Continuation of witness testimony examining the 1999 Garnock Court fire investigation, BRE reports, and government response to Select Committee recommendations on external cladding. Focus on discrepancies between reports and decisions regarding Class 0 standards and full-scale testing.
00:00:28 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
00:00:42 right mr martin ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr billy yes mr chairman thank you mr martin can we go back please to your september 1999 report to north asha council at bre
00:00:55 1999 report to north asha council at bre 30353
00:00:58 30353 we looked at it before it was the one you co-authored together with penny morgan and one other and if we go in that police to page 10 we looked at this before when comparing the two reports
00:01:11 before when comparing the two reports and you can see there um just remind you again
00:01:15 again first
00:01:16 first um you can see the reference to class naught in the hanging paragraph second on the page yes yes and also the suggestion we suggest that non-combustible
00:01:27 we suggest that non-combustible materials are chosen wherever possible now
00:01:32 now first was that your view at the time
00:01:38 that was your suggestion at the time i don't remember i i you put your name to this report so can we take it that you agreed with everything in it um
00:01:50 i guess at the time i would have agreed with everything in it whether i still do now i don't know well that's that's what i'm asking you when your name appeared on this report can we take it uh that you are scented you agreed with everything in it whether
00:02:02 you agreed with everything in it whether or not you actually wrote everything in it you agreed with everything in it i suppose it's fair yeah well is it the case may be fair but is it right i can't remember so i can't say for certain and maybe i did disagree with some of it but i don't remember well you would have
00:02:13 i don't remember well you would have said presumably and you wouldn't have allowed it to go out with something under your name if you disagreed with it i assume so yeah now that being the case can we take it that you knew by september 1999 that
00:02:26 that you knew by september 1999 that class naught was an unreliable metric or classification for the control of uh fire on an external surface of a high-rise building
00:02:39 no why's that um
00:02:46 i don't think i would have thought of it in those terms and as a control of a surface
00:02:54 i think it's still not an unreasonable control well you think it's not an unreasonable control what was the basis for your suggestion or the suggestion to which you were scented at the time that it be assumed
00:03:05 it be assumed that non-combustible materials be chosen wherever possible um i guess it's the safest option um it's that it's the least complex option available so i assume that i
00:03:17 option available so i assume that i don't remember that line being drafted i don't know if i contributed to that or not right but can we take it that given that it's the safest option
00:03:29 that given that it's the safest option in the context and in the context of this fire and particularly class naught and its presence that you regarded non-combustible materials for the external wall
00:03:42 materials for the external wall as as the safest option and by that same reasoning class naught has not as safe
00:03:53 yes i guess so yeah i mean i don't think would have thought of it in those terms but no um
00:03:58 but no um the less if you've got a choice between something combustible and and something non-combustible if you can pick the non-combustible one is a
00:04:08 is a was obvious conclusion yes was not the suggestion here that non-combustible materials be chosen wherever possible advice to the go to well at least an
00:04:20 advice to the go to well at least an opinion
00:04:21 opinion that
00:04:22 that adb needed a mending
00:04:34 i don't remember that being something that we discussed at the time um
00:04:40 um looking at the paragraph in total it looks like a reference to um
00:04:47 um the specifics of remediating that that particular building
00:04:55 uh uh but doing so is this right would mean that it was the remediation would would uh go well beyond what adb required
00:05:07 go well beyond what adb required because as you i think agree adb did not require non-combustible materials to be chosen
00:05:13 chosen for the external wall that's right did that suggestion not mean that if it was going to be carried out on more than one building in other words a a generic suggestion that
00:05:24 other words a a generic suggestion that adb would need amending it would do wouldn't it
00:05:30 i don't recall having that conversation with anybody i think there's a difference between what you might recommend to somebody as being the safest option and a minimum standard that you might
00:05:42 and a minimum standard that you might enforce why did you not simply suggest that if and to the extent that the external wall system that garnic non-compliant that it be replaced with a
00:05:53 non-compliant that it be replaced with a compliance system that is a class naught surfaced uh what external wall i don't remember is it the case in fact that you realized
00:06:05 is it the case in fact that you realized at this point in making that suggestion and in the references to class nought that we've seen
00:06:11 seen and in particular the reservations about class naught's current performance in the paragraph before that you knew by this time that which dr smith had told us in paragraph 24 of her statement we saw
00:06:23 paragraph 24 of her statement we saw earlier namely that class naught itself was an inadequate measurement as a control of external fire spread
00:06:35 i don't think i had concluded that at that point um i was still a relatively junior partner in the team that was drafting this um
00:06:43 um so i don't remember coming to that conclusion at that time it may well be that perhaps the other members of the team who are more experienced than me did think that and i don't remember that being a conversation
00:06:55 being a conversation now at this time you were both at the bre and the government as a matter of fact on the assumption that you were signing up to this report uh happy that it should go out with your
00:07:06 uh happy that it should go out with your name on it does that tell us that there was somebody in government ieu who were of the view that class naught was something about which there were reservations
00:07:18 reservations and that
00:07:19 and that it was preferable to have non-combustible materials in the external wall where possible
00:07:28 i'm not sure i'd jump to that i don't come to that conclusion that's not that's not what i remember thinking at the time did you ever tell anthony bird that back in september 1999 you had
00:07:40 that back in september 1999 you had signed a report which expressed reservations about class naught
00:07:48 no no no i don't remember this conversation so i wouldn't have raised it with him because i don't remember it no but you you would have presumably remembered writing the report or being party to it it's got your name on it i certainly remember the incident i've probably written a lot of
00:07:59 incident i've probably written a lot of reports over the years well this is this is one of the landmark reports or on one of a reports about a landmark fire which then gave rise to a select committee investigation didn't it said
00:08:11 committee investigation didn't it said this was quite an important report yes yes and uh my question again you you wouldn't have forgotten about its contents and the relevance of class naught and the suggestion about the use of combustible materials in it would you
00:08:25 of combustible materials in it would you not someone easily forgets
00:08:28 i can only tell you what i can remember i don't don't remember so just to be clear again did you at any time in september 1999 tell anthony bird that you had written a report uh which
00:08:40 that you had written a report uh which contained reservations about the performance of class naught uh and the suggestion that non-combustible materials be used as a remedial measure in the garnet core fire no in the garlic court building no why is that
00:08:53 court building no why is that um
00:08:57 wasn't a conversation that occurred right
00:09:00 right but you could have done you couldn't you could have done couldn't you there was nothing stopping you telling him well nothing yeah if if it was something that i felt was appropriate i could have raised it with him right did there ever come a time in all the years after the
00:09:11 come a time in all the years after the september 1999 and
00:09:14 and um
00:09:15 um well the 14th of june 2017 when
00:09:20 when you considered class naught and
00:09:23 and its limitations and the desirability of non-combustibility in the range screen in the in the external wall system that we see expressed on this page here um probably not until after the edge
00:09:36 um probably not until after the edge fire in manchester so you addressed it in your mind then did you just take that as a milestone in the history you came this is a time when you look back
00:09:45 look back to 1999 and thought is this right class naught
00:09:50 naught is not oh i didn't refer i'm just that in terms of concluding that perhaps um a more onerous provision was necessary
00:09:59 necessary um
00:10:00 um it was
00:10:02 it was following the edge fire i think was the next time that i gave this any consideration very well now let's look a little bit more closely at the role the cladding played
00:10:13 at the role the cladding played mr miller before we leave this page which i suspect we're about to do yeah i think in fairness to mr martin i really want to ask him to comment on particular words some of the particular expressions used here
00:10:25 expressions used here in the second paragraph that we've been looking at one that begins although the material used in 1991 you see that yes i notice that the word current is used we
00:10:36 notice that the word current is used we have reservations about its current performance and if you go down to conclusions recommendations number five reads we suggest that the uh
00:10:47 number five reads we suggest that the uh we consider that the grp in its current aged state may not have met the class north specification um
00:10:55 um does that ring any bells with you about the
00:10:58 the investigations that may have been made into the
00:11:00 into the grp cladding
00:11:04 not specifically no i think um
00:11:09 um this may have been caution on the part of whichever one of us wrote this paragraph um that
00:11:17 that you might well think something's not class o today but you can't be certain that it wasn't classo when it was installed there are some fire retardants um tend to leech
00:11:28 some fire retardants um tend to leech out of a material over time um it's um a problem for a number of different materials and a number of different behaviors as well not just fire it and plasticizers in in plastics tend to
00:11:40 plasticizers in in plastics tend to leach out after a while which is why plastic products become brittle when they get old and
00:11:46 and so it may have been say whoever wrote this paragraph and i don't know who it was um
00:11:50 was um was being careful not to categorically say
00:11:54 say this product failed to comply with the rules that applied to it at that time because you couldn't categorically say that was true well i i thought it right to show you that because questions have been put to you on the
00:12:06 questions have been put to you on the basis that this report demonstrates a recognition that class naught was not a satisfactory
00:12:15 measure to use under any circumstances so to speak and i wondered whether in fact the thrust of this is more on this cladding in its aged state
00:12:27 in its aged state i think
00:12:29 i think our honest opinion at the time is it probably never was classo um to my mind looking at the stuff as it looks like the stuff you'd repair a car with um
00:12:41 a car with um it was there was clearly no attempt to use anything even slightly fire retardant no one had given fire safety a second thought i suspect when it was selected as a material right
00:12:53 when it was selected as a material right um
00:12:54 um and so i think our thinking at the time was that this demonstrates what happens if you don't use a class o product um so so it
00:13:05 so so it i i wouldn't say that it demonstrates that we didn't think class o was adequate i don't think the evidence was there one way or the other from this particular fire thank you very much do you want to
00:13:17 thank you very much do you want to follow us yes i do and to be fair to you there are two ways of reading that middle paragraph one is about the current performance of the material and one is about the current performance of class naught and i think the point that chairman was
00:13:28 and i think the point that chairman was putting to you was that the other way of reading it is about the performance of the material and that links with what said in the first sentence of paragraph five
00:13:38 five um
00:13:39 um there's a further question i think that arises which is this was it your view at the time looking at the garnet court experience if i can put it that way that although a material of class naught
00:13:50 that although a material of class naught might achieve class naught as an adequate measure of fire spread uh on an external wall when applied the problem is that certain materials which achieve class naught when tested
00:14:03 which achieve class naught when tested degrade over time and therefore stop being class naught if tested later and therefore class naught itself is not a reliably permanent classification
00:14:14 a reliably permanent classification i think any classification is potentially unreliable it's not specific to class nor if if a material degrades over time all its classifications may become invalid um
00:14:26 um and
00:14:27 and i think that's that's the point that we were getting to there um not necessarily saying this has degraded because we wouldn't know um but that it could have degraded and we had no evidence one way or the other
00:14:39 we had no evidence one way or the other to to say as much now let's look a little bit more closely then at the role of the cladding in this this fact can we go then to the 2000 report which we saw briefly at bre 303537
00:14:51 page 22. this is where it starts and you can see what you can't get because yes you now can april 2000 signed in may 2000 by nigel smith is authored by penny morgan and if we go to
00:15:03 authored by penny morgan and if we go to page 24
00:15:05 page 24 um items two and three it says this it's highly unlikely that the material used as cladding for garnet court and the four sister blocks was class naught at the time of the fire it is also highly likely that the grp supplied would never
00:15:16 likely that the grp supplied would never have a cheap class naught now do you remember what was the full product name of the grp panels used at karnik
00:15:23 karnik um i don't think it was a um
00:15:28 it looked all i saw was the material that i've repaired cars before and i've seen scouts making canoes out of it was very basic glass fiber material where someone's used um
