Cross-examination of Brian Martin, former DCLG building regulations official, on his role and knowledge of fire safety testing, Class O, and limited combustibility
00:00:26 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to begin hearing evidence from Mr. Brian Martin, uh the official at the former DCLG who was responsible for the
00:00:39 DCLG who was responsible for the building regulations. Yes, Mr. Millet. Mr. Chairman, good morning. Good morning to you. Good morning, members of the panel. I now call Mr. Brian Martin, please. Thank you.
00:00:57 Good morning, Mr. Martin. Morning, sir. I understand you'd like to affirm. Yes, sir.
00:01:01 Yes, sir. Uh, the words should be there on the screen. So, would you read them out, please?
00:01:05 please? I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Would you like to sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:01:17 sit down and make yourself comfortable there, please?
00:01:21 All right. Yes, Mr.
00:01:23 Yes, Mr. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, good morning to you. Can I start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with your evidence? We are extremely grateful to you. If you have any difficulty understanding any of
00:01:35 have any difficulty understanding any of my questions or you'd like me to repeat them or put them a different way so you can understand them better, I'm very happy to do that. Can I also ask you please to keep your voice up nice and clear so that the person who sits to
00:01:47 clear so that the person who sits to your right, the transcriber can get down on the transcript everything you say clearly and and audibly. Uh can I also ask you please not to nod or shake your head. You have to say yes or no as the
00:01:59 head. You have to say yes or no as the case may be. And it also helps sometimes if you wait for me to finish the question before answering and I will endeavor to allow you to finish your answer before my next question. Okay, I
00:02:12 answer before my next question. Okay, I understand. We're going to take breaks in the normal way, midm morning and mid-after afternoon, but if you feel you need a break at any other time, then please just let us know and we can do that. All right.
00:02:20 right. Okay.
00:02:21 Okay. Right. Um now, um you provided an uh a witness statement to the inquiry. Let's have that up, please. That's at CLG3019469.
00:02:31 Yes. Uh and that's the first page. We you can see that it's dated the 23rd of November, 2018. Uh and uh if we go to page 91, we can see a signature above the date. Is that
00:02:42 see a signature above the date. Is that your signature? Yes.
00:02:44 Yes. Uh and have you read this witness statement recently? Yes.
00:02:47 Yes. Can you confirm that the contents are true?
00:02:50 true? Yes.
00:02:50 Yes. Can we take it that when preparing your witness statement, you selected your words carefully and that you checked it thoroughly? Yes.
00:02:57 Yes. Yes. And is it a full and frank statement of everything that you can tell us of relevance to the questions that you were asked? Yes. And have you discussed your witness statement or your evidence with anybody before coming here today?
00:03:08 before coming here today? Only my legal team. Right. Okay. Now I want to start please by asking you some questions about your background and your qualifications, experience and employment history.
00:03:20 experience and employment history. Um
00:03:21 Um focusing focusing first if we can on your educational background. Do you hold any formal qualifications? Yes.
00:03:27 Yes. What are those? Um I'm a fellow of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers. And when were you awarded that
00:03:38 And when were you awarded that fellowship? Um
00:03:43 about six years ago probably fellowship. I've been a member for some time. Right. And what did you have to do to become a fellow? So um I did a diploma in building control surveying.
00:03:55 diploma in building control surveying. Um and the organization then was called the institution of architects and surveyors. Um the most of the membership at that time were local authority um construction professionals. Um and I
00:04:08 construction professionals. Um and I took the test of professional competence for building control surveyors. Right now you say six years ago that would be what 2016 would it? Um probably longer than that then. So it's probably more like eight years ago.
00:04:20 it's probably more like eight years ago. That was fellowship but I I've been a member for um a lot longer than that. And when did you obtain your diploma? Um
00:04:30 probably 25 years ago, something like that.
00:04:34 that. Uh do you have any qualifications relating to fire safety? Uh I'm a member of the institution fire engineers. Um but I didn't take the if
00:04:45 engineers. Um but I didn't take the if exams. Um I became a member because of the nature of my work. um and and by experience rather than by examination. Right. Right. So other than your
00:04:56 Right. Right. So other than your membership and of the if and membership and then later fellowship of the CABI um have you any other professional qualifications? No.
00:05:06 No. Now before you joined the BR as you tell us you did in 1999 which we'll come to is it right that you worked as a building control officer for the city of Westminster the London Burough of Tower
00:05:18 Westminster the London Burough of Tower Hamlets and Dartford Burough Council that's correct um now for the sake of clarity was that a single concurrent role covering three burs or was it three separate jobs sequent three separate jobs um I I also
00:05:30 sequent three separate jobs um I I also spent about a month working for um Butler and Young in between two jobs butler and Young was an approved inspector practice. Yes. And can you give us the dates of your employment by each of those local
00:05:42 your employment by each of those local authorities, Westminster, Tower Hamlets, and Dartford? I'm not sure I can do that from memory, but I think it's in my statement. Right. Can you give us which one was the first one? Uh I so I started as a trainee uh at the
00:05:53 Uh I so I started as a trainee uh at the at the city of Westminster. Um from there I went on to work at the London Bar Tower Hamlets. Um and from Tower Hamlets and moved on to work for Darthford Barounter,
00:06:04 Darthford Barounter, right? Uh, and what was the date uh was which I was interested in in your starting at City of Westminster. Um,
00:06:17 I would have been about 22. So, it's um It doesn't really help me. Best best part is 30 odd years ago. Uh, I can't remember the date. I think I think that's in my statement. Is it? I don't think it is. That's why I'm asking you.
00:06:28 asking you. Um, I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'm I can let you know if you Right. I Well, give me a feel though. How many how many years of experience before you went to the BR did you have as a building control officer?
00:06:45 Probably about nine years of experience. All right. And before that, before you started work as a building control officer, what did you do?
00:06:54 you do? Um I when I left school, I served an apprenticeship as a carpenter and joiner. Um, and once I completed that, um, quite quickly after that became a
00:07:05 um, quite quickly after that became a foreman, um, and eventually worked as a site manager, um, for the construction company that I'd served my apprenticeship with. Right.
00:07:15 Right. And did any of those roles involve fire safety?
00:07:19 safety? Not directly. As a carpenter, I would have installed some fire doors, so I would have been familiar with the the correct installation of a fire resisting door.
00:07:27 door. And which construction company was it? Uh
00:07:29 Uh Jay Jarvis and Sons. Um it doesn't exist in in this form that it it did then. And when you began work as a building control officer, did you have any training?
00:07:39 training? Um yes, they they um there were quite a few trainees at the time. The Westminster building control department was quite a large one. Um there were over 100 technical staff. Um and there
00:07:51 over 100 technical staff. Um and there may well have been eight or nine trainee building control officers there. Um and when we first started, they sent us on an introductory course um at a local
00:08:02 an introductory course um at a local technical college which ran through the the structure of the regulations, the nature of the work of a building control officer.
00:08:09 officer. Right. And that would have been in the 1990s.
00:08:11 1990s. Yes.
00:08:11 Yes. And so you would have been introduced, would you the approved inspector's regime? Yes. Yes.
00:08:16 Yes. And to the approved documents. Yep.
00:08:19 Yep. And that would have included, am I right? Approved document B dated 1992. Yes. So would you have become trained in that in its practical application as a building control officer?
00:08:31 building control officer? Yes, certainly. The the the training we had when we first started as uh as junior building inspectors um they went through the the concept of what an approved document is, how the functional
00:08:43 approved document is, how the functional requirements work, um the different mechanisms for enforcement and your sort of statutory duties and so on. Um the detail of the approved document was something that you learned on the job
00:08:54 something that you learned on the job working with the more senior and experienced building control officers. Uh right. So you didn't have any formal education or presentations given to you while you were at Westminster about the
00:09:07 while you were at Westminster about the content of the regul uh the regulation and the supporting approved documents or did you
00:09:12 did you not not in great detail at that time? No. Did you work on any any high-rise buildings uh and have to apply provisions in ADB to Yes. highrises
00:09:23 provisions in ADB to Yes. highrises during that time? Yes,
00:09:25 Yes, you did. And did any of them involve um external envelopes, cladding, insulation? Yeah, that issue cropped up from time to time. I dealt with some large buildings at times.
00:09:33 at times. Did
00:09:35 Did um what did your role in each of those three burough councils entail? Can you give us a brief summary of the kind of work that you did? Um so as a a building control officer um the the work splits
00:09:47 control officer um the the work splits essentially into two halves. Um there's um the process of plan checking, excuse me. So um somebody proposing to
00:09:58 excuse me. So um somebody proposing to carry out building work would send in plans and details and design calculations and so on into the local authority. Um and your job as the building control officer was to review those um and um make a decision on
00:10:13 those um and um make a decision on behalf of the local authority as to whether to approve, reject or conditionally approve those plans. Um that would often involve interacting with the design team um to work with
00:10:25 with the design team um to work with them to get to the point where they could achieve um approval if they didn't get it at at the first attempt. Um so that was one half of the job. The other half of the job would be to visit those
00:10:37 half of the job would be to visit those sites that you've been dealing with um on the desk so to speak um and follow the construction project through inspecting work periodically um
00:10:48 inspecting work periodically um witnessing tests of um of things like the drainage system and so on or the fire alarm system to see that everything was installed correctly as in so far as is possible from a a periodic survey.
00:10:59 is possible from a a periodic survey. Just picking up on something in that in that last answer. You say that your job is to make a decision on behalf of the local authority as to whether to approve, reject, or conditionally approve. And you told us that it would
00:11:11 approve. And you told us that it would involve interacting with the design team to work with them to get to the point where they could achieve approval if they didn't get it at first attempt. Yes.
00:11:22 Yes. Does that mean that you were you saw your role as a building control officer and those around you in the same roles as essentially assisting the client to get building control?
00:11:33 get building control? Um, that's probably taking it a bit far. How far would you take it? Um, so we were always advised never to tell a designer how to comply,
00:11:44 tell a designer how to comply, right?
00:11:45 right? Um, because that would be um essentially our job is to check their designs. So if if we're offering advice on how to comply then there's no one left to do any checking. That was something we were advised against quite strongly um both
00:11:58 advised against quite strongly um both as part of our training uh and I recall we had some instruction from the local authorities insurers that were quite clear that um if we stepped outside our statutory
00:12:09 if we stepped outside our statutory duties we might not as individuals be covered by um insurance if we were found to be liable. So, um, you had to be very cautious about the way you you spoke to people. So, it might be that you'd speak
00:12:21 people. So, it might be that you'd speak to a designer and say, "Look, I've got your plans on the table here. Um, for example, you're missing a staircase. Um, you I I've checked the I've measured the plans and you seem to be a staircase short. Um, what are you proposing to do
00:12:34 short. Um, what are you proposing to do about that?" And they might say offer a number of different options. And you might say to them, "Honestly, that's not going to work. I wouldn't bother with that." So you'd be trying to assist them finding the right solution, but it
00:12:46 finding the right solution, but it should be the design team that's um coming up with the solution. Was the was the line between advising the client and interacting with the
00:12:57 the client and interacting with the client to work with them to get to the point where they could achieve approval a clear one to you at all times? Um
00:13:05 Um it was a difficult path to tread sometimes. Um it's probably more so when you're working actually on site. So um you might visit a construction site and
00:13:16 you might visit a construction site and see a defect which might be a perhaps it's a a lintil a beam that spans over the top of a window. Um and they need to be up the right way. And I've certainly been on sites in the past where a brick
00:13:29 been on sites in the past where a brick layer has inserted the thing upside down. Um
00:13:33 down. Um if you tell them it's upside down, clearly that's also an instruction to turn it up the other way. Um, so that's a it can be a difficult path to tread and I think over my time working in
00:13:46 and I think over my time working in building control I think that line became more difficult to tread as the impact of competition in the building control market um took hold. Did you
00:13:57 control market um took hold. Did you ever advise or as you might put it interact with the design team to work with them to get to the point where they could achieve approval um in compliance with the regulations and particularly
00:14:10 with the regulations and particularly the approved documents? Yes.
00:14:13 Yes. Um now you told us you worked on highrises. Can you give us some idea of the frequency uh in those nine years in respect of which you worked on highrises as a BCO? Um, when you say highrises, do
00:14:25 as a BCO? Um, when you say highrises, do you mean all tall buildings or do you mean blocks of flats? Blocks of flats. Um, I didn't deal with that many blocks of flats. Um, most of the time I was working for certainly Westminster. Um, the taller buildings would tend to be
00:14:37 the taller buildings would tend to be office buildings. Um, when I worked for the London Bar to Tower Hamlets, I was working on the Canary Wolf development. So, that was mostly commercial development. Um and um although I did do
00:14:50 development. Um and um although I did do some work on some blocks of flats um as a as a in a support role um the teams the departments um
00:15:01 um had had a kind of specialist team some people were on leave and I was asked to review some plans of a block of flats. Um so I didn't do an awful lot of work on blocks of flats. When I went to work for Dartford um I was working on the
00:15:13 for Dartford um I was working on the blue water shopping center. So again, um, flats was probably not something I've got as much experience in as some other type of building. Thank you. Did you have a particular, uh, focus on the building regulations
00:15:25 uh, focus on the building regulations relating to fire safety in any of those three roles? Um, I think I developed an interest in fire safety. Um, it's one of the
00:15:36 fire safety. Um, it's one of the more complex part of the of of the application of the building regulations. Um
00:15:44 Um it's a as I'm sure the inquirers discovered over the last four years, it's a very complex subject. Um and I've developed an an interest in the subject. Um certainly when I worked on the
00:15:55 Um certainly when I worked on the Bluewater Shopping Center, um I had a significant role to play in the work we did looking at the fire safety strategy for the shopping center. Right. What about before that at
00:16:06 Right. What about before that at Westminster or uh at Canary Warf? Did you get involved in the fire strategies and the interaction of those or between those?
00:16:14 those? Absolutely. But but not not to the to no greater extent than I would have done that the structural design um the drainage ventilation and all the other provisions of the building regulation. And what what was it that sparked your
00:16:26 And what what was it that sparked your interest so to speak in fire safety?
00:16:31 Um probably because it is an interesting and complex subject. Right.
00:16:36 Right. And did you ever do any any self-education uh to um educate yourself or attend any courses off your own bat uh so that your interest um flowered into something with
00:16:47 interest um flowered into something with a a professional underpinning? Um I certainly went on a few short courses. I remember um in particular a short course I attended um run by Greenwich University.
00:16:59 Greenwich University. What was that? um that was looking at um computer modeling um which was at that time trying to trying to remember when it was but it was quite some time ago um
00:17:10 it was but it was quite some time ago um and and it was it was a it was a relatively new um issue that was cropping up in the world of fire safety engineering where you use computational
00:17:21 engineering where you use computational models to try and predict how um fires developed or how people moved in in complex buildings. Right. Who taught you there?
00:17:32 there? Um, Professor Galia was one of the um, one of the main speakers. Oh, okay. Um, now um, can I then turn to your employment at the BRE? Um, you joined the BRE in 1999 and I think and
00:17:45 joined the BRE in 1999 and I think and you stayed there until the 18th of September 2008. Yes. Yes.
00:17:48 Yes. Yes.
00:17:49 Yes. Uh, and when you joined the BRE, what role did you undertake? Um so I I joined the BR they I was essentially replacing somebody um and
00:18:00 essentially replacing somebody um and they had for some time had somebody with um
00:18:05 um sort of building regulations building control background. Um and that role in in very broad terms was to act as a if you like a translator
00:18:18 to act as a if you like a translator between um the fire scientists that worked there um and and the construction industry and particular um you know a key client to BR at the time um was the
00:18:31 key client to BR at the time um was the department um so somebody that understood the building regulations would understand what the department was looking for. uh and I could help translate between those the the client
00:18:42 translate between those the the client and and the science scientific team. Right. When you arrived, did you get any training on fire science, fire spread? Um the the the tests that have been developed uh either the tests in the
00:18:54 developed uh either the tests in the British standard or the fire notes, not any specific um extra training, right?
00:19:00 right? Um although I was working in a place where there was lots of fire testing carried carried out. though I would endeavor to um where the opportunity arose I would go to the laboratories,
00:19:11 arose I would go to the laboratories, get to know the lab technicians uh and the scientists. Um so I developed a a better understanding than most building control officers would have of
00:19:22 building control officers would have of that side of of fire engineering. Right.
00:19:27 Right. Um who recruited you?
