know if it slipped my mind or i just didn't manage to get all my words in i don't know but i don't think i mentioned this the truth it can't be correct can it that acmpe was
01:22:19 correct can it that acmpe was effectively banned this document effectively permitted it i think i presumed that it was an acm pe mr chairman i've gone on a little bit longer i apologize
01:22:31 we will have a break at this stage so we'll take a break now we'll come back please a quarter to four and once again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right yes sir thank you very much
01:22:49 thank you very much course to four please
01:41:36 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
01:41:50 all right we're starting ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr millet
01:41:54 millet yes mr chairman mr martin i'm going to change
01:41:57 change now to a completely different topic which is the lga guide on purpose-built blocks of flats which is in the context of the rro in other words the fire safety
01:42:08 in other words the fire safety regulatory reform ward of 2005. now
01:42:12 now in your nowhere in your statement do you refer to having any responsibility for policy matters relating to the rro is that because you didn't um not directly no um there are there
01:42:23 um not directly no um there are there are various points where i assisted colleagues that were working on um policy relating to the fire safety order uh
01:42:35 right and in what capacity were you assisting those colleagues um
01:42:41 at times i was the only person in the department or sometimes both departments that had any experience of fire safety and
01:42:52 and and i had a network of contacts which meant that i could help sometimes right um and both both teams were quite small so sharing
01:43:04 sharing information was something that we tried to do when we could did you have any involvement in policy matters relating to the rro on a daily basis not it was it wasn't my principal
01:43:15 not it was it wasn't my principal function but i think i think at one stage um
01:43:20 stage um i think it was in um
01:43:23 um my objectives um every year um you review your objectives as an official and i think there was a period where that included recognition that i would assist
01:43:35 recognition that i would assist colleagues that were dealing with the fire safety but probably while they were still in the department i think now you tell us in your statement paragraph 10 that before the grenfell tower fire you'd report it to anthony bird and then richard harrell yes uh as head of
01:43:47 richard harrell yes uh as head of technical policy did you have any formal reporting lines in relation to the rro no right
01:43:52 no right i'm going to turn to the lga guide itself
01:43:55 itself which i think you may remember was published in the july of 2011. yes yes um can we go to your statement please at page 55.
01:44:08 when you say there at paragraph 156 um in answer to the question what other work was identified in the period 2009 the 14th june 2017 to improve fire
01:44:20 the 14th june 2017 to improve fire safety and high-rise purpose-built blocks of flats during the period in question work on fire safety and purpose-built flats was aimed at ensuring that there was adequate guidance for the safe management of buildings in use whilst
01:44:32 management of buildings in use whilst this is outside my direct area of responsibility i did assist colleagues working in that area and the lga by helping with the procurement of a contractor to produce the guidance which i referred to above and then providing
01:44:43 i referred to above and then providing contributions and comments as the document was developed the lga guide was reviewed following the coroner's recommendations in the latin house inquest but was found to be suitable without amendment
01:44:58 uh were you well why were you involved in the drafting of the lga guide if it was outside your direct area of responsibility um
01:45:08 um it
01:45:10 it one of the things that we tried to do between the two policy teams is to make sure that any guidance that existed didn't conflict um and so
01:45:19 um and so as as a minimum i was
01:45:22 i was reviewing that to what you wouldn't want is a
01:45:25 is a provision in the guidance for existing buildings which asked required something which was in conflict with the standards you were setting for new buildings because you'd that that would be unworkable so
01:45:37 that that would be unworkable so that was a probably the main reason for being involved but generally
01:45:42 generally i would be reviewing it to see if i could make any helpful comments what did you know about the rra that meant you could add value to that project um
01:45:55 i've been involved in various aspects of so i'm trying to think now
01:46:02 so i'm just trying to get the chronology straight in my head um
01:46:08 bre had a contract with the department to produce some of the fire safety order guidance at the same time as we were working on the 2006 edition of approved document b
01:46:20 edition of approved document b and
01:46:21 and so i was involved to some degree i wasn't in the the team that was doing that work because i was already tied up with the approved document but i was involved at that stage
01:46:33 involved at that stage um and it was quite an important piece of legislation for for fire safety the fire safety order so it's something i guess we were all talking about um and
01:46:43 and um
01:46:43 um there was a period whilst i was still working for bit it was probably the last couple of years while i was still working for bre um
01:46:51 um where
01:46:52 where in addition to the work i was doing with the department supporting them on building regulations um i provided some assistance um to the policy team responsible for the fire
01:47:03 policy team responsible for the fire safety order when it was first implemented so it was a separate contract now on this project i think it's right that you represented dclg on the project group for the lga guide
01:47:16 group for the lga guide i was one of the dclj representatives yes why were you part of the project group you particularly
01:47:29 um
01:47:32 well i said there weren't really anybody else um so it would be me or no one i think from if if you wanted if you wanted someone from the department that could contribute to this
01:47:44 could contribute to this it would pretty much be me and what role did you take um so i think as i said in my statement i think
01:47:52 i think the initial there and there was an initial discussion about the need for some better i think um it's quite difficult to remember the chronology but it had been recognized
01:48:05 it had been recognized i think by the policy team responsible for the order that the fire safety order guidance
01:48:10 guidance um the way it had been structured there was one guide which i think was titled is titled sleeping risks or something that's right yeah that's what's signals um
01:48:20 um and the problem with that guide was is that it covered hotels and blocks of flats in one guide even though the strategies for those two types of buildings are very different um and
01:48:32 um and that was causing problems um in in its application um because they are just the the design stretch is completely different so um
01:48:44 stretch is completely different so um it
01:48:45 it it didn't work very well um and i think there was also there were also issues that uh the fire safety order team had come across um where there's the
01:48:57 where there's the i guess it's the legislative overlap between the fire safety order which applied to certain parts of a block of flats and
01:49:07 and the
01:49:08 the housing health and safety rating system which is a it works in a very different way but essentially does the same job for the other parts of a blocks of flat um
01:49:19 other parts of a blocks of flat um and i think it was a kind of discussions around that that concluded that a guide um that
01:49:29 that addressed
01:49:31 addressed all of the issues in one place would be
01:49:35 would be the best way to resolve some of these kind of conflicts that were occurring with the the different systems we're all meeting in blocks of flats um and it was felt the uh a guide that covered
01:49:47 a guide that covered fire safety in purpose built blocks of flats would resolve that i'm gonna cut across and my question was what was your role on the project group what was your role on the project group oh i beg your pardon sorry i
01:49:58 oh i beg your pardon sorry i um
01:50:01 so having decided that they needed a guide um i worked i i assisted the my colleagues that were working with fire safety order in um
01:50:12 securing a contractor so i think i was one of the people that reviewed the the various bids
01:50:19 and then subsequent to that i was um
01:50:24 i was um there really to review text and and to contribute to the discussions about the development of the guide as it went along were you also part of the reference group or only the project group i can't remember there were a number of different groups i can't
01:50:35 number of different groups i can't remember the the the exact constitution now let's look at um the guide itself can we please go to hom3045964
01:50:49 and the panel may be familiar with this document
01:50:52 document from careful examination of it last may i think
01:50:56 i think and if we look please at page 120 we will look at
01:51:04 sections 79 799 through to section 79 11.
01:51:09 11. and in 1799 it says this in general needs blocks it can equally be expected that a resident's physical and mental ability will vary it is usually unrealistic to expect landlords and
01:51:20 unrealistic to expect landlords and other responsible persons to plan for this or to have in place special arrangements such as personal emergency evacuation plans such plans rely on the presence of staff or others available to assist the person to escape
01:51:32 assist the person to escape in a fire
01:51:34 in a fire and then 79.10 even in sheltered housing schemes there will be reliance ultimately on rescue by the fire and rescue service in the event that residents cannot escape by themselves however in sheltered housing schemes
01:51:46 however in sheltered housing schemes it's commonplace to hold information relating to any resident with particular mobility or other issues affecting their ability to escape this can be made available to the fire and rescue service on arrival at the premises for example
01:51:57 on arrival at the premises for example by keeping it in a premises information box which can only be unlocked by the fire and rescue service at the main entrance details of any residents using oxygen or other medical gases are also kept usually kept with this information
01:52:09 kept usually kept with this information and then 7911 it is not realistic to expect such an approach to be adopted whether a disabled people and others requiring assistance in a general needs block any attempts to keep information of this kind must be updated regularly
01:52:21 of this kind must be updated regularly as inaccurate information could could potentially be more harmful than no information now can i take it that you're familiar with those paragraphs reasonably so yes do you recall being
01:52:32 reasonably so yes do you recall being part of any discussion about whether the responsible person's responsibility under the rro extended at all to persons with mental or physical disability
01:52:43 disability um i remember it
01:52:47 so there's specific provision in the fire safety order um where it
01:52:52 where it requires the responsible person to consider
01:52:57 is it persons of special writ there's there's a particular um phrasal language which i can't i can't recall um the
01:53:05 the the complexity with um
01:53:08 um blocks of flats is whether it's never been entirely clear in my mind whether that applies to um
01:53:16 um because the order is aimed only at the the um
01:53:19 the um common parts of the block is whether it's reasonable to expect the building
01:53:24 building the person responsible for the building to be considering the occupants of the flats
01:53:29 flats when they're in their flats that's not as clear as it might be one of the things that
01:53:38 had been agreed in the drafting of this guy was to try and focus on what was kind of considered to be best practice at the time for the building as a whole without um
01:53:49 without um getting drawn into the the boundaries between the different bits of legislation um because
01:53:56 because the real question is what's the right weight what's what's the right way to manage a block of flats in terms of fire safety not which bit of legislation starts and finishes where that's a that's a problem for the regulators if you like not not for the the person
01:54:08 you like not not for the the person using it but can i just ask my question again sorry do you remember being part of any discussion about whether the responsible person's responsibility under the rro
01:54:19 person's responsibility under the rro extended at all to persons with a physical or mental disability do you remember being part of any discussion about that not as specific as that i remember discussions about um about
01:54:31 discussions about um about people with disabilities did you ever discuss or no of any discussions about the possibility of taking any legal advice about whether it did the rro did extend to disabled
01:54:44 it did the rro did extend to disabled people or whether equality legislation might have a bearing on whether it did um
01:54:53 not that not that i can't remember that in detail i mean that would be something that the policy team for the fire safety order would have taken more directed right do you
01:55:02 do you know or do you have any recollection of whether they did
01:55:09 i think the generality generalities i'd refer back to that there's a i'm sure that the order makes specific reference to um
01:55:21 it doesn't say disabled people it says something else but it is essentially implying that you need to consider them can we take it from to the best of your recollection no such legal advice was ever obtained
01:55:34 no such legal advice was ever obtained by government before the lga guide went to press in august 2011. um [Applause] i'm not confident in answering that question because that wouldn't have been but but to my to my knowledge i have no
01:55:46 but but to my to my knowledge i have no recollection of that particular question being raised with lawyers thank you now given that the lga guide as we can see here contain guidance about helping vulnerable and
01:55:57 guidance about helping vulnerable and disabled persons in a fire did you take any steps or to your knowledge did anybody take any steps to ensure that the authors of this guide obtained the views of organizations
01:56:08 obtained the views of organizations representing disabled people or vulnerable people
01:56:15 i didn't know what about anybody else um i i
01:56:20 um i i again i can't recall the exact constitution of the various groups um but
01:56:27 there was a wide range of people involved in the production of this document um and i know that they certainly gave that a lot of consideration but so your knowledge didn't do anything
01:56:40 but so your knowledge didn't do anything about it
01:56:41 about it didn't actually ask people representing that doesn't mean to say they didn't it means i don't know that that's all i'm asking yeah yes now i'd like to look at a letter that was sent by elsmith grant
01:56:52 was sent by elsmith grant uh after publication in late august 2011 to simeric cockle um who was chairman of the local government group um and this is after publication um can
01:57:05 um and this is after publication um can we please go to um hom
01:57:09 um hom eight 301984 four
01:57:22 and you can see it's dated the 23rd of august 2011. and uh it starts this uh fire safety and purpose built blocks of flats as a fire safety consultant who has worked with disabled people for many years i'm
01:57:34 disabled people for many years i'm writing to you as chairman of the local government group to request that the guidance title fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats is withdrawn and amended as the advice contained within this contrary to the law
01:57:45 law are you familiar with this letter um i've seen it recently yes yes but i think you saw it at the time didn't you um yes i would have done you yes and i can show you the email string just for our reference purposes it's clg one
01:57:56 our reference purposes it's clg one triple zero four nine zero seven page two it was sent to you i think um on the 29th of august 2011. to colin todd copy to you you
01:58:07 todd copy to you you remember that um vaguely yes i mean i can show it to you if you like but take it from me that you did get it at the time okay um i've read the first paragraph and then we go please to page four under
01:58:18 under conclusion and what she says there is this if this guidance is not amended building managers and landlords who follow this advice will continue to discriminate in the area of fire safety against disabled people who represent
01:58:30 against disabled people who represent one-fifth of the population and indeed will be open to criminal civil prosecution given the current approach to disabled evacuation and lack of enforcement in this area it is a little surprise that
01:58:41 this area it is a little surprise that the fire and rescue service equality and diversity strategy states quotes the impact of fire is grossly disproportionate on some communities for example 39 of fatal fire deaths are
01:58:53 example 39 of fatal fire deaths are people with disabilities close quotes i hope that this letter has explained the issues and i look forward to your response before this guidance leads to an unnecessary tragedy because plans
01:59:04 an unnecessary tragedy because plans were not in force
01:59:07 do you remember reading that part of the letter
01:59:14 i must have done i don't remember the the experience of reading it at the time so you don't remember what your reaction was when you read it um
01:59:27 no i don't think i do remember i i have an opinion about it but what i remember i'm not sure i could separate from that right now in his evidence to the inquiry colin todd told us that this
01:59:38 the inquiry colin todd told us that this letter was brought to the project group for discussion and there was representation on that group from the department dclg and the um and the cfoa
01:59:51 the um and the cfoa that's day one six eight page one two four lines five to twelve for those want to look at it
01:59:59 do you remember being part of that meeting
02:00:02 meeting i don't but it wouldn't surprise me if i was there do you remember discussing the letter from el smith grant
02:00:16 again i can't confidently say i was there but it wouldn't surprise me if we discussed it right do you remember how you or the project group envisaged the vulnerable and disabled persons in a general needs block would be assisted or evacuated in
02:00:29 block would be assisted or evacuated in the event of a fire um it's the
02:00:34 there's a there's a real problem with blocks of flats about how you deal with this question
02:00:40 and
02:00:43 to some extent the stay put approach helps considerably in the for the vast majority of incidents the people in the flats will not need to evacuate um
02:00:56 evacuate um and those people that are in the flat where there is a fire are probably the only people that need need to evacuate and they should if they're not able to traverse a
02:01:08 if they're not able to traverse a staircase then they ought to be able to to be able to get to the nearest um protected stairing closure so get to somewhere reasonably safe away from the fire
02:01:17 fire um
02:01:20 well unassisted
02:01:25 yes i mean i think i think i mean that is that is the the challenges there is no one else to assist them so right and that was a problem known to you and those in the group at the time
02:01:37 you and those in the group at the time was it
02:01:38 was it i i it's a universally understood problem um and that what what could you reasonably expect somebody to do if you've got um
02:01:49 if you've got um a
02:01:50 a a person with disabilities in a flat on their own uh and they become involved in a fire um
02:01:59 if the fire and rescue service can't get to them there is no one else except i mean you might get a benevolent neighbor but you can't put that into a statutory procedure to say you must rescue your
02:02:10 procedure to say you must rescue your neighbor in the event of a fire um
02:02:13 um i think there are some people that think that should be the provision um that wasn't
02:02:20 wasn't um
02:02:21 um the prevailing view at the time so what do you do what was the view at the time about what would happen to vulnerable persons with mental or physical
02:02:32 persons with mental or physical disabilities um where possible they would self-evacuate or or hopefully the fire brigade get to them in time well what if it wasn't possible
02:02:40 possible um
02:02:41 um this is i mean this is a very difficult subject to talk about objectively but that's one of the reasons why there are a large number of people that with disabilities that die in fires is because they can't um
02:02:54 because they can't um get themselves away from an incident a lot of those fire deaths when you look at the statistics
02:03:02 so this is a very dark subject
02:03:06 are directly involved in the fire so it's unlikely anyone could rescue them
02:03:13 well it's unlikely if anyone if anyone could rescue them if you don't have a policy director towards them well you could have a policy but what would you do with it um i mean i think that's it's
02:03:25 um i mean i think that's it's you can only you can only expect of the responsible person something that is reasonable um and if you want to get to the point where
02:03:34 where um a person a person who is unable to self-evacuate to be rescued in every event then every block of flats would need a permanent staff of fire rescue people
02:03:46 staff of fire rescue people um which is unreasonable and impracticable why
02:03:52 why um it'd be too expensive it'd be disproportionate too expensive uh too expensive yes i guess is the is is the is the ultimate um
02:04:02 um conclusion to that so so people die in their flats because they're bed band because it's too expensive to have a system to get them out i suppose so i mean
02:04:13 i suppose so i mean was that was that british government policy
02:04:18 that was what was considered at the time to be the prevailing the
02:04:24 the reasonable approach to the problem um i don't think anyone had ever expressed it in those terms um i don't have much choice because you're asking me these questions in those terms
02:04:35 in those terms but that is the the challenge with that the only other option you could have would be to um forcibly remove people from their homes and and put them into care um and i think that would be an equally
02:04:48 um and i think that would be an equally challenging um policy position and so it's a an area for which there is no um perfect answer
02:04:59 um perfect answer well
02:05:00 well leave aside perfect answers the question is did you or anybody else consider or discuss considering obtaining views from disability specialists or other
02:05:11 disability specialists or other stakeholders who represented disabled persons
02:05:14 persons at least just to find out what they thought um this is this wasn't a new subject this is something that had been discussed um in the past what's the answer to did you or didn't you
02:05:26 or didn't you i i honestly can't remember who discussed what with who um but
02:05:32 but the prevailing view that set out in the in the lga guide was
02:05:37 was was what
02:05:39 was what the consensus as being the reasonable approach to the problem it's not it's not perfect because a perfect answer is not available no but there's a legally compliant answer isn't there as i think you'd be bound to accept because i'm not sure i'm
02:05:51 bound to accept because i'm not sure i'm not sure
02:05:52 not sure in terms of actually ensuring that they can always be rescued no there's a have you heard of the equality act 2010 yes
02:06:02 yes right
02:06:03 right did
02:06:04 did to your knowledge did anybody in the department you included consider seeking legal advice on whether elsewhere grant was right in what she was saying as a matter of
02:06:17 in what she was saying as a matter of law
02:06:24 um i don't think anyone did why is that and because the prevailing view was that the the reasonable approach that's that's that was set out in the lga guide was what
02:06:37 lga guide was what um
02:06:38 um was the consensus of um the fire safety community as being the only reasonable approach you could take at the time well i'm so sorry to be critical but that sounds like a rather
02:06:49 critical but that sounds like a rather secular
02:06:50 secular answer the prevailing view was of course what is set out in the guide after the guide was published you've got the threat of a legal challenge and i've asked you whether anybody i
02:07:01 and i've asked you whether anybody i wasn't taking legal advice on whether she was right as a matter of law and so
02:07:06 and so it's it's very common for people to write to the government or other public authorities claiming that something is not in compliance with the law um if
02:07:19 not in compliance with the law um if policy officials referred that to lawyers every time that happened we'd need a lot more lawyers and we can't be having that can we
02:07:29 can we um i'm not sure i should comment on my view of lawyers um well i'm not asking you about that what i'm really asking you is given that she's raised what well let me let me ask it differently did you or anybody uh
02:07:41 it differently did you or anybody uh else who saw this letter take it seriously
02:07:47 um we would have taken it seriously but the question is what can you do um i i'm a
02:07:56 i'm trying to place in time um what i know
02:08:00 know this particular um
02:08:02 um correspondent um had some very strong views which were contrary to what was the consensus amongst fire safety professionals at the time um so the question is is do you
02:08:16 um so the question is is do you um revisit all of that because of the opinions of one person um
02:08:23 um given that it had been given a lot of consideration and
02:08:28 and a practical option isn't really available
02:08:31 available alternative to the approach we're taking isn't really available so the is the answer to my question i don't want to put words in your mouth i'm just trying to enter in
02:08:42 i'm just trying to enter in what you've just told us but is the answer to my question know
02:08:46 know that you didn't seek legal advice on the legal question raised by elizabeth grant because
02:08:54 because the
02:08:55 the cons there was already a consensus among safety professionals about what was reasonable
02:09:02 yes i don't think we would have referred this for legal advice unless we thought that
02:09:07 that unless we thought the threat of legal challenge was real which i don't think we did
02:09:12 we did so you'd already made up your minds as a consensus and weren't willing to revisit it
02:09:17 it in the face of this letter
02:09:23 um yes that's correct yeah you can't revisit and things like that every time somebody
02:09:29 somebody writes a letter
02:09:38 now i haven't shown you the whole of the letter
02:09:41 letter but it runs to some four pages at its sites not just from the lga guide but from the un declaration of human rights
02:09:51 rights the un convention on the rights of disabled persons the rro uh and the sleeping guide uh uh uh
02:10:01 uh uh uh and arrives at a conclusion with some quite i mean i could disagree or agree about this but with some analysis in it as well as the disability discrimination act 1995
02:10:13 when you saw this letter did you just think it was a nuisance letter
02:10:17 letter to be put on one side or did you think the author has done quite a lot of work here
02:10:23 here has cited things that look as if they should be taken seriously uh we need to find out whether there's anything in it i think i looked at it from what i can recall um i think i
02:10:34 from what i can recall um i think i looked at it and saw that these were issues that had been depo debated before there was nothing new there these were issues that people had discussed in the past right now tell me then if they discussed it in the past let's let's take it in stages when in the context of
02:10:47 take it in stages when in the context of 179 to 79 11 had there been any discussion about any of the declaration of human rights the convention on the rights of disabled persons the 1995 disability act
02:11:00 disabled persons the 1995 disability act the rro or the equality act 2010. um i can't place particular dates but i'd say the the the general the general debate as is one that had been discussed
02:11:12 debate as is one that had been discussed um
02:11:13 um regularly over the years um it's a it's a real challenge fire safety for disabled people is a challenge in all buildings
02:11:24 challenge in all buildings and trying to get the balance between um providing
02:11:29 providing accessibility to all and how you address that in terms of fire safety is a very difficult problem
02:11:40 problem and
02:11:41 and the solution of the convention of personal emergency evacuation plans revolved around the fact that buildings had staff that could facilitate them
02:11:53 had staff that could facilitate them when you get to a block of flats you don't have staff and so
02:11:59 the approach the approach that had been taken in this country
02:12:05 country was to um
02:12:06 was to um say that the stay put approach was the best way to resolve the challenges associated with um disabled people can we look at clg one triple zero four
02:12:17 can we look at clg one triple zero four nine zero seven please now this is an email chain from the following month september 2011. if we look at page one second email down 8th of september 2011 at 3 39 we have an
02:12:31 8th of september 2011 at 3 39 we have an email from stephen dawes at cs todd and associates uh to caroline bosdead and copy to louise upton and you among others you see that yes thank you and he
02:12:45 others you see that yes thank you and he um
02:12:48 um says please find attached the basis of a response to this person's letter you may feel it's a bit on the long side but you know what we are like uh do you remember looking at the document attached to this
02:12:59 document attached to this email
02:12:59 email um
02:13:02 um vaguely yeah i can't remember the incident in detail but i can remember seeing it yes no fine let's look at it um it's clg one triple zero four nine zero six
02:13:17 uh and it's quite long and it runs over three pages but um do you remember looking at this document in draft at the time
02:13:28 vaguely yes um in the second paragraph he says in draft we've given careful consideration to the points you've made including seeking clarification from the original drafting team as well as the project group responsible for managing
02:13:40 project group responsible for managing the development and publication of the guide we hope that the following response will provide you with the explanation behind the recommendations given in the guide and reassure you that the particular needs of disabled and vulnerable people have been taken into
02:13:51 vulnerable people have been taken into account
02:13:52 account and if we look at the next paragraph which is the third one on the page it says the process involved in producing the guide involved extensive public consultation which was widely publicized in addition we have held several road
02:14:04 in addition we have held several road shows to canvas views on what should be included in the guide and on some of the proposed content and in the next paragraph while we did not receive your comments at this stage there was considerable feedback on the issue of fire safety on the issue of
02:14:16 issue of fire safety on the issue of safety of disabled and vulnerable people living in flats within a purpose-built block and the extent to which the guys should and can address this i'm just pausing there did you know
02:14:27 did you know whether the authors of the lga guide had actually sought advice or the views of disability specialists or those representing disabled persons in the consultation i didn't know for
02:14:39 in the consultation i didn't know for sure no
02:14:41 sure no you didn't know one way or the other um i guess not right but if we look at the bottom of page two in the second last paragraph it says you will appreciate
02:14:53 it says you will appreciate that in the vast majority of blocks of flats no one is employed to be present to provide any form of assistance to residents in the normal use of the building let alone in emergencies we therefore can see little value in preparing peeps when no one is available
02:15:05 preparing peeps when no one is available to implement them we are sympathetic to the suggestion which you and others have made about holding information on vulnerable and disabled people that can be accessed by the fire and rescue service while we are aware of organizations that have put
02:15:17 aware of organizations that have put this in place we do not consider it reasonable and practical to recommend that this is adopted by whatever default in all blocks of flats it would place a significant burden on those managing blocks of flats to continuously update
02:15:29 blocks of flats to continuously update the information indeed we have emphasized that inaccurate information might be more harmful than no information did you agree with that view the view expressed in that last
02:15:40 the view expressed in that last paragraph i i knew that um there was certainly a lot of involvement from the fire and rescue service in the prepare preparation of this and there's no organization that's got better experience of applying this
02:15:51 experience of applying this dealing with this problem in practice um and
02:15:55 and they were quite supportive of the guide what research or views had you sought to substantiate the view set out here i didn't do any um but i know that that
02:16:06 i didn't do any um but i know that that no when i say you you're right you're quite right let me rephrase the question do you know what research or views um colin todd's office had done all your department had done to substantiate this view
02:16:18 done to substantiate this view um as it sets out in this letter they went through quite an extensive exercise of talking to um
02:16:27 people with a stake in the issue of fire safety and blocks of flats and they took this very seriously and they also had a lot of experience themselves um seth told associates do a lot of um
02:16:40 lot of um um
02:16:41 um i've got a lot of clients that with this type of buildings had a lot of experience of the practicalities of this um and i know that they um discussed the issue with um as i say
02:16:52 um discussed the issue with um as i say all the various people at the different um
02:16:55 um um
02:16:55 um meetings that they'd held around the country um and um certainly the fire and rescue service
02:17:02 service were heavily involved in all of that and i think so that which is why i think what they arrived at in their guide is is what the majority of people working in fire safety considered to be a reasonable
02:17:14 safety considered to be a reasonable approach
02:17:18 the majority of people working in fire safety but not the majority of people on the receiving end of fire safety residents for example i suppose that's a
02:17:29 residents for example i suppose that's a that's a
02:17:30 that's a possibly i mean i think there may have been some charities responsible for residents i'm not sure i i can't say that with certainty um the difficulties is that people that on the receiving end of fire safety often
02:17:41 the receiving end of fire safety often don't hold a lot of opinions on the subject um
02:17:46 um but
02:17:47 but i think they went as far as you would reasonably expect anyone would go in terms of trying to canvas opinions on on the work they were doing can we go back to the email run please at clg one triple
02:17:59 the email run please at clg one triple zero four nine zero seven and go to to the top of page one this is a response from you
02:18:08 from you uh to uh
02:18:10 uh to uh um stephen dawes again copy to louise upton hi stephen power 12 is mixing a period of period of fire resistance with real time a far within a flat should in the initial
02:18:21 within a flat should in the initial stages of the first day within the confines of the flat for anything up to a period of 60 minutes in the vast majority of cases fires will be contained in a flat until they burn out you might wish to use a different form
02:18:32 you might wish to use a different form of words to avoid a counter argument that 60 minutes isn't long enough for disabled people why do you think that cs todd wished to avoid a
02:18:43 cs todd wished to avoid a counter-argument rather than addressing ellsworth grant's concerns um i i think i've agreed with the general thrust of the letter but i've picked up on on um a
02:18:54 the letter but i've picked up on on um a technical error um i i was just trying to help them with the drafting of the letter at that point did it occur to you that if
02:19:02 that if in fact 60 minutes wasn't enough for disabled people to escape then it wasn't safe to leave disabled people unattended in their flats during the first hour of a fire you're committing the same
02:19:13 a fire you're committing the same mistake that they did in this letter which is to mix periods of fire resistance with real time
02:19:21 well why not instead look at it the other way around and examine the principle
02:19:25 principle uh behind of the technical issues underlying the assertion that peeps were not required in general needs blocks um
02:19:40 i mean ultimately that would have been a policy question for for the fire safety order team um
02:19:49 but that would have been a strange thing to conclude given given all the work that just been done um and the consensus was that it wasn't the best approach for dealing with blocks of flats can we then go to hom30s
02:20:00 blocks of flats can we then go to hom30s hom3020345
02:20:04 email at the top of page two of that email run
02:20:08 email run this is the response uh
02:20:12 uh sent by elsmith grant to carolyn bosdet on the 17th of october 2011 after her reply and she says this um
02:20:25 dear caroline thank you for your considered and detailed response to my letter of 23rd of september however i note that your wide range of consultations do not mention either in your letter or the document any consultation with national
02:20:37 document any consultation with national organizations representing disabled people this i would have expected to be essential given that proportionally more of this group suffer fatalities in a fire and are likely to have a greater interest in this radical departure from
02:20:49 interest in this radical departure from all previous government guidance on the regulatory reform fire safety order fso and she continues in paragraphs two and three to ask for a copy of the equity sorry equality analysis undertaken and
02:21:01 sorry equality analysis undertaken and ask for details of those who provided the legal advice that's that's the gist of those two paragraphs uh and although she calls it an equality analysis ea
02:21:14 analysis ea we can i think presumed that she meant a quality impact assessment and if we go back to hom um
02:21:21 um if we go back to page one here please at the foot of the page we can see a response or rather an email from caroline bosdit to you
02:21:33 caroline bosdit to you and colin todd and others where she says hello i'm not really prepared to enter into further correspondence on this do you have any comments kind of regards caroline
02:21:45 caroline and then you say in the email immediately above that on the 17th of october uh about 20 minutes later whatever you do keep your answer short i assume no ea
02:21:59 do keep your answer short i assume no ea was produced it isn't a radical change it's just setting out what is recognized current practice hence no need for an ea don't answer the legal advice bit i'm just taking it in stages why did you advise her to keep her answer short
02:22:14 um it looked like the potential for a long run of
02:22:20 non-constructive correspondence um
02:22:24 um it's clear that the correspondent had a view which was different to what was the the consensus and the way the guidance had been written
02:22:34 written um and was unlikely to be convinced otherwise
02:22:37 otherwise why did you assume that no ea equality assess analysis had been produced and probably
02:22:43 probably for the reasons that's in the sentence immediately below that one um because it wasn't a radical change of guidance it was that's what was recognized current practice
02:22:53 were you qualified to form that view
02:22:57 um
02:23:00 i think based on the conversations we'd had yes
02:23:03 had yes did you obtain any legal advice to substantiate that view
02:23:13 no why not
02:23:20 because i didn't think i needed any
02:23:24 why did you advise that the question or legal advice go unanswered um
02:23:28 um [Music]
02:23:30 [Music] because she would probably then subsequently ask for a copy of the legal advice and again it would just extend a debate um which isn't particularly constructive um
02:23:41 constructive um at that time um the likelihood of the guide being withdrawn and and being modified to require personal emergency evacuation plans particularly
02:23:52 emergency evacuation plans particularly where that required that um all residents
02:23:56 residents would have a plan in place that meant they could evacuate the building without the assistance of the fire and rescue service
02:24:01 service um
02:24:02 um as it wasn't going to happen so
02:24:05 so um
02:24:07 um it seems a little point in in continuing it's a debate that's been going on for many years um and and clearly continues now um
02:24:22 there wouldn't have been any value in in a an extensive exchange of correspondence
02:24:30 can we go to home3020571
02:24:38 page two at the foot please email from caroline bosdet to ellsworth grant 2nd of november 2011. and if we turn the page to page 3
02:24:48 we can see that the rest of it and the main email and she says in the third paragraph
02:24:54 paragraph to elspeth grant it's practical guidance created by the housing sector and enforcing authorities both the fire and rescue service and environmental health it's not statutory it is not considered to be a radical departure from previous
02:25:05 to be a radical departure from previous guidance but sets out recognized current practice
02:25:09 practice and if then if if we look at the second page of this email run there's an email and response from ellsworth grant of the 4th of november to caroline bosdett
02:25:24 and also to louise uh upton
02:25:30 sorry not that that's not it um yes the one at 9 40 on the 4th of november dear caroline thank you for your email government fire statistics show that 77 of all fatal fires involve disabled people
02:25:41 people quite probably as a result of outdated current practice which does not meet the requirements of equality or fire safety law british standards or any other government guidance on the subject as state as you state in your email that
02:25:52 as state as you state in your email that your guidance is not a radical departure from previous guidance please can you let me know which piece of fire safety law or government guidance you're referring to which supports the statements made in clause 79
02:26:03 statements made in clause 79 now you weren't copied into these emails in fairness to you mr martin but in the email above on page two we can see that caroline bosdet
02:26:14 that caroline bosdet copies
02:26:15 copies or forwards the email chain to you louise upton colin todd and stephen dawes you see that yes
02:26:23 yes and she says hello i've had some further communication from this person she was starting to ask someone else and then she goes on we stated that this was the conclusion
02:26:34 we stated that this was the conclusion of our communication on the subject but she's now dropped eias and is coming back with this i'm starting to feel harassed by her and she's also chasing up replies i don't really have the capacity now to deal with her continuing questions how do you want to play this
02:26:45 questions how do you want to play this colin would you want to reply to her direct let me know what you all think kind regards caroline and then at the very foot of page one
02:26:56 on the top of page two you see you respond
02:26:59 respond on the 7th of november to caroline boz did and over the top of page 2 you say this
02:27:06 this i'd give her a reply along the lines of we're happy with the guide recognized as industry best practice there's no point in arguing about it i'm not going to reply to any further correspondence then
02:27:17 reply to any further correspondence then ignore
02:27:18 ignore anything else you get from her do you remember sending that email i don't but i accept that i sent it what was the basis for your view that in relation to vulnerable and disabled residents the guide was recognized as
02:27:31 residents the guide was recognized as industry best practice um because of the work that um the authors have done in in canvassing views of all the people involved
02:27:43 all the people involved right and it may have been current practice as body balls says in her email but why best practice i think you're splitting hairs with words i'm not sure i could give it that
02:27:54 words i'm not sure i could give it that much consideration um that's that's what was regarded as as the appropriate way of managing that kind of block was it appropriate to recommend that correspondence from elizabeth grant now be ignored rather than investigated
02:28:06 be ignored rather than investigated uh with her concerns addressed um managing this kind of correspondence is a thing that people in public organizations have to do all the time um
02:28:17 organizations have to do all the time um [Music]
02:28:19 [Music] you can't commit that much time to an argument which is clearly not going to go anywhere sorry that sounds just disrespectful but it's a thing you have to do when you're when you're receiving lots of
02:28:30 when you're receiving lots of correspondence you need to um recognize where there's a pl there's some way you can help or where there is an argument which is just going to perpetuate and this is one of those
02:28:41 perpetuate and this is one of those mr chairman two more questions on this than i'm thinking of the topic if i may but by this point was it not absolutely clear to you that this was a legal question as much as a question of practice
02:28:54 practice and she was using the law in her argument but the practical question is the one that is
02:29:00 is um
02:29:04 is key to me i i think i'm pretty sure um i can't remember the policy team for the fire safety order um would have reviewed the guide with
02:29:17 would have reviewed the guide with um
02:29:19 um the department's lawyers um and this wouldn't be something you'd want to refer back to lawyers unless you thought there was a a real legal issue here
02:29:30 there was a a real legal issue here i think
02:29:31 i think this particular correspondent had some very strong views about the subject which
02:29:37 which the majority of practitioners thought were impractical in practice what led you to think that there wasn't a real legal issue here um if there was a real legal issue she could have taken into judicial review and then it would
02:29:49 into judicial review and then it would have given been reviewed in respect of the law and ultimately um
02:29:54 um as policy officials we can't determine the law one way or another
02:30:01 another and as i say it's not unusual for people to make references to to various legal rights and so on um again if you if you dealt with all of those with
02:30:14 if you dealt with all of those with that kind of attention then you'd quickly run out of time to do anything
02:30:20 anything was the truth oh the third question was well
02:30:23 well yes
02:30:25 yes what's the truth mr martin you are you were all you boss debt todd and upton fed up with ms grant's persistence and just wants to close her down that's what it looks like
02:30:37 that's what it looks like that's that's that's part of it yes i don't think there's anything wrong with that a correspondent that's writing to you in a way which is not constructive and
02:30:45 and isn't going to result in anything is i guess
02:30:48 guess something that you want to bring to an end um it doesn't mean to say that we didn't care about the issue um i think in particular um colin todd in particular is somebody i know has spent a lot of time and effort
02:30:59 know has spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve standards um for means of escape and fire safety for disabled people has done a lot of work in that area um
02:31:07 um but
02:31:07 but um
02:31:11 you've got you've got to manage these things and and the arguments she was putting forward it's well understood that you know a large number of the people that become casualties and fires um
02:31:23 that become casualties and fires um are
02:31:24 are affected by disability in some way it's a it's an incredibly difficult thing to try and solve
02:31:31 yes thank you very much mr chairman is that a convenience yes mr miller thank you very much well it's time we close for the day mr martin yes sir and so we'll pop that we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:31:42 please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and as before please don't discuss your evidence with anyone when you're out of the room yes sir all right thank you very much would you like to go with the usher thank you
02:32:00 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you mr chairman
02:32:17 you