Bob Ledson of DLUHC gives evidence on departmental handling of fire safety regulation reviews, correspondence with the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety Group, ministerial briefings, and delays in implementing Approved Document B reforms after the Lakanal House fire.
00:00:24 would you ask mr ledson to come back in please
00:00:30 [Music]
00:00:36 thank you all right mr edson are you ready to carry on yes thank you yes yes um mr lesson can we go next please to clg one triple zero eight zero six zero
00:00:49 zero six zero this is an email from brian martin to richard harrell copy to you
00:01:12 i'm sorry chad just whilst we're waiting for the doctors to um be drawn up i just wondered if i could have the opportunity just to comment a little further on the exchange i had with council before lunch where about my recollection
00:01:24 where about my recollection of
00:01:25 of what was covered in one of those um work stream reports i've had a look at my witness statement and i think what i meant
00:01:32 i meant was the report that related to space separation which was separation between buildings external fire spread and i think therefore there was some discussion about um what i call modern
00:01:43 discussion about um what i call modern methods of construction but in that context not in the context of um section a far external fire spread out building so i really wanted to have the opportunity to yes ensure that there was no i didn't give any misleading
00:01:55 no i didn't give any misleading impression thank you thank you very much if necessary mr millet can follow that up of course when it suits him thank you that's a very helpful clarification mr let's i'm grateful to you thank you uh now um what i'd like to go to please
00:02:07 uh now um what i'd like to go to please is not this it's clg one triple zero eight zero six zero
00:02:16 and this is an email from brian martin to richard harrell copy to you 16th of march 2016. some four months after the david amos letter and it says this richard i mentioned at
00:02:27 and it says this richard i mentioned at our hob's meeting uh now that hob head of branches meeting so that would be the meeting that mr harrell would have with his technical team right thank you i mentioned at our hob's meeting the
00:02:39 mentioned at our hob's meeting the ongoing correspondence with sir david amis chair of the all parliament party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group james wharton met with the met with the group on 26 november since then sir david has written to jw three times
00:02:52 sir david has written to jw three times essentially they want to see a review of adb and aren't very happy about how long they are having to wait we had a similar run of increasingly touchy correspondence from sir david with stephen williams when the most
00:03:03 with stephen williams when the most recent letter came in jw's private office rang me to ask what the hold up was i explained that a submission was imminent
00:03:11 imminent jw has signed the reply to sir david the last line i used was i am not yet in a position to set out our plans for building regulations it is important to recognize that fire safety is just one
00:03:23 recognize that fire safety is just one element of the regulations and the building control system there are other pressures on building regulations and i think it is best to consider them all in the round
00:03:31 the round i've attached all the correspondence numbered in chronological order if you want the gory detail i assume we stick with this line until we go public now first from your recollection was
00:03:42 now first from your recollection was james wharton frustrated with a hold up on your part um
00:03:53 so um forgive me the most recent letter from sir david would that have been sort of early february i'm just trying to think of the timeline of the letters from the appg
00:04:06 of the letters from the appg and um and therefore at what point we were in terms of advice to minister wharton well the most recent letter that we can find
00:04:18 we can find is the
00:04:20 is the uh
00:04:22 well i'm sorry do you know what your this is talking okay let
00:04:28 okay let let me try the question again because it was a simple question let me try it again
00:04:32 again was james wharton frustrated with a hold up on your part in march 2016
00:04:38 so um
00:04:42 we i didn't
00:04:45 i didn't i didn't have that feedback um
00:04:49 um i
00:04:51 i know
00:04:51 know that
00:04:53 that a few weeks previously well three the in terms of substantial um submissions to minister wharton there were the submissions in the autumn 2015
00:05:05 were the submissions in the autumn 2015 and then as you all know the next substantive submission for reasons we've discussed was not until the 1st of april 2016 so i accept that that's quite a period of time
00:05:17 period of time we did keep in touch with minister wharton's office about what was happening and i asked mr harold
00:05:23 harold specifically to update his office in
00:05:27 in in in early 2016 so that we were ensuring he was the minister was up to speed um
00:05:36 speed um so i am
00:05:39 so i am i'm presuming that what this is is that the letter from sir david and i think there was one in early february so maybe that is what is being referred to here would have referred again to
00:05:50 would have referred again to um what the minister said about
00:05:54 about the adb review and my recollection is that the response which the minister sent which we looked at just before lunch i
00:06:05 which we looked at just before lunch i at the end of 2015 made reference to an early announcement or an announcement in the new year or something to that effect so i think it's perfectly
00:06:16 so i think it's perfectly understandable that the minister is saying well i was given advice that led me to say that to sir david so what's been happening please and that's what i think that this exchange would reflect thank you now
00:06:29 exchange would reflect thank you now let's just you mentioned a february 2016 letter yeah i haven't shown you that but in fairness perhaps we should look at it okay
00:06:34 okay let's try it anyway see how we go clg 3019334
00:06:45 and it's a letter from david amos again to james wharton 22nd of february 2016 and
00:06:54 and if you
00:06:55 if you look at the um first line there's a reference to an undated letter of the 15th of february referring to a letter of the first of february
00:07:05 february uh the second letter refers uh to an earlier letter of the 6th of january and
00:07:11 and the foot of the page it says the the 6th of january letter said that you hope to set out the government's intention regarding building regulations in the new year and we are already well into february some further clarification very
00:07:22 february some further clarification very soon would be extremely helpful yeah given many assurances given by former ministers and secretaries of state in this regard so that's okay is that the letter you were that was the exchange i was thinking of right does that help now
00:07:33 was thinking of right does that help now let's then go back to my question and i wonder if you could answer it as shortly as you
00:07:38 as you can was james wharton frustrated with the hold up on your part um well i was not told with that in in those terms in using the words like frustration
00:07:49 frustration um
00:07:53 i'm trying to recall whether there was any further email exchanges with his private office after the exchange which i mentioned in my previous on so i can't recall that uh can we go back then to the email one triple zero eight zero six zero
00:08:06 triple zero eight zero six zero and uh look and see what mr martin is saying there yeah um he repeatedly talks about lines to use do you agree that the department was as it were handling sir david and the
00:08:18 as it were handling sir david and the appg rather than telling sir david in plain terms what was actually happening
00:08:25 well i think the um
00:08:29 the the sentences in uh inverted commas which i am presuming are verbatim or near enough verbatim from the minister's reply set out where
00:08:41 from the minister's reply set out where we were the position it's a line though that's what i'm really putting to you this is a position uh and does that tell us that rather than telling him straight up what was going on in the department you were
00:08:53 was going on in the department you were giving him a a position a line