00:19:32 Um, I responded to an ad advertise ad advertisement in a in a in I think it was the um it was Building magazine. Um, I can't remember the names of all the people that interviewed me. Peter Field is one of them.
00:19:43 is one of them. Right.
00:19:46 Right. And um to the best of your recollection and indeed to the best of your ability to answer the question, to your understanding, what gave you the skills
00:19:58 understanding, what gave you the skills and ability to understand a fire test and then translate that into industry speak or compliance or
00:20:10 industry speak or compliance or otherwise with the regulations or the approved documents?
00:20:17 uh experience I think right but no no no technical training yeah no specific training it was something that I learned work working
00:20:28 something that I learned work working working
00:20:29 working with the the vice scientists at B did were you offered any technical fire science or fire safety training by the B
00:20:41 science or fire safety training by the B not that I recall did you ask for No, don't I don't remember it. No. Did Did there ever come a time when you felt in your own mind that you might need some?
00:20:54 Not for the role that I was that I was carrying out. If if I was asked a question that was by its nature relating to fire science, I would go and speak to a fire scientist. It would probably be within a few desks of where I was
00:21:06 within a few desks of where I was sitting.
00:21:06 sitting. You use the word translate. Uh, most people hearing that would think that a translator translating from language A to language B would understand both languages. But although you understood language B, am I right in thinking you
00:21:18 language B, am I right in thinking you didn't understand language A, in other words, what you were translating from?
00:21:26 Um, I I think that's a very black and white um
00:21:31 white um point you're trying to make. Um, I think I was if a question arose where that that specific problem occurred, I'd be talking to a fire scientist, um, and
00:21:43 talking to a fire scientist, um, and we'd talk to each other until we both understood what the issues were. Right. I see. Okay. Well, let's explore that as we go. Okay. Um, now it's right to think that Peter Field, uh, who I think was a
00:21:54 Peter Field, uh, who I think was a senior colleague of yours at the BRE, tells us in his statement that you were recruited as, as he puts it, a building regulations expert specializing in fire. That's paragraph 40 of his statement at
00:22:05 That's paragraph 40 of his statement at BR 330's 43710, page 9. We don't have to go to it unless you'd like to see it. That's fine. But the phrase is building regulations expert specializing in fire. Is that
00:22:17 expert specializing in fire. Is that description accurate? Yes, I think that's a reasonable description of what what I was doing. Right. So, by 1999, you were, would you say, a building regulations expert
00:22:31 say, a building regulations expert specializing in fire? Yes.
00:22:35 Yes. And how had you gained that expert specialism by 1999? um through through the experience I'd gained working in building control for
00:22:48 gained working in building control for say nine nine years. Um and and certainly that was reinforced by the experience I I was gaining um at Bar and when you joined the B which team or division did you join?
00:23:01 division did you join? Um like a lot of large organizations the team names changed with um some frequency. As I recall, when I joined um what was then known as the fire research
00:23:12 what was then known as the fire research station, BRE had merged with what was a separate organization some years before um and the division of BRE relating to fire still
00:23:24 division of BRE relating to fire still retained the title FRS, Fire Research Station. Um and that was split into two groups. one dealt with
00:23:37 dealt with um very loosely one dealt with active fire protection and one dealt with passive fire protection. Um I I say very loosely because um the definition of those two terms
00:23:49 those two terms overlaps quite a lot. And which were you in? I was in the passive group. And who did you report to when you arrived?
00:24:04 The boss of that group was Nigel Smidies.
00:24:08 Smidies. Um Dr. Debbie Smith led the other group. Um
00:24:15 probably Martin Ship was my line manager. Certainly at certain points during my time at BR was but a lot of the time I would deal directly with Nigel Smitties. And I think it's right as you told us earlier but do confirm
00:24:26 as you told us earlier but do confirm please that when you joined you weren't given any particular training or induction
00:24:31 induction not not specific to to fire safety engineer engineering. No were you given any kind of briefing pack or introduction to the work that you would be doing?
00:24:42 would be doing? No I I I think I mean the nature of the work was very varied. Um, BR had a an unusual position in the construction industry. Um, so some of the work would
00:24:55 industry. Um, so some of the work would be um work that was coming from the department where B was being commissioned to do work looking at building regulations and and and and other issues. Um, but we'd also get
00:25:07 other issues. Um, but we'd also get consultancy work. Um, by by then B was fully privatized. Um so um a client would would call B because they had a a
00:25:18 would would call B because they had a a fire safety related problem. If it was one I could help them with then then we would put into put into place consultancy arrangements. Right.
00:25:27 Right. So the work was quite varied. Now um in your witness statement at paragraph six at page two and we can go
00:25:38 paragraph six at page two and we can go to that perhaps we should look at that. Um you say there that shortly after joining the BRE you were secounded to the department as the lead consultant on a contract to provide technical support on matters relating to fire safety. Yes.
00:25:51 on matters relating to fire safety. Yes. Yes.
00:25:51 Yes. Now can you recall more precisely when it was that that secondment started? Uh it was within a matter of weeks. Um, as as I recall, the um I think it was
00:26:05 as as I recall, the um I think it was Caroline Cousins, who would have been Anthony Bird's um line manager, um had said something along the lines, "We're paying for a man that we never see. I want to see that he's actually working
00:26:16 want to see that he's actually working for us." I think she had some doubts about whether the department was getting value for money from that contract. Um, and so it was decided that I should work at the department's premises so that
00:26:27 at the department's premises so that they could see that they were getting the support that they were paying for. Right. Two things from that. First of all, which contract is that the 5-year um framework contract?
00:26:38 um framework contract? Um,
00:26:40 Um, I think there was a specific um technical support contract at the time, right? And and and secondly, when you were interviewed for the job or when you first arrived, were you told that you were going to be going to sit at the
00:26:51 were going to be going to sit at the department for some time or or was it something that just arose a few weeks after your arriving at the BRE? Do you remember?
00:26:59 remember? Um it certainly wasn't something I was told I would be doing when I originally applied for the job. Um although it was clear working with the department was going to be an important part of the
00:27:10 going to be an important part of the role. Mhm. And and before you went to the department, did you meet anybody from the department? Anthony Bird, for example, or or Caroline Cousins? Uh, no. Although I knew Anthony um
00:27:21 Uh, no. Although I knew Anthony um personally, we'd both been trainees at Westminster at the same time. Right. Now, um when you went when your SECONT started a matter of weeks after joining. Uh, do you remember when in in
00:27:34 joining. Uh, do you remember when in in I think you said se is it September 1999 or when in se when in 1999 did you go across to the department first? Uh, I honestly can't remember. Um, but
00:27:45 Uh, I honestly can't remember. Um, but it was two or three days a week. Yes. Can you remember when that comment started?
00:27:53 It was very quick after the pretty much they they had the conversation. Um, the contract was already in place. Yes. So um within two or three weeks of joining B I started attending.
00:28:05 joining B I started attending. When in Can you give us the rough idea of the time of the year it was perhaps when in 1999? I think that's what we'd like to know. Okay. Well if I joined B in September it would have been October I um and when
00:28:17 would have been October I um and when you joined was it two to three days a week?
00:28:20 week? Yes.
00:28:21 Yes. So it was two to three days a week at the department and two to three days a week at the BR. So roughly 50/50. Yes.
00:28:27 Yes. Yes. Now, um, can you give us as briefly as you can a summary of the roles you worked in while you were at the BR in that 50% of the
00:28:38 you were at the BR in that 50% of the time between 1999 when you joined and 2008 when you moved full-time to the department? Um so when I was working at BR um I
00:28:51 Um so when I was working at BR um I tended to be involved in most of the contracts that um my director was dealing with the department. So anything that was
00:29:02 department. So anything that was commissioned by the department relating to building regulations I would tend to be involved if only to help the project team understand the department's objectives. Um and um so that might vary
00:29:15 objectives. Um and um so that might vary from a very small contribution to a to a project um to um something larger um and and then a mixture of consultancy projects um for a range of different um
00:29:27 projects um for a range of different um clients.
00:29:27 clients. Right. I see. I'm going to come back to that answer in a moment. Just before I do, can I ask you this? Were secments to the department from the BR common or were you the first and only?
00:29:41 common or were you the first and only? I think I was the only person there at the time.
00:29:43 the time. Right. Were you were you were you the first or was there some other second D before your time? Do you know? Um so the person I replaced was based at Bar and never never worked in the um
00:29:56 Bar and never never worked in the um actually in the offices of the department. As I say, I think it was um it was a decision by the department to make sure they were getting value for money that they were they didn't want to be paying for somebody that was sitting
00:30:07 be paying for somebody that was sitting in an office somewhere probably actually working on a on a separate contract but but booking their time to the to the department. Who did you replace? Um chap called Richard Reid.
00:30:20 Um chap called Richard Reid. And did you meet him before he left? Yes.
00:30:22 Yes. Did you have a handover with him? Um, he was quite a character, but yes, I did have a a a I think we had lunch together. Um, he he he essentially retired before I actually
00:30:34 he essentially retired before I actually started, so there was a there was a gap, but I did meet him. I see.
00:30:43 And when you arrived in 1999 at the department, I say arrived, half arrived. Um, did you report to Anthony Bird? Yes,
00:30:50 Yes, you did. But you say you knew him already.
00:30:53 already. Yeah. from your days at Westminster and what did your role very broadly on secondment involve? So most of the work that I was doing so Tony Edwards was the grade seven that
00:31:04 Tony Edwards was the grade seven that was leading on part B at the time. Uh Anthony was his assistant. Um there may have been another official there I can't remember. Um and I tended
00:31:17 there I can't remember. Um and I tended to deal with um you might want to call it the leg work. So uh the department receives a lot of inquiries from either the general public or people in construction. Um so I would
00:31:30 or people in construction. Um so I would deal with telephone inquiries um and draft replies to um letters that the department received. That was probably a large chunk of the work that I was
00:31:41 large chunk of the work that I was doing. Um, so you'd have queries about improved document B or how the regulations worked. Um, I would help uh resolve those. That freed up the time
00:31:52 resolve those. That freed up the time that um, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Bird had so they could go off and do other things. And in your statement, as you can see in front of you in paragraph six, you say that you were appointed as the lead
00:32:03 that you were appointed as the lead consultant on a contract to provide technical support to the department on matters relating to fire safety. Um did it relate exclusively to fire safety or were there other things in
00:32:15 safety or were there other things in relation to which you were expected to provide support? Uh only in relation to well the fire safety aspects of the building regulations would probably be a more accurate response. Right. So part B.
00:32:27 Right. So part B. Yes.
00:32:29 Yes. And
00:32:30 And while you were there secounded to the department in those nine years, did your role involve identifying areas for further research or for commissioning of further research?
00:32:44 I wouldn't say that was a specific role. Um, it's probably something that we discussed as a group from time to time. And where were you based physically during the seconddimement? Uh, in in in the department's offices.
00:32:56 Uh, in in in the department's offices. So I'd be sitting at a desk adjacent to Mr. Bird and Mr. Edwards. And that's two to three days a week. And during the other two to three days a week when you were working for the BR, were you uh at the BR's premises? That's right. In Gaston.
00:33:07 That's right. In Gaston. In Gaston at Watford. I see. Now were there any confidentiality arrangements put in place um as between the government on the one hand and the B on
00:33:18 government on the one hand and the B on the other?
00:33:22 I don't recall there being any specific um arrangements. Um but clearly I I would have a professional duty to my client not to disclose information that might be
00:33:34 disclose information that might be sensitive. I guess well to the point I don't remember it arising as a problem.
00:33:38 problem. No that may not have arisen as a problem. My question is a is really a a different one. Um when you went on Secondman shortly after you arrived at the Vre, were you um instructed or did
00:33:53 the Vre, were you um instructed or did you were you asked to agree to any kind of confidentiality arrangements whereby you were required to protect government data in your hands from the BE and B
00:34:04 data in your hands from the BE and B data from the government? No, I don't think I was. So you were free, were you, to tell your seniors at the department whatever you learned at the BE and you were free to tell your
00:34:16 the BE and you were free to tell your seniors at the B whatever you learned at the department. No, I don't think I would have been free to do that. That wouldn't been appropriate behavior for a professional. Well, a professional what
00:34:29 Well, a professional what um my view of what the duties of a of a construction professional is is to act in a professional way. So I wouldn't disclose information um from one client
00:34:41 disclose information um from one client to another. What were the boundaries of that? Um
00:34:50 I can't say it ever really arose as as as an issue specifically, but it's something that I would have been aware of. Did did you ever experience any occasion on which you on which you
00:35:01 occasion on which you on which you wanted or felt you should tell the government things that you'd learned at the B but couldn't tell them or vice versa?
00:35:11 I don't remember it arising right at all events. Would you agree with this that in relation to confidential data either from the B or from government you were left to be the
00:35:24 from government you were left to be the sole judge of what information you disseminated to which master? Yes.
00:35:34 Now looking back at paragraph six, you tell us that you led on the contract to provide support to MHCLG that led to the production of the 2006 edition of
00:35:45 the production of the 2006 edition of ADB. Now we're going to come on to that in some detail uh most unlikely today but for the moment was that this part of your role at the B or was that part of your workload on seconment to the
00:35:56 your workload on seconment to the government? So that was my role at B. Right.
00:36:00 Right. And when the contract was awarded to the B for um the production of that edition, did you play any part in its award either for the government or for the B?
00:36:12 either for the government or for the B? Um so I drafted the BR's uh tender application. Right.
00:36:20 Right. You drafted the BR's tender application which we will see. Um but you were also working for the government at the time weren't you? Yes.
00:36:28 Yes. And uh
00:36:31 And uh did you play any role in the award of that contract? No.
00:36:34 No. No.
00:36:37 In your secunded role at the department, did you commission or were you involved in commissioning the B to undertake research under the 5-year guarantee? No.
00:36:48 No. In April 2003, at the end of the 5-year guarantee, I think it's right we've heard from other witnesses and seen the documents that the BR entered into the fire safety framework agreement with the
00:36:59 fire safety framework agreement with the department. Yes. Yes.
00:37:00 Yes. Did you have any involvement in respect of the discussions or negotiations which took place um about entering into that agreement either in your secunded role to the department or in your role uh at
00:37:12 to the department or in your role uh at the BRE?
00:37:13 the BRE? No.
00:37:15 No. And in your secunded role at the department, did you or were you involved in commissioning the BRE to undertake research under the fire safety framework agreement? No.
00:37:24 No. No.
00:37:26 No. Now in September 2008, you left the BR and you became employed, I think, full-time by the department. Yes.
00:37:33 Yes. Uh and your your job title, I think, was principal construction professional. Yes,
00:37:39 Yes, correct.
00:37:39 correct. Yes. And that's the job title. Um, was there a job spec specification? Um, there must have been. I've been looking for it and I I I can't find what
00:37:51 looking for it and I I I can't find what how the job was originally described. Right. What did you understand it to involve?
00:37:58 So, it was joining the policy team that was responsible for building regulations. Um, it was um a generic technical post. Um so not exclusively
00:38:10 technical post. Um so not exclusively related to fire safety. Um my recollection is so the the deputy director that was leading the division at the time um was Shaa Dunn um and it
00:38:27 at the time um was Shaa Dunn um and it must have been during the interview process um we talked about what the role would be like and the division's function was the the way the division was working was
00:38:38 the way the division was working was changing at that time um in that the division was shrinking. Um there were less technical staff, there were less staff generally. Um and
00:38:50 there were less staff generally. Um and um the way the post was described to me um was um acting as a kind of informed client um role. So there was an
00:39:02 client um role. So there was an expectation that most of the project work that the division would be doing um would be contracted out um quite similar to the way that we I'd just recently completed the 2006 review of part B of
00:39:15 completed the 2006 review of part B of the building regulations providing that support in that contract. There was an expectation that most of the work that we were doing would be appointing a contractor and you'd be acting as the desk officer that was um project
00:39:28 desk officer that was um project managing the project and doing those parts of the work that a contractor couldn't do which would be interacting with ministers and sort of the government machine. Um so it was um
00:39:41 government machine. Um so it was um there was an expectation I'd be working on not just fire safety right and how different was that uh role from the role that you were
00:39:52 uh role from the role that you were performing as second to the department in the years before 2008. Um it was quite different. Um in what way?
00:40:06 Well, for a start, it covered more than just fire safety. Um, covered quite a wide range of different subject areas, and that would vary over time. Um, I had interacted
00:40:18 vary over time. Um, I had interacted with ministers, which is something that I don't think I ever did as a um contractor. Um, so whenever I I think that was one of the reasons why I was attracted to the post is I was always
00:40:30 attracted to the post is I was always fascinated by the the political half of the work that the division did that I was excluded from because I was a contractor. Um, the t job title principal construction professional, did that
00:40:42 construction professional, did that pre-exist your appointment or was it coined for your arrival?