00:15:41 material where someone's used um sheets of fibrous material and then you you coat it with several layers of resin the resin goes hard and you end up with a glass reinforced plastic so i don't think it was factory produced
00:15:53 so i don't think it was factory produced on a large scale as a construction product do you know why the product name and identity of the manufacturer are not included in the report either of the reports that uh came from the vre um i
00:16:04 reports that uh came from the vre um i don't think we knew what it was well i know but why not um because probably no one knew what it was could you not have investigated
00:16:13 um i we would have asked the building owner if they knew what it was um and they clearly didn't know otherwise we would have put that in the report right
00:16:23 right but identifying the manufacturer and the product was key information wasn't it particularly for the government when it came to it who may want to investigate whether or not class naught was being
00:16:34 whether or not class naught was being claimed for products which had not in fact achieved it no
00:16:39 no um if there was any evidence that it was claiming classo then it would have done but as i don't think there was any record that said one way or the other well that's the problem isn't it if you look at
00:16:49 look at conclusion 3 it says it's also highly likely that the grp supplied would never have achieved class naught that's a matter of grave concern isn't it
00:17:03 um it demonstrates that someone didn't specify the right product at the time
00:17:13 can we agree at all events that the the testing carried out or the investigations carried out showed that the the central issue the key point at garnet court was that the cladding panels were unable to meet the
00:17:24 cladding panels were unable to meet the relevant building regulations and i said it was in scotland so the scottish building regulations applied yes um but they were quite similar at the time but the
00:17:35 quite similar at the time but the english i mean can we take it that there's no difference between english class north and scottish class naught and there's a difference in name but no not in standard um at that time class was definitely the same in both
00:17:52 and presumably you were aware that somehow it had got through building control
00:17:57 control or whatever the equivalence got system is
00:18:03 don't think we investigated that to any great details um i think the nature of the work that we did for the department and and the contract that still runs now is quite limited in its
00:18:16 still runs now is quite limited in its scope
00:18:17 scope we've got no powers of investigation or enforcement um and if we were looking at an issue here where one might argue that someone has breached the regulations and as a result
00:18:29 breached the regulations and as a result it's resulted in a fire that's an offence that uh an enforcing agency whether it would be the police training standards or building control would be involved in um so
00:18:39 so we were quite limited in what we could find out and it tended other than looking at the fire scene um all you could really do was speak to those
00:18:49 those relevant authorities or bodies that were willing to talk to you and quite often people aren't willing to speak to you because they're probably expecting to be find themselves in court at some point yep all right thank you
00:19:03 now we looked at the discrepancies between
00:19:07 between this report uh well the september report and
00:19:10 and and the
00:19:11 and the august report has given to government um can you think of a reason why um
00:19:19 um the report sent given to government didn't clearly articulate the concerns that you and penny morgan have had about
00:19:27 about class north if that was a concern or about the ability of the external panels to degrade and and then fail to meet class naught over time or the suggestion
00:19:38 or the suggestion that
00:19:39 that the external wall buildup should be comprised of non-combustible material if possible why was that never communicated to government do you know
00:19:54 i can't remember what the conclusions were of the report that was communicated to government um but there's no deliberate attempt to share one sort of information with one customer
00:20:05 customer one with another that not that i'm aware of right
00:20:08 of right you see i i think only you and penny morgan
00:20:11 morgan uh are able you're the only people who could know that these reports the september 99 report in the august 2000 report were discrepant in the way i've shown you that's right isn't it
00:20:23 shown you that's right isn't it you're the you're the author with with her and i guess nigel smith might remember as well i don't know well um penny morgan can't recall we've asked her why it was discrepant and i just want to i have prayed with you before
00:20:35 want to i have prayed with you before but can you think of any reason why these very deliberate very precise excisions
00:20:42 excisions were made
00:20:43 were made no it seems strange to me i don't really understand why they would be different well it seems strange to us and you're the only person left i can ask i agree i have no idea
00:20:56 do you remember whether there was any recommendation or research done into these grp panels to define to find out what
00:21:03 what testing had been done on them
00:21:05 on them and
00:21:06 and and what the advertising for those panels asserted in relation to their fire performance not that i'm aware of
00:21:15 why is that why was that not done do you know
00:21:18 know um i think if anyone would have done that it might well have been north asia council um if if they wanted to um take action against whoever specified and provided the product
00:21:31 specified and provided the product but you don't know yourself no the government doesn't know presumably because you didn't explore it further with them with your bosses and that that did does that lead us to
00:21:42 and that that did does that lead us to the conclusion that it's entirely possible
00:21:45 possible that the grp panels will continue to be sold as class naught panels and installed on buildings on that basis
00:21:55 it's conceivable but i've never seen that product ever so ever anywhere else well that's as a result of later experience a question is a slightly different one having discovered
00:22:07 different one having discovered that a high-rise building a domestic
00:22:12 high-rise block of flats with occupants was clad
00:22:17 was clad in materials used by boy scouts for canoes why did the department not undertake an investigation to get right to the bottom of how come
00:22:28 to get right to the bottom of how come this stuff ended up on this building how it was been sold had been sold how it had been tested to make absolutely sure that that fire never happened again i think that would have been a matter
00:22:39 i think that would have been a matter for the scottish authorities well i'm asking you can you explain why that didn't happen
00:22:51 no i don't think i can um i'm pretty sure the scottish authorities would have been informed um i don't think anyone investigated further
00:23:02 further that you were working in elon house part of the time and watford passed to the part of the time firmly in england and the report that went to anthony byrd was not
00:23:13 was not solely about scotland but you had written or helped to write the first report which expressed the concerns we have in it so was it not a matter in your mind at least for serious investigation
00:23:25 least for serious investigation by uk government the department in which you sat half the week
00:23:33 so what i can remember i think the thought process that went was gone through was that here was a
00:23:42 was a an installation that did not comply with the guidance that the english authorities department was responsible for
00:23:52 and demonstrated why it was important to comply with it i think it would have been a different matter
00:23:59 matter if
00:24:01 it was demonstrably compliant and still the fire spread i think the department would have taken a different view on it so the problem is without conducting a proper investigation
00:24:13 proper investigation the government our uk government couldn't know whether this was a one-off act of non-compliance with a very peculiar material chosen in one-off circumstances or more widespread could it
00:24:24 or more widespread could it yes i think you're right nor could it know whether or not it was an unfortunate event um because the the person carrying out the work had relied on a misstatement by the manufacturer as to the class of
00:24:36 the manufacturer as to the class of material
00:24:38 material or whether in fact um there was no stipulation as to class you didn't know that either not that i can remember no and i'm just asking you as the person who knew what was in the original report why there was no such investigation given that you
00:24:50 no such investigation given that you were part of government as well at the time i was a part of government's ability i was a contractor working for a team in a government department um
00:25:01 a team in a government department um it wouldn't have been me that decided to to extend an investigation further although if there would have been a conversation i'm sure i would have been involved in that was this one of those things that you didn't feel you could
00:25:12 things that you didn't feel you could pass on to anthony burr didn't feel you could tell him about the reservations i've shown you in the 1999 report no as i said i think i think that the thinking at the time um amongst the
00:25:24 the thinking at the time um amongst the people i was working with was here was something that didn't comply and it demonstrates that people should comply and
00:25:33 and i don't recall any conversation about trying to track down the manufacturer i think
00:25:40 think it was kind of patently obviously non-compliant um so it was more and i i can't remember at the time whether there had been a building control application or not or whether even one was required in scotland at the time
00:25:51 time now let's go to the august 2000 report to government uh please at the bre 3035375 stage four uh and look at the second paragraph
00:26:03 uh and look at the second paragraph underneath the fire the heading the fire um uh and it'll be familiar to you because i think i've already read it to you um in in the earlier version the brigade were called at 1250. you see
00:26:15 brigade were called at 1250. you see that yes and i think we've already looked at that um now you can take it from me that this is the only um substantive technical commentary on the role of the cladding in on fire spread at the garment court incident in this report do you know why
00:26:27 incident in this report do you know why that is
00:26:47 um i'd need to read the whole report a few times to get to the bottom of that exactly but i suspect it's because it's it's an uncomplicated issue right do you know why the fact that the cladding was fueling
00:26:59 the fact that the cladding was fueling the fire at the top of the building is not stated in clear terms
00:27:10 fueling the fire at the top of the building yes um
00:27:14 um but it was a mechanism for fire spread the fuel for the fire would have been the
00:27:18 the the cladding and the contents of the flat
00:27:22 do you agree that the upvc window frames significantly contributed to the rapid-fire spread of the fire and its entry into the upper floors
00:27:39 sorry where does it say that
00:27:44 well
00:27:46 um it doesn't right well that's the point um
00:27:51 point um what i've seen of you pvc windows is is they tend not to contribute greatly to the spread of fire and do you agree with this that the presence of combustible grp spandrel
00:28:02 presence of combustible grp spandrel panels was the primary contributor to the rate and extent of the external vertical fire spread yes yeah now after garlic did you consider
00:28:13 yeah now after garlic did you consider whether the guidance given an approved document b was adequate for the purposes of ensuring safety of external cladding systems
00:28:24 immediately after garnet probably not because
00:28:29 because we'd concluded he didn't comply with the guidance as it stood at the time um
00:28:33 um then
00:28:34 then the issue was looked at again following the um select committee inquiry i think right so my next question was did you consider that the use of plastic products and combustible materials in the external wall build up of a building
00:28:47 the external wall build up of a building above 18 meters required further examination
00:28:58 i'm not sure i personally came to that conclusion to me right
00:29:02 right the timing is is something you've just mentioned um in fact it's right isn't it the fire happened in june 1999 and the select committee gathered in july
00:29:13 committee gathered in july i started taking evidence didn't it i can't recall the dates but i think it's fairly quick yes right
00:29:27 now let's look at the select committee um clg 30 is 19478. this is the report entitled potential risk of fire spread in buildings via external
00:29:40 spread in buildings via external cladding systems and you can see that it was published on the 14th of december 1999
00:29:44 1999 and as i say note the timing the publication of this is after the first bre report to north ayrshire which we saw together in september 1999 but it's before the august bre report
00:29:58 but it's before the august bre report yes
00:29:59 yes actually
00:30:00 actually yes so it sits between the two and it's important you understand the chronology now am i right in thinking that you didn't attend the evidence session to the inquiry in july 1999. you didn't give evidence that's right i mean
00:30:11 didn't give evidence that's right i mean there were there were people that barely much more expert than me um on this subject
00:30:15 subject so you say and um but you didn't attend to give evidence and i didn't you attended the session did you no i think i i i was mostly left behind to answer the phones i think why everybody else went all right and everybody else was
00:30:26 went all right and everybody else was sarah colwell tony morris and peter fields yes now let's go to the recommendations made in this document um first do you remember reading this document at the time when it came out in
00:30:38 document at the time when it came out in mid-december 1999 yes you did let's go to page 8 and look at paragraphs 14 to 16. on
00:30:47 on that page of paragraph 14 it says this the inquiry also prompted further research at the fire research station of the building's research establishment bre the conclusions arising from this research which was carried out in 1994
00:30:59 research which was carried out in 1994 support the claims of our witnesses that the small scale tests upon which existing guidance relies are insufficient properly to evaluate the performance of complete cladding systems in a fire and that there is therefore a clear need for full-scale testing and
00:31:11 clear need for full-scale testing and note that last sentence there and it goes on over the page please at paragraph 15 biari proceeded to develop an appropriate full-scale fire test known as a test for assessing the fire
00:31:24 as a test for assessing the fire performance of external cladding systems and that has a footnote 25 which is the reference to the evidence this test was submitted to the detr in 1996.
00:31:34 1996. witnesses suggested that this test would be a considerable improvement on the small scale testing which is currently carried out to ascertain the far performance of materials used in external cladding systems and then 16 other witnesses suggested
00:31:47 and then 16 other witnesses suggested that this test would not be suitable for all external cladding systems and in particular that it would not be a suitable method of testing the fire performance of infill systems such as that which was which was involved in the
00:31:58 that which was which was involved in the fire at irvine however we note the view view of peter field of bre which which developed the test who told us quotes we believe the test facility itself could be
00:32:09 test facility itself could be accommodated to assess the fire performance of systems which are not the same as total cladding systems and may involve windows and decorative panels the advice we have received concurs with this opinion
00:32:21 this opinion and then and i'm sorry to prolong reading this out to you mr martin let's go on the foot of the page under conclusions and you can see if you scroll to the bottom the adequacy of the regulations pertaining to their use
00:32:33 pertaining to their use that's the heading and it says this notwithstanding this is in bold notwithstanding what we have said in paragraph 18 above we do not believe that it should take a serious fire in
00:32:45 that it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimizing the risks the evidence we have received strongly suggests that the small scale tests which are currently used to determine the fire safety of
00:32:57 used to determine the fire safety of external cladding systems are not fully effective in evaluating their performance in a live fire situation as a more appropriate test for external cladding systems now exists we see no
00:33:08 cladding systems now exists we see no reason why it should not be used we believe that all external cladding systems should be required either to be entirely non-combustible or to be proven through full-scale testing not to pose an
00:33:20 full-scale testing not to pose an unacceptable level of risk in terms of fire spread we therefore recommend that compliance with the standard set in the test for assessing the fire performance of external cladding systems which has been submitted to the british standards
00:33:31 been submitted to the british standards institution for adoption as a british standard be substituted in approved document b for previous requirements relating to the fire safety of external cladding systems
00:33:45 now uh that last
00:33:48 that last recommendation in bold i've just read to you
00:33:51 you which starts at the bottom of nine and runs over to ten what did you understand that to me um the select committee had taken the view that you should either have an
00:34:02 view that you should either have an entirely non-combustible wall construction or or something that passed a full scale test yeah and did you mean did you understand that to mean that small-scale testing for
00:34:13 to mean that small-scale testing for class naught on the bs 476 part six and seven would be replaced by a full-scale test or should be replaced by a full scope yes that was their view yes now what consideration was given to that
00:34:26 now what consideration was given to that recommendation within the department so far as you were aware at the time um i don't know all the details what went on at the department as i say i was acting as a contractor there and so i did get excluded from some
00:34:38 and so i did get excluded from some conversations and
00:34:42 and all i recall it is at some point being advised that the department was taking
00:34:49 taking a
00:34:50 a slightly different approach which was um
00:34:55 retaining essentially the guidance that existed already or providing the um the large-scale test i think i can only vaguely remember exactly what happened but it ended up being the
00:35:07 happened but it ended up being the amendments to adb in um
00:35:10 um would it be 2002 july 2000 july 2000 yeah it was those amendments i think there were some changes there um i wasn't really party to the process that came to that conclusion
00:35:22 that came to that conclusion now
00:35:23 now that's government do you remember discussing these recommendations within the bre at the time late 1999 early 2000
00:35:35 to a limited extent yes but i don't think i was particularly involved in those conversations either do you remember what the reaction within the bre was to these recommendations i read you
00:35:45 you and particularly one about replacing class naught with a full scale test method
00:35:58 don't remember a significant reaction one way or the other would you remember whether significant or not do you remember whether the mood was one of agreement and adoption or
00:36:09 adoption or resistance and disappointment
00:36:16 no i can't remember anybody expressing anything
00:36:21 anything right either way
00:36:26 can we then go to the department's response to the committee's recommendations and that's at clg one four zero three four seven
00:36:36 published on the sixth of april two thousand
00:36:40 thousand you can't see the date i'm afraid from this document but you'll have to take it from me that that is the date uh and
00:36:46 uh and in
00:36:47 in the the title it's called government response to the first report of the environmental transport and regional affairs committee on potential risk of fast spreading
00:36:58 on potential risk of fast spreading buildings via external cladding systems introduction further to my letter of 15th march i'm writing in response to the conclusions and recommendations that the environment transport and regional affairs committee made it its first report which was
00:37:09 made it its first report which was published on the 14th of december 1999. as you know i myself gave evidence to the committee and i'm pleased to report that we have already addressed most of the recommendations you make now if we go on down please to page two
00:37:21 now if we go on down please to page two paragraph five you'll see there but it says this following a full public consultation on proposals for amendments part b of the building regulations and the proof document b have recently been
00:37:33 the proof document b have recently been reviewed by a working group of the building regulations advisory committee the members of this group are all experts with a particular interest in fire safety the review has just been completed with amendment regulations being laid before parliament on 21st
00:37:45 being laid before parliament on 21st december 1999 and the 2000 edition of the approved document being published on the 20th of uh january in 2000 the amendment regulations and the 2000 edition of the
00:37:56 regulations and the 2000 edition of the approved document will both come into force
00:37:59 force on the first of july 2000. now
00:38:03 now first did you have any involvement in any aspect of drafting uh the response and particularly paragraph five of this response i've just read to you no do you know who did
00:38:15 no do you know who did um
00:38:16 um that would have been tony edwards and anthony bird um and and the building regulations team i suspect quite a lot of people were probably involved in the drafting of it right you said the building regulations team who was that
00:38:28 building regulations team who was that um
00:38:31 so in in in the division technical specialists are a number of policy officials um i i imagine caroline cousin would have still been in in charge of that side of the team she
00:38:43 that side of the team she certainly would have um
00:38:45 um been heavily involved in the drafting of this
00:38:48 this right now you were sitting weren't you two days a week or two and a half days a week on average i think at the department at this time you had no involvement at all in this i don't remember drafting it i remember
00:38:59 i don't remember drafting it i remember conversations about it um i i think
00:39:05 i think to a large extent i was excluded from it why is that given your role that you've explained to us
00:39:15 i don't remember anyone telling me but i suspect it's probably because there was an overlap between my responsibilities at bre and the department i mean
00:39:26 i mean did you learn that behind the scenes behind your scenes at least uh this response was being drafted
00:39:35 i was aware that a a response was being drafted you weren't consulted on it at all or weren't involved in any of the discussions about it not not that i remember as i think while i was
00:39:46 i was certainly at this at this stage um when i was at the department i was treated as an outsider to some extent um and so there were various things that i
00:39:57 and so there were various things that i wouldn't be directly involved in now if you look at paragraph six it says during the review there was no suggestion that the guidance given in the approved document was insufficient or if followed would tend to create an
00:40:08 or if followed would tend to create an unsafe scenario in a fire situation with respect to the external cladding
00:40:14 i mean did you have any involvement in any aspect of the consultation referred to here i think as a review and so
00:40:24 and so i think they're they're referring to the um amendments to the the 2000 amendments to adb um
00:40:34 yes did you have it i think i think they were that project was pretty much done and dusted
00:40:41 dusted um
00:40:42 um so i didn't have a lot to do with that i think i helped with the um the dissemination of the completion of that project do you remember whether the ghana
00:40:54 the ghana court re reports or reports because there's only one by this time and that's your penny morgan september report
00:41:03 report were filtered through to government so as to form part of the consultation or
00:41:10 or the review as it's called so that
00:41:14 the revisions to part b of the building regulations and approved document b could take into account what you had discovered at garnet court
00:41:25 i don't know for sure um i think i doubt that our report had a direct impact on the 2000 amendments um
00:41:36 um but they
00:41:37 but they clearly that incident and our report would have been in the minds of um officials at the department when they were drafting this well you say that do you know that or is
00:41:48 well you say that do you know that or is that just an intelligent speculation it's just speculation
00:41:57 looking at the first sentence of paragraph six did you agree at the time if you'd been asked in 2000 april 2000
00:42:10 april 2000 that quote there was no suggestion that the guidance given an approved document was insufficient or if followed would tend to create an unsafe scenario in a fire situation with respect to external cladding
00:42:26 um well this is referring to the the feedback they got from the 2000 you're quite right you try it differently you're not quite right it does it says during the review there was no suggestion um but if you do you agree
00:42:38 do you agree that at the time the guidance given an approve in the approved document was in fact insufficient or if followed would tend to create an unsafe scenario in a fire situation with respect to the external
00:42:49 situation with respect to the external cladding
00:42:53 i think at the time i probably thought the guidance was was adequate notwithstanding the garlic experience the garlic experience demonstrated that something that wasn't class o would cause a would cause fire spread so at
00:43:06 cause a would cause fire spread so at the time i would have thought that was the the key finding it wasn't classo it didn't comply um
00:43:11 um so it wasn't evidence there was something wrong with the guidance
00:43:16 so is it the case therefore that you thought at this time that the small scale tests used to achieve class naught were sufficiently were sufficient
00:43:27 were sufficient properly to evaluate the performance of composite cladding systems in a fire
00:43:37 i'm not sure if i had a viewer that time one way or the other i would have listened to my colleagues at bre who felt at the time that large-scale testing was a better option
00:43:48 a better option but the department was obviously taking a
00:43:51 a a different line in saying that it would only be a way of demonstrating compliance if you didn't meet what's become known as the linear route right um it looks from this and tell me
00:44:03 right um it looks from this and tell me if this is using your memory if this is correct that the department did not adopt the recommendations made by the select committee about substituting
00:44:15 about substituting the existing tests for non-combustibility and a full-scale or a full-scale test and stuck to class norn because
00:44:26 because uh there had been a full public consultation on proposals for amendments uh which had been which had already been laid before parliament and then been laid before parliament only the week after the report had been
00:44:37 only the week after the report had been published
00:44:39 published and therefore it was too late to make the change
00:44:44 that's my recollections the department decided he didn't want to follow that recommendation it's not unusual select committees often make recommendations that governments reject but is it the case that it didn't follow the recommendation not because it didn't
00:44:55 the recommendation not because it didn't believe in it as a matter of science but because as a matter of policy making it was too late uh given the the the work had been done on the revised regulations and approved document b
00:45:08 um i think that would be conjecture on my part right the way i'm reading this is is that the department saying we did we've been through an exercise and during that exercise this wasn't
00:45:20 and during that exercise this wasn't brought into question and therefore the department thinks it's okay right is there any connection between the excision as the excisions that we've seen
00:45:33 as the excisions that we've seen of the statements about class nought and combustibility in europe and penny morgan's september 1999 report from the report sent to government anthony bird in august 2000
00:45:47 on the one hand and government's decision to reject the select committee's recommendation in april 2000
00:45:58 in april 2000 on the other if there was any connection i wasn't aware of it
00:46:05 do you accept that the only explanation for those excisions is that somebody was told to excise them in order to make the bre's report to government in 2000 about ghana court consistent with the
00:46:17 ghana court consistent with the government's earlier decision to reject the select committee's recommendation i can't believe anyone would have said that i i just just don't thinking of all the people involved i
00:46:29 thinking of all the people involved i can't imagine any of them would have done that right can you but i don't know for sure because i wouldn't have been involved in that conversation but i i find that hard to believe all right i think sitting there though i've asked
00:46:40 i think sitting there though i've asked you this before but just one more time if you would just humor me can you think of any reason why those provisions those parts of those reports would have been removed
00:46:52 now it it does seem odd i can't think of a good reason for it let's move then to the 2000 edition of approved document b did you have any involvement yourself in uh any aspect of
00:47:04 involvement yourself in uh any aspect of the revised version the 2000 edition yes no i think it was it had pretty much been fixed down by the time i i was involved um
00:47:15 involved um i remember working with mr bird and mr edwards on
00:47:21 on developing um a slide pack to um
00:47:25 um you know set out what the main changes were and um for various events that the two officials were going to yeah now let's um let's go ahead then in time and look at the transcript of your
00:47:36 time and look at the transcript of your uh evidence to the coroner at the inquest into the deaths at latino house which which uh you gave on the 13th of march 2013. it's at
00:47:48 inq3015070 please and if we can go to page eight in that
00:47:58 uh i just want to show you this and i'll ask you
00:48:02 ask you a question about it
00:48:05 line 19
00:48:09 council is asking you a question the version of the approved of approved document be that the members of the jury have looked looked at up until now is the 2000 edition with 2002 amendments
00:48:21 the 2000 edition with 2002 amendments your role as i understand it from your answer a moment ago was to lead a team preparing the 2006 edition is that right and the answer is yes this is your this is i should to say your transcript yes i
00:48:32 is i should to say your transcript yes i was involved to some extent with the previous the introduction of the previous edition although most of the policy decisions had already been made by then
00:48:39 by then so
00:48:40 so it was more about disseminating the 2000 decision
00:48:44 decision making people understand it or helping people understand the changes that were introduced then through seminars and training programs and so on now that's what you told the coroner
00:48:55 now that's what you told the coroner about the 2000 uh amendments my question is to what extent were you involved in the 2000 amendments in relation to dissemination if not
00:49:06 in relation to dissemination if not drafting
00:49:11 i think i may have spoken at some seminars as well i i've spoken to quite quite a few over the years um so i
00:49:21 so i once we'd agreed a slide pack we probably would have shared the the work of disseminating information um and i think as a as an independent consultant as i was
00:49:32 as an independent consultant as i was you know working for bre at some points i would also give talks on on those changes to to clients and what was the 2000 decision that you've referred to here was that
00:49:44 that you've referred to here was that was it the 2000 amendments which were published in july of 2000 or was it the april 2000 decision by the government to reject the select committee's recommendations um i don't remember um i don't know why
00:49:56 um i don't remember um i don't know why there were decisions there i need to look through the whole right
00:50:04 now we know that the select committee's recommendation to substitute class naught for the full-scale test was not followed
00:50:15 and diagram 40 and class naught remained in approved document b thereafter and indeed in the 2000 version of approved document b yes yes yes
00:50:28 approved document b yes yes yes um
00:50:30 um were you ever told about why that was
00:50:37 i mean did anybody ever explain to you why despite the recommendations uh diagram 40 remained unamended i don't remember someone directly explaining thinking no
00:50:50 did you ever ask
00:50:54 if i did i don't remember
00:51:18 are you can you help us with what was behind the reasoning
00:51:26 do you know i'd be guessing right don't guess do you know who made the decision apart from perhaps the minister as we can see from the document i've shown you um decisions in government departments
00:51:37 decisions in government departments rarely get made by one person um well do you know who joined in it would have been the policy lead so it'd be mr edwards mr bird probably speaking to mrs cousins
00:51:48 speaking to mrs cousins and
00:51:49 and no doubt they would have spoken to the head of
00:51:51 head of division
00:51:53 division as well let's go back a little bit paul level then i think right i see let's go back to the government's response the department's response to the committee's recommendations again at clg one four
00:52:04 recommendations again at clg one four zero three four seven
00:52:09 and let's go to page nine there's our page three paragraph nine page three paragraph nine which i read to you uh earlier
00:52:20 uh earlier now that's the department's response to the recommendation we've looked at namely that the full-scale test should be substituted for previous requirements and here we see paragraph nine uh explaining that the fire note 9 would
00:52:31 uh explaining that the fire note 9 would be
00:52:32 be referred to in the forthcoming 2000 edition of the approved document but as an alternative right do you know who it was who decided or who took part in the
00:52:43 who decided or who took part in the making of the decision that far note 9 could or should be referred to at all in approved document b in the forthcoming edition in july 2000
00:52:56 in the forthcoming edition in july 2000 would be the same group of people various officials in the department and ultimately the minister right do you know on what basis that decision was made
00:53:10 again i'd be it's mostly conjecture but i
00:53:15 i the impression i have is that it was decided that select committee's recommendation might be unreasonably onerous and so they picked um
00:53:25 um what they consider to be a more reasonable
00:53:32 no i mean it sounds from your answers that you don't actually know but you're trying to fill in the blanks doing the best you can is that fair it's very difficult when you don't
00:53:43 you don't go back that long to work out whether you remember something or whether you believe something and and i i wouldn't i couldn't categorically say exactly what was being thought at
00:53:54 say exactly what was being thought at that time
00:53:55 that time you see the reason i'm i'm pressing you on this and trying to get a bit more out of you than perhaps you can give us is that you were the only person uh any person in the world i think uh but who was both at the bre and in the
00:54:06 but who was both at the bre and in the department uh
00:54:08 uh half a week a piece uh and here we have um a huge piece of research done since the mid 90s by the bre which turns into fire note 9 which is in
00:54:19 which turns into fire note 9 which is in the process of becoming a british standard of great importance to the bre which is going to go into the regulation went to the approved document but we also have government rejecting a select
00:54:31 also have government rejecting a select committee recommendation which has implications for life safety and on the assumption that my description just now is correct mr martin i don't think you disagree with
00:54:42 martin i don't think you disagree with it
00:54:43 it um
00:54:45 um it's strange that you were so insulated uh from these goings-on i think i think you're placing me in a higher position than i was at the time um
00:54:55 certainly when i was working at the department um
00:55:00 um um i can't think of i would use the turmoil rag i can't think of it i was the person that did the work that nobody else wanted to do which gave the officials more time to do the work that they were doing um
00:55:12 the work that they were doing um i certainly remember in particular mrs cousins
00:55:15 cousins being quite cautious around me in terms of what information she would or wouldn't share
00:55:22 so i think it does
00:55:25 it does the fact that i was excluded from certain things doesn't surprise me and might even be appropriate at some time given that i think some people have suggested that bre would benefit from this test being introduced in building regulations um it
00:55:37 introduced in building regulations um it wouldn't surprise me certainly thinking back to the character mrs cousins probably thought um he shouldn't be involved in that conversation or people will think that bre has stitched this up
00:55:48 will think that bre has stitched this up well that's a thought that crossed your mind at the time no right well then there we are um did you have any basis for understanding something about these
00:55:59 for understanding something about these decisions and the reasoning behind them in order to be able to help people understand the changes that have been made
00:56:04 made as you told the coroner in 2013 you did i was helping people understand the impact of the changes to the approved document not the policy that sat behind them let's then look at
00:56:16 sat behind them let's then look at paragraph 11 at the foot of this page to the screen it says when the technical amendments to the document have been completed and it has been adopted as a british standard the department will amend the reference in the approved document to
00:56:28 reference in the approved document to bre 509 to reflect its status as a british standard we will also review whether the reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be strengthened it is unlikely that any such changes will be made immediately
00:56:39 such changes will be made immediately the status of the test method has changed as such my amendments to the approved documents are difficult to promulgate to ensure that all users of the document are made aware of the change however supplements to the
00:56:51 change however supplements to the approved document are planned to give guidance on the new harmonized european methods of test and the amendment will be included in this were you aware in 2000 that the department had stated that
00:57:02 2000 that the department had stated that following the adoption of the bre's full-scale test method as a british standard it would review whether the reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be strengthened as we can see there
00:57:17 i would have read this document so arguably i was aware and it wasn't at the forefront of my mind right what did you understand it to mean when you read it
00:57:27 it um i don't remember what i understood at the time um but it looks like they would review the way that the standard was referred to right i mean was it a reference
00:57:38 mean was it a reference to reviewing the possibility of substituting that test method for the existing requirements under diagram 40 or at least going some way towards doing so
00:57:51 um you could probably read that a number of different ways how did you read it at the time i don't remember did you have any indication from the department or any informational
00:58:02 department or any informational discussions about
00:58:06 about reviewing the possibility of substituting the existing methods under diagram 40 and in its place putting what became 8414.
00:58:20 no i i think
00:58:24 the purveying view if you like in the department was that this this was done and dusted so you've never heard any any discussions about any such review taking place
00:58:37 place i don't remember one night or the discussions about why it hadn't taken place
00:58:42 place now we know that no amendment was ever made to strengthen the reference so to speak using the expression here to find out nine
00:58:49 out nine bs 8414
00:58:52 bs 8414 in the supplementary approved document when harmonization came in in 2002 that's right isn't it i think so yes do you know why that was
00:59:07 no and again can we take it from your answers that you never heard any discussions were never involved any discussions about that prospect
00:59:19 that prospect no i i think there was so much effort being focused on the um introduction of the you the new classification system that's where all the all the thinking was going
00:59:28 was going and do you agree with me that there was no amendment to again so to speak strengthen the reference to bs8414 when it was included in the 2006 edition of approved document b published in
00:59:39 of approved document b published in 2007.
00:59:43 no i mean essentially we we transposed the reference to final what was the reference to 509 to the correct reference to the british standard at the time yes but there was no strengthening of the reference in the
00:59:54 no strengthening of the reference in the sense of
00:59:55 sense of bolstering its importance and making it not just an alternative but
01:00:00 but perhaps the way of going about things as an alternative definitely didn't do that no nor in 2010 or in 2013 correct in fact i think it's right isn't it looking at the history that throughout
01:00:11 looking at the history that throughout all of these amendments 2000
01:00:14 2000 2002 2006 2010 2013
01:00:20 2013 bs8414
01:00:22 bs8414 as it became in 2002 was provided as an alternative to meeting the provisions of 12.6 and diagram 40. yes
01:00:34 and it was only in december 2018 18 months after the grenfell tower fire itself the government did away with class naught and required materials which had become part of an external
01:00:45 which had become part of an external wall
01:00:46 wall to be a2 or a1 that's right why is that
01:00:53 um it's quite a long history exactly and why was my question why is it such a long history why did it take the grenfell tower of fire to provoke a change which had been
01:01:04 to provoke a change which had been flagged clearly by the select committee in 1999
01:01:09 in 1999 so
01:01:11 so as i understand it the decision was made in response to the select committee that
01:01:20 there would be two options um which essentially is what the senate committee was recommending although it suggested a more onerous linear route if you like it was suggesting totally non-combustible
01:01:33 suggesting totally non-combustible at that time the department decided to have the um
01:01:41 um a less onerous linear route available or the test and so once that decision was made
01:01:50 um it wasn't something that we had reason to revisit
01:01:58 did you never have any insight yourself into why the department had decided to have a less onerous linear route
01:02:10 i think i mean one of the one of the problems with an absolute requirement for non-combustibility
01:02:18 is you get problems as i mentioned before with like decorative finishes and and other components of the wall where um if you adopted a
01:02:30 um if you adopted a a near enough absolute requirement for non-combustibility it it's probably impracticable um
01:02:39 um and
01:02:40 and unduly
01:02:41 unduly unreasonably onerous you'd be banning things that are perfectly safe and so i think i think that's why the department came to this approach of
01:02:54 came to this approach of um
01:02:55 um the linear route being a combination of controls of the surface and
01:03:00 and um restrictions on uh insulation and we're going to talk about fillers at some point i guess um that that that whole question that was the kind of more nuanced um
01:03:13 um approach to the linear route or the alternative of the full-scale test
01:03:18 test and as i said before the problem with full-scale tests they're logistically and financially challenging they're very expensive they're very difficult to set up and
01:03:29 and and so
01:03:30 and so are going to be unpopular with industry now that rationale you've just given us mr martin
01:03:36 mr martin was that rationale the subject of expressed discussion between you and mr bird at any time or you and mr harrell indeed at any time between 2000 and 2013 on each and every
01:03:48 between 2000 and 2013 on each and every occasion of the amendments to approve document b
01:03:54 i doubt it a lot of the amendments that were made in between 2006
01:04:01 and already from 2006 were driven by specific drivers and so the 2002 amendment was driven by the introduction
01:04:13 amendment was driven by the introduction of the european tests so the the uk government had no choice but to introduce these provisions um and so um and that was a a huge task
01:04:25 and that was a a huge task well just just forgive me if you've done away with diagram 40 you wouldn't have to worry about uh class b would you if you've done away with 12.6 and only had if approved document b only covered
01:04:36 had if approved document b only covered external wall construction you're right but it doesn't it covers a wide range of different things so the the the drivers were um quite specific and quite narrow
01:04:47 quite narrow and so the terms of reference of those changes were very limited so
01:04:53 so that's why that question
01:04:55 question wouldn't have arisen in those pieces of work now you described yourself in 2000 as an oily rag doing the jobs that other people wouldn't do
01:05:06 wouldn't do whether that's just modesty or whether that's true will remain to be seen mr mr martin but did there ever come a time when you asked anthony bird
01:05:18 asked anthony bird why did the select committee's recommendation get rejected by government and why are we not strengthening the reference to 8414 did you ever actually ask him
01:05:29 to 8414 did you ever actually ask him that question
01:05:32 i don't think i don't think i ever did no why is that given your responsibility as it came later in the amendment from 2006 onwards
01:05:46 i think we just considered it as water under the bridge it sounds really glib and and i'm sorry but that that's that those were decisions that had been made
01:05:56 made um and so unless there was a driver to revisit them um
01:06:02 it didn't it didn't come up
01:06:10 would not the driver to revisit them be the occasion of the amendments
01:06:19 no because those amendments had very limited um terms of reference well not until and we'll come to 2006 for which the contract was put in place in 2004 and we'll come to that later
01:06:31 in 2004 and we'll come to that later probably not today but was that not the occasion to revisit the select committee's recommendation think about it again in the light of uh recent events think about
01:06:43 uh recent events think about strengthening the reference go out to consultation on it and actually come to a landing
01:06:51 so for the 2002 amendments there was a specific understanding and very narrow terms of reference which was to take the european classifications and insert them
01:07:03 european classifications and insert them in into the approved document in the appropriate place um and avoid market distortion that that's that's the approach that had been agreed with uh
01:07:14 had been agreed with uh i guess with ministers at some point yes and what i'm really asking you coming back to the question why was it water under the bridge after 2000 given that there were at least three if not four opportunities
01:07:26 three if not four opportunities to go out to consultation on this very point
01:07:30 point uh the point of the recommendation my ability made by the select committee and actually ask industry and other stakeholders and
01:07:40 and if thought fit amend to reflect it so there's no reason to pick on that subject particularly proof document b covers an enormous range of different issues
01:07:51 so it would seem odd to just pick up on one no well let me let me let me see if i can disagree with you politely on that
01:08:03 politely on that we read the part of the select committee's report which said that it shouldn't take people being killed to bring about change this was about life safety was that and not all of the proof documentary is about my safety
01:08:14 documentary is about my safety necessarily yes it is absolutely well in which case if that is the case then then why wasn't this precisely that the occasion to take on board this aspect of life safety within this aspect
01:08:27 aspect of life safety within this aspect of approved document b re-examine what the select committee had said re-examine the evidence which would form the basis for it and consider putting an end to this long history of retaining class naught and
01:08:39 history of retaining class naught and get rid of it
01:08:42 um i i think you're still looking looking at a proof document b with a very narrow lens um
01:08:48 um it's a
01:08:50 it's a all of those issues you i'm sure someone would argue that many of the others are equally as important um clearly to this inquiry it's quite right that you're asking questions about external wall construction
01:09:01 construction um
01:09:02 um but
01:09:03 but at that time that's just one of numerous subjects and the task that
01:09:09 that the
01:09:10 the people working on that 2002 amendment was set was take all these new classifications insert them into the existing provisions without any fundamental change to the
01:09:24 without any fundamental change to the to the net result if you like so that
01:09:28 so that there'd be no market distortion at what stage over the years between 2000
01:09:35 2000 and 2018 did you conclude that the select committee's recommendation was as you put it water under the bridge would never be followed and that the bs
01:09:46 would never be followed and that the bs 8414 scale test series would never replace the provisions in diagram 40 of approved document b
01:09:56 i don't think ever concluded it would never happen it would be at the next opportunity for a full review of of that subject matter 2005.
01:10:09 so the 2000 the 2005 to the what resulted in the 2006 review would have been an opportunity it was it would have been why wasn't it um
01:10:22 we certainly made some changes to the guidance um and and um i see so it made it made it more onerous but
01:10:33 but we didn't go to the point of there wasn't a reason at that time that emerged in that process to
01:10:44 to replace diagram 40 and and that specific piece of guidance well we'll come to that moment in the history uh when we come to it um i'm going to leave this line of
01:10:55 i'm going to leave this line of questions for the moment but it can we leave it on this basis that
01:11:01 that that was the next opportunity to the 2006 amendments that was the next opportunity to ask the question
01:11:12 question when are we going to adopt the select committee's recommendations or are we going to select adopt the select committee's recommendations and if we're not why are we not that was that that amendment the next milestone on the
01:11:24 that amendment the next milestone on the road
01:11:26 road i guess so yes right mr chairman i'm going to turn to different topic radar this is a slightly early and therefore out of character but
01:11:37 early and therefore out of character but we should probably have a break now all right well it is a little early to take the afternoon break mr martin but i think we'll take it now because it's a practical convenience to do that we'll um stop now and we'll
01:11:48 do that we'll um stop now and we'll resume please at uh half past three and as before please don't discuss your evidence with anyone outside the room yes sir all right thank
01:11:59 outside the room yes sir all right thank you very much
01:12:09 thank you mr willett i'll foster please
01:31:07 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
01:31:21 right mr martin ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller thank you mr chairman mr martin we're now going to move to some questions about the radar projects and we're going to look at the period from about the beginning of 2001 onwards
01:31:33 from about the beginning of 2001 onwards and your involvement in that work which followed on from those projects now first were you aware of the radar projects at the time yes you were and it's right to think that the radar
01:31:44 and it's right to think that the radar research project was um initiated in order to help the department understand how the new european methods and classification systems could be should be implemented into the uk system
01:31:56 should be implemented into the uk system uh of and guidance yes at the english system yes the english system very well and their research was commissioned by the department wasn't it yes carried out by warrington fire
01:32:07 yes carried out by warrington fire and done in 2000 yes i think it was a partners in innovation contract so it would have been part funded by industry indeed
01:32:13 indeed and if you go please to clg 401068
01:32:19 we can see the radar 2 research just look at that with me
01:32:25 that's a joint working party brett working party uh
01:32:30 uh 28th of february 2001 minute and if you look at paragraph four in that
01:32:37 that you can see that it's considering reaction to fire as well as resistance to fire isn't it radar 1 was fire resistance radar 2 was reaction to fire yes
01:32:45 yes um
01:32:46 um were you aware of this research at the time it was carried out
01:32:54 yes i think i was probably the tail end of it
01:32:57 of it right
01:32:57 right now the products of that research uh on reaction to fire were contained in two reports
01:33:02 reports in may 2000 we have those at clg 50950 and nine five one respectively um
01:33:11 um we'll look at the second of those but were you familiar with those at the time as i say may 2000 is when they were dated
01:33:20 yes i would have been right let's look at the second of those then clg five zero is nine five one and there it is there it's entitled radar two project correlation of uk reaction to fire classes for building
01:33:32 reaction to fire classes for building products
01:33:33 products with euro classes and guidance on revision of approved document b part 2 proposals for the european supplement to approve document b and if you look at the bottom right hand side of the screen you can see that it's dated the 26th of
01:33:44 you can see that it's dated the 26th of may 2000.
01:33:46 may 2000. do you think you saw that document at the time
01:33:52 it seems likely and would you have seen it when sitting in gaston or when sitting in eland house
01:34:03 possibly both right
01:34:05 right yes they're not mutually exclusive i see that
01:34:08 that um were you involved in the project at all either from the bre or from the government side no no no if you go to page six and table six at the top of the page let's just run through this together you can see
01:34:19 run through this together you can see um that here is a table of possible options for transposition of classes for reaction to fire performance are you familiar with this table or were you familiar with it do you
01:34:30 or were you familiar with it do you think
01:34:33 yes yes and you can see on it that the proposal there was to equate class naught with class b or better euro class yes
01:34:41 yes and if you look at page eight please you can see at the very top of the page under little c as follows any reference to class naught being equivalent to euro class a2 would severely restrict the market choice in
01:34:52 severely restrict the market choice in terms of materials for specifiers and clients
01:34:55 clients this applies to virtually all organic containing materials in germany and france the authorities have a single classification ieb1 or m1 thus ura class b could be a cross-border
01:35:06 thus ura class b could be a cross-border compromise which is supported by the high product density obtained at the class naught to euro class b transposition point uh now um
01:35:16 uh now um we've covered a lot of this with earlier witnesses but um just looking at the first part of that paragraph any reference to class nor being equivalent to euro class a2 would severely restrict
01:35:27 to euro class a2 would severely restrict the market choice um from what you knew at the time both sitting
01:35:32 sitting in government and at bre is that correct that there was a a fear of market restriction if class naught was to be equivalent to class a2
01:35:45 i don't remember it in those terms um i know that the the objective of the work that the department had set out on was very much based on this concept of avoiding market
01:35:57 based on this concept of avoiding market distortion um i've used that phrase several times because it was the it was the kind of go-to phrase um throughout the whole project um in that um
01:36:09 um what the
01:36:10 what the department didn't want to happen was in the process of introducing these new tests
01:36:16 new tests you'd find large swathes of products that used to be allowed suddenly not being allowed or potentially vice versa yes
01:36:27 and that was for market distortion reasons rather than fire safety reasons i could put those two concepts broadly is that right yes i think so i think that was that was
01:36:38 yes i think so i think that was that was the that was the yeah the the intention was to try and deliver the deliver the change whilst
01:36:45 whilst avoiding market distortion um and
01:36:49 and i i guess alongside that would be not undermining fire safety do you agree that only very few products achieving class naught would be capable of achieving
01:37:00 achieving euro class a2
01:37:10 it would seem likely if you were declaring class no um that's because you couldn't claim material limited combustibility so i guess it follows that that they would probably align is that right
01:37:22 probably align is that right i thought one of the ways you could claim class naught was that you had a material of limiting combustibility um
01:37:30 um in general a manufacturer is going to claim is the thing they're going to put in their literature is the best classification they've got um some somebody with classical could say my material is class one if they wanted to but it would be a strange
01:37:42 wanted to but it would be a strange thing to do from a marketing point of view because it's actually class normal so i think that's that's the point here is that if somebody's declaring class no it's because they probably can't declare
01:37:54 because they probably can't declare material limited combustibility
01:37:59 right but that in fact and we'll come to this later on but just to come straight to the point that was always the case wasn't it yes
01:38:07 yes diagram 40 never required limited combustibility that's right um
01:38:14 um do you think that any reference or did you think when you saw this at the time that any reference to class naught being equivalent to euro class a2 would have been very likely to have met with resistance from the industry
01:38:30 i don't think i was that involved to have come to that conclusion
01:38:40 right
01:38:43 would it not mean though that at the end of any equivalence period uh or any transposition period an equivalence between class naught on the one hand and a two on the other
01:38:54 one hand and a two on the other would mean the buildings over 18 meters would be clad in materials which performed better in a fire
01:39:07 my understanding of reaction to fire tests and the conversations i've had with fire scientists about reaction to fire tests is it's very difficult to compare one with the other um and so
01:39:18 um and so there may be situations where a class b product is not as good as a class o product i can't think of one i don't have the data but i think in general the year the
01:39:29 i think in general the year the euro classes were considered to be um
01:39:34 certainly the the euro class b test was considered generally to be a bit better than the euro than the bs476 of classo
01:39:44 status but the conclusion that the department had come to through the pr this process was that the most appropriate transposition between the two or the correlation between those two
01:39:56 or the correlation between those two systems was that b would correlate with class a and the driver for that was that it would let more products through above 18 meters whereas if you picked a2 it would let
01:40:08 whereas if you picked a2 it would let fewer products through above 18 meters okay
01:40:15 um
01:40:17 that strikes me as an odd way of of saying it um what they were trying to do was find the best fit
01:40:25 best fit between
01:40:26 between um
01:40:28 um the new classification system and the old classification system and they concluded the best fit was was the one that they adopted right
01:40:38 right were you involved in any of these discussions about the transposition points or transition periods um at that time not particularly i was pretty much handed a a schedule that
01:40:49 pretty much handed a a schedule that said this is this is how the the different um classification systems would correlate and when was that when you handed this schedule
01:41:03 in the process of the work we did on the 2002 amendment side at some point or rather it was this is this is this is where the
01:41:11 where the department and and its partners have arrived at what they consider to be the right
01:41:18 the right the best fit between the two systems right um can we then go to page nine in this document and look under the heading paragraph 4.5 cellular plastics sector
01:41:30 paragraph 4.5 cellular plastics sector and uh it says uh there under b if you look at paragraph b products four slash o five and four slash twelve which also give class naught on the uk system give respectively euro classes c and d in the
01:41:43 respectively euro classes c and d in the european assessment both of these products have relatively thin aluminium foil faced flexible foam laminates respectively based on the polyisocyanurate and phenolic foam with these products it was observed that
01:41:55 with these products it was observed that in the sbi test the aluminium foil facing was penetrated such that the underlying foam was then available to contribute to the rate of heat release calculation whereas in the uk bs476 part
01:42:06 calculation whereas in the uk bs476 part 6 test the heat release found in that test was not sufficient to displace the classification away from a uk class north clearly the introduction of a simple replacement of the uk class naught by a euro class b requirement in
01:42:19 naught by a euro class b requirement in any regulatory procedure would discriminate against products 4.05 and 4 12 against the practical experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications
01:42:31 class naught applications now um that's some a long paragraph but just simplifying it it looks would you agree with me that warrington had come to the conclusion that some cellular plastic composite
01:42:43 that some cellular plastic composite products achieve class naught but not class b
01:42:46 class b because although the heat release rate satisfied part six it didn't meet the figure levels required in the sbi test to meet class b but only class c or d
01:42:57 to meet class b but only class c or d yes yes
01:42:58 yes yes but isn't it right that requiring those products now to meet class b would effectively limit their market and discriminate against them in that way yes that's what that says yes did you consider that to be a concern for any
01:43:10 consider that to be a concern for any reason
01:43:13 um that wasn't really on my agenda at the time but i imagine that would be a a topic of debate amongst the people that were
01:43:23 were right working on this i mean does it tell us that the the these products would become unacceptable where previously they had been widely accepted because they had achieved class naught
01:43:34 if they were being used in a location where class naught was the only requirement then yes yes well
01:43:41 well whether they were or weren't if you're looking at equivalence or some sort of matching transposition being the word i think used here it's right i think that those products
01:43:52 those products tell me if this is right or wrong would become except unacceptable where previously they had been widely accepted on the basis that they had class naught yes i think that was that was uh my understanding that was something that
01:44:03 my understanding that was something that was
01:44:04 was um
01:44:05 um was given quite a lot of debate at the time
01:44:08 time did you yourself consider that it was important to avoid discriminating against foil face pir or phenolic foam polymer fame insulation products regardless of their comparatively poor
01:44:21 regardless of their comparatively poor reaction to fire performance when assessed against the euro-class system i don't think i had an opinion at the time
01:44:29 time i mean cutting to the point what was wrong with discriminating against a lower standard of fire safety in order to achieve higher standards of fire safety
01:44:40 well there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you're setting out to do right
01:44:44 right there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you're setting out to do but if you're setting out to avoid market distortion
01:44:54 why wasn't why wasn't it important nonetheless to maintain or promote standards of fire safety
01:45:07 um well i i i wouldn't have had an opinion at the time but i think what the department was trying to achieve at the time was was this um like painless transposition into the new
01:45:19 like painless transposition into the new the new classification regime and what this report is identifying is a potential pain well you may have to accept pain one way or the other absolutely and i think the thrust of mr minute's question is
01:45:31 thrust of mr minute's question is why isn't it more acceptable to accept a bit of pain on marketing certain products and gain on the fire safety but that you would say is a policy decision yes
01:45:45 what did you understand the basis for that policy decision to be
01:45:52 well the policy decision was to transpose b to o so where o was the only requirement um b would be were you involved in any of these discussions about equivalence market
01:46:03 discussions about equivalence market distortion fire safety balancing the two at the time either within the bre or within the department i i think i got the general gist from colleagues that were
01:46:14 colleagues that were involved um but i wasn't directly involved in those decisions and now let's go to um approved document b which incorporated these amendments in
01:46:25 which incorporated these amendments in 2002. that's at clg140740
01:46:32 i want the first page of that please to show you what we're looking at
01:46:40 uh and you can see from the green triangle on the bottom right that it says 2000 edition consolidated with 2 000 and 2002 amendments and if we go please to page 91
01:46:51 and if we go please to page 91 we can see the change here we have diagram 40 heading provisions for external surfaces of walls and we can see now for the first time
01:47:03 now for the first time there are three boxes this and the second one has class naught national class or class bs3d2 or better european class yes
01:47:13 class yes yes yes
01:47:14 yes yes now um
01:47:16 now um that's the section which would apply to the external services of buildings with a habitable story over 18 meters isn't it yes yes now if you um look at the small print at the bottom under the word notes
01:47:28 the bottom under the word notes you can see that there is
01:47:32 there is a paragraph under one that says this the national classifications do not automatically equate with the equivalent european classifications therefore products cannot typically assume a european class unless they have been
01:47:43 european class unless they have been tested accordingly were you involved in the drafting or the discussions about the drafting of that note
01:47:51 note um my recollection is i was given that text i i i'm pretty sure one of the tasks i was given when i was probably working for the yeah it would
01:48:02 probably working for the yeah it would have been while i was working at the department in the sort of secondment role um
01:48:06 role um was
01:48:07 was um to go through the draft and insert that text in all the appropriate places um but i wasn't involved in the drafting of that particular paragraph go through the draft and insert what so there's so there's a draft approved document um
01:48:19 there's a draft approved document um which needs to go off to the typesetters um and um i worked my way through the draft
01:48:26 draft that draft it was going to go to the typesetters and found wherever there was a reference to the euro classes and inserted that note that was the instruction i was given this note appears elsewhere does it
01:48:37 this note appears elsewhere does it all over the place yes tell me so you you received this note as already finalized yes right did you have any discussions with anybody about what it meant
01:48:48 i think eddie explained to me yes how was it explained to you um there was a concern that
01:48:55 that a manufacturer that had a classification under one system might think they could reasonably claim that that was the same so somebody
01:49:07 claim that that was the same so somebody somebody who had a classo product could advertise their product as a class b product
01:49:12 product um or a non-combustible product claim it as being a class a1 product and what this was trying to say was um the manufacturer should only declare the classifications that they
01:49:23 declare the classifications that they have specific evidence for even though the approved document may treat them equally in the guidance um
01:49:31 um first of all who handed you the text to insert in
01:49:35 insert in here
01:49:36 here and other places in approved document b would have been one of the officials in the department so anthony bird or um was tony edwards still there um i can't remember um it would have been
01:49:47 i can't remember um it would have been unofficial in the farm and who who gave you the explanation you've just given it given to us it was probably anthony bird
01:49:58 it was probably anthony bird right
01:49:59 right did you discuss the drafting did you
01:50:06 assess it i think it was one of those points where this had been debated at length and um and
01:50:13 and it wasn't something that i particularly wanted to discuss again i think at all events i think you've told us that you provided no input into the wording at all that's not given a fata complete effectively
01:50:24 complete effectively yes yes
01:50:27 yes yes it's right to think just looking at it that there's no equation at all automatic or otherwise between class naught and class b
01:50:39 that's right yeah yeah and when you looked at this did you think that this form of words here might introduce confusion because some people might think that there was an achievable equation
01:50:50 an achievable equation which is the word that's used there between class naught and class b albeit perhaps not automatic
01:50:58 i i suspect um i probably had it explained to me at the same time i was given the text and so that was in the forefront of my mind when i was reading it um i imagine which
01:51:10 when i was reading it um i imagine which i'm sure is what's happened with with your good selves is you've read that without having someone explaining it first
01:51:17 first and
01:51:19 and i've heard you ask this question of other witnesses and and i agree it's unnecessarily complicated language yes i mean did you think at the time that some people might take from this note that euro class b was quotes equivalent
01:51:31 euro class b was quotes equivalent to class nought
01:51:37 very difficult to separate out what i was thinking with what i was told i mean it's not is it though i mean as a matter of fact and science class naught and class b are not equivalents no they're
01:51:48 class b are not equivalents no they're measured they measure different things similar things but in different ways
01:51:54 yes and they're not equivalent correct now given as you just told us that they measure different things in different ways the test methods the setups the measurements
01:52:05 measurements are under each regime are different extensively so i would suggest to you
01:52:10 to you with only certain areas of overlap do you know why that fact was not spelt out here in clear terms
01:52:26 no i mean you wouldn't have put it here if you'd have put an explanation of that anywhere you might have put it in appendix a um but i don't think it does that in appendix a very well either i don't think it does it at all in appendix
01:52:37 think it does it at all in appendix respect
01:52:38 respect do you know why no clear warning was given either within diagram 40 or within 12.6 or within appendix a or anywhere else
01:52:46 else that to be class b it had to be tested under en 13501 and actually get a class b and also that they do not equate at all it doesn't
01:52:58 they do not equate at all it doesn't equate at all with class naught do you know why that wasn't spelt out in terms
01:53:04 terms no
01:53:05 no was that an option even discussed at the time
01:53:07 time not with me now let's go to clg one triple zero four two two nine
01:53:17 uh this is an email some years later 2009
01:53:21 2009 and it starts at the bottom of page one i'm afraid the print is quite small so um
01:53:26 um tell me if you're having trouble reading it i can see it um thank you and if we look at the at that email it's an email to anthony bird from a chun jin cho
01:53:37 from a chun jin cho 7th of december 2009 subject bs 476 and en13501
01:53:44 and it says um dear sarah madam i am mr cho from the fire safety and shelter department singapore
01:53:52 singapore can i seek your assistance to clarify the equivalent standards of en 13501 and bs 476 if you are not the office of concern to answer my queries i'd appreciate very much if you could direct
01:54:03 appreciate very much if you could direct the question
01:54:07 uh so it's jumped i'm afraid to the relevant safety officer thank you now if we go to page two
01:54:15 two um
01:54:17 um two currently singapore is adopting bs 476 part eleven and part six and seven to check the non-combustibility and flame spread properties of material respectively there were many inquiries
01:54:29 respectively there were many inquiries from suppliers on the use of en standards instead of bs for the relevant test we've checked the relevant information from the website and found there were many write up mentioning the equivalency of en and bs standard as follow
01:54:40 follow then you've got two lists you've got the yuko class and the euro class non-combustible a1 limited combustibility a2 or better naught b or better etc and then if you look at three
01:54:52 better etc and then if you look at three he says while we go through document b there is mentioned of cl euro class a1 and a2 considered as non-combustible and limited combustibility respectively but
01:55:03 limited combustibility respectively but there is no mentioned in document b that euro class b is equivalent to class naught bs 476 parts six and seven and euro class c is equivalent to class one and two
01:55:14 and two four may i seek your good self to clarify whether it is a regulation or mentioned in document b that the following are equivalent and then he sets out again the uk class and the euro class
01:55:26 the euro class not
01:55:27 not b2 or better that b or better and then one or two c or better etc and then at five he says thank you very much for your assistance in this matter best regards and you can as you can see
01:55:38 best regards and you can as you can see cho chun chin is from the fire safety and shelter department of the singapore civil defense force now if we scroll up to the next email in the chain to page one we can see that a few hours later
01:55:50 that a few hours later anthony bird forwards this to you and debbie smith you see that yes can you kindly assist please tar ant is what he asks why did anthony bird report this
01:56:01 asks why did anthony bird report this email to you [Music]
01:56:06 um because that was part of my my role was to deal with that kind of inquiry right i see now by this time of course you were fully um in in the department weren't you of course yes
01:56:17 the department weren't you of course yes yes and what was debbie smith's involvement why was he sending her this request
01:56:24 um [Music]
01:56:26 [Music] i'm not sure if there was a specific contract
01:56:28 contract by which that that would have applied at that time um i think he was sending it to her
01:56:35 to her um because she had a lot of expertise in the subject area um and um it was hoping she might contribute right so this was an informal request for informal assistance from an expert who
01:56:47 informal assistance from an expert who in whom he knew well i'm guessing i'm guessing so uh i'm dr smith was chair of um
01:56:53 um an important european standards committee as well so she was the national expert on this subject i would say right now let's go up to the top email in the chain we can see that
01:57:04 top email in the chain we can see that on the 22nd of december 2009 dr smith sends you and you alone a response brian please see a draft response as discussed happy christmas debbie
01:57:16 christmas debbie now
01:57:17 now she says as discussed can you remember what your discussion was about
01:57:22 no no nor does dr smith um
01:57:29 did you discuss do you remember discussing possibly the the possibility of abolishing the national class system
01:57:39 i i doubt it did the subject of the select committee's recommendations now by now nine years old or so come up 10 years old come up no i can't imagine
01:57:51 10 years old come up no i can't imagine why it would right
01:57:58 were you concerned at all by the fact that in 2009 some six years after the 2002 edition of adb had come into force after the harmonization project you were being
01:58:10 harmonization project you were being asked questions of this nature
01:58:16 no it's just a perfectly reasonable question to me well it's a perfectly reasonable question
01:58:22 question but
01:58:23 but that's not the that's not the question it's a reasonable question the question is were you not concerned by the fact it was being asked at this stage
01:58:34 no i'm sorry i can't see why i would be concerned well because there'd been an exercise in harmonization uh with diagram 40 with note 1 attached to it
01:58:45 to it which said what it said
01:58:48 did the did the fact that this question was being asked not prompt you to wonder why it was being asked at this time six years on um i think again you're focusing on one
01:59:00 um i think again you're focusing on one part of approved document b um this is a query from a regulator in singapore probably looking at the entire classification system which is used throughout the singapore
01:59:12 throughout the singapore regulations and guidance in the same way as it's used throughout a brief document b
01:59:18 b and
01:59:19 and certainly i'm pretty sure singapore was one of those countries which had been using bs-476 for as long as the uk had and wasn't subject to the european directive
01:59:31 directive but would have progressively had more and more manufacturers saying we want to sell our product in your country we've classified it to the european system how does it fit so they were having essentially they
01:59:42 so they were having essentially they were looking at the same question then that we were looking at in 2002
01:59:49 yes but he's as he says in paragraph three you've been going through approved document b and as a result of his trawl through document b he was moved to ask these questions
02:00:00 questions and my question is when he asked these questions did you not think to yourself gosh i wonder whether adb in this respect is as clear as it might be now i think the point here is is that
02:00:15 be now i think the point here is is that what there isn't or what there wasn't in the approved document was a transposition table there wasn't the table that says that the table that you you showed in the radar report which showed
02:00:26 report which showed a1 is equal to non-combustible whatever it was that there's a there's a table and it equates there wasn't a table like that in a proof document b um
02:00:37 um because what we've done is we'd inserted the european classified classifications as necessary throughout the approved document so there wasn't a summary table
02:00:48 summary table that provided a comparison between the two classification systems and so i think um
02:00:55 think um what um
02:00:57 what um the the official from singapore is asking is
02:01:00 asking is have i read this right is this how you've compared the two well that's the point and that did the fact that he asked the question not prompt concerns in yourself and anthony bird and perhaps debbie smith
02:01:12 anthony bird and perhaps debbie smith too
02:01:13 too the adb because it did not clearly identify the transpositions was not as clear as it could have been no i'm sure i'd have the same problem if i rang the red the regulations in singapore well i'm not asking you about
02:01:25 singapore well i'm not asking you about the regulations in singapore my question is a very simple one you're getting you're getting a question here about the clarity of transposition in a in approved document b which is by now six years after the transposition
02:01:36 years after the transposition harmonization exercise my question is when you were asked this question were you not prompted to ask yourselves is this document as clear as it could have been no
02:01:46 no why is that um
02:01:50 um that was the answer i was trying to give you earlier on i think um it just struck me as a perfectly reasonable question an official in singapore is is developing their own equivalent
02:02:02 developing their own equivalent um transposition table um they've looked through approved document b they've looked at it and identified what they think is the transposition approach that we've adopted and they want to double check
02:02:14 adopted and they want to double check they got it right
02:02:17 it must be my fault for not asking the question properly let me try it slightly well i think the question mr minute is asking you to address is did it trouble you to think that mr uh tune couldn't work it out for himself
02:02:30 um i think he had worked it out for himself
02:02:32 himself um why was he asking the question then um he was about to introduce changes to legislation in singapore and wanted to double check that he hadn't made a mistake
02:02:45 let's look at the response that gets sent by dr smith clg one triple zero four two three zero please now this uh is
02:02:54 is the document that's referred to it's attached to debbie smith's 22nd of december 2009 e-mail and it says this dear mr cho re-bs 476 and en 13501
02:03:06 re-bs 476 and en 13501 thank you for your email regarding ps476 and en13501.1 there's no regulation that gives equivalency between bs 476 and en13501 part one the only way that a
02:03:18 en13501 part one the only way that a manufacturer can declare a performance class for reaction to fire or fire resistance for their product is based upon test evidence therefore one a bs 476 test result can
02:03:30 therefore one a bs 476 test result can only be used to derive a ps476 class such as class naught one two or three two the bsn csen 13501.1 classification
02:03:41 two the bsn csen 13501.1 classification a1 a2 bcde can only be derived from test data in accordance with the appropriate en test methods
02:03:48 methods ien1716 1182 13823 and 11925 part 2. for example a manufacturer can only claim class naught if they have tested their product to
02:04:00 if they have tested their product to bs476 part six and seven and met the class naught requirements they cannot then claim a european class b for their product without having tested it to em13823 and
02:04:11 em13823 and en11925 part two and achieve the specified criteria for class b and then she goes on c
02:04:19 c the concept of equivalency relates to the guidance that is provided in approved document b fire safety to the building regulations 2000 adb adb provides guidance on classes of
02:04:30 adb provides guidance on classes of reaction to fire fire resistance and external fire exposure of roofs performance that satisfy the requirements of the building regulations under the construction products directive european legislation the uk
02:04:41 directive european legislation the uk must accept products that have been classified in accordance with the en 13501 series of standards onto the uk market
02:04:47 market therefore for each specified bs 476 class in adb a european class is defined that is also considered to satisfy the requirements of the building regulations
02:04:58 requirements of the building regulations this approach has also been adopted in relation to non-combustibility a1 and materials of limited combustibility a2 i hope this is clear if you need further information please contact me
02:05:09 information please contact me now first do you remember whether your response to mr cho was ever sent we have no record of it going but do you remember i don't remember it at all in the light of the email did you consider that adb needed to be amended to make it
02:05:21 that adb needed to be amended to make it clear that there was no equivalence between european and national classes
02:05:30 no it didn't didn't occur to me it didn't occur to you even though you'd seen this attachment
02:05:38 no i think um i mean dr smith has obviously drafted a very complete reply probably because it's from an official from another nation so we're endeathering to be helpful um
02:05:50 um and um
02:05:52 and um i think she's picking up on that point of
02:05:56 of depends how you read the the word equivalence i guess um in that the two tests aren't technically equivalent but they're used in an equivalent way in
02:06:08 but they're used in an equivalent way in the approved document so it probably depends on how you approach the question of
02:06:13 of the word equivalent and i think that the the official from singapore is probably not writing in there as english as their first language well you're not the first person to say that but
02:06:25 person to say that but nonetheless uh the question that he asked you was sufficiently clear there was nothing difficult about the way you can understand what you're saying perfectly well yes
02:06:37 perfectly well yes did you discuss this question and answer either within the department or within vre with dr smith maps at the time um well the email suggests that we may have had a conversation i i don't
02:06:49 have had a conversation i i don't remember it this is a fairly routine um exchange is it
02:06:54 is it was this the kind of question you were getting from other parts of the industry at the time um not on this particular subject but it's a it's a it's a an email from somebody that's queer it's
02:07:05 an email from somebody that's queer it's unusual that it comes from an official in another country that's not quite so common
02:07:10 common but from time to time you'd be contacted by people um asking questions and you endeavor to point them in the right direction you say it's a fairly routine exchange just to understand that routine in what sense
02:07:22 to understand that routine in what sense um there's nothing about it that would make me want to raise it with someone else no um okay let's let's break that down routine would you routinely get questions from uh third parties stakeholders other
02:07:33 uh third parties stakeholders other regulators industry about the meaning or intention behind the approved document yes would you you would and would you routinely pass those to dr smith to
02:07:44 routinely pass those to dr smith to assist you to answer no so that so you you passing it on to her wasn't or ant and bird passing it onto her wasn't routine no i think i think he passed it onto her
02:07:55 no i think i think he passed it onto her because this is their area of expertise right so was it can we take it that it was the department's view that this was sufficiently technical and complex a matter to require an expert response
02:08:06 matter to require an expert response rather than a response from government saying
02:08:09 saying it's all perfectly obvious just read the document
02:08:15 um i mean i don't remember the exchange
02:08:20 i think it may well be that he referred it to
02:08:23 it to um dr smith because it was an official from another country and just wanted a more complete answer um and as i said dr smith was probably the country's leading expert on this subject matter at the time well exactly
02:08:35 subject matter at the time well exactly and that that really leads to the next question given the question had come from a foreign regulator uh the department had thought it fit to pastor the country's leading expert on this question and the and the result is
02:08:46 this question and the and the result is a highly technical and quite complex response
02:08:50 response this is very far from routine wasn't it
02:09:01 not i mean it wasn't so unusual that that
02:09:05 that it made us think there's a problem somewhere um it would get questions from all manner of people well you get questions from all manner of people about all kinds of things i don't understand but was this question not a a flag to the department
02:09:18 question not a a flag to the department that there was something wrong with the approved document b um that couldn't be understood and required a technical answer to
02:09:26 answer to no i don't think so why is that um
02:09:35 i was just struggling to understand why it would
02:09:38 it would um well because i tell you why it would because some people might be confused about whether class naught equaled class b and vice versa
02:09:49 versa and if they saw class naught they thought it's class b and if they saw class b they thought it was class naught
02:09:57 i don't necessarily read that from from from the email from the the official in singapore
02:10:02 singapore leaving aside the email for the moment was it your wider experience by this time
02:10:07 time 2009 that there was confusion about the equivalence or apparent equivalence on the face of approved document b between class norton class b across the
02:10:19 between class norton class b across the uk construction industry at the very least
02:10:21 least uh never had that raised with me at all i think
02:10:25 i think people understood that there was a parallel system and you could use either classification depending on how the particular product had been classified right it might have been crystal clear to you but you said never been raised with you but why was debbie smith
02:10:37 with you but why was debbie smith clarifying what is meant by equivalency or equivalence in this email if it was if it was so clear from the document as you understood it at the time my guess is she's jumping on the fact that the
02:10:49 is she's jumping on the fact that the official from singapore has used the word equivalence and she's trying to
02:10:54 trying to make it crystal clear that there's a difference between equivalence of the test and classification and equivalence in the way it's used in approved document b right
02:11:05 were you aware at any time of manufacturers simply stating an equivalence between class naught and class b without carrying out the european testing required no not at all was that
02:11:17 required no not at all was that something you looked into following mr cho's email no why not um
02:11:27 not something it didn't occur to me at the time and so it's not an issue that's ever arisen as far as i'm aware but it arrays then and here is the response did this not trigger in you by now an
02:11:39 did this not trigger in you by now an official in the department that you needed to make sure that people understood diagram 40 and the note in it in the way in which debbie smith is spelling out here
02:11:50 here in response to a regulators a foreign regulator's question just to make absolutely sure that diagram 40 was understood by everybody who would claim the use of it
02:12:03 no i i i i don't see i mean say that the note one albeit written in in perhaps you know in hindsight unnecessarily complicated language says the same thing um
02:12:15 says the same thing um and i don't think and never come across this as being an issue and i'm sure somebody would have raised it if it was right
02:12:26 let's turn then to a different topic moving on in time 2001 and the contract cc the review of far performance of external cladding systems and the revision of br135
02:12:39 revision of br135 um now let's embark on this topic we won't finish it today i should just tell you but let's do start it um
02:12:46 um we know that um there was a contract put in place for the review of br135 between the department and the bre um for which the bre bid in late 1999 after the fire
02:12:57 the bre bid in late 1999 after the fire at garnet court and after the select committee inquiry i've just said that that you can confirm that yes yes and that became the review of fire performance of external cladding systems and the revision of br 135
02:13:09 systems and the revision of br 135 otherwise known as contract cc 1924 remember that yes i don't remember the contract number but yeah yeah all right um but do you remember that the result came as a result of the select committee
02:13:20 came as a result of the select committee inquiry into external fire spread yes yes
02:13:23 yes and by way of context and in very brief terms um let me give you a summary and see if you can confirm that it's accurate the bre's work under that contract had a number of
02:13:35 contract had a number of uh
02:13:36 uh a number of heads first a literature review yes yes yes
02:13:41 yes yes the preparation and sending out of survey questionnaires yes yes the analysis of the results of that survey yes yes yes um the an experimental testing program
02:13:52 um the an experimental testing program yes
02:13:52 yes and a review and of and revisions 2br 135 which would first be published in 1988 and was now up for review yes yeah
02:14:03 1988 and was now up for review yes yeah and what was your role in general in that project
02:14:08 so the project was led by dr colwell um and
02:14:13 and i was um
02:14:16 i was um one of the number of people that worked with her to try and deliver various aspects of that work um
02:14:23 um my main focus was assisting in the drafting of the new br-135
02:14:30 br-135 um
02:14:31 um and i think i'd did some of the work on the literature review
02:14:35 review right
02:14:38 right and she told us that your specific role included i think as well reviewing the guidance in approved document b including the guidance relevant to surface spread of flame and hence
02:14:48 and hence what was included in the bre revision is that is that fair um i summarized it i think i mean i i didn't review it to see whether i thought the proof document v was correct or not i was
02:15:00 or not i was in interpreting it and summarizing it in in the various documents at what stage did you become involved in the project
02:15:14 i guess from its inception i i think
02:15:19 most of my contribution was probably towards the end in terms of the drafting of br 135
02:15:25 of br 135 did you have any involvement in preparing the bids for the contract don't think so let's look at the signed bid contract at bre 30 41833
02:15:39 uh we this is the first page of the bid contract
02:15:42 contract and as you can see it's dated the 11th of november 1999.
02:15:48 so this is actually about a month before the select committee's report was published on the 14th of december that yeah
02:15:55 yeah and in fact it looks as if there were two revised versions of that document after that date and i'd like to go to bre 304183 please which is the last one the latest
02:16:06 please which is the last one the latest version in time it's revision2
02:16:15 and it's dated the 23rd of december 1999 so that's after the select committee's report
02:16:22 report are you able to help us whether this was the final version it's unsigned but are you able to help us with this one i couldn't tell you right but you involved in drafting or revising these big documents
02:16:34 big documents if i was i don't remember now let's stick with this revision if we go to page one you can see that the title uh is um uh the framework agreement it's under the framework agreement and that the
02:16:46 the framework agreement and that the project lead was sarah colwell yes yes and if we go to page nine in it we can see under the heading project team that she's listed there at the top as the project manager and leader of all tasks
02:16:58 project manager and leader of all tasks yes yes yeah and uh underneath that four names down we can see your name listed as being responsible for the survey building control and br 135 redrafting yes
02:17:10 yes that's what it says yes it's what it says now and that's i'm showing you that to remind you we'll come back to this but in broad terms are those the aspects of the project which you did go to work you you did go
02:17:21 you you did go on to work on yes
02:17:25 yes so your role did your role change at all during the project did it develop
02:17:33 not that i recall and were you involved in the project throughout its life in components of it i mean it was it was a
02:17:42 a as you said a project with several components in it um and i wasn't directly involved in all of those components uh no i'm clearly i mean can i assume that you weren't involved
02:17:53 can i assume that you weren't involved in the part f review ventilation but in so far as external fire spread is concerned and all the work leading to br 135 you were
02:18:04 135 you were involved continuously is that right um
02:18:11 i'm kind of going to have to be pedantic and i i don't think i had much to do with the fire testing right well come to that but um were you involved throughout in the area
02:18:22 involved throughout in the area attributed to you here for survey building control and br 135 redraft yes it wasn't a continuous activity though it was it was something that you dipped into from time to time as that as a project went on
02:18:33 project went on during your time on this project did you meet or discuss the project with anthony bird
02:18:47 i don't know if i was attending a formal meeting with anthony but i would have been working with anthony from time to time so
02:18:52 time so no doubt we would have discussed it yes i mean you were sitting half the week in this office so yes now if we go to page 12 of the document please um you can see in about the around the middle of the page under the
02:19:03 around the middle of the page under the heading project responsibilities it says just under the two bullet points all activity on the project shall be subject to the supervision and quality control of dr d.a smith yes yes was it in fact
02:19:16 of dr d.a smith yes yes was it in fact the case that dr smith supervised all of the activity on this project as things turned out
02:19:27 as far as i remember yes and in what way did debbie smith supervise and carry out quality control on your work
02:19:39 she would have read any draft documents and and commented on them i imagine my recollection she's very thorough when it came to checking draft documents did she check against any external
02:19:50 did she check against any external materials or did you just check within the four corners of the drafts you gave her
02:19:55 her um
02:19:55 um i don't know but did you provide her with any court materials or external materials referred to in the reports you gave her or did you just give her the report in draft i don't remember but
02:20:07 i don't remember but probably just the report if we go back to
02:20:09 to how regularly did you discuss your work on this project with debbie smith in meetings or on the telephone i doubt would have discussed it with um dr smith very often i probably wouldn't
02:20:21 dr smith very often i probably wouldn't mainly been talking to um i don't think she was a doctor then sarah caldwell um if we go to page three of the bid document we we don't need to go through it all but the objectives are there set out
02:20:31 out and if you look at the foot of the of the page project objectives you can see they are
02:20:38 they are threefold three bullet points there to review the guidance within the approved documents
02:20:43 documents to update and maintain the building regulations and associated guidance and to support the process of regulation and harmonization and then you underneath that you've got specific objectives of the department
02:20:55 specific objectives of the department um which run over to page four and the first one to carry out a survey of existing multi-story building stock the second is to produce a simple database of the results of the survey
02:21:07 database of the results of the survey within three months sec the third is to review and update the existing guidance given in bre 134 br 135
02:21:17 br 135 and if you go to the top of page four to give additional guidance on fire stopping and then first bullet point on page four to complete an experimental program uh and to the second utilize the
02:21:28 uh and to the second utilize the large-scale scenario-based test to determine the most appropriate method for specifying the fire performance requirements of cladding systems now was it your i just shown you some of those but was it your understanding that
02:21:40 those but was it your understanding that all of those objectives which are listed in the bid document remained in place and unchanged throughout the life of the project
02:21:50 yeah as far as i'm aware and that this project was was i think an ia
02:21:56 ia well as part of the project and iag was established wasn't it an industry advisory group yes and do you remember who decided that an iag should be established um that's the sort of thing i'd expect
02:22:07 um that's the sort of thing i'd expect the department to require it's pretty standard practice in almost all research work to involve um
02:22:16 um an advisory group um in some they get called different things as time moves on but the department's always taking the approach that it's better to involve
02:22:28 approach that it's better to involve um industry and and other stakeholders as you develop a piece of research we say the department who who at the department decided that there needed to be an iag
02:22:40 needed to be an iag um
02:22:41 um however the policy lead would have been probably anti-bird at that time i think it might be tony edwards and what was its purpose so far as you understood it
02:22:56 like i said then there are multi multiple functions but really it's it's to challenge what the what the project is doing um so
02:23:08 what the project is doing um so the worst thing that can happen from the point of view of a project managing a piece of research is to complete it publish it and then you find half the industry says it's a lot of rubbish
02:23:18 rubbish um so
02:23:20 um so what you try to do when you're carrying out a piece of work is find those people who might say that involve them in the work
02:23:26 work and understand what their issues are while you're doing it and try and address them so that's so that's why it's normal practice to involve um groups like that right it sounds what you just said that you would involve in iag as a form of
02:23:39 involve in iag as a form of internal and continuing peer review of the work as it was done but was there another aspect to it which is to understand what industry would tolerate
02:23:48 tolerate uh and wanted
02:23:55 um
02:23:58 i think it's important to understand the construction industry isn't doesn't have one head
02:24:02 one head um so what you're what you would find out is which bits of the construction industry
02:24:07 industry were for or against a particular issue um to imply that the whole industry would be four against anything is is is never likely to happen from from my experience
02:24:18 likely to happen from from my experience it's a very disparate industry i understand that um but i'm just trying to understand the role of the group the iag
02:24:25 iag um was it as a continuing peer review source to make sure that the research was being done on a technically sound basis which is one thing or was it as was it a
02:24:35 was it a body of industry respondents who would tell you
02:24:39 tell you in more or less vociferous tones what they would and wouldn't accept or what some of them would accept and some of them wouldn't accept or was it both um it's principally the peer review thing i think the way you're
02:24:50 peer review thing i think the way you're phrasing it makes it sound like the industry could dictate to the department what was i wasn't acceptable to it um i think that's probably the wrong language to use
02:25:01 probably the wrong language to use right language and i don't use the word dictate but um i i think so i think you would identify which bits of industry were likely to be have their noses put out of joint
02:25:14 have their noses put out of joint and so it's important certainly for the policy officials to understand that very well
02:25:19 very well uh let's go then to bre four zeros one three nine two
02:25:34 uh this is a report given to anthony byrne on the 27th of april 2001 which is a review of the far performance of the external clouding systems is the report itself
02:25:46 itself uh and it's for the period first of april 2000 to the 30th of april 2001 prepared by sarah colwell and we get that from page two you just look to look at that
02:25:59 and we can also see that this progress report was approved by debbie smith on the 30th of april 2001. now um first of all is have you ever seen this document before did you see it at the time do you think
02:26:10 at the time do you think i might not have done it's a progress report so it would have been it's a component of project management it is but would you have seen it at the time either in your bre employee or rollers secondly the
02:26:22 bre employee or rollers secondly the department um the department would have asked me to review a project progress report um
02:26:28 report um it's conceivable i might have been aware of it when i was working at bre but it wouldn't have been something i'd paid a lot of attention to
02:26:36 why's that um
02:26:40 um it's
02:26:41 it's dr colewell updating mr bird on progress on the project project so it's a it's an issue
02:26:47 issue that the two of them would be very interested in would you have had any input into drafting this um i doubt it um dr caldwell might have asked me about something but um i think the things that i were working was
02:26:59 the things that i were working was working on she was intimately involved in so i doubt it right now if we go to page five please and look under the heading formation of the iag
02:27:08 iag we could see there that 30 groups were invited to join the industry advisory group for this project and they included representatives from manufacturers and you can see manufacturers rain
02:27:19 and you can see manufacturers rain screen systems rendered systems and built up systems specifiers and building owners and users can you help us about who chose the organizations to be invited to join the
02:27:30 organizations to be invited to join the iag
02:27:33 um i don't know i i mean there's a there's a fairly consistent sort of process about the way this is done um i can explain that but i have no idea who made those decisions for this
02:27:44 who made those decisions for this particular project right um what was the basis on which these organizations and representatives of those organizations were selected um normal practice is to try and find a
02:27:56 um normal practice is to try and find a broad range of expertise um and
02:28:01 and um
02:28:03 um and ensure if you like a fair representation um again one of the things that certainly the department would be very cautious of and so what the researchers is what you don't want is
02:28:15 is what you don't want is um a group that's unduly influenced by one side or the other of um an industry and certainly when you're talking about um
02:28:26 talking about um thermal insulation the industry was very much split into two um and there was an aggressive campaign by both sides
02:28:37 sides so
02:28:38 so and even even then i mean it got progressively worse but um that would have been at the forefront of their minds to make sure that there was fair representation there so that you could get their expertise um and
02:28:51 could get their expertise um and knowledge but you wouldn't allow them to um
02:28:55 um potentially influence the project in a way that would um be
02:28:59 be um disproportionate and what was the process for deciding on uh who was on the final list um
02:29:06 um the projects i've worked on where i've been involved in this um it would be a joint exercise between officials in the department and
02:29:15 and the research team so you would discuss with them who you thought was appropriate to give you that um appropriate balance um
02:29:26 um and
02:29:27 and quite typically you'd also ask once once you've formed the group you'd also ask them if there was anyone missing um so sometimes they might say you know we're all here but where's mr x
02:29:38 mr x um and it might be that we didn't know he existed but apparently he was quite an influential person in that particular sector
02:29:44 sector mr chairman i've got about five more minutes on this document and i can finish it can we can you can i take the five minutes i think so you could manage another five minutes i expect so sir yes thank you thank you yes i'm grateful thank you can we get into page five you
02:29:56 thank you can we get into page five you can see a bullet point list of the main group
02:29:59 group and you can see there that it's reported that 27 of the 30 accepted the invitation to join yes
02:30:08 so 30 get invited 27 accept yes
02:30:13 yes so i'm trying to find the number 27. uh it's spelt out actually rather than figures after the three bullet points oh yes sorry 27 representatives yes yes
02:30:24 oh yes sorry 27 representatives yes yes yeah and then if you go to page nine we can see the members of the iag group listed there's a table there uh and there they are um five members of the bre staff including you
02:30:36 you you see that yes um
02:30:39 um debbie smith sarah colwell and dr jackman from the loss prevention council three government employees including anthony byrd three local authorities the bba cwct and then various industry associations
02:30:51 associations and was it envisaged that all aspects of the work on the project would be shared with the iag or did that group have a particular role
02:31:02 as far as i'm aware all all of the aspects of the work would have been shared with them i think i
02:31:08 i i suspect that there are quite a few um local authorities there
02:31:15 which is unusual normally you'd expect just the local government association to suggest one i think it's probably because of the exercise of carrying out a survey that they tried to get more local authorities
02:31:26 they tried to get more local authorities involved to help them make contact with them uh how is the iag kept up to date on the development of the work being done for their regular meetings um that that's that's the that's the usual process is
02:31:38 that's the that's the usual process is that there would there would be um meetings of the group from from time to time to update them on the work and and documents would be shared with them as appropriate and this is a this is one such is it a progress report
02:31:51 such is it a progress report um
02:31:54 not necessarily um that would vary from project to project i don't know who this was circulated with
02:32:00 with let's go to page eight and we go to the first bullet point under the heading conclusions and there it says the formation and inaugural meeting of the iag group has taken place the group has been advised of the generic experimental program and
02:32:13 of the generic experimental program and responses appear to be generally positive
02:32:15 positive do you remember attending that inaugural meeting
02:32:20 no i i remember i don't think i attended all of the meetings i'm pretty sure i attended at least one right but i don't remember which one it was and was that was debbie smith there
02:32:31 was and was that was debbie smith there i'm sorry i can't remember what about anthony bird to whom he was submitting that progress report was he at that meeting i would expect he attended all of the iaj meetings right do you remember whether there were any
02:32:42 remember whether there were any responses from any members of the iag who were not which were not positive no
02:32:48 no right
02:32:51 we'll next turn to the literature review but we'll do that i think uh on monday um there's chairman is that a convenient moment for the day yes and you haven't taken up the whole of your five years no
02:33:02 taken up the whole of your five years no i'll take the two minutes credit yes very well
02:33:06 very well well mr martin we're going to stop there for today but um we're going to have to ask you to come back again on monday as i think you expected yes um so we'll resume please at 10 o'clock on monday
02:33:17 resume please at 10 o'clock on monday and as before and particularly important for the weekend coming up please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break i understand thank you very much indeed would you give the usher please
02:33:33 [Music]
02:33:38 thank you very much just a minute uh 10 o'clock on monday please
02:34:35 you