00:08:58 well the line is saying what was what where we were where the position was that he's he was not in a position to set out plans because um regrettably you know we had not at that point in
00:09:10 you know we had not at that point in time been able to get the further the the discussion document to him so i think that is a reflection of
00:09:17 of a a fair
00:09:19 a a fair reflection of what the position was so i'm not quite sure i completely [Music]
00:09:24 [Music] follow what you're saying about a line as opposed to a description of where things were well let me try it let me see if i can get it this way first sentence of the
00:09:35 get it this way first sentence of the line he uses is i'm not yet in a position to set out our plans now that's a
00:09:41 a simple negative statement yes correct yes
00:09:44 yes and it was true yes yes and then you get um something else you get a lesson it is important to recognize that fire safety is just one
00:09:55 recognize that fire safety is just one element of the regulations and the building control system you're not telling him what's happened you're giving him a a piece of teaching about the importance of fire safety is only one of a number
00:10:06 of fire safety is only one of a number of elements of regulation well i think that if we had just if the reply had just had finished after the first sentence then
00:10:16 then i would imagine sir david would have said well
00:10:19 said well why
00:10:20 why and the last the following the subsequent words explain why that uh there was a broader piece of work underway as we've discussed and that the
00:10:31 underway as we've discussed and that the minister considered that it was best to look at these in the round and therefore that is why um he had not he was not yet in a position to announce plans so i think that's a just a further
00:10:43 just a further helpful um explanation of why he had not been able to make the announcement would it be fair to read that second sentence as imparting the line to
00:10:52 to sir david that fire safety was not a top priority but one element only
00:11:00 only as he says just one element of the regulations and the building control system
00:11:07 what that is saying is that we are conducting a review
00:11:11 a review overall that includes fire safety within it i don't think there's any inference about something being higher priority than something else or that something being lower priority than something else i don't see that at all in that um
00:11:24 i don't see that at all in that um in that in in in this text you really don't no well how would you read the words how did you read the words at the time
00:11:31 time it's important to recognize that fire safety is just one element of the regulations well that's a statement of fact yes but it does tend to suggest that it's not the most important well um
00:11:41 well um doesn't it well i have to say i think i'd consider all of the fire the elements of the building regulations of of of of equal importance i mean that is the way the building regulations are constructed
00:11:53 are constructed well they're not all there is no there is no i'm sorry there is no hierarchy that says that for example
00:12:01 example part b is more important than say part a well part a is about structure and i can see why you picked that as an example yes but um not all the building regulations or the approved documents
00:12:13 regulations or the approved documents are about life safety are they no no but i think um
00:12:22 regulation for something of the building regulations sets out that in consideration of whether work complies with the building regulations equal consideration should
00:12:33 regulations equal consideration should be given to all all relevant element of those regulations so therefore that does not establish a hierarchy that says um this regulation this functional
00:12:44 um this regulation this functional requirement is more important than that functional requirement so i don't is that that is a statement of a fact
00:12:56 the appg group i think you would agree with me this much mr ledson were unhappy about how long the review of adb was taking
00:13:06 taking i would agree with that yeah was that not an entirely legitimate concern given that this is now march 2016 uh some three years after the latino coroner's recommendations and some eight
00:13:18 coroner's recommendations and some eight years almost eight years after the fire itself um
00:13:21 itself um a very legitimate issue for them to be concerned about the line being suggested here was that ministers were not yet in a position to set out plans for building regulations as i said yes yes yes why was that
00:13:36 because as i explained before lunch
00:13:43 lunch once
00:13:44 once minister warden had signed off the discussion document it would need to be agreed with the secretary of state and it would then have needed collective clearance only at that point would the government or mr wharton or whoever be
00:13:55 government or mr wharton or whoever be in a position to make a public statement that is the way the process of collective discussion and consideration of policy works therefore we are not in a position at this point in time
00:14:07 at this point in time and the minister is not in a position at this point in time to make a commitment to a policy which has not been collectively agreed or an approach which has not been collectively agreed in terms of the detail
00:14:19 terms of the detail of plans for building regulations that reflects that position i understand and that answer i think reflects a lot of the evidence you've already given indeed over the years we've seen up to this point my question is why not tell
00:14:32 point my question is why not tell sir david amis exactly what you've just told us
00:14:42 well there is always an element of caution
00:14:46 caution in government in terms even with um um a back venture as a as in as as as well regarding the of seniority and experience as to david to expose the inner workings of
00:14:59 to expose the inner workings of government where exactly things are in a process we would always use a more general formulation of this nature
00:15:09 nature if we were in a position where work was underway but we were not in a position to
00:15:16 to set out
00:15:17 set out a detailed set of plans or proposals
00:15:22 it is not unusual in any policy scenario for this sort of formulation to be used where
00:15:27 where a department is not yet in a position to make a public announcement but is being asked about progress why didn't you tell him that no proposals had yet been put before the minister well any minister we
00:15:39 before the minister well any minister we had put proposals to minister wharton um in the first instance in october 2015 they needed further development clearly following um his feedback on that submission and the meeting that we had
00:15:51 submission and the meeting that we had with him
00:15:52 with him so i don't accept that no plans i would accept final plans final final proposals because um that was what was the that was the purpose of the april um submission why not tell him that
00:16:04 submission why not tell him that um
00:16:06 um well we could have said that um we didn't say that you could have said that
00:16:12 that was that was that because you were giving him a line spinning him along no
00:16:16 no i do not accept that i think this is a this is a short concise yes uh response to uh the inquiry from sir david as to where things were
00:16:27 david as to where things were and i think that is how i read that reply uh this this
00:16:33 this this reply and i regard that as a perfectly proper
00:16:39 proper uh response to the inquiry from so suggested the minister would make to the inquiry from sir david at this point now so david's concern as we've seen and we can we will continue to see in a moment was about fire safety
00:16:52 to see in a moment was about fire safety because it was about life safety the second sentence there tends to suggest
00:16:57 suggest doesn't it that as it says fire safety is just one element of the regulations um
00:17:02 um building on the evidence you've just given on that sentence was it the case that the department regarded fire safety uh as of equal importance uh and not more importance than other
00:17:14 uh and not more importance than other elements of the building regulations for example party sound um
00:17:21 um no i mean
00:17:26 in my previous answer i was referring to the to the position as to how the law sets out that you know in terms of considering compliance all parts of the