00:40:48 I think it pre-existed and pre principal is is a generic term that describes people at the grade seven role. Um and construction per professional um I think was to indicate that it was a
00:41:00 um I think was to indicate that it was a technical post. Did you have a predecessor in that post?
00:41:09 To some extent it was Anthony Bird but Anthony had mainly been working on fire safety whereas my role was going to be more generic. So B. Yes. Bird on fire safety, but yours was wider. Yes.
00:41:20 Yes. And did Anthony Bird give you a handover at least so far as fire safety was concerned?
00:41:30 I don't remember a specific handover process. Anthony was still in the department and would be um uh my line manager. So I think we we interacted regularly anyway. So I don't
00:41:42 interacted regularly anyway. So I don't think that was that was necessary. Now, did you get any training when you receive when you joined the department?
00:41:53 No, not not a um sort of introduction to the civil service, although over time I did do some civil service related training.
00:42:00 training. Well, I'll come back to that in a moment, but did you get any technical training on the role you were going to perform?
00:42:05 perform? No.
00:42:06 No. Now, you say in your statement at paragraph seven, it's at the foot of the page, and we can turn to page three. um that and you can take it off the page that you were responsible for um uh
00:42:17 that you were responsible for um uh providing policy advice to ministers in relation to technical aspects of the building regulations with fire safety taking up 50% of the time and the rest of the time taken up on parts J which is
00:42:28 of the time taken up on parts J which is combustion appliances and fuel storage 2010 electrical safety 2013 part P and security and dwellings part Q 2015 that's right is it? Yes. I I I should
00:42:41 that's right is it? Yes. I I I should say the 50% is not necessarily an accurate measure. It's it's my estimate of of a quite a long period of time where I worked on a wide range of different activities. Yes. And it's an estimate of of an average. I understand as you say. Um did
00:42:54 average. I understand as you say. Um did you get any training in relation to those other aspects of the building regulations and approved documents, combustion appliances, electrical safety, security and dwellings?
00:43:05 No. Did you get any training on the building regulations and the approved documents?
00:43:16 Not. No. And therefore, it would follow no training on part B and approved document B.
00:43:23 B. Yeah. None of that. So, so far as you could see, the department was the department was relying on your experience of fire safety and your your years with the BRE or half years perhaps with the B to
00:43:35 or half years perhaps with the B to date. Yes. Yes. Yes. Now, if we go down please to the foot of page three, you can see the last line or last sentence of paragraph 10. Then you say
00:43:47 sentence of paragraph 10. Then you say this. Throughout my entire career as a civil servant, I've considered myself accountable to ministers pursuant to the civil service code. Did that include the nine years during which you were a
00:43:58 nine years during which you were a secondde from the BRE half of the week? Um, I wasn't the civil servant, so no. No, but you were secounded to the department and you were working in the
00:44:09 department and you were working in the department with Anthony Bird for half of your working week. Did you not regard yourself as bound by the civil service code at that at that stage for those years?
00:44:22 I don't remember thinking about it then. Um I'm not sure I was particularly aware of it. Presumably nobody, whether Anthony Bird or Bob Ledson or anybody else, told you that you should at least
00:44:33 else, told you that you should at least have a look at the civil service code and familiarize yourself with the principles. I don't remember having that conversation with anybody.
00:44:43 Um, did you when you arrived full-time in 2008 at the department, did you at that stage get any training on the civil service code? um over time um there
00:44:55 service code? um over time um there there's there there's a number of mandatory training um packages that civil servants are expected to um go through um and I worked my way through
00:45:06 through um and I worked my way through all of those which certainly did include looking at the civil service code. Right. So you were is it right you were required to and did get ongoing training or refresher training on the on the
00:45:17 or refresher training on the on the code?
00:45:18 code? Yes.
00:45:18 Yes. And and what form did that take? Was that self-education based on a pack of documents you were given or did you go to lectures and um it's mostly online um sort of packages
00:45:28 packages and who supervised that exercise? So did were there forms you had to fill in like CPD or were you just left to get on with it?
00:45:35 it? Uh it's a it's an automated system. Uh it's become more sophisticated over the years but um yeah it there isn't a human being checking that you've done it. Um
00:45:46 being checking that you've done it. Um the system reports whether you have or not. Right. And did anybody ever pick you up or scrutinize whether you had or hadn't done the civil service training
00:45:57 hadn't done the civil service training in it online format? Um I may have got an automated reminder from time to time from the system. Um I I distinctly remember um probably
00:46:08 I distinctly remember um probably sometime into my time at at the department um as a division we had a training session where we talked about the civil service code. Um I think I organized it. Right. Now, you also say in paragraph 10
00:46:20 Right. Now, you also say in paragraph 10 uh that you reported to Anthony Bird until he left the department in 2013, at which point you started reporting to Richard Harold. Yes. Yes.
00:46:28 Yes. Um, of you and Anthony Bird, who had the greater, as far as you could tell, and I know it's a judgment call for you, but who had the greater or more detailed knowledge of the building regulations and the approved documents on fire
00:46:40 and the approved documents on fire safety? You or him? I'd regard us as equals. Right. And what about you and Richard Harold?
00:46:47 Harold? Um, in terms of fire safety, I would have more experience and expertise than and and how did they respectively oversee your work? By which I mean functionally. Let me give you an example. How um
00:47:00 Let me give you an example. How um frequently did you report to them?
00:47:06 Um there wasn't really a formal reporting process. It was more that we were in a team that was coll-located and we would talk about issues that were arising as and when we felt necessary.
00:47:19 arising as and when we felt necessary. Right. You say colloccated physically sitting in an office near each other. Yes. Um a big open plan office and we were all grouped in the same area. Did you have regular meetings whereby you told them what you were doing,
00:47:31 you told them what you were doing, raised any concerns with them, flagged any issues, uh or vice versa? Um there'd be regular divisional meetings um and
00:47:44 there would be the system changes over time. There was this one or two um times a year where you'd have um a a sort of progress review with your line manager. And who would attend those divisional
00:47:55 And who would attend those divisional meetings?
00:47:56 meetings? Um well it be the entire division would be invited. Um it's rare that the whole division was available. was about on average about 30 people I think is right. I see. And how and they would be
00:48:09 right. I see. And how and they would be um how you say one or two times a year. Uh no sorry that that that would be a meeting with your line manager. So it's a one-to-one meeting with your line manager. Um you expect that happen once or twice a year. So that would be a formal review of of how you're getting
00:48:21 formal review of of how you're getting on and and and whether you needed any training um and so on. And how often would the divisional meet these divisional meetings take place? Um on average once a month I would have thought.
00:48:31 thought. Okay. uh and you say 30 who were the most senior people who attended
00:48:38 the head of division. Um so Bob Ledson or his predecessors right now is it fair to say that throughout your time at the depart at the department uh and certainly from 2008
00:48:50 uh and certainly from 2008 you were the official with the most detailed breadth and depth of knowledge on the building regulations and guidance so far as it related to fire safety. Yes.
00:48:59 Yes. Yes. And you were the person I think is it right in the department to whom others would turn including Anthony Bird, Richard Harold, Bob Ledson when a a problem about fire safety cropped up?
00:49:11 a problem about fire safety cropped up? Yes.
00:49:11 Yes. Yeah. Now in November 2017, is it right you were promoted to head of technical policy at MHCLG as it had I think by then become?
00:49:22 think by then become? Yes.
00:49:22 Yes. And I think at that stage you reported to Bob Ledom who was the deputy director of the building regulations division. Yes. Yeah. Um, and are you still in that role? Head of technical policy.
00:49:33 role? Head of technical policy. No.
00:49:34 No. What role are you now in? Uh, I'm working uh in the planning director.
00:49:38 director. And when did you leave the role of head of technical policy? About 6 months ago. And why did you leave that role? Um, I was encouraged to find an alternative post um the the the
00:49:51 alternative post um the the the challenges associated with um my attendance at the inquiry. um and um the attention I was getting um in in the
00:50:02 attention I was getting um in in the press would make it was making it increasingly difficult for me to carry out my duties. So um it was I was advised to find another post um so that
00:50:15 advised to find another post um so that the work that my team was doing could carry on without interference. So that would be in September October last year 2021 I think so. Yes, something like that.
00:50:26 I think so. Yes, something like that. Right. I want to ask you some questions about B, please. Next. Um, the building regulations advisory committee. Um, it's right to think that B is sponsored by the department. Yes.
00:50:37 the department. Yes. Yes.
00:50:38 Yes. And at page seven, paragraph 17, page five, if we can go to that, please. Um, you describe the role of B and you say this at the foot of the page. Pursuant to section 14 of the building act, the
00:50:50 to section 14 of the building act, the secretary of state is required to consult the building regulations advisory committee for England, Brack, and other representative persons he thinks appropriate on proposals for substantive changes to the regulations.
00:51:02 substantive changes to the regulations. Brack can also offer advice to the secretary of state on any building regulations matters as well as the main committee. Brack will often set up topic working groups uh to work on specific
00:51:13 working groups uh to work on specific issues. the main B group and any working groups established will include experts from across the industry. Now first how are or how were B members appointed at
00:51:25 are or how were B members appointed at least during the years 2008 to 2017? Um there's a formal uh it's subject to the government's formal public appointments process. Uh it's not
00:51:36 appointments process. Uh it's not something that I'm expert in but I'm aware that there's a a a formal process. Um I think members are invite people are invited to apply through adver ad advertisements in the newspapers and so
00:51:47 advertisements in the newspapers and so on. Um and then they go through a formal process. Um so I've never been directly involved in that. So Right. And what was what was your role in respect of B? Um, as a policy
00:52:00 in respect of B? Um, as a policy official, um, if I needed to, um, appraise Brack of some work that I was involved in, um, then I would present
00:52:11 involved in, um, then I would present the question to the committee and take note of what they the advice they gave. Um, and that would tend to then
00:52:22 Um, and that would tend to then help us develop the advice that we gave to ministers. And what about in respect of part the part B working group? What was your role in respect of that? Um
00:52:33 Um so
00:52:37 where the part B work so the working working groups are not permanently permanent committees whereas B is a standing committee. Um so where a piece of work is underway um we would say we
00:52:50 of work is underway um we would say we would go to Brack and say we're planning a project of review of a particular part of the regulations um seek um volunteers from the main committee to sit on that working group um and then we would then
00:53:04 working group um and then we would then find appropriate experts to sit on the working group alongside them to form um an expert group that would steer us through that process. Now, as a policy
00:53:15 through that process. Now, as a policy official, uh, who decided whether or not you needed to present something either to Brack or to any Part B working group? Who made that decision?
00:53:31 The decision would probably rest with um the deputy director for the division and the chair of the committee. The chair of the committee wouldn't know, would they, um, uh, what needed to
00:53:44 know, would they, um, uh, what needed to be presented to them until it was presented. Um, well, the chair of the committee could ask
00:53:50 could ask certainly, but where they didn't and and a decision was made to appraise either B or a part B working party or any other working party for that matter of a
00:54:01 working party for that matter of a policy matter. Who would make the decision?
00:54:04 decision? Who would make the decision that a particular policy question needed to go to Bragg?
00:54:09 to Bragg? Um the decision would rest with the deputy director would rest with them ultimately. But who would um who who would and what would underpin that decision? Um that would be myself or the other
00:54:20 Um that would be myself or the other policy officials. Now you uh refer uh on the previous page page five to the requirement to consult
00:54:31 page five to the requirement to consult on proposals for substantive changes to the regulations. Um was that a requirement also in relation to substantive changes or
00:54:43 relation to substantive changes or indeed any changes to the approved documents? Um I think that's a a topic of debate amongst government lawyers whenever I've spoken to them. Um some will say this relates only to the reg the statutory
00:54:55 relates only to the reg the statutory duty to consult relates only to the regulations. Um uh but there's a presumption um that the technical aspects would also
00:55:06 um that the technical aspects would also be consulted on. Um I think others in the past have suggested that it should apply to both the regulations and the guidance. Right. Custom practice for all the time I've ever been involved in this is that um
00:55:18 ever been involved in this is that um you would consult on either changes to the regulations or the approved documents. It would be good practice to do so and and against government policy not to.
00:55:32 So just to be clear, your understanding from the word go, by which I mean sometime in 1999 when you became secounded, was that if if there were to be any changes to the approved
00:55:45 be any changes to the approved documents, you personally would have to take it to brag.
00:55:51 brag. You thought that? Yes.
00:55:54 Yes. Was there any occasion on which you took legal advice about that that you can recall? Don't tell me what the legal advice was, but was there an occasion on which you remember taking it?
00:56:07 I I I I have a vague recollection of having this conversation with government lawyers in the past, but I I I couldn't say when not.
00:56:18 Now, you've used the word substantive change in that third line in paragraph 17. What did you what do you mean by substantive?
00:56:29 I have a feeling I've used that word because it's in in the act but I may be wrong right um but substantive means something which has effect um so if a
00:56:42 has effect um so if a for instance correcting a typographical error um which is obviously a typographical error um then we would consider that's not a substantive change. What about a clarification?
00:56:54 change. What about a clarification? And that would be a substantive change. And who would decide what was substantive for the purposes of the decision whether or not to take it to B for approval
00:57:07 in terms of talking to B? That would be a collective decision amongst the division which would include myself. Yeah. And would it be right to say given what you told us before that the division was highly reliant on your
00:57:20 division was highly reliant on your expertise and experience about whether or not the change was or wasn't substantive
00:57:31 in relation to fire safety. But I this is the sort of thing that you discuss. I think you know you wouldn't need to be an engineer to recognize whether a change is likely to impact. So I' I'd expect my DD to my deputy director to
00:57:43 expect my DD to my deputy director to have an opinion. Now if we turn to page 18 of you I'm sorry paragraph 18 page six next page of your statement u you say this in given
00:57:55 your statement u you say this in given the need to consult B and other representative persons or substantive changes to the regulations. It would be highly unusual to make quick in quoted in quotation marks quick changes to
00:58:06 in quotation marks quick changes to either the approved documents or the regulations. Any substantive change would have to be assessed against government regulatory policy of the day, discussed with the main B group and potentially a B working group
00:58:18 potentially a B working group established specifically to consider the proposed change subjected to public consultation and then scrutinized by ministers and sometimes by parliament. As such, one of the roles of the
00:58:29 As such, one of the roles of the technical policy officials within the department can involve working with trade bodies, insurers, building control bodies, etc. to find interim solutions to issues with the regulations until
00:58:41 to issues with the regulations until such time as a formal review of the part of the regulations or or approved document is completed. Now, first you mentioned the word parliament there. Why would Parliament ever need to scrutinize a change to the
00:58:53 ever need to scrutinize a change to the regulations which were delegated to the Secretary of State or to the the approved documents? Um so um I'm I'm not an expert in parliamentary procedure but my there
00:59:04 parliamentary procedure but my there there are two sorts of statutory instrument um that follow two different parliamentary procedures. Um both have the potential for parliamentary scrutiny. Um I can't I I
00:59:17 parliamentary scrutiny. Um I can't I I always get the names of them around the wrong way. Um but building regulations changes um would be laid in parliament um and parliament could choose to debate
00:59:29 um and parliament could choose to debate uh the content of those regulations if it wanted to. Um I I think the parliamentary phrases they would pray against the regulations. And what about the approved do I'm so sorry I've done what I said I wouldn't
00:59:40 sorry I've done what I said I wouldn't do. Um and um uh I certainly have at least one
00:59:47 least one yeah one experience of that happening um which was in relation to I think it was the energy efficiency requirements. There were some changes to the statutory instrument in relation to energy
00:59:58 instrument in relation to energy efficiency um and some an MP prayed against those regulations and so a debate debate followed. So changes to the regulations are available to parliament and sometimes scrutinized by
01:00:11 parliament and sometimes scrutinized by parliament. And what about the approved documents? Would they ever be scrutinized by parliament? No.
01:00:16 No. No. If an urgent change either to the regulations or to the approved documents and let's take B here was required for safety reasons and the recommended change was based on research and
01:00:28 change was based on research and experience. Do you agree that substantive changes could be prioritized with B rushed through? Yes.
01:00:36 Yes. And as you say, I think in the last sentence of paragraph 18, we've seen you could always work with trade bodies, insurers, and building control bodies to find interim solutions. Yes. Yes.
01:00:45 Yes. And in summary, what form of what form would those interim solutions take? Um you most of the the trade bodies across the industry produce guidance for
01:00:56 across the industry produce guidance for their members um often in relation to achieving compliance with building regulations. So they would provide an extra layer of detail on the guidance
01:01:07 extra layer of detail on the guidance that was in the approved document. Um and so we could work with those bodies to
01:01:16 to um fill in the blanks uh and assist interpretation where there were there was confusion or some other reason why you might want to extend that. Right. what what other forms of interim
01:01:28 Right. what what other forms of interim solutions can you think of or were you thinking of when you write your statement? Um
01:01:35 Um I guess the other area of of of um of guidance available would be um British standards. So the the technical team in the division would attend would be
01:01:47 the division would attend would be members of numerous different British standards committees and could therefore influence some of the industry standards that again provided essentially a second tier of guidance
01:01:58 tier of guidance um and um you may be able to influence the training that some some bodies get as well. But the British standards wouldn't be likely to produce an urgent
01:02:09 wouldn't be likely to produce an urgent interim solution in the same way that an urgent circular rushed out by for example the BCA might. Yeah, it depends on your definition of urgent I guess. Um and it whether it's
01:02:22 urgent I guess. Um and it whether it's months or years. I was thinking more of weeks. Okay. Now um before we move on, I just want to ask you some questions about some particular definitions in fire classifications just to set the ground.
01:02:34 classifications just to set the ground. And I'd like to start please with national class N. Um when did you first become familiar with that classification?
01:02:46 When I first started as a building control officer I think so Westminster sometime in the '9s. Yes.
01:02:52 Yes. What was the definition of class N? Um
01:02:56 Um it's quite a complex definition which is set out in in the building regulations. It's unusual in that it's in the regulations and not in the guidance now um and not um in a standard. Um it
01:03:08 um and not um in a standard. Um it relates to a combination of two reaction to fire tests um BS476 parts six and seven from memory. Um you do a surface
01:03:20 seven from memory. Um you do a surface spread spread of flame test. If you get a class one rating, you then go to the fire propagation test um which gives you more information about heat release.
01:03:31 more information about heat release. And when did you first learn what you've just told us?
01:03:41 Wouldn't have been from day one as a building control officer. I think initially I would have just seen class O as a as a as a a classification. But at some point in over the years, I've
01:03:52 some point in over the years, I've learned
01:03:53 learned how it's actually how the test is carried out. And presumably at the BRE, you would have seen them carried out. Yes.
01:04:02 Yes. They're both small scale tests, aren't they?
01:04:05 they? Yes.
01:04:06 Yes. Uh and part seven, I think I think you've agreed, but agree again. That's a surface spread of flame test. Yes. Uh and what's your understanding about the origins of that test?
01:04:19 about the origins of that test? Um they're quite old tests. They've been around um probably since the 50s, I think. 50s or certainly the 60s, but probably the 50s. Um and
01:04:31 probably the 50s. Um and they were an attempt like all small fire tests, they're an attempt to um replicate uh a particular behavior
01:04:42 um replicate uh a particular behavior that's seen in um larger, you know, real fires. um at at the smaller scale. Um and so the developers of of BS476 part 7
01:04:56 developers of of BS476 part 7 um had concluded that surface spread of flame was a a key indicator of how a construction product might influence the develop the growth of a fire in a room.
01:05:08 develop the growth of a fire in a room. So they used that as a um as a measure of classification. Indeed. And in that last answer you I think answered my next question. You said develop the growth of fire in a room. It's right, isn't it, that the the
01:05:21 room. It's right, isn't it, that the the the part 7 test PS476 part 7 tested flame spread within corridors within buildings as at its origin. It's an interior interior fire test. I
01:05:33 interior interior fire test. I I I think it's quite a complex relationship between those two things. Um I don't think the test is attempting to replicate the environment that a
01:05:44 to replicate the environment that a product would experience in a corridor but um the classification system as I understand it was using that surface spread of flame test and correlating it
01:05:57 spread of flame test and correlating it with fire growth in a a corridor. Yes.
01:06:03 Yes. Dr. Smith, Debbie Smith, I think, agreed with very broad proposition that the the reference scenarios to to use that expression for both the BS476 part 6 and
01:06:14 expression for both the BS476 part 6 and seven tests was an internal fire. Was that your understanding? I'd be cautious with the use of the word reference scenario. That was a term that was used
01:06:25 was used um in the development of the European fire classification system. The impression I get from the development of the 476 tests um is that they weren't
01:06:38 the 476 tests um is that they weren't trying to directly replicate on a smaller scale a particular environment. They had found that surface spread of flame um was an indicator of how
01:06:49 flame um was an indicator of how something would behave in a corridor. So I I I think it would be it would be incomplete to just use the term reference scenario for for for both things. Um but Dr. Smith is better
01:07:01 things. Um but Dr. Smith is better qualified than me to answer that question.
01:07:02 question. And do you agree that there's been no fundamental change to part seven since its initial development which I think yeah as far as I'm aware. Yeah. Right.
01:07:14 Right. Uh and and part six which I think you told us correctly was fire propagation. Um, how would you define fire propagation in simple terms?
01:07:26 propagation in simple terms? Um,
01:07:27 Um, it
01:07:29 it as I understand it and again people like Dr. Smith are better qualified than me to answer that question. Um, is it's about the amount of heat that a material
01:07:40 about the amount of heat that a material releases in the particular conditions of that test. And what's your understanding about the origins of that test? Um again my understanding is that
01:07:54 Um again my understanding is that that additional test was developed at some point in history because it was felt that the surface spread of flame test didn't separate out
01:08:05 test didn't separate out um some products that were considered to be a problem. So at some point the standards writers decided that they wanted an extra tier of classification um and that the fire propagation test
01:08:17 um and that the fire propagation test was the most appropriate one. You say some products that were uh considered to be a problem. What products?
01:08:24 products? I I honestly don't I'm I'm I'm referring back to a textbook I wrote read probably 10 years ago. Right. Which textbook? Um, I think it may well have been um a book
01:08:36 I think it may well have been um a book written by my predecessor at BRE, Richard Reed. Uh, it's a book called Aspects of Fire. Um, it's it's not an easy read, but um, if you're looking for
01:08:47 easy read, but um, if you're looking for the history of some of these provisions, that's a good place to start. And, um, do you agree that the part six test was developed for and intended to test fire propagation within a
01:08:58 test fire propagation within a compartment?
01:09:01 That's my understanding. Yes. Yeah. That that is Professor Bisby's opinion in his his report. Uh that's paragraph 156 of page 32. If you need it, we can look at it if you like. Would
01:09:12 it, we can look at it if you like. Would you disagree with that? Um
01:09:17 I can't imagine. I mean, he's clearly more expert than me in terms of the the science of fire dynamics. Um, in terms of the history of those standards, um, I I think it's
01:09:30 those standards, um, I I think it's again, it's a more complex question in that the fire propagation test isn't replicating a a particular scenario. It's attempting
01:09:41 a a particular scenario. It's attempting to measure the nature of a that the people developing those tests have identified a material behavior that they consider is
01:09:52 material behavior that they consider is important
01:09:54 important to predict how that material behaves um probably in in a room to start with but that the test itself isn't attempting to replicate those those conditions. No, I
01:10:06 replicate those those conditions. No, I follow. Let let so I can put it to you cleanly just in case we miss a nuance. Can I show you what he says? Can we please have up LBY2 61
01:10:17 61 LBY2
01:10:19 LBY2 61
01:10:21 61 page 32.
01:10:44 I may have the reference wrong. It may be LB YP
01:10:48 be LB YP 2,
01:10:52 but that's that is that is what we want. Thank you. Can we please have page 15 page page 32 paragraph 156 uh and uh you can see there's a title
01:11:03 uh and uh you can see there's a title paragraph 4.2 to the fire propagation test.
01:11:07 test. A and if you uh look uh at what he says there he explains the history in the 1950s series of 1/5if scale compartment fire tests at the fire research station it was found third line it was found
01:11:19 it was found third line it was found that products that achieved the same classification in the surface spread of flame tests sometimes resulted in quite different fire behavior in the scaled compartments and he refers to herd and ficial the
01:11:31 and he refers to herd and ficial the 1954 publication and then he says this thus it was decided to develop a new test method which could better represent and be used to distinguish between the fire hazards presented by products when
01:11:43 fire hazards presented by products when used within a real compartment. Uh and then continuing the idea of the new test was that it should be possible to correlate its results with the
01:11:54 to correlate its results with the observations from the scaled compartment fires.
01:11:58 fires. And it continues in the next sentence to the end of the paragraph. And there's a reference again there to uh the growth of a compartment fire. Um, would you disagree uh with what I've shown you
01:12:09 disagree uh with what I've shown you there from Professor Bisby's report? No, I think he's saying the same thing as me, but more eloquently. Right.
01:12:15 Right. Now, it's right to think in summary that neither the 476 part 6 or 477 part 7 tests were designed for an external cladding fire scenario. Were they?
01:12:28 cladding fire scenario. Were they? Not that I'm aware of. And in fact, it's right that it's a test for linings. lining materials, isn't it? On walls and ceilings.
01:12:40 I think that's what they had in mind when they were developing it. Yes.
01:12:44 Yes. In in the light of that, what did you understand at any time to be the relevance of those tests to the assess to the assessment of the risk of external fire spread in the event of a
01:12:55 external fire spread in the event of a cladding fire? Um, I don't think until after the Granville Tower fire I'd ever given that any deep consideration. Um I I think the point here is if you're
01:13:06 Um I I think the point here is if you're asking the question are they appropriate for ex considering how something might behave in an environment other than um what they were considering. I think
01:13:17 what they were considering. I think you'd have to look at the the information you get from the test, which is an indication of how much heat the product develops um in the test um and decide whether that correlates with the
01:13:30 decide whether that correlates with the situation you're trying to regulate. So, it doesn't preclude using it for other purposes. Sorry, that's quite a complex concept.
01:13:40 concept. Well, you say it doesn't preclude it. Um I think it's right, isn't it, that the surface spread of flame test is actually a horizontal spread of flame test, isn't it? It's not a vertical spread of flame test.
01:13:51 test. That's right. Um and therefore, even if it were, let it be assumed assessed to be suitable for external fire spread, it would only test or show the results of a particular product uh
01:14:02 product uh burning horizontally and and not burning vertically.
01:14:08 True. I I I imagine for most products the two things correlate. Well, you say that. Why do you say that? Um, just based on my experience of having seen the test, I imagine something that produces flame spread
01:14:19 something that produces flame spread horizontally will probably do so vertically. Right. But have you ever seen any scientific no analysis about the distinctions between horizontal and vertical fire growth
01:14:30 horizontal and vertical fire growth within the confines of BS476 part 6 and 7?
01:14:33 7? No.
01:14:34 No. Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'm I'm Is it It's 11:15.
01:14:39 11:15. Yes.
01:14:39 Yes. Uh I'm at uh I'm I'm sort of mid topic. I think this would be an appropriate moment to break, but I am not. If you consider that to be the case, I think we'll take a break now. I'm a little shorter of where I would have liked to have been at that point,
01:14:50 have liked to have been at that point, but doesn't matter. Right. Well, Mr. Martin, as you know, we have a break during each session. And uh this is obviously a good time at which to take the break for this morning. So, we'll stop there. We'll resume, please, at 11. And uh now you've started giving
01:15:02 at 11. And uh now you've started giving your evidence. So I have to ask you as I have everybody else, please don't discuss your evidence with anyone outside this room. All right. Yes, sir.
01:15:10 Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Would you go with the usher, please?
01:15:23 Thank you very much. Half 11, please.
01:32:13 would you ask Mr. Martin to come back in please
01:32:28 right Mr. Martin ready to carry on? Yes, sir.
01:32:30 Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Martin, let's go next, please, to class north and look at it within append uh approved document B. Um, it's at CLG1607,
01:32:43 CLG1607, please, page 122. And what I'm showing you here is appendix A, paragraph 13. And I'm assuming you're familiar with this, at least now. Um, and let's read
01:32:54 this, at least now. Um, and let's read it together. It says this, the highest national product performance classification for lining materials is class N. This is achieved if a material
01:33:05 class N. This is achieved if a material or the surface of a composite product is either a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or b a class one material which has a fire
01:33:17 a class one material which has a fire propagation index I of not more than 12 and a subindex little i1 of not more than six. Now I've read that to you
01:33:28 than six. Now I've read that to you slowly and with some deliber. Can you can we take it that you're familiar with that definition? Yes.
01:33:33 Yes. Were you always familiar with that definition?
01:33:42 Probably not in my early days in my building control career. Right. Um but it if I'd have needed to look at it, I would have known where to look. Right now, I've read it slowly and deliberately to you. Um,
01:33:54 deliberately to you. Um, when do you remember first sitting down or and looking at what I've just read to you?
01:34:03 I'm not sure I can place that entirely. Right.
01:34:07 Right. Are you aware of any other definition of class N in any other guidance? And I should just say there is a definition very similar to this in appendix E. But are you aware of any other
01:34:18 But are you aware of any other definition of class N? No, I mean it's a creation that that it was created for the building regulations in the building regulations. I'm not sure exactly when it first appeared. Um, but it would have been early on sort of 1965, something
01:34:30 been early on sort of 1965, something like that. Let's go to BR30's 47668, please, page 32. And what I'm going to show you here is David Crowder's third witness statement of the inquiry at
01:34:42 witness statement of the inquiry at paragraph 134. And he says this having set out uh class N above it with some underlinings that you can see just note those. He he's underlined the surface of
01:34:55 those. He he's underlined the surface of a composite product and then a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility. And then he goes on at 134 to say, "The underlined text above means in my
01:35:06 underlined text above means in my opinion that an ACM panel or indeed any composite product which has a surface formed throughout of any of the metals which are deemed to be non-combustible, including aluminium, zinc, copper, and
01:35:18 including aluminium, zinc, copper, and any alloys of these meet the definition for class N without the need for testing provided they do not have a surface coating."
01:35:28 coating." Now, if the underlined text, as I've just shown you, we just go back to paragraph 133 is there
01:35:38 is there and you can see what is underlined there. The surface of a composite product and within paragraph A composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility. Now, my question is, having shown you
01:35:49 Now, my question is, having shown you that, do you agree or have you at any time previously agreed with David Crowder's reading of that definition?
01:36:00 I don't think until um Dr. Crowder gave his evidence I'd given that any consideration. Do you agree that it is the case that any composite product so long as the
01:36:12 any composite product so long as the outer surface of that product is composed throughout of non-combustible material or as a material of limited combustibility achieves class not without the need for any testing.
01:36:28 That appears to be what it says. Um, I've never come across anybody presenting it in that way before. Right. Does that that that's helpful.
01:36:41 Right. Does that that that's helpful. You've never come across that argument before. Is that what you're telling us? That's correct. Is it an argument with which you agree or have ever agreed?
01:36:52 Um,
01:36:57 I say it's never come up before, so I've never agreed with it before. Um, it does seem like a reasonable interpretation of the language. Um, I think I was aware of
01:37:08 the language. Um, I think I was aware of people
01:37:11 people criticizing classo in the past for the fact that it was possible to achieve a classo classification with a a material of limited combustibility on
01:37:22 a material of limited combustibility on the surface. Um, I think I always assumed that was in relation to testing i.e. If you took a composite product
01:37:34 i.e. If you took a composite product which had a material limited combustibility on its surface, it would probably pass the test. Um, I'd never come across the argument that you wouldn't need to test it. Um, although I
01:37:45 wouldn't need to test it. Um, although I guess the the outcome is the same. When you say the outcome is the same, the outcome might very well not be the same depending on what the test uh result was.
01:37:56 was. No, that's my point is is um
01:38:00 um my my recollection is where people have raised this the issue of or criticized class O it's been that um a product which has a material limited
01:38:12 which has a material limited combustibility at its surface may well pass the test um and would be classed as class O um whereas this argument is saying you don't need to do the test for it to be
01:38:23 don't need to do the test for it to be classed O. So the outcome is it's class O one way or the other. Right. But that wouldn't be a reasonable argument, would it? You said it was re a reasonable interpretation. That couldn't be a reasonable interpretation, could
01:38:34 be a reasonable interpretation, could it?
01:38:36 it? Uh sorry, which interpretation? If it's a reasonable interpretation, that would mean, wouldn't it, that you could have a piece of highly combustible or even explosive material um which would achieve national class N without
01:38:47 would achieve national class N without being tested so long as it was lined on its outer face with a for example a 1 micron aluminium foil facer. Um, I would certainly be concerned about that. Um, as I say, it's not an argument
01:38:58 that. Um, as I say, it's not an argument I've ever come across, but in terms of is that a reasonable reading of the words, I I can't disagree with Dr. Crowder.
01:39:07 Crowder. Right. Does it not does Dr. Crowder's interpretation not trouble you? Um, yes, I think it does. M is it? I I think from your previous answers, can we
01:39:18 think from your previous answers, can we take it that you've never discussed this argument uh with him or anybody else at the BE?
01:39:23 the BE? No.
01:39:24 No. Or or in the department? Never discussed it with anybody. No.
01:39:30 Now, you're aware, I I I assume, and tell me if this is wrong, that for many years, and indeed until after the fire at Grenell Tower on the 14th of June, 2017, the guidance in approved document
01:39:42 2017, the guidance in approved document B in relation to external surfaces of buildings directed that the provisions of diagram 40 were followed. It wasn't always 40. The numbers sometimes change, but
01:39:53 but but Yes. And you're therefore presumably familiar with the the provisions of diagram 40. Yes.
01:40:00 Yes. Yes.
01:40:00 Yes. And that the materials required to be used on external surfaces of buildings with a habitable story over 18 mters were required to be national class N or after 2002 Euro class B.
01:40:12 after 2002 Euro class B. Yes.
01:40:12 Yes. Yeah.
01:40:21 Did you ever consider that class N had at any time been an appropriate measure for the fire performance of external cladding on high-rise buildings given
01:40:32 cladding on high-rise buildings given its origins as we've seen from doc from Professor Bisby's report as an internal room test and a test for lining materials as we've seen from paragraph 13 of appendix A.
01:40:46 13 of appendix A. Certainly prior to the Grimfield Tower fire, it's not a question that's ever arisen. Um the only similar question I've come across is the debates about the use of
01:40:58 across is the debates about the use of the European classification system where um products are classified in particular the single burning item test um is
01:41:09 the single burning item test um is designed specifically for external for internal wall linings. Um and the test arrangement looks like the corner of a room.
01:41:18 room. Um and um there are um some products that subjected to that test which you wouldn't use as a wall lining. Um for
01:41:29 wouldn't use as a wall lining. Um for instance, pipe lagging is the one that springs to mind. Um where um certain provisions are looking for a euro class B pipe legging. Um you don't line the
01:41:41 B pipe legging. Um you don't line the walls with pipe legging. You lag pipes with pipe legging. Um, and I think it's it's a it's an inherent problem is is that fire testing is an expensive and complex activity. Um, and um, standards
01:41:54 complex activity. Um, and um, standards tend to use a small um, toolkit fire tests to try and address a wide range of different applications. Well, whether you take class N or class B, let's take them both together. Did it
01:42:07 B, let's take them both together. Did it ever occur to you at any time when you were at the BR uh or at the department or both um that either of these classes, class national or class B euro were
01:42:19 class national or class B euro were inite, inappropriate for a a classification for external surfaces of walls above 18 m.
01:42:30 I think when we were looking at the question of external fire spread um when I was working on the 2006 edition of approved document B um we'd
01:42:45 approved document B um we'd come to the conclusion that you couldn't use CLO in isolation. You needed to consider the surfaces of the wall and materials that were below the surface. Yeah. But I'm just I'm just focusing on
01:42:57 Yeah. But I'm just I'm just focusing on class N. And if you like class B with its SBI route, did it ever occur to you when you looked at diagram 40 that these are Haley sorry these are in opposite tests for an external wall given their
01:43:11 tests for an external wall given their origins.
01:43:12 origins. I don't think I'd considered that before Granville Town. Right.
01:43:19 Now, I I I think you'll agree that the Euro classes were first referred to and approved document B in and after 2002. Yes. Yes.
01:43:29 Yes. Yes. And that was as a result of the application of the European con construction products directive. Yes.
01:43:34 Yes. And the harmonization process that we've seen and in 2013 2013 is right. I think that the way in which the Euro classes were referred to in diagram 40 remained unchanged
01:43:46 remained unchanged in the way that they had presented in and from 2002. That's right. Yes. And indeed they didn't change until after the fire at Grrenfield Tower in June 2017, did they?
01:43:57 June 2017, did they? That's right. No. and and and the Euro class system introduced as it was in in 2002 um as you've said was based on the in
01:44:08 um as you've said was based on the in part on the single burning item test. Yes.
01:44:10 Yes. Yes.
01:44:11 Yes. Um and that was also a room corner test as you told us. Yes. I think unlike class O the SBI test is replicating
01:44:22 is replicating um a specific scenario and it's recognizable as such. when you look at the test,
01:44:27 the test, it looks like um a waste paper bin in the corner of a room on fire. Yes. And again, just so we're clear, we've got class N. Just coming to class B, did you also ever have cause to
01:44:38 B, did you also ever have cause to consider whether that test, the room corner test, was useful for assessing fire behavior in circumstances far removed from that scenario, namely on the external face of a high-rise building?
01:44:53 I think generically it's a subject that I was aware of um not specifically in relation to external walls as I say the the tests get used in a wide range of
01:45:05 the tests get used in a wide range of applications many of which are not directly comparable to an internal wall learning but is is the answer to my question no
01:45:16 but is is the answer to my question no you didn't consider it you didn't ask yourself at the time the question well Is Euro class B an apposite test for external walls given that it depends in large part at least on the SBI test
01:45:28 large part at least on the SBI test which is a room corner test? Um I don't think I did. No. Now turning to the concept of combustibility. Could you just tell us what you understood until June 2017 at least by
01:45:40 understood until June 2017 at least by the expression limited combustibility?
01:45:45 Um it's a term defined in the approved document.
01:45:49 document. Yes. Yes. What did you understand by it? Um, it's
01:45:54 Um, it's more ownorous than class O, less ownorous than non-combustible. Owner owners apart. Um, was it similar to or different from
01:46:05 Um, was it similar to or different from class N?
01:46:06 class N? It's different from class N in what way? Um, used
01:46:14 use different tests. Um, and it it is less focused on the surface of the product that's being tested compared to class A.
01:46:27 class A. And
01:46:30 has that always been your your clear understanding?
01:46:38 I think so. Yes. Right. Has there been any stage or had there been any stage in your career between 1999 and 2017 when you were unsure about those definitions or the
01:46:49 unsure about those definitions or the meanings uh or the relationship between class N and limited combustibility? No, I don't think so. Did you become aware at any time before the Granville Tower fire of any um
01:47:01 the Granville Tower fire of any um confusion or conflation u between the concepts of class N and limited combustibility in the industry?
01:47:12 I can't say they have. No, I don't think so.
01:47:14 so. No.
01:47:15 No. What about within government? Um,
01:47:22 can't imagine there's anyone else in government I would have ever spoken to about this. Right. And what about within the BRE? Do you ever did you ever detect any confusion or conflation between the concepts of limited combustibility on
01:47:33 concepts of limited combustibility on the one hand and class N or on the other?
01:47:37 other? No.
01:47:40 Let's then turn to the first of the historical events I want to cover with you. Uh and that is the fire at Nosley Heights in Liverpool in April 1991, 5th of April 1991. Now um I appreciate that
01:47:53 of April 1991. Now um I appreciate that at the time of that fire and at the time of the BR's report into the fire, you were not employed by the B. You were not to join for another eight years. That's correct. Um but we still have some questions for
01:48:04 Um but we still have some questions for you. Can we look please at BR035385?
01:48:09 This is the BR's report into the fire.
01:48:18 Uh and it's dated November 1992 as you can see from the top right hand corner. And it was it it formed a report uh of the fire as part of the
01:48:29 uh of the fire as part of the investigation of real fires at the time produced by the BRE. Now I'm showing you the first page there. Is it familiar to you?
01:48:38 you? No.
01:48:38 No. You've never Have you have never seen it before today? I may have done. Right. Do you know when? Can you remember when?
01:48:49 Would have been sometime when I was working at Bar. Imagine if it did if it did crop up. Right, let's go to page two and see if it prompts a recollection and then we'll have a look into the report. Uh page two, you can see that it was written by Penny Morgan, Derek Jones, and Sharon
01:49:01 Penny Morgan, Derek Jones, and Sharon Clinch for the construction directorate of the Department of the Environment. You see that? Yes.
01:49:07 Yes. Um does that trigger a recollection in your in your memory? Uh only that I remember Penny Morgan. I worked with Penny when I was at You did
01:49:15 You did at Bar.
01:49:16 at Bar. Let's go to page uh three, please. Paragraph five. The building uh and it refers to a 1988 refurbishment designed to reduce energy consumption. And then if you look at paragraph six
01:49:29 And then if you look at paragraph six uh on page three um uh which refers in the third sentence to the 1988 scheme. Can you see that? Yes.
01:49:39 Yes. It says the 1988 scheme involved the use of a class GRP rainscreen cladding on aluminium support rails. The cladding started approximately 100 mm from ground
01:49:50 started approximately 100 mm from ground level and extended up to the roof. Uh uh and then in the last sentence it says cavity barriers were not fitted to allow unrestricted air movement and under DOER guidance at the time could be
01:50:03 under DOER guidance at the time could be omitted where the cladding system was non-combustible. Non-combustible. Now, what were you aware um that Nosley Heights had been clad in
01:50:14 um that Nosley Heights had been clad in class N GRP rangecreen panels?
01:50:20 I remember Nosley Heights being mentioned when um we were working on the second edition of BR135
01:50:31 and that would have been in 2003. Yes,
01:50:33 Yes, that was the first Was that the first time you came across those? I think that's the first time I would have heard of Nosley Heights. Would did you read that this report at that time? Do you think? I don't think I did.
01:50:45 I don't think I did. Right. Do you remember when you first read this report? If it wasn't then, I I think it's probably in preparation for today. I see. Uh did did you ever have any discussion with anybody at the BR,
01:50:56 discussion with anybody at the BR, particularly in preparation for the 2003 edition of BR135 about the Nosley fire? Um I remember um Dr. Cowwell summarizing
01:51:09 Um I remember um Dr. Cowwell summarizing um what she knew of the fire at some point in a conversation. Right. And and I think looking forward in time, we'll come to it later that it was mentioned during the course of the Garnet Court investigation which you I
01:51:20 Garnet Court investigation which you I think were involved with. Yes.
01:51:22 Yes. So did you not read this report at that stage?
01:51:28 I don't think I did. Right.
01:51:33 You didn't. Right. You don't think you did? Um
01:51:37 did? Um right
01:51:39 right just looking at what's on the page um where it says that cavity barriers could be emitted where the cladding system was non-combustible. Did you have any understanding at any
01:51:51 Did you have any understanding at any time um up to 2003 uh that the combust that the cladding at Nosby Heights was uh not combustible?
01:52:05 No.
01:52:13 Have you ever noticed at any time even when you read this report in preparation to give evidence that there's no reference to the combustibility of the GRP rainscreen panels
01:52:24 panels uh here themselves as opposed to them being class N.
01:52:31 Um it seems to be an odd paragraph in that it's talking about um non-combustible cladding when it's just said that the it's GRP class O GRP indeed. And does that surprise you? You
01:52:42 indeed. And does that surprise you? You say it's an odd paragraph. I I I would suggest that it's misleading in fact, isn't it? And I suggest that because it would mislead the reader into thinking that they were one and the same.
01:52:53 that they were one and the same. Yes.
01:52:56 I suppose that depends who the reader is. is I mean I immediately looked at that and knew that that wasn't the same but I I guess it depends on the reader right
01:53:05 right and the report doesn't contain taking this from me any discussion surrounding the degree to which the rainscreen product or the fact that it was a combustible product on the external face of the building may have contributed to the fire
01:53:17 the fire is that something that you ever knew at the time
01:53:21 the time um
01:53:24 I say Dr. Cowwell gave me a brief um sort of history of um the work that had been done in relation to um external warfires and and that included um a
01:53:36 warfires and and that included um a discussion about Nosley Heights. It's very difficult to separate the knowledge you've got in your head now with the knowledge you had at a particular time. Yes. Um but my understanding is that um
01:53:47 Yes. Um but my understanding is that um approved document B was changed in response to the Nosley height fires in that um it referred to the surface of an
01:53:59 that um it referred to the surface of an ex external cladding sheeting a rain screen on both sides of it. So it would be classo on the external surface and classo on the internal surface. Right. Um, so I I think that was in
01:54:12 Right. Um, so I I think that was in response to to the to this fire. And looking at page four, if we can in the first paragraph under the heading fire damage, you can see that it says
01:54:24 fire damage, you can see that it says uh
01:54:26 uh all the cladding on the 11 stories was destroyed on one vertical face. Note that the spled corners were also damaged. Figure 3.1.3. fire spread
01:54:37 damaged. Figure 3.1.3. fire spread vertically up the cavity behind the cladding, melting the aluminium supports, but also attacking the window reveals via the strand board and the UPVC frames, uh, etc. Uh, and then if
01:54:50 UPVC frames, uh, etc. Uh, and then if you go on to to uh
01:54:55 um page three, you need to go back to page three, please, paragraph three. In the third sentence there, uh, it says that the fire brigade, uh, is at the time of the call to the
01:55:07 uh, is at the time of the call to the fire brigade was 0243 hours, probably a good half hour after the fire was started. On arrival, the brigade found flames apparently issuing from windows on all floors plus involvement of the roof. And if we then go to page five
01:55:19 roof. And if we then go to page five please, first paragraph on that page. Um it says there is no reason to suggest a life risk associated with cladding unless there are cavities large enough to allow vertical fire spread. There are
01:55:32 to allow vertical fire spread. There are implications for the protection of window reveals especially where refurbishment has involved the use of cellulosic and polymer materials in close proximity. Now, um, looking at that first sentence
01:55:45 Now, um, looking at that first sentence there, and given the two parts I've shown you earlier about vertical fire spread and what the brigade found when they arrive, flames, all floors, and involvement of the roof, um, how could
01:55:56 involvement of the roof, um, how could it be the case that anybody could conclude that there was no reason to suggest a life risk associated with the cladding?
01:56:04 cladding? [Applause] Um, I think they've I can I'm guessing what they were trying to say. Um, and I think it probably needed to have been done in more than one paragraph. Um, if
01:56:18 done in more than one paragraph. Um, if the fire stays in the cladding on the outside of the building and the occupants of the building are probably uh they're not directly exposed to the effects of the fire. I I'm I'm guessing
01:56:30 effects of the fire. I I'm I'm guessing that's what they're the point they're getting at here. the risk to the occupants of the building is when um the products of combustion or the fire itself finds its way into the building
01:56:42 itself finds its way into the building where the people are. I think that's the point they're making, but in hindsight looking at this, I think that's quite a complex issue and I think it needs more than a small paragraph to say that.
01:56:52 say that. Right. But I think you're you're telling us that really this is the first time you've studied this detail of this report. Yes, that's right. And and to be clear, you
01:57:03 that's right. And and to be clear, you sure Sarah Cowwell never gave you a detailed briefing on the contents of this of this report and showed it to you?
01:57:11 you? I'm pretty sure I'd never seen this report before. Right.
01:57:17 What about Penny Morgan? Did she ever show it to you? She was one of
01:57:21 of No, I've not seen this report before. No.
01:57:25 No. Did did you have a general understanding of what had been learned or discovered from the fire at Nosley Heights?
01:57:34 I think the focus what I remember being told was that the focus here was um fire spread as a result of a a continuous cavity um and
01:57:46 result of a a continuous cavity um and the internal surfaces not being class A. Right. Would it be right to say that in relation to external fire spread, the fire at Nosley Heights was considered a
01:57:57 fire at Nosley Heights was considered a landmark fire event in the United King United Kingdom?
01:58:04 Um I think if you're talking about external wall construction um and an external fire spread, it's it's you're charting the history of that type of fire. Nosley Heights is an important one. Yes.
01:58:15 one. Yes. Yes. Thank you. But it it And it was a fire, wasn't it? Which was, and we'll see this, discussed and referred to in various presentations and pieces of work
01:58:27 various presentations and pieces of work uh done on external fire spread over the years that followed, including BR research, was it not? Um, I think it would. Yes, it was referred to from time to time. Yes. And was it not a fire that came up in
01:58:38 And was it not a fire that came up in discussions at the BRE when you were there, either in general or in connection with matters relating to external fire spread?
01:58:46 Yes, it was something that was discussed. Yes. And yet you never yourself troubled to look at the report and just find out exactly what had happened and what had been said about it by the B in whose offices you sat.
01:59:00 Um the opportunity to read it never came up and I never went in search of it. Do you remember any discussions about it about combustibility class N the nature of the external material?
01:59:14 of the external material? Um this is a very long time ago. I I I remember it being mentioned. Um uh I'm pretty sure the focus was on um undivided cavities. Right. Let's go next then please to Dr.
01:59:27 Right. Let's go next then please to Dr. Debbie Smith's witness statement of the inquiry at BR 405624.
01:59:34 Um I'd like go to go that's the first page there so you can see what it is. If we go please to page 8 paragraph 24 she says this.
01:59:44 Following a fire in a refurbished block of flats in Liverpool in 1991, it was accepted that a large-scale fire test method was needed to provide a better means for assessing and controlling the
01:59:55 means for assessing and controlling the potential fire hazards associated with external cladding systems. That test would involve the complete system installed as closely as possible to what would actually be installed onto a building. This was clear recognition
02:00:07 building. This was clear recognition that it was not possible to rely on small-scale fire test data on individual elements, materials or components in a cladding system as a means to try to predict and thereby control the fire
02:00:20 predict and thereby control the fire performance. Reliance on smallcale fire tests had been tried and had been shown to be inadequate. In her evidence to the inquiry when she came to give it, Dr. Smith confirmed
02:00:32 came to give it, Dr. Smith confirmed that the fire referred to here is the fire at at Nosley Heights in 1991. That was day 234, page 130 at line 9.
02:00:43 was day 234, page 130 at line 9. Uh, and and I just want to show you some more of her transcript before I ask you some questions about it. Can we go please to day 234, page 130,
02:00:54 please to day 234, page 130, uh, and pick it up at line 23.
02:01:01 And she says at line 23, we'll wait for it to come up. Uh, and the question is, do you know when that acceptance was when was that accepted? Was there a moment when people in the BR or in government to your
02:01:13 in the BR or in government to your knowledge realized or thought that a large-scale test was required? And she says at line two, well, I think it was first flagged prior to this fire. In fact, in 1988 in the first edition of
02:01:24 fact, in 1988 in the first edition of BR135.
02:01:26 BR135. And then obviously there was the follow-on work that was then conducted after this fire by Raymond Connelly and Tony Morris that then you know continued through the 1990s really question was there a sense in which although in 1988
02:01:38 there a sense in which although in 1988 the first edition of BR BR135 had come out there wasn't a general acceptance of that a large scale fire test method was needed but the Nosley Heights fire was the catalyst for the acceptance of that
02:01:50 the catalyst for the acceptance of that answer at line 13. Yes, I would say so. Then if we turn please to page 132 from line four I'll just show you a passage there she the question at line four you
02:02:03 there she the question at line four you say that a largecale test was needed to provide a better means for assessing and controlling the potential fire hazards associated with external cladding systems a better means than what answer the smallcale fire test method so the
02:02:16 the smallcale fire test method so the class N methodology had been shown not to be applicable within this case question so right so the BS476 and Seven tests on which guidance for the fire safety of external cladding systems was
02:02:28 safety of external cladding systems was based. Question mark yes. So the route to class not question answer yes question right now focusing on the section of par 24 where you say this was a clear recognition. You see you say and
02:02:40 a clear recognition. You see you say and then there's a quotation. This was a clear recognition that it was not possible to rely on small-cale fire test data on individual elements, materials or components in a cladding system as a
02:02:51 or components in a cladding system as a means to try to predict and thereby control fire performance. Clear recognition you say by whom? By whom was this clearly recognized? Uh and she says by the researchers at what was the fire
02:03:02 by the researchers at what was the fire research station. And given that they were working for the government customer, the government customer also. And then this at line five. So does that tell us that at some point before 2002 or 2003 at least so far as you know and
02:03:16 or 2003 at least so far as you know and at the time after 1991 the government was aware that smallcale fire tests were an inadequate basis for trying to predict and control a fire in the external cladding of a high-rise
02:03:27 external cladding of a high-rise building. Answer yes I think the evidence was there from that one fire incident.
02:03:34 incident. Now I've read you quite a lot of that Mr. Martin in fairness to you because there was a buildup to it based on the paragraph in her statement I've shown you. But I just want to focus on the last question and answer which I've read
02:03:45 last question and answer which I've read to you. I won't read it again. But the the answer where she says yes, I think the evidence was there from that one fire incident. So far as you're concerned, is that correct?
02:04:03 I'm not sure I can properly answer that question. Um Dr. Smith seems to be saying there was an acceptance that only large scale tests
02:04:15 tests was acceptable or appropriate. Um I never saw anything to suggest that that was the view the policy of the
02:04:27 that was the view the policy of the department. What about at the BE? Um I think in conversations with Dr. Cowwell. Um that was certainly her opinion is that um
02:04:40 opinion is that um the most reliable way of um assessing the behavior of a cladding system would be to use a large scale test. Right. Can can I just ask um in case we go further away from this lines 7 to9
02:04:54 go further away from this lines 7 to9 well say 7 to 11 the government was aware that smallcale fire tests were in an inadequate basis for trying to predict and control fire in the external
02:05:05 predict and control fire in the external cladding of a high-rise building answer yes
02:05:09 yes would you accept that
02:05:14 I think the term the government's a very broad term Um it may well be that um an official in the department may have agreed with
02:05:27 the department may have agreed with um the scientists at BR on this issue. Um
02:05:36 that's that seems to me to be different from the government is you know there's a consensus in government this is the right thing to do. Um, I I think that's why I'm I'm I'm slightly uncomfortable
02:05:47 why I'm I'm I'm slightly uncomfortable with with this. It's not that I didn't There isn't a book in the corner of the office that says this is what the government thinks. Um, it's No, but you were working with the
02:05:58 No, but you were working with the relevant fairly small team in the department that would have been dealing with this. Yes. Um, I never heard them express that view in that in those terms. Right. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. minute
02:06:11 Right. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. minute to interrupt your questioning. Did you did you never yourself become aware that, as she puts it in her statement, a large-scale test was needed to provide a better means for assessing
02:06:23 to provide a better means for assessing and controlling the potential fire hazards associated with external cladding systems.
02:06:30 I think as I say I think that was the consensus amongst the fire scientists that had looked at this subject um that they felt a larger scale test was more
02:06:43 they felt a larger scale test was more reliable. Um that's probably true of any fire test. Well, there's the flip side is did you ever become aware that the route to class not being dependent upon smallcale
02:06:56 class not being dependent upon smallcale fire tests was not a reliable means to try to predict and thereby control fire performance in an external cladding system?
02:07:05 Did you never become aware of that view? I think that that was something we when we were looking at the 2006 edition of approved document B, the question of could you use class O in isolation um was certainly
02:07:18 um was certainly the key point I think in that class O would give you an indication of the surface behavior of your external wall but you would need to consider
02:07:29 but you would need to consider um materials that might be below that surface.
02:07:35 We'll come to that in due course. I'm asking you really a different question which is about the adequacy of class N as a standard for the for the prediction
02:07:47 as a standard for the for the prediction and control of fire performance per se
02:07:52 based on what Dr. Smith has told us in relation to external wall construction specifically. Yes, that that's what she says for trying to predict and control a fire in
02:08:03 trying to predict and control a fire in the external cladding of a high-rise building.
02:08:05 building. Yes, I think that I mean that was that was accepted which is why it was considered that it shouldn't be considered in isolation. Well, it's not about in isolation with respect.
02:08:13 respect. Well, I think it is it well she's not made that she's not said in isolation. the point and I've shown you the evidence her evidence is that she her view and the government was
02:08:24 she her view and the government was aware of it that that smallcale fire tests were an inadequate basis for trying to predict and control a fire in the external cladding of building. Okay.
02:08:35 the external cladding of building. Okay. And I just want to know whether that was a view you um were ever aware of
02:08:45 her view. So I'm sorry this is quite an important point and I'm trying to make sure I understand your question correctly. Um I was definitely aware that that fire scientists at BR considered a large scale test was most
02:08:57 considered a large scale test was most appropriate and therefore they considered the class A wasn't sufficient.
02:09:09 You're using words which don't appear in Dr. mis evidence such as most appropriate and sufficient. These are relative terms. I'm really asking you just whether or not you ever heard the
02:09:22 just whether or not you ever heard the view that small-cale fire tests were an inadequate basis for the route to class N was an inadequate basis for trying to predict and control a fire in the
02:09:33 predict and control a fire in the external cladding of a high-rise building
02:09:35 building from sc fire scientists at BR. Yes, you did hear that. Yes.
02:09:39 Yes. Right. And when was that? probably when we were working on BR135 I imagine in 2003.
02:09:45 in 2003. Yes.
02:09:45 Yes. So after Garnuk yes
02:09:48 yes but not before that's correct right.
02:09:54 Can you help us to understand therefore why reliance on smallcale test data to do exactly that in the shape of diagram 40 remained an available means to try to
02:10:06 40 remained an available means to try to predict and control a fire in the external cladding of a high-rise building until 2018. I think that was a decision that was made by the department and the government of the day in
02:10:17 and the government of the day in response to the select committee select committee's recommendations. Well, that decision was made and we're going to come to it in April 2000,
02:10:29 going to come to it in April 2000, wasn't it? I believe so. Yes. Right. Are you saying there was a a continuing or later decision to retain class not notwithstanding what the BRE
02:10:40 class not notwithstanding what the BRE and government according to Dr. Smith knew about its inadequacy for predicting and controlling external fire spread on a high-rise building.
02:10:51 So the what the select committee had so that in 2000 the government of the day had decided and the department had decided not to implement um a large
02:11:04 decided not to implement um a large scale test as being the only option um and to retain small scale testing um and so that decision continued. Um when
02:11:16 and so that decision continued. Um when I was looking at the issue uh for the 2006 edition of approved document B we were aware that you shouldn't consider class O in isolation
02:11:27 class O in isolation um because it had a tendency to focus depending on the type of construction and the material you're looking at. Um it wouldn't necessarily tell you what was going on beneath the surface of the
02:11:38 was going on beneath the surface of the the system you were looking at. Right. Well, we'll come to revisit that question as we go through the history. I don't doubt it. But just I'm sure but just at the moment could you just tell us
02:11:49 us what was the point of diagram 40 in class N
02:11:57 um
02:12:01 well diagram 40 covers two aspects of requirement B4 um both the fire spread on on the surface of the
02:12:12 fire spread on on the surface of the building from one part of the building to another part of the building. It also addresses um the potential for fire spread between one building and another. Um so the original authors of that
02:12:23 Um so the original authors of that diagram
02:12:25 diagram um were trying to address those two different issues and put them both into the same diagram. I think in the hope that it made life easier for designers um in in that they could see the fire
02:12:38 um in in that they could see the fire performance requirements for ex external wall surfaces whether they were looking at either aspect of of requirement B4 I guess that's why they came up with that diagram
02:12:49 diagram right um that addresses part of the point but let me try it differently what's the point of diagram 40 and class N when it comes to uh external fire
02:13:00 N when it comes to uh external fire spread above 18 m. I think I see your point. Um my understanding is is that um or certainly how it evolved over time is
02:13:13 certainly how it evolved over time is that diagram 40 was focused on surface performance um and
02:13:21 um and there are additional provisions that dealt with things below the surface um that allowed resolving some of the problems you have
02:13:32 resolving some of the problems you have with thin decorative finishes. is um it's a it's a problem that seems to reoccur in fire testing that um decorative finishes like um you know of
02:13:45 decorative finishes like um you know of the thickness of paint. So very thin things um would often give you a classification which wasn't representative of the actual fire risk.
02:13:58 representative of the actual fire risk. And so um over time the guidance had evolved to try and allow people to paint things um without prohibiting that. Um
02:14:09 things um without prohibiting that. Um and I think that's why it became quite as complex as it has. It's a a universal problem with building regulations is that there's seldom a simple answer to any question. So you start with a
02:14:20 any question. So you start with a straightforward provision and then end up with
02:14:25 up with um
02:14:28 um I'm not sure if relaxations is the right term but less ownorous provisions for certain situations um which is why you often end up with what looks like a very complex set of
02:14:39 what looks like a very complex set of rules. Once you became aware, as you've told us, that the BR's view uh at least the BR's view was that small-cale fire tests were an inadequate basis for trying to predict and control a fire in
02:14:50 trying to predict and control a fire in the external cladding of a high-rise building, as learned from Nosley. Um why wasn't any thought given as it appears it wasn't
02:15:01 appears it wasn't to to um confining those aspects of diagram 40 above 18 m simply to finishes and paint rather than external walls.
02:15:16 Um I don't recall that conversation ever cropping up. Um I I I think I think the the inquiry is obviously picked up on this this point is where does a surface
02:15:27 this this point is where does a surface start and finish. Um and that is a difficult to define. It certainly isn't defined. Um I think in hindsight it may have been better to to be more specific
02:15:41 have been better to to be more specific or specify a minimum thickness or so on. Well, you say in hindsight, what what did you not know then that you know now?
02:15:51 Let's take 2003 as your starting date.
02:16:02 So I think the approach we tended to take took certainly took at the time in relation to um a proof document B was to change
02:16:13 to um a proof document B was to change it where it needed to be changed and to not
02:16:18 not um focus on those those issues that that hadn't cropped up in in the the process that we were looking at. Um, and this wasn't a subject that was regularly
02:16:31 this wasn't a subject that was regularly questioned at the time, right? But but if you realized by 2003 that at least the BR's view was that class N was an inadequate metric for controlling the fire spread in an
02:16:42 controlling the fire spread in an external padding system, why was that not a change which was needed to get rid of class N? um at least to advise your superiors that it was dangerous, misleading and needed
02:16:54 it was dangerous, misleading and needed to be dumped.
02:16:58 I think the department at the at the in the period in response to the the select committee inquiry, the the department, the government of the day had decided that it didn't want to
02:17:09 day had decided that it didn't want to impose um the large scale test to all systems. Um and it was trying to it was probably trying to take a more proportionate approach. Um the large
02:17:21 proportionate approach. Um the large scale test is logistically difficult to organize and expensive. Um and that would have been something that officials at the department would have needed to
02:17:33 at the department would have needed to consider. Um whereas a fire scientist, if you ask a fire scientist, what's the best way to determine how something's going to behave? They'll say the biggest the largest scale test you can possibly
02:17:44 the largest scale test you can possibly do will give you the best information that you that you can get. Um but a regulator is trying to balance that with
02:17:55 regulator is trying to balance that with um what's reasonable and proportionate to impose on the industry. Well, just help me with this. Uh Mr. Martin the I quite understand what you're saying about the cost and so on of the large scale tests but if class N
02:18:08 of the large scale tests but if class N was an unsatisfactory uh measure of suitability for products on the external wall a full-scale test wasn't the only
02:18:19 a full-scale test wasn't the only alternative was it? You could have said, "We're getting rid of class N and we're going to prescribe or at least advise people to use only materials of limited combustibility.
02:18:32 They could have done that." Yeah.
02:18:34 Yeah. Um uh essentially that's what the government has now done. Yes.
02:18:37 Yes. Um I mean it is actually a smaller scale test. The the the combustibility tests are much smaller scale. Um, it wouldn't
02:18:48 are much smaller scale. Um, it wouldn't wouldn't show you things like fire spreading cavities, which is as much a nature of the geometry of the the cladding system as it is the materials
02:19:00 cladding system as it is the materials it's made of. Um, and um, but I think at that time the decision was made to retain class O. Um
02:19:14 decision was made to retain class O. Um and why
02:19:18 I don't know at the time is the honest answer sir. Right. Thank you very much. Um when you arrived at the BRE or in the years thereafter did anybody mention to
02:19:29 years thereafter did anybody mention to you the work done by um Dr. Connelly Raymond Connelly in 1994? Um I was aware in aware of it in general. So when I worked at I mean the
02:19:41 general. So when I worked at I mean the first time it cropped up was after the so the gun caught fire happened shortly after I joined B. Um and the work that we were commissioned to do on BR135 followed on
02:19:52 commissioned to do on BR135 followed on from that. Um that was the point at which I became familiar with what became the um the large scale cladding test. Right.
02:20:01 Right. Um so it was it was in that time and they that test had been developed over many years. I think which test the what's become 814. So 5 note 3 5 note 9.
02:20:12 So 5 note 3 5 note 9. Yes.
02:20:13 Yes. Right. Can I just show you um the Connelly report please? BR uh 3047667. [Music]
02:20:24 Now uh this is uh his statement uh
02:20:31 uh and if we go please to page 12. It's a statement of the inquiry and he says on page 12
02:20:39 page 12 um if you go to uh little G
02:20:48 uh and he he um uh refers there to um some history uh and in halfway down that paragraph says the VR tests only confirm what was
02:21:00 the VR tests only confirm what was already publicly recognized by the department as likely to be the case. The problem at the time is that there was no further guidance offered in the approved document B beyond the open-ended statement to the effect that class nor performance of itself may not be
02:21:11 performance of itself may not be sufficient and that the associated restriction requiring story level cavity barriers was problematic in practice due to dampness. Uh and um
02:21:21 Uh and um uh
02:21:24 uh then he goes on uh to uh say uh and he refers to the various tests he'd done he's done uh and if you go to
02:21:38 he'd done he's done uh and if you go to pageuh 13 paragraph 24 little Roman one under sea he says the fire performance observed in test number two clearly couldn't be considered as representing a resistance to undue vertical fire
02:21:49 resistance to undue vertical fire spread. Given such a performance by a combustible material achieving the highest fire rating, it was clear that the reaction to fire rating system i.e. class n was an inadequate measure of hazard if used in isolation.
02:22:02 hazard if used in isolation. You see that? Yes.
02:22:04 Yes. Uh was that a view that's that's a Connelly view? Um c can we go to his report which is at RC701 please page
02:22:22 RCO there it is and that's dated April 1994 and it's authored by Raymond Connelly and it's says investigation of the behavior of external cladding systems in
02:22:33 behavior of external cladding systems in fire report on 10 full-scale fire tests. Is that a document you've ever seen before?
02:22:38 before? No.
02:22:39 No. So you never saw this even when doing the Garnet Court investigation or or doing the 2001 work? Is that right? Yeah, I've not seen this before. Uh, right.
02:22:56 Uh, so you've never you've never been shown this report and it's never come up in any discussion. Is that right? That's right. I see. Okay. Uh, well, maybe we'll come back to that in due course. Um, let's
02:23:08 back to that in due course. Um, let's move then to the Garnet caught fire in in June 1999. Um now like Nosley Heights I think you'll recall that this was a local authority block of flats which had been refurbished in this case in 1991
02:23:20 been refurbished in this case in 1991 ironically um and clad in GRP plat panels. Yes. Yes. You'll remember that. Um and um if you um go to BRE50697
02:23:50 BR50697 Seven.
02:24:17 Uh, I don't think that's what we need. Um we we we can well we can find that but it let's go to page 27 in that well
02:24:31 um let me do it more quickly than this. I think you will recall that it had GRP panels.
02:24:36 panels. Yes.
02:24:37 Yes. Yes. Now after the Garnet caught fire, the inquiry was aware that the BR investigated uh and produced three reports into the fire. And just just um tick these off with me if you would. The first one was um dated the 8th of
02:24:50 first one was um dated the 8th of September 1999 uh and prepared for the North Asia Council bearing the reference 79902. Let's have that up. BR 305377.
02:25:09 Uh, and if we go please to page two, in that you can see uh the authors and the date. And the authors are Penny Morgan, Brian Martin, that's you, and
02:25:21 Morgan, Brian Martin, that's you, and Tony Morris. Yes. Yes.
02:25:22 Yes. Uh, and the date is August 1999, signed by Nigel Smithies on the 8th of September 1999. Yes. Yes.
02:25:29 Yes. Yes. And then the second one let's have up is at B305377, page 22, please. So it's same document page 22.
02:25:42 So it's same document page 22. Uh and this one is dated uh April 2000 signed on the 5th of May 2000 by Nigel Smith is prepared by Penny Morgan alone this time. Yes. Yes.
02:25:52 Yes. Also for North A Council. And then the third one was the document we we saw a moment ago which is um at BRE 3035375
02:26:03 uh which uh is the DER framework project report
02:26:10 prepared for Anthony Bird at the DETR uh and um if you go uh please uh well you can see the date there August 2000. Yes.
02:26:21 Yes. Yes. And that was also prepared by Penny Morgan.
02:26:25 Morgan. And you can see that from page two if we just go to that. You see it? Yes.
02:26:30 Yes. Right now. Um I want to ask you about those reports. But before I do, I'd like to ask you about the the investigatory work that was done into the Garnet caught fire. First of all, um how did you become involved in that
02:26:41 you become involved in that investigation? So this was um shortly after I joined BR um and um
02:26:50 um and um I was
02:26:52 I was invited to join the team that was investigating it I think principally because it was an opportunity for experience of fire investigation which is not something I'd dealt with before. So you had no training or experience in
02:27:04 So you had no training or experience in fire investigation. That's right. You you were put on on it to learn as it were.
02:27:09 were. Yes. I mean I background in construction technology so um I I think they thought I might be useful um but um I'm not a trained fire investigator. Right. You say background in construction technology. What what what
02:27:20 construction technology. What what what do you mean by that? Um
02:27:21 Um I thought you were a BCO constru the technology of construction is what somebody working in construction would know about. So I don't understand you you had a history
02:27:33 I don't understand you you had a history of of nine years of working in building control at three different local authorities. How did that give you a background in construction technology? Um, that's what so the the subject of
02:27:44 Um, that's what so the the subject of construction technology is something that when you're when you're a student of of construction, you will study construction law and and construction finance and construction technology is
02:27:56 finance and construction technology is the subject of the technology of construction. So, so as a as a building control officer and somebody who worked in construction all their life up to that point, I was knowledgeable about
02:28:08 that point, I was knowledgeable about how buildings were constructed, which is the subject of construction technology. Right. All right. Well, let's um let's go to the report, please. Uh page five. Um I'm sorry, we need to go back to the
02:28:19 Um I'm sorry, we need to go back to the first report. BR035377, page five. Um and we can see in the first paragraph on that page uh the date of the fire.
02:28:34 on that page uh the date of the fire. Uh and um if you look at two description of the project you can see in the first paragraph there uh that in the second sentence the first phase was for a small team to visit the site on 3rd of August.
02:28:47 team to visit the site on 3rd of August. The team comprised Penny Morgan, Brian Martin and Tony Morris of the Center for Fire Protection Systems and Charles Sterling from Scot Lab, another part of BRE. Now, just focusing on the date
02:28:58 BRE. Now, just focusing on the date here, this is 3rd of August 1999. So, about 6 weeks after the fire itself, how long had you been at the BRE when you were dispatched to Irvin to visit
02:29:10 you were dispatched to Irvin to visit the site?
02:29:12 the site? I'd be surprised if it was a month. I remember it happening very quickly after I joined. Right. The fire happening very quickly or the instruction to go up there. Uh both.
02:29:23 Uh both. I see. You say both. So you must have joined before June. I guess so. Right. Now um let's let's um let's look at this a bit more closely. If we go
02:29:34 at this a bit more closely. If we go please to B3053
02:29:38 76
02:29:41 page 14. We've got some photographs of your well what we think is you during the site visit. If you look at the the bottom photograph on that page um is
02:29:54 bottom photograph on that page um is that you in the cornflour blue shirt does look like me. Yes. Um that's that may be a matter of opinion but it was a long time ago. Um what was the purpose of your visiting the site? What were you looking at?
02:30:08 the site? What were you looking at? Um, we were trying to understand the construction that had been used and how it had contributed to the spread of the fire.
02:30:15 fire. Did you take any samples of anything during your visit? Do you remember? I don't remember, but I'd be surprised if we didn't. Did you remember noting anything unusual
02:30:26 Did you remember noting anything unusual during your visit?
02:30:32 The thing I most remember about the um system of cladding that had been used on this building um
02:30:44 this building um it wasn't a very sophisticated form of GRP um if you've ever repaired a car or um perhaps made a canoe in the scouts with fiberglass that's essentially the
02:30:56 with fiberglass that's essentially the material they were using. So um very low tech um approach to providing a waterproof layer on one part of the building. Um and um it was obviously
02:31:12 building. Um and um it was obviously something that that was likely to become involved in a fire and be and result in fire spread. Had you come across it before in an external cladding system? No. I thought it was really strange to
02:31:23 No. I thought it was really strange to find anyone using that material in that way.
02:31:27 way. Um were you also part of the team um who who visited North Asia Council to discuss the building and the remedial measures?
02:31:40 I remember meeting with the local fire and rescue service. I don't remember meeting with the local authority. It may well been they were in the room at the same time. I can't recall. Right. Well, let's see if I can prompt your recollection better. Can we go
02:31:52 your recollection better. Can we go please um to the report BRE 3035377 um page five please
02:32:03 and you can see um there uh in the second paragraph under description of the project it says this the BR met with Jim Paul and Graeme Wallace of technical services north council at their Pton
02:32:16 services north council at their Pton House offices to discuss the building and the remedial measures. A small team of Strathclide firefighters led by divisional officer Ian Skade joined the meeting and gave a short briefing on the
02:32:27 meeting and gave a short briefing on the fire. They also brought and showed a 7 minute security video from Tesco's of the fire from approximately 1305 hours. Do do you remember that briefing? Um so I definitely remember talking to
02:32:39 Um so I definitely remember talking to the firefighters. Um I don't remember meeting with North Asia Council but it looks like I probably was in the room. Yes. Do you remember being shown a video from the nearby Tesco's security camera?
02:32:51 from the nearby Tesco's security camera? I think so. Yes. Do you remember what Well, was there anything in particular that you that was that you observed from that video? All I can remember now is that the cladding was on fire. Right. And um you you referred to
02:33:04 Right. And um you you referred to samples. Do you remember what kinds of samples the BR took away? No, I can't remember. Do you remember whether you took away GRP samples?
02:33:13 samples? I'd be surprised if we didn't, but I don't remember. I don't remember. And what did you learn or discover from the fire at Garnet Court in general terms?
02:33:33 In a way, there wasn't that much to learn from it. It it was it was self-evident that the cladding system was a an readily combustible material
02:33:48 was a an readily combustible material um and um and as a result result the fire had spread um and resulted in multiple secondary fires. I think the thing I remember most is probably the
02:33:59 thing I remember most is probably the conversation with the firefighters who um I remember them saying they didn't have a standard procedure with for dealing with that many fires. Um so they
02:34:12 dealing with that many fires. Um so they essentially came up with one um which was to systematically work their way up through the building until they'd extinguished them all. So there was a that I don't think the fires spread from
02:34:23 that I don't think the fires spread from each whilst there was a fire on nearly every floor um that was adjacent to the section of cladding that was on fire. Um the fire hadn't spread internally to the
02:34:34 the fire hadn't spread internally to the other flat. Um and so the firefighters had to systematically work up their way up the building extinguishing each flat fire as they went. So by the time they got to the top of the building, these
02:34:46 got to the top of the building, these were fully developed fires. the the entire contents of the flat was was involved in the fire. Um whereas at the lower level, the fires were probably more like a firefighter would be used to experiencing, which
02:34:58 would be used to experiencing, which would be a fire that hasn't quite extended that far. So the the cladding system was a medium for fire spread beyond beyond the department of origin affecting all flats vertically simultaneously.
02:35:10 vertically simultaneously. Yes. I mean, it was the it was the the the the cladding was um this GRP material was only used um in a in a strip up the side of the building where
02:35:21 strip up the side of the building where the windows were located. Um and the fire had um spread up that and then gone in through um pretty much every window um and started secondary fires on all
02:35:32 um and started secondary fires on all those floors. can and um what did you consider to be the important aspects of the fire that you took away? Um
02:35:47 don't use combustible cladding I suppose. I mean is in in in in very simple terms um and and that um multiple fires in a block of flats creates major
02:36:00 fires in a block of flats creates major problems for firefighters and presumably did this occur to you challenge the very fundamental underpinning of the stay put policy.
02:36:09 policy. Absolutely. Yes. Can we look at the witness statement of Penny Morgan? This is at BR 3043866 please. I'll show you the first page
02:36:20 please. I'll show you the first page just to identify the document. There it is. And if we go to page 43, please, paragraph 261. She tells us this. Uh I recall that F FRS considered that the
02:36:32 I recall that F FRS considered that the cladding was fueling the fire because there was dense black smoke surrounding the building. If there were any other materials present and fueling the fire, then there would have been a change in the color of the smoke and flames. Did
02:36:43 the color of the smoke and flames. Did you agree with that?
02:36:48 I don't remember disagreeing or agreeing with it.
02:36:51 with it. Right.
02:36:53 Right. How would this work? H how would there been be a change in color of the smoke and flames if materials present and fueling the fire were there?
02:37:04 fueling the fire were there? I I I think the point that they're making is that when plastics burn, you tend to get more dense, darker smoke than um things
02:37:17 more dense, darker smoke than um things like timber. Do you know do you remember who asked the B to investigate this fire for the department? Um
02:37:29 it would have whoever was the policy lead at the time is probably Tony Edwards. Now if we go uh within this statement please to page 40. Let's look at paragraphs 241 and 242.
02:37:43 Let's look at paragraphs 241 and 242. At 241 she says to my recollection Brian Martin may have been working at that time within Anthony Bird's team in government which approached FRS to investigate the fire. Uh and at 242 to my recollection I was
02:37:55 Uh and at 242 to my recollection I was asked to investigate this fire by Brian Martin. Is she right about that? I haven't got a clue. I mean if I did I would have been passing on the message from Tony or Anthony.
02:38:11 Right. So at this stage this is before is this right? for August
02:38:20 to uh 1999 you were the messenger were you for Tony that is bird so Tony is Tony
02:38:31 Tony that is bird so Tony is Tony Edwards who would have been grade seven but either way the government yes
02:38:37 yes well
02:38:38 well immediately after a fire you generally want to respond quickly um if you want to understand what's happened in a fire you need to get there before people have started removing people start clearing
02:38:49 started removing people start clearing up. Um and um so you want to respond as quickly as you can. Um I might have been the only person in the office. I might have spoken to um Mr. Bird or Mr.
02:39:02 have spoken to um Mr. Bird or Mr. Edwards. Um and it might be that I was passing that message on. Um but I think it would have been slightly complex question because the fire was in
02:39:13 question because the fire was in Scotland and the department's remit is principally England. So I would have thought the policy officials in the department would have taken a view on that and decided that because of the
02:39:24 that and decided that because of the nature of the fire it was worth sending us to
02:39:29 us to to the incident even though it was outside the department's area of responsibility. Just just help me on one thing. Had you already been secounded to the department before the B was instructed to
02:39:43 before the B was instructed to investigate it?
02:39:48 I think I remember being in the department's offices when this fire was first reported. So I I guess so. Is that why you were the messenger for uh Tony Edwards or Anthony
02:40:02 messenger for uh Tony Edwards or Anthony Bird in instructing the BR to investigate the fire? It seems likely they probably said Brian ring Penny and tell her to get down there or words to that effect. Right.
02:40:15 And you investigated it what? As secondly to the department? Were you part of the investigation team for the department or for the B? I I would have been a B um
02:40:29 been a B um scientist for one of a better a B worker. Um so I would have been booking my time to the investigations of real fire contract. So I was working for BR at the time. And yet you were the person who commissioned it.
02:40:43 Well, I just said I wouldn't have commissioned it myself. I would have been passing the message on from Mr. Edwards or Mr. Bird. Right. Were you passing it for them or were you receiving it for the B or both?
02:40:55 were you receiving it for the B or both? Both, I guess. Right.
02:40:57 Right. Right. Now, um then let's um look at paragraph 243, same page. She says FRS was asked to investigate this fire in
02:41:08 was asked to investigate this fire in order to consider and determine whether there were any implications for government policy and regulation regulations. And just to be clear, FRS is fire research station, I think, not
02:41:19 is fire research station, I think, not fire and rescue service. That's right. Yeah, just to be clear now. Um, do you agree with what she says there?
02:41:26 there? That's the premise of the contract. So, yes.
02:41:29 yes. And were there any implications for government policy or regulations or guidance?
02:41:41 I say in a in a way there wasn't that much to learn from this fire. It reconfirmed what was already, you know, the the the general principle that you should avoid external fire
02:41:53 that you should avoid external fire spread was already a provision in the building regulations. Um and um
02:42:01 um it was an obviously combustible material that had been put on the external surface of the building. So did it confirm to you what you told us a moment ago? Don't use combustible
02:42:13 us a moment ago? Don't use combustible cladding.
02:42:14 cladding. Pretty much. Yes. Right.
02:42:17 Right. Was that message blunt that it may have been passed back to government? Don't use combustible cladding.
02:42:28 Don't use combustible cladding. When I say passed back to government, you were half the week there. Um I suppose that's a very imprecise way of saying it. I think um so it would be control the combustibility of the external walls is
02:42:40 combustibility of the external walls is probably a more precise way of of um of Well, it's different in fact, isn't it? It is. Yes. And you told us earlier, don't use combustible cladding. Um,
02:42:52 combustible cladding. Um, can we take it that you meant that when you gave us your answer? I think I think the problem with the word combustible is it means different things to different people and different things at different times. Explain.
02:43:03 Explain. Um, if you're being precise about it, you will probably refer to a definition. Um, I think you'll speak to some fire scientists who will tell you that everything is combustible. It's just a question of how hot you get it. Um, and
02:43:14 question of how hot you get it. Um, and so combustible isn't a isn't a a binary question unless you're using a specific definition. Not sure Dr. Smith would agree with that
02:43:26 Not sure Dr. Smith would agree with that and I'll be provided with a reference from those behind me, I'm sure. Um, she told us that it was binary. Either something burns or it doesn't. Do you disagree with that? Um, she's better qualified than me to
02:43:39 Um, she's better qualified than me to say to respond to that. Um I certainly have I certainly have experienced fire scientists use the phrase everything burns. Um it's just a question of how hot you get it is. But there are there
02:43:50 hot you get it is. But there are there are temperatures which you would not expect to experience. I think to be fair Dr. Smith made that remark in the context of the debate about limited combustibility which she
02:44:01 about limited combustibility which she regarded as a very imprecise um expression. So she was saying well once you become once something is combustible limiting the extent of the
02:44:12 limiting the extent of the combustibility is is rather pointless. So in other words that was the origin of her comment that something is either
02:44:23 her comment that something is either combust non-combustible or it's combustible in comparison to a specific definition. Yes. Um
02:44:32 Yes. Um well that was a dichotomy that she was yeah I think I think it's the thing is is that though there is um I'm sorry this is it's really difficult not to digress on these things. Um so when you
02:44:44 digress on these things. Um so when you look at the whichever test you're looking at for the non-combustibility um classification if you like there's actually a range of values you'll get from from the test. So, uh,
02:44:56 you'll get from from the test. So, uh, the bomb calorimeter, which is about the most laboratory like test you'll ever see, um, you put one gram of a material powdered in a little vessel, stick it in
02:45:07 powdered in a little vessel, stick it in the machine, it's then ignited in a pure oxygen environment. Um, and you will measure heat release. And there are very few materials that give you a zero
02:45:19 few materials that give you a zero result on that. most of them you know the
02:45:21 the so so some non-combustible things are more non-combustible than other non-combustible things it's a very it becomes academic from a fire safety point of view
02:45:33 point of view sorry no thank you well we'll revisit that I think later but going back to the question of the instructions um
02:45:42 um how did you distinguish between your role as the commissioner of the report on behalf of the department and your role as investigator and co-author of the first report we saw.
02:45:55 I didn't find that particularly difficult. Um the department wanted to know what happened. Um my contribution to producing that report was trying to um
02:46:09 producing that report was trying to um usefully describe what had happened and the construction that we found. Um so the department had that information to to consider
02:46:20 to consider is you could didn't find it difficult because to your way of thinking there wasn't a distinction really to be observed.
02:46:26 observed. Um we had the same objectives so it wasn't it wasn't as if I was acting in in
02:46:32 in two
02:46:35 two the two masters were looking for the same thing I guess maybe. But um would you accept that if you were on both sides of the of of of the reporting, the commissioning and the reporting um you would accept that the report wasn't fully independent because
02:46:47 report wasn't fully independent because it was written in part by the person who' commissioned it?
02:46:52 I don't think I would accept that. I mean the contract that BR the the commissioning is the contract that BR had with the department. Um and when I was working at the department I was
02:47:03 was working at the department I was working under a different contract. So in each case I was a contractor.
02:47:09 Yes, but you were on both sides, weren't you? You were you were for the government commissioning the report, the investigation and the report under a contract, but you were also the
02:47:21 contract, but you were also the investigator and writing the report, the person discharging the obligations undertaken by the BR under the contract. Do you not see the difference? No. Um, I I don't think it I don't think
02:47:32 No. Um, I I don't think it I don't think it's particularly particularly relevant. And as I said, I think a couple of times, I I'm pretty sure I would have been passing on the message from um officials in the department. Do you do do you can you tell us who
02:47:43 Do you do do you can you tell us who decided that that you should be as it were on both sides? Was that was that ever discussed?
02:47:54 Well, the decision to um so the technical advice contract existed before I did. Um and I came in to to fill the role that Mr. Reid had had left. Um the only difference was
02:48:07 had left. Um the only difference was whereas Mr. Reid was based in Gaston um when I was discharging that contract I was based in the department's offices and at Gaston
02:48:18 um yes but but I wasn't when I was at Gaston I wasn't necessarily working under that contract.
02:48:25 If there was something that the government, the department didn't want to appear in the report that went to it for any reason.
02:48:36 went to it for any reason. You were, weren't you, in the best position to know what that was.
02:48:44 If that ever arose, I I guess I would have known that. That's not something I ever experienced. You would also have been in the position to ensure that if the government didn't want something to appear in the report that it didn't
02:48:56 appear in the report that it didn't appear because you were on the drafting side.
02:49:00 side. I would have to tell my colleagues to take something out of a report because the government because the department didn't want it in the report. Um
02:49:11 didn't want it in the report. Um I don't think any of them would have accept I I don't think anyone would have accepted that as an instruction. Maybe. Do you accept that you were in that position by virtue of potentially? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now then going back to the reports I
02:49:23 Now then going back to the reports I want to uh just just show them that again we saw that you were one of the authors of the first report the 8th of September 1999 report. Yes. Yes.
02:49:32 Yes. Done for North Asia Council. Um, were you also involved in any way in producing the other two reports we looked at? Um, the May 2000 report for North Asia and the August 2000 report
02:49:44 North Asia and the August 2000 report for the department? I don't think so. Have you read those other two reports? No,
02:49:52 No, never.
02:49:54 never. I may have done. I I have no recollection of reading them. Right. Um let's then um see how we go with this. But can we go to BRE 305378
02:50:10 and this is page 19 in this long run of material. Um page 19. And there's an email here, first email in the chain which is the second one down on the page. The first one is not very easy to read. and it's from Penny Morgan uh to
02:50:23 read. and it's from Penny Morgan uh to uh Charles Sterling, you and Sarah Cowell on the 16th of August 1999. Dear all, I attached my draft report and covering letter. Please amend as you
02:50:34 covering letter. Please amend as you wish and forward to Martin Ship, who will sign it off. There is a hard copy on Brian's desk. All the papers are on my desk. Please show it to Tony Morris for comment, too. The photos are not mounted, but numbered on the back, and
02:50:45 mounted, but numbered on the back, and there's a list of captions. Now, do you think it's likely that you would have read that email at the time? Yes.
02:50:53 Yes. Uh,
02:50:55 Uh, and can we agree, I think, looking at the date that that that the report was the 8th of September report, the first of the three reports, I guess. So, yeah. Yeah.
02:51:06 Yeah. Now, we we've done a side-by-side comparison of that report, the September 99 report and the May 2000 reports on the investigation of the Garnet Court fire
02:51:16 fire um uh prepared both prepared for for North Asia Council. Uh and those reports both refer uh to n to um in numerous places to the fact that the cladding at
02:51:27 places to the fact that the cladding at garnet court ought to ought to have had a class n classification whereas um the subsequent report to the department makes no mention at all of class n.
02:51:38 makes no mention at all of class n. Um now I want to just explore this with you to see if you can assist us. Um if you um go first to the first North Asia report at BRE 3035377
02:51:50 report at BRE 3035377 page six please
02:51:54 and I'm going to show you this at paragraph 3.1.1 remedial measures towards the bottom of the page middle of the screen and it says this the council have made the decision to remove all the
02:52:05 have made the decision to remove all the material associated with the 1991 window replacement and start again. Technical services described their approach which still has to be finalized. They have they have opted for composite aluminium and timber windows which are fully
02:52:16 and timber windows which are fully openable to allow cleaning the spandrel panel to be an external insulated render of panels between the windows of either a non-combustible or class N material. The render to be taken around the corner
02:52:27 The render to be taken around the corner as the out as the outer edge of the building is no fines column no fines in construction. A building warrant has been applied for. Now let's keep that on the screen please and can we have uh
02:52:38 the screen please and can we have uh beside it BR 3035375 page 4 and what I'm showing you is an extract from the BR's August 2000 report to the department the first page of
02:52:49 to the department the first page of which I showed you before um uh uh and if we just have that up uh there um
02:52:59 there um I'm so sorry can we get back to page page one and then page two just to be clear about it. Page one is that and you can see that it was prepared for Anthony Bird in August 2000. And if you go to page two, you can
02:53:10 2000. And if you go to page two, you can see that it was prepared for him by Penny Morgan at the fire safety engineering center dated August 2000 signed off by Nigel Smithies. Now my question first on that is did you see this report at the time?
02:53:23 this report at the time? I don't remember. Is there any reason why you wouldn't have done? No.
02:53:27 No. No.
02:53:29 No. either with your BR hat on or your department hat on.
02:53:35 Um yeah, could have I could have seen it in in either office. Yeah. Yes. Thanks. Now, let's go down to page four where I wanted to ask you about and if we look at the top of the page, um you can see that it says
02:53:47 page, um you can see that it says remedial measures and let's just compare the two paragraphs. Um the the council have made the decision to remove all the material associated with the 1991 window replacement to start again. Technical
02:53:59 replacement to start again. Technical Services opted for composite aluminium and tim timber windows which are fully openable to allow cleaning. The spandrel panel to be an external insulated render of panels of between the windows of a non-combustible material.
02:54:10 non-combustible material. Uh the the render to be finished the render to be taken around the corner etc etc.
02:54:17 etc. You can see the difference can't you? Yes.
02:54:19 Yes. The words all class not material have been emitted haven't they? Yes.
02:54:23 Yes. They've gone. Otherwise it's identical. Yes.
02:54:26 Yes. Yes.
02:54:27 Yes. Right. Now, that's the first difference. Um, if we then go back to the left hand side, um, and look at the September 1999 North Asia report and go to page, uh, page six, please,
02:54:40 page six, please, sorry, page nine, please, uh, and go over to page 10.
02:54:47 Uh, I'd like at the same time to have on the right hand side of the screen page seven of that document, B, the RE305375, page seven. I want to do again a compare
02:54:58 page seven. I want to do again a compare and contrast exercise. Looking at the left hand side, if we go back to page nine where it starts under discussion,
02:55:10 uh it says at the very foot of the page, in the case of the fire in Garn at court, the severity of the initial fire and its position close to the window has resulted in the plume of smoke and hot gases from the fire moving out of the
02:55:22 gases from the fire moving out of the building. Initially, the plume would have been small due to the close proximity of the fire to the open window and therefore would have tended to have adhered to the surface of the building and the GRP. The plume would have
02:55:34 and the GRP. The plume would have ignited the GRP and remained in contact with it and generated a self-propagating fire. This was assisted by the cavities behind the spandre panels which allowed fire to attack both sides of the GRP. The heavy black smoke and flames seen on
02:55:46 The heavy black smoke and flames seen on the Tesco's video support this view that the GRP was the main material involved. Then you see this sentence uh although the material used in 1991
02:55:57 uh although the material used in 1991 should have been class n we have reservations about its current performance and then you see this paragraph the remedial measures planned for the high-rise blocks in Irving should address the problems identified
02:56:08 should address the problems identified i.e e damp penetration and the avoidance of an external route for fire spread. And then this sentence, we suggest that non-combustible materials are chosen wherever possible. Now just keep those
02:56:19 wherever possible. Now just keep those in your eye um uh and then look at the right hand side and if you look at the third paragraph down um you can see it starts in the case of
02:56:31 um you can see it starts in the case of the firing gun at court. It's exactly the same.
02:56:35 the same. Uh uh and you can see the same text repeated word for word except for the middle paragraph um which says although it used in 1991 should have been class not we have reservations about its current performance that's gone. You see
02:56:47 current performance that's gone. You see that?
02:56:47 that? Mhm.
02:56:48 Mhm. Um as has the last sentence in the last paragraph above the next heading which starts we suggest that's gone as well. You see that which refers to non-combustible. Yes.
02:56:58 Yes. Can you help us? Do you know anything about this discrepancy between these two reports?
02:57:04 reports? No.
02:57:05 No. Do you know why these amendments to the text were made? No.
02:57:09 No. Was the reference to class not removed at the request of the department? Not that I'm aware of. Was it removed at the request of the BRE?
02:57:17 BRE? No. If you read these at the time, did you not notice that these references to class N and combustibility uh which were in the North Asia report were not in the report in August 2000 to Anthony Bird?
02:57:31 report in August 2000 to Anthony Bird? No, I have no recollection of the difference at all. Can you explain how you how you could not have been or were not aware of that at the time?
02:57:43 So again, this is a long time ago. Um but from recollection I would have um contributed to the to an initial draft. Um
02:57:55 Um and I think Penny Morgan subsequently drafted a number of reports for for different reasons. Um
02:58:06 so I would have been aware of the reports but unless she brought my attention to the fact that there were subtle differences in there, I may well not have spotted them. Um, especially given that they're almost exactly the
02:58:17 given that they're almost exactly the same in all other respects. I probably would have looked at it and thought, "Oh, she's just taken the text from report A and plopped it into report B." You never had a conversation with her about it.
02:58:27 about it. If we did, I don't remember it. Um, all I can say in terms of the the comment where it says, um, we have reservations about the performance of of
02:58:39 reservations about the performance of of of the material. um it's probably because we are unable to get enough of the material to formally classify it and so you couldn't
02:58:50 formally classify it and so you couldn't categorically say whether something was or wasn't class O although it was painly obvious it wasn't class O um you wouldn't be able to in writing say this
02:59:02 wouldn't be able to in writing say this isn't class O which is probably why it says we have reservations about his current performance. Well, um, do you remember which parts of the first report, which does bear your name, you contributed to?
02:59:14 contributed to? I wouldn't be able to remember that now. I think we would have Penny would have done most of the drafting because she was the the lead consultant on that contract and and and
02:59:25 contract and and and I would have contributed where I could and helped with uh the sort of construction related text that was in there. Well, reg regulatory construction text. Yes. Cuz that's what you were a
02:59:36 Yes. Cuz that's what you were a translator. Yes.
02:59:38 Yes. Yes. What what expertise did Penny Morgan have about class N combustibility, external fire spread, vertical fire spread, GRP? Was it better than yours?
02:59:49 spread, GRP? Was it better than yours? Your expertise? She certainly had a lot more experience than me in fire investigation. I think she'd been working on that project for some time. M maybe. But that's fire investigation. Translating the effects of the findings
03:00:01 Translating the effects of the findings from investigation into regulatory language. That would have been your domain, wouldn't it? Yeah, I think we would have done that collaboratively and and say she's been doing that for a long time. Yes. I mean, can we can we take it that
03:00:12 Yes. I mean, can we can we take it that at least those parts which referred to class N or combustibility those sort of concepts which are embedded deeply in the proof document B would have come from you or to which you would at least have contributed. Uh yes.
03:00:23 Uh yes. Yeah. And therefore when you when you as you might have done as you say saw the 2000 version did you not look to see that those parts of the final job which had come to the department under your commissioning bore the bore and
03:00:35 commissioning bore the bore and contained the parts to which you had originally contributed. If I did I don't remember. It would have been a natural thing to do wouldn't it?
03:00:46 wouldn't it? I suspect I would have assumed the text was the same. Why would you have assumed it without looking at it? This was the final report commissioned by you and contributed to
03:00:57 commissioned by you and contributed to in its first version by you. Well, strictly speaking, it was commissioned by the department, not by me. Um, but um I think I would have I
03:01:08 me. Um, but um I think I would have I would have expected Penny to have brought it to my attention if she'd changed something for some reason. Mr. Chairman, is that a convenient moment?
03:01:16 moment? Yes, I think it is. Well, it's time we had a break now so that everyone can get some lunch, Mr. Martin. So, we'll stop there. We'll resume, please, at 2:00. And as before, I have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your
03:01:28 not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room. Yes, sir.
03:01:31 Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much. Would you go with the archer, please?
03:01:44 Thank you, Mr. Millet. 2:00, please. Thank you.