00:17:37 considering compliance all parts of the functional requirements are are are to be treated equally in relation to work that we would undertaking then clearly
00:17:49 then clearly because of its importance per se clearly
00:17:53 clearly in terms of the commitment which had been given by lord pickles if there was a choice between well do we do
00:18:01 do work on noise before work on fire safety the answer would have been or we would never ask that question if he were my recommendation very strongly would be no we need to deal with the fire safety
00:18:12 we need to deal with the fire safety work before we look at for example noise even not even though we knew that there were quite a number of issues with that particular or the guidance on that particular part of the building regulations right well if that was the
00:18:24 regulations right well if that was the thinking of the department it's completely contrary to what mr martin sets out in that second sentence here in the line he used to sir david no
00:18:35 no why not because what mr martin is referring to is a program of work which covers all of the building regulations be it part b through all the things that
00:18:47 be it part b through all the things that we've discussed when we have looked at the various drafts of the discussion document it does not imply at all that
00:18:56 that we are treating other parts of the building regulations as higher priority in that program of work
00:19:04 work as higher priority than fire safety and we we looked at that in the in term in some of the earlier evidence so i do not accept that is
00:19:14 that is it's not an inference i would draw from that
00:19:17 that sentence and it is certainly not an implication that we wanted to put over in that sentence
00:19:29 now we already covered the fact that on the 17th of july 2016 gavin barwell was appointed ministers
00:19:36 ministers when you briefed him did you give him any background as to the previous correspondence with the appg um not in that first briefing no i don't think that would have been mentioned uh
00:19:47 uh he
00:19:49 he says in his witness statement i didn't think i need to show it to you it's paragraph 27 at page 11 that he wasn't aware that the the the chain of correspondence between ministers and the appg had been going on for a period of years can you account
00:20:01 for a period of years can you account for that
00:20:03 for that um
00:20:03 um well um if you were able to tell me at what point or what point in the chronology he made that statement then
00:20:11 then he clearly um would have um we did not discuss it in the early um in the early briefings so no we did not discuss it it did not come up at that meeting no no yes i agree and why is
00:20:22 meeting no no yes i agree and why is that well because we had a lot to cover and uh in my view uh there would have been um
00:20:29 been um we would have fully expected as indeed they did of course that the appg would correspond with lord barwell which they they did and at that point that would enable us to then explain to lord
00:20:41 enable us to then explain to lord barwell the various sequence of events and the correspondence that his uh previous ministers had had with the appg that would have been an opportunity to explain
00:20:53 an opportunity to explain the background so what as and when the next missive came in
00:20:59 as and when the appg
00:21:02 the appg next wrote to minister lord barwell
00:21:10 explain the thinking why given the history some years of correspondence now given the delay why not tell gavin barwell that one of the things
00:21:21 gavin barwell that one of the things that's going to be coming across his desk pretty soon he could count on it was another letter from david amos on this subject we would have had a lot to go through with lord barwell in a limited amount of
00:21:34 with lord barwell in a limited amount of time
00:21:35 time um and that purpose of that first meeting was to actually help lord barwell mr barwell actually understand the building regulation system so it was very much focused on that
00:21:47 very much focused on that discussion uh with a brief reference to some of the big issues coming
00:21:52 coming um or likely to be coming across his desk which we've discussed um
00:22:01 i don't obviously the engagement of the appg is important but at that point in time you know
00:22:10 we would not it would not have been a meeting where for example we would have said oh when the appg may write to you and there may be some other people who may write to you you may go and need to visit we suggest or
00:22:21 and need to visit we suggest or recommend that you speak to x y or zed it was not that kind of meeting
00:22:26 meeting so as i say we fully expected that the
00:22:31 that the the appg
00:22:33 the appg would write i can't remember exactly when they did in
00:22:41 in in in summer 2016 and
00:22:47 i would have expected if if that had not happened
00:22:50 happened then as we developed the um proposals for the discussion document with lord barwell that would have been a good opportunity if there had been no correspondence from the appg at that
00:23:01 correspondence from the appg at that point to say a key stakeholder in engagement on this process will be with the appg
00:23:07 the appg and if the david amis does not approach you himself about it you may wish to consider
00:23:12 consider speaking to him or briefing him on the proposals
00:23:16 proposals so
00:23:17 so um that i think would have been what would have happened if the appg had not written to lord barwell when they did
00:23:30 clg3019398 please
00:23:37 this is a letter from sir david amos appg
00:23:40 appg uh
00:23:41 uh in fact it comes from him um i say personally but in his capacity as mp for
00:23:46 as mp for uh south and west uh 17th of october 2016. dear mr barwell sir david sent you the enclosed letter on 12 september but we do not seem to have received a response
00:23:57 response and this is this comes from his office the the
00:24:01 the the next page piece page 2 is the letter sent on the 12th of september 2016. if we just go to that and that says dear gavin this is to
00:24:12 and that says dear gavin this is to gavin barwell there's some congratulations in the first paragraph second paragraph the previous postholder with the building regulations responsibility was james wharton mp who met with the group as
00:24:23 wharton mp who met with the group as long ago as 26th of november 2015 when he promised to make an announcement shortly quote some quotes about the review of approved document b guidance fire safety to the regulations where a
00:24:34 fire safety to the regulations where a great deal of proprietary work had already been done but with some serious outstanding issues still needing to be addressed regrettably we have yet to receive any announcement on this which is which is of such importance to fire
00:24:45 is which is of such importance to fire and construction sectors i recall you did speak at a parliamentary fire seminar in westminster following the riots in croydon in 2013 so you already have an understanding of the need for effective
00:24:57 understanding of the need for effective fire safety in the built environment with increased use of modern materials and methods of construction and it goes on over the page and reminds the minister of the lunch
00:25:09 and reminds the minister of the lunch and then
00:25:10 and then no minutes but exchange of thoughts and then in the next paragraph meanwhile i'm attaching a copy of my last letter to james dated 20th of june 2016 with enclosures also attached to which i have yet to receive a response or
00:25:21 yet to receive a response or acknowledgement uh now um it may not have been the case that that letter got through let's then look at the response to it please at clg
00:25:34 please at clg triple zero eight seven one seven
00:25:38 this is dated and this is a draft i think dated the 14th of november 2016. and it
00:25:47 right let me try the reference again clg one triple zero eight seven one seven
00:25:58 yes thank you um yeah thank you now this is uh in fact not the draft but the version that went to him the final version and i think it was drafted by brian
00:26:10 and i think it was drafted by brian martin
00:26:11 martin uh and we know that because he sends it to you on the 17th of november after it has gone yeah let's just look at the letter first and then we'll look at the email dear david thank you for your letter of 17th of october
00:26:23 letter of 17th of october i'm sorry your original letter of 12 september does not appear to have arrived in this office with respect to your concerns relating to fire safety aspects of building regulations my department has been looking at a range of issues relating to
00:26:34 looking at a range of issues relating to the regulations many of which are interrelated and our intention is to make a statement in due course in your original letter you kindly offered to meet over lunch to discuss the issues that you've raised i know you've had a similar meeting with my predecessor and
00:26:47 similar meeting with my predecessor and the views of your group are being given proper consideration as such i think it would be better and more constructive to wait until after this statement has been made so that our conversation can be in context
00:26:56 context uh and then there's there's some something about the 20th of june letter and that's what that's what went out you get sent this a few days later can we look at clg triple zero 19382 please
00:27:16 clg one sorry clg double clg three zeros one nine three eight two yes here is brian martin's email to you and richard harrell 17th of november 2016. bob richard gavin barwell has now
00:27:29 2016. bob richard gavin barwell has now signed this msu i based the reply on the pqs we had dealt with i thought i'd bring it to your attention as the appg seemed to be getting increasingly irritated at the delay in getting on with work on adb
00:27:42 delay in getting on with work on adb the important paragraphs are below and he sets those out yeah and you've seen those already yeah did you reply to this email
00:27:48 email um
00:27:49 um i can't recall did you agree that the appg were uh
00:27:55 uh justified in their irritation that nothing had changed by this time i'm sorry
00:28:00 i'm sorry by this time november 2016. um clearly they had they were entitled to make that point and make it vigorously as it as into david's letters yes did you take
00:28:11 into david's letters yes did you take that opportunity to query the delay the ever shifting timetable and and get to the bottom of it at this point the
00:28:20 the timetable for the review and the work was underway of course i was intimately involved working with richard harrell and brian martin on the development of the discussion document so i was aware of
00:28:33 discussion document so i was aware of what
00:28:34 what um the appg's concern was
00:28:39 was if we go back to the letter that we've just looked at that went out to
00:28:44 to sir david from gavin barwell clg one triple zero eight seven one seven did you approve this letter
00:28:55 i cannot recall if i approved it um
00:29:04 i'm afraid i cannot recall but whether you did or you didn't whether i did or i didn't whether you did you didn't it was wasn't it an exercise in deflection and delay it was an exercise in explaining to
00:29:17 it was an exercise in explaining to sir david that we were not yet in a position to
00:29:22 to make an announcement as he had been pressing
00:29:25 pressing and
00:29:26 and we as as per the previous discussion with a brief explanation as to why that was the case as it set out in the second paragraph
00:29:37 out in the second paragraph well
00:29:38 well you see sir david has offered a lunch meeting yes to discuss the issues the minister goes back and essentially says no
00:29:46 says no wait until i made a statement now isn't that an exercise in deflection and delay
00:29:51 and delay that is an exercise in saying to
00:29:56 saying to sir david
00:29:57 sir david that
00:29:58 that a fuller discussion would be constructive with the appg would be constructive once there was something substantive to talk to the app again about because
00:30:09 to talk to the app again about because there would have been an announcement in the public domain uh which would then give so a focus for
00:30:19 for minister barwell to explain the government's thinking on the relevant issues and to have a discussion with the appg
00:30:26 appg about those that is why uh there was the suggestion in um
00:30:32 in um in lord barwell's letter that he
00:30:35 he that a meeting might be uh held once the statement had been made when was it going to be made well at that point in time um
00:30:45 um i can't remember the exact sequence
00:30:50 uh we were still working on the basis of trying to get the letter out sorry the discussion document out as rapidly as possible i'm not sure at that point whether we were yet in a position to be
00:31:02 whether we were yet in a position to be absolutely certain when that would be so what did you what did gavin barwell mean uh obviously you're not him but brian martin drafted this what did your department
00:31:13 drafted this what did your department mean
00:31:14 mean uh in
00:31:15 uh in in due course at the end of the second paragraph there
00:31:21 well at this point in time because of things were being were very fluid uh
00:31:29 uh we were not in a position to advise minister barwell to provide a definitive date to
00:31:36 date to david amis about when that discussion document would be published so i repeat the question was it not therefore an exercise in deflection and delay
00:31:45 delay it was an exercise in putting in a holding reply because we were not in a position to provide a precise date as to
00:31:54 as to when the discussion document might be issued and it would have been wrong to say it will happen in date on date x because we were not in a position to make that decision
00:32:05 decision now before gavin barwell sent this letter did he receive from you or to your knowledge from brian martin a briefing on the background a full and candid briefing on the background
00:32:17 candid briefing on the background including the full run of correspondence with the apg back to 2013. um i don't recall if that was provided i think i probably would have been aware of it if it had yeah can we take it so i
00:32:28 of it if it had yeah can we take it so i think the answer would be there would not have been a full brief why is that um
00:32:34 um i think at this point in time um we were looking
00:32:39 looking to provide the response to the specific letter
00:32:42 letter and that at such a time as um the
00:32:46 um the minister barwell met with sir david and the appga that would have been the occasion to give minister barwell a full briefing on the various exchanges that his predecessors had had with the
00:32:59 that his predecessors had had with the appg can we go to your witness statement please at page 61 and look at paragraph 237 together
00:33:09 and you say there
00:33:13 there and this is uh in response to the inquiries yeah questions about concerns raised by the appg you say uh in the second and third lines this in general my recollection is that
00:33:25 this in general my recollection is that i would have discussed letters with my team members and agree the general approach
00:33:29 approach clearly that's a very generic and generous
00:33:33 generous answer and nothing wrong with that but my question is well what what was the general approach
00:33:39 approach that you agreed so
00:33:41 so the the appg really focused on two issues to my recollection in their correspondence obviously they raised concerns about a variety of
00:33:52 raised concerns about a variety of technical issues but at the heart of it what they were seeking was um pushing
00:33:59 pushing understandably and rightly so for the review of adb to be progressed not least because that then when it was in the public domain would enable the ppg to make further representations as
00:34:11 ppg to make further representations as no doubt they would have done that was the first set of issues the second set of issues were around sprinklers no sorry
00:34:20 no sorry to be clear because you're talking about them i'm talking about you let's keep it simple sorry what was your general approach what was your job i'm sorry i'm sorry i thought i thought that i interpret that as the general approach to um how we responded to the um
00:34:35 to um how we responded to the um to the letters so as i as i think i say in my next sentence the way i would have approached this was i would have if those letters raised new issues
00:34:47 raised new issues then i would have hoped and expected that the um the desk officer mr martin or whoever would have alerted me to them if it was a situation if the letters
00:34:59 if it was a situation if the letters were more about well where where are things with adb or where are things on a policy where the government has an established position
00:35:07 position then i would have expected in those circumstances that the general response that
00:35:13 that we had developed to in answer to those questions would be used which is the case in these responses that we have been looking at do you accept that the approach that you
00:35:24 do you accept that the approach that you took your department took in assisting
00:35:28 assisting the minister to respond to sir david through through these years whoever the minister was uh was essentially to ignore the prescient warnings about the dangers of failing to update approved document b
00:35:41 failing to update approved document b i wouldn't accept that we would have explained to the the ministers about the process that we were engaged in in terms of a review and that we felt that that review would
00:35:53 and that we felt that that review would be the opportunity to address issues raised by the by the appg and indeed other stakeholders and that you stuck to a general approach
00:36:04 and that you stuck to a general approach of
00:36:05 of deflection and delay sticking to the utmost generalities and never gave the minister a proper granular detail briefing about the apbg correspondence and the content of their concerns
00:36:16 and the content of their concerns um
00:36:19 well that is the case i think on looking back on it perhaps um you know in some instances we should have offered the minister the opportunity to make a more substantive response to some of the
00:36:30 substantive response to some of the points raised by the appg i would i would accept that but at the point at this point in time we very much focused on
00:36:37 on the issues um around the particularly the time thing timing and the limitations on what we could say about the adb review because of the
00:36:49 about the adb review because of the uncertainties which attended that can we go back to a document we saw earlier
00:36:54 earlier today which was at clg3030840
00:36:59 page seven
00:37:05 this is the briefing note that simon ridley
00:37:10 crafted for helen mcnamara written immediately after the fire and if you look at the last bullet point under the first main paragraph or chunk of text there he
00:37:21 of text there he he says
00:37:24 our correspondence with the appg is appalling
00:37:27 appalling delayed
00:37:28 delayed partial and looks chaotic do you accept those criticisms
00:37:39 um
00:37:41 i mean i know i don't quite know what um is is meant by delayed i'm clearly there were problems with some letters which regrettably for whatever reason didn't arrive and there
00:37:52 whatever reason didn't arrive and there was a period when um obviously there was as we've seen some follow-up from the apg asking for responses i think there was a been genuine
00:38:03 think there was a been genuine correspondence problems there um i've already accepted that um perhaps in some instances we should have offered the minister the opportunity
00:38:14 opportunity to make a more substantive response on particular points beyond above and beyond
00:38:20 beyond the uh general uh approach that we that we've put in the letters
00:38:26 again obviously i don't know exactly what mr ridley saw when he reached this view
00:38:36 would you agree looking at the correspondence we've looked at together which is by name is all of it otherwise we'd have been here for rather longer that your department pursued a strategy of deflection and delay always kicking
00:38:48 of deflection and delay always kicking the can down the road and taking advantage of the serial changes of minister i do not accept that do you accept that there was enough failure of engagement with the concerns that the appg was raising
00:38:59 appg was raising i've accepted that with hindsight we could have offered the minister the opportunity to make a fuller response to
00:39:07 to specific comments made in the appg letters
00:39:14 we go to clg
00:39:18 3019471 please clg three zeros one nine four seven one this is lord pickles witness statement to the inquiry and i'd like within it
00:39:30 to the inquiry and i'd like within it please to go to page 24. [Applause]
00:39:35 paragraph 82 he says this i've subsequently been shown correspondence received by the department from the all-party parliamentary fire and rescue safety group which was dealt with at the junior minister level
00:39:47 junior minister level i did not see this correspondence at the time or the responses the department sent
00:39:52 sent i am disappointed to see that the convention of politeness in inter-ministerial correspondence was not always adhered to would you agree with that
00:39:59 that um well i would accept lord pickles opinion on the way that the correspondence was
00:40:08 was dealt with if that's what he felt obviously
00:40:11 obviously he would have um you know he's obviously took a firm view took a very clear view on the matter as expressed here
00:40:19 here let's turn to a different topic altogether i want to ask you about fire safety critical matters and some aspects of the approved document itself okay now um
00:40:30 okay now um first can we go to brian martin's witness statement please clg 30 is 19469 page 38
00:40:38 page 38 paragraph 113
00:40:42 [Music] and
00:40:48 exactly halfway down the paragraph you see there's a sentence that starts here it is important yes yes here it is important to recall that compliance with the functional requirements of the regulations is to be
00:40:59 requirements of the regulations is to be achieved by the person undertaking the construction the design team architect builder etc and it is signed off by the relevant building control body the department's role is set out above is a devolved one it sets the regulations and
00:41:11 devolved one it sets the regulations and administers the approved documents how the industry secures compliance with the functional requirements is a matter for the industry as my comments in this email exchange were intended to explain i i don't think i need to
00:41:22 i i don't think i need to show you the email exchange with ipswich borough council but that's the background would you did you first does what he says there accord
00:41:33 first does what he says there accord with your own understanding of the department's role in relation to the building regulations and the approved documents yes do you consider that the department's role was as he says a devolved one
00:41:45 role was as he says a devolved one well
00:41:46 well the way i would have phrased it is that the um the building regulation system is based on the devolution of responsibility for compliance to
00:41:56 to the person the duty holder and in terms of enforcement and compliance checking to either a local authority or an approved inspector so i um
00:42:06 um that is
00:42:07 that is that is the position and that is what i think mr martin is meaning and intending when he made that statement here well he's talking about the department's role he says the department's role is a devolved one
00:42:18 devolved one i i i will obviously ask him what he means by that but what did you understand about by the department's role
00:42:26 role um well i think i probably would have phrased it slightly differently i would think i probably would have phrased it the department operates in a devolved system
00:42:33 system as it input this the department's role as an evolved one implies that something is being devolved to the department and i think what mr martin probably meant was that the in effect the responsibilities
00:42:45 effect the responsibilities have been devolved to as i've said building control um
00:42:50 um and obviously that is not the department's policy that is what the building act provides let me see if i can let me see if i can break it up a bit a bit um do you agree that the department's role
00:43:01 do you agree that the department's role and your role uh was to administer the approved documents
00:43:05 documents in the sense of keeping them under the review and updating them yes yes yes and disseminating memory of course yes uh did that involve giving consideration to the likely readership of the approved
00:43:16 to the likely readership of the approved documents
00:43:17 documents um yes it would yes did it include writing documents in a clear and understandable manner well that was we did our best to achieve that yes did that involve achieving or seeking to achieve at least
00:43:29 achieving or seeking to achieve at least a settled understanding within the department as to the actual scope meaning and application of the provisions of the guidance being produced well obviously we would hoped that the guidance
00:43:40 we would hoped that the guidance producer was sufficiently clear that that was the outcome and do you agree that uh it involved a preparedness where required to clarify or explain the
00:43:51 where required to clarify or explain the scope or the meaning or the application of particular provisions of the guidance so that's why we would have a process of reviewing approved documents yes well just let's just break it up first of all
00:44:04 was the department prepared to clarify or explain the scope and meaning and application of the provisions of the guidance if and when alerted to a need to do so we would be prepared to address that yes
00:44:16 we would be prepared to address that yes so if and when alerted to a lack of clarity in relation to any particular section or word is it your evidence that the department would have been willing to clarify or explain
00:44:28 to clarify or explain we would have been willing to consider unnecessary clarification or explanation i think i can i would say that right and was it your understanding that if the department had been asked for
00:44:40 had been asked for uh
00:44:41 uh what it was that government intended by a particular word or phrase or provision
00:44:47 provision that it was the department's responsibility to say what that was in clear and unambiguous terms
00:44:58 in broad terms of course if if we asked for a clarification then you know we would seek to offer this i have to i'm i'm
00:45:09 to i'm i'm being slightly cautious because it would not be our role to give a definitive interpretation of a functional requirement because ultimately that would be a matter
00:45:21 ultimately that would be a matter for a court so we would be quite careful about
00:45:25 about how we phrased or responded to a request for example as presumably happened in this exchange as to
00:45:34 as to the
00:45:35 the interpretation to be placed upon particular regulatory provisions let's just be a little bit more precise yeah you referred in that answer
00:45:47 precise yeah you referred in that answer to an interpretation of the regulation the functional requirement yes and i think your answer is the the proper interpretation of that is a matter of law yes yes i'm asking you about the approved
00:45:59 i'm asking you about the approved documents which are guidance yes was it the department's position that the meaning of
00:46:07 of the approv provision in the approved documents was also a matter of law well
00:46:14 well it would not be in the sense obviously of a of a
00:46:23 this raises quite an interesting question if i may because of the
00:46:28 the legal status of the approved documents and in particular how a court would treat issues around negative liability or tendency to
00:46:39 negative liability or tendency to negative liability etc as per section seven of the building act so
00:46:46 it may be that if any if if if there would have been a disagreement between a building control body
00:46:53 body and a duty holder as to the extent in to which they in those circumstances were complying with the approved document and the applied and complying with the approved document was indeed
00:47:06 approved document was indeed the um the way in which the functional requirement we've met then that may be that might have been a legal issue but i think
00:47:13 think in answer to your question i'm sorry i should have answered your question first
00:47:21 yes if there were concerns and issues that we felt could be clarified or needed to be clarified then of course that would be something that we would consider
00:47:33 consider and we would consider that as part of reviews of the relevant approved document and that leads to a different question
00:47:41 question which is
00:47:42 which is did you regard it or was it regarded by the apartment department as its role to answer a question about what the you the department being the government
00:47:54 you the department being the government for this purpose meant intended by a particular word or provision
00:47:59 provision um
00:48:00 um i think that that would have been that's absolutely a legitimate question to be asked of us and for us to give consideration to in terms of whether we felt a a clarification was necessary and if
00:48:13 a a clarification was necessary and if so how best to do that
00:48:19 so i think the answer to my question i think
00:48:22 think is yes
00:48:23 is yes you did regard it as the department's responsibility to answer a question in clear terms about what it was that the government intended in a particular word or provision in the approved documents
00:48:35 approved documents um yes yes thank you now what were there any processes or mechanisms in place by which the department was able without the need for a full formal review of the entire
00:48:46 entire body of approved documents or the entire approved document within which a provision set to clarify or amend particular words or provisions in the approved documents if there was a considered need to do so
00:48:58 if there was a considered need to do so on an urgent basis um there were mechanisms available to us and what were those um so um
00:49:06 um we could
00:49:07 we could we could write to building control bodies
00:49:11 bodies um we could um we have as you will know an faq section on the department's website so those would be two mechanisms for example
00:49:22 mechanisms for example um
00:49:23 um or we could work with industry or building control bodies or the sector in terms of guidance which they were providing right so those those are three examples
00:49:34 are three examples and
00:49:35 and those would be reasonably easy and reasonably speedy they would be a lot special than reviewing in the day you didn't yes i think we can agree yes i want to ask you about um
00:49:45 about um about faqs uh
00:49:49 uh it was the purpose of an faq an faq frequently asked question
00:49:56 first who within your team would be responsible for deciding on what matters should be included in or explained by an faq um in the first instance i would expect it would
00:50:08 first instance i would expect it would be the desk officer the relevant desk officer for that part of the regulations all right now the desk officer for adb after 2013 was who well that would have been mr martin uh okay right
00:50:21 yes uh and uh let's look at an example of one if we go to clg one six zeros three please
00:50:32 now this is page one uh
00:50:35 uh and it says approved document b frequently asked questions march 2016 yes yes
00:50:41 yes yes and if you go to the contents list on page three we can see that in march 2016 page three
00:51:05 i think it's coming
00:51:11 can we try that one again clg one triple zero page three
00:51:24 so that's i'm sorry about this it seems to have got stuck we can go to page three of this document it's only a 12-page document so
00:51:41 yes thank you very much that's that's lovely uh you can see the contents yes yes
00:51:46 yes yes and uh you have b1 means of warning and escape b3 internal fast spread structure b5 b1 b3 b5 yeah uh uh and let's pick up
00:51:57 b5 b1 b3 b5 yeah uh uh and let's pick up one or two examples um
00:52:03 if we scroll down um
00:52:08 to well let's pick let's pick the contents for this first question do you know how the matters that are addressed in this document selected for inclusion um so
00:52:18 um so uh i would expect that the desk officer obviously on the basis of questions which were raised with him or her
00:52:26 her would then think well the best rather than dealing with ad hoc queries the best way of tackling this would be to put something on the faq list now let's look at some of the specific questions that get asked
00:52:38 questions that get asked so page four fire doors can i here's a question can i use a 30 minute rated fire door without intumescent seals where adb asks for a 20 minute fight or
00:52:50 20 minute fight or and this
00:52:51 and this the answer is this is something you should check with the building control body
00:52:55 body many do accept this arrangement where they're satisfied it'll provide sufficient level of protection to escape routes within dwellings building control alliance technical guidance note 9 provides further advice so just pausing there here is the
00:53:07 so just pausing there here is the department uh sign posting a technical guidance note from the bca as something to follow yes uh
00:53:17 uh if you scroll down you can see the next one is first suppression systems uh does it should all buildings have a sprinkler system is a a question about bs999 there's a question at the foot of
00:53:29 bs999 there's a question at the foot of page three
00:53:31 about um it's quite technical about smoke alarms in accordance with a british standard to at least grade d category ld3 standard however table one of the bs
00:53:42 ld3 standard however table one of the bs recommends grade d category ld2 now never mind the details that that's is that the kind of question that you find in faqs with answers that follow that would be the sort of thing that the faq would cover yes okay and we can we can
00:53:54 would cover yes okay and we can we can go down um there's one on page
00:54:01 on page six
00:54:02 six sorry page eight let's go to page eight uh
00:54:07 uh middle of the page why do we say one bed and not one person for care homes paragraph 3.9 in volume 2 of adb states bedrooms should not contain more than
00:54:18 bedrooms should not contain more than one bed this includes a double bed this is for a design without sprinklers relying on fire con resisting construction to protect occupants that are remote from the seat of the fire so this tells you the purpose of the
00:54:30 so this tells you the purpose of the regulation yeah and matters of that nature and one can go to the end yes uh uh on and on i'm not going to spend time too much time doing it but the sort of things you see here across a very wide
00:54:41 things you see here across a very wide scope
00:54:42 scope um who would provide the draft of the text of the answers uh the desk officer brian martin so in context of fire of this faq yes yes this is fine
00:54:54 fine and
00:54:54 and what was the process by which the text of a draft faq would be cleared before being published on the department's website
00:55:01 website um so i would expect the desk officer to obviously prepare the draft if he or she actually felt that for example it did need to be
00:55:13 for example it did need to be cleared by lawyers then i would expect that to happen if for example it was an faq that was arising from
00:55:24 that was arising from um questions being asked by building control bodies then it may well we may well
00:55:30 well the desk officer may well want to talk with for example the labc to because ultimately this is about helping building control bodies as well as duty holders in terms of assessing compliance
00:55:42 holders in terms of assessing compliance so there would have been that process
00:55:46 process ultimately all things that go on the department's website would need to be cleared through an internal process with our communications team i would
00:55:58 with our communications team i would anticipate that the desk officer would for example also
00:56:04 also discuss this with the um the relevant head of the technical team so that they were aware of uh of this so that's the sort of process i would expect now going back to the examples i showed you
00:56:15 the examples i showed you let me expand this the search a little bit can we start with page seven foot of page seven and this is under the question should a fire alarm be provided throughout a block of flats and it says the guidance
00:56:26 block of flats and it says the guidance in b1 section one of the approved document fire alarm and fire detection systems is not intended to be applied to the common parts of blocks of flats and does not include a provision to interconnect installations in separate flats
00:56:38 flats if we then scroll down to a different question and a different answer under the beds in care homes on page eight which i read to you the last paragraph of that
00:56:48 of that just above requirement b3 internal first but it says it is not the intention of the approved document to separate couples who happen to live in a care home by insisting that they sleep in separate beds now but in both of those instances it's
00:57:00 now but in both of those instances it's clear is it not that this document was a means by which the intent of particular existing provisions in the approved document could be made clear to the reader yes yes
00:57:11 the reader yes yes now um given the cyclical process of reviews of a proof document b which we've already covered i think you agree that it was part of your division's role in the years between those reviews to become or be
00:57:24 between those reviews to become or be up to date about changes in construction or design practices which would need to be taken into account when considering potential changes that was part of the role yes yes
00:57:35 role yes yes and if we look at your statement please page 59 paragraph 232 you say the department had a number of mechanisms in place
00:57:46 to capture knowledge about changes in building design construction practice or use of materials which might need to be taken into account in reviews of the building regulations and guidance and you go on at the next paragraph 233
00:57:57 and you go on at the next paragraph 233 on the next page page 60 to list the mechanisms to which you're referring and you explain that those included a cyclical review research commissioned by the division
00:58:08 research commissioned by the division feedback from industry involvement in the preparation of new relevant british or european standards and brac subcommittee leading reviews now just focusing on see there feedback from industry
00:58:19 from industry is it fair to say that the reason it was important for the technical team to develop and maintain networks of contexts was through because through feedback from those contacts the department could ensure
00:58:30 contacts the department could ensure that it kept up to date with changes in construction and materials yes yes and in the period in which you were imposed to whom would the role of gathering that kind of information principally fall
00:58:44 so the uh the desk officers would gather that information and
00:58:51 and would i expect would then uh distill from that whether these the issues that they or the information that they had received
00:59:02 the information that they had received needed to be factored into any of the outputs
00:59:06 outputs for which we were responsible obviously primarily the reviews of approved documents
00:59:11 documents i would anticipate and expect that the technical policy team leads would be discussing that was the head of the technical policy team as well right and um i would expect also probably there would be quite a bit
00:59:23 also probably there would be quite a bit of
00:59:24 of as part of the feedback process it wouldn't just be one way there would be an iteration going on between the technical policy lead and their relevant networks about the particular issues which were arising right and in the period of 2012 or 2013 to 2017 the desk
00:59:38 period of 2012 or 2013 to 2017 the desk officer would have been brian martin it would yes and the policy lead would i think have been um richard harrell um well anthony bird until at the end of 2013 and then richard
00:59:49 2013 and then richard yes yes now um can we look at brian martin's statement please at clg3019469 page 55 paragraph 157
01:00:02 he says this there was no specific mechanism to monitor changes in building design construction practice and use of materials as i've stated above it was not the function of the building regulations division to review or
01:00:13 regulations division to review or approve
01:00:14 approve innovative construction procedures or
01:00:18 or methods of construction the approved documents provide guidance on common building practices and building designers and building control bodies are expected to use the approved document as a benchmark where innovative
01:00:29 document as a benchmark where innovative products and methods of construction are adopted there is an expectation that they will use skill and judgment in order to ensure that the functional requirements of the regulations are met
01:00:40 requirements of the regulations are met now
01:00:41 now am i right in thinking that neither you nor indeed anybody else would suggest that it was the department's role to approve
01:00:48 approve innovative methods of design or construction no it was not our role to improve but do you agree that it was part of the function of your division to keep methods under review well it's certainly even to know about them
01:01:00 certainly even to know about them it was to know about them to gather intelligence about them but that would be part of that horizon scanning role which um i discussed yesterday you did yes and now
01:01:11 yesterday you did yes and now can you help us understand how it could be
01:01:13 be that this view that he suggests here the division's role in his own role which was not to review innovative construction methods and products is at odds with yours
01:01:28 well i obviously i can't um determine exactly what mr martin meant when he wrote this sentence but um
01:01:39 but um clearly
01:01:40 clearly he would have he engaged with industry contacts to understand uh developments in the fire industry and the sectors so
01:01:52 fire industry and the sectors so um
01:01:53 um i'm
01:01:54 i'm if if if indeed he meant that we didn't do that horizon scanning role then i'm surprised that he said that i'm i'm sure he didn't mean that even though i can see why it looks like that on the page
01:02:05 see why it looks like that on the page now you were asked a series of questions by the inquiry about your own awareness or otherwise during the period 2011 to 2017 correct about the use of combustible materials on the external
01:02:17 combustible materials on the external surfaces of high-rise buildings yes yes and you were also asked about your awareness of any debate or any difference of opinion or interpretation or lack of clarity in relation to the guidance and particularly 12.6 and 12.7
01:02:29 guidance and particularly 12.6 and 12.7 correct of the 2006 edition of atb now if we can look at one part of your answer to those questions in your statement uh it's at clg
01:02:40 statement uh it's at clg 3019465 page 55 paragraph 209
01:02:46 please and you say at paragraph 209 i do not recall being involved in any meetings with external bodies nor at the time seeing any correspondence about the lack of clarity of about lack of clarity
01:02:59 lack of clarity of about lack of clarity of the relevant sections of adb other members of the division may well have received representations from external bodies about clarity of the guidance on this specific topic it is of course possible that i had oral
01:03:10 course possible that i had oral conversations with members of the team who did have external contacts about this issue but cannot now remember any and then if you go on please to page 57 para 220
01:03:19 para 220 two pages on
01:03:22 you say i'm only aware of one specific case which was brought to our attention in july 2014 of the potential misclassification of an insulation project product leading to the issue of an incorrect certification
01:03:34 an incorrect certification certificate by a certification body now we're going to come back to that specific case later in your evidence but putting that on one side of them if we can and also
01:03:45 on one side of them if we can and also putting aside the more general concerns um raised with the department about the increasing use of combustible materials in external wall buildups and more than modern methods of construction can we be clear were you aware at any
01:03:57 can we be clear were you aware at any time before the grenfell tower of fire of any problem with the guidance in 12.6 and 12.7 of approved document b in terms of the specific 12.6 12.7 because obviously there was the general point
01:04:09 obviously there was the general point made by the coroner but setting that aside i don't recall anyone speaking to me about an issue associated with specific words in those paragraphs
01:04:20 in those paragraphs right
01:04:20 right were you aware at any time before the grenfell tower fire of any debate or difference of opinion or interpretation about the scope or meaning of the guidance in 12.6 and 12.7 in the
01:04:32 guidance in 12.6 and 12.7 in the industry
01:04:35 i cannot recall as i said in my statement i cannot i i cannot recall um discussing or having discussions about that it may have happened but my i cannot recall right
01:04:48 recall right now
01:04:49 now it follows that i think i know the answer to the next question but i should ask it were you ever aware of at any time before the grandfather tower of fire
01:04:56 fire of any lack of clarity or uncertainty on mr martin's part in relation to the scope or meaning of the guidance in paragraphs 12.6
01:05:07 the guidance in paragraphs 12.6 or 12.7 of approved document b no
01:05:11 no were you aware of any uncertainty or lack of clarity in his mind about the meaning of the words filler material etc no
01:05:21 no did you ever hear any discussion within the department about the meaning of those words not that i can recall so none of that was ever raised with you
01:05:35 so none of that was ever raised with you not that i can recall um but i say this is my recollection right
01:05:40 right can we take it therefore that you are well aware now that there had been for some years before the fire at grenfell tower an active debate on this subject i'm aware of the debates yes when did
01:05:52 i'm aware of the debates yes when did you first become aware that specific debate had been going on during the period you were in post or at least for much of it
01:06:04 well i would think it would have been pretty rapidly after the after the fire from whom did you come to learn about that um well i think that was cool
01:06:15 i can't recall who may have specifically raised it with me um clearly um as uh as we looked into the
01:06:27 into as as as in the immediate aftermath of the fire the the question of what the um the guidance says was obviously a very
01:06:35 very important topic so at that point is you know that would have that would be when i became aware of the
01:06:41 of the of the concerns about or the issues about
01:06:45 about 12.6 and 12.7 i can't remember who specifically would have told me that right can you remember the circumstances in which it came to your attention
01:06:56 well it would have come to our attention because the question was being asked about compliance as to whether given the understanding at that point in time
01:07:05 time of uh the materials which had contributed to the fire and you know obviously setting aside what we knew at the time whether they complied with the with the building regulations
01:07:17 with the building regulations requirements and from that obviously you know one looked as well both at the functional requirement and then obviously there was reference to the relevant part of the guidance so 12.6 12.7
01:07:29 12.6 12.7 um and at that point uh we obviously looked at that in quite some detail and do you remember what you were told um i was told that the um the uh
01:07:40 um i was told that the um the uh the the guidance in uh 12.7 was intended to cover uh materials such as though an aluminium panel with a polyethylene core so that
01:07:51 panel with a polyethylene core so that would be not a product of limited combustibility and therefore not in compliance with the requirements now let's just be precise
01:07:59 precise in that last answer you said it would intended you were told to cover materials such as an aluminium panel with a polyethylene core were you told that 12.7 was intended to cover the entire product including the
01:08:11 cover the entire product including the aluminium facing yes
01:08:15 yes who told you that well that's what i would have been told that by mr martin now just to be i need very great clarity on this are you sure you told he told you that or did he tell you that only the core of
01:08:27 did he tell you that only the core of such a product oh i'm sorry sorry
01:08:31 sorry yes
01:08:34 yes i can see why
01:08:37 mr mar i i would have the the interactions of um the class naught
01:08:45 naught o uh provision related to surface spread and the uh provisions relating to limited combustibility um i would uh mr martin would have explained those to me
01:08:56 martin would have explained those to me so sorry my um to be clear that is what would have happened well
01:09:03 well all right doing the best you can with your recollection did mr
01:09:08 did mr what did mr martin tell you did he tell you that the core had to be of limiting combustibility or did he tell you that the entire product had to be of limited combustibility
01:09:23 i cannot recall precisely what he would have
01:09:26 have said
01:09:28 said did when you learnt of the problem did you get that time to the text of the guidance 12.6 or 12.7 to see for yourself what the source of the problem was yes you did and what did you
01:09:39 problem was yes you did and what did you find out
01:09:40 find out well um obviously there was the text in the approved document and i would have quizzed
01:09:46 quizzed mr martin and to understand exactly whether a product such as the acm panels used on grenfell would have been in compliance with the the guidance in the um
01:09:59 with the the guidance in the um in in in section 12. did you have a discussion with mr martin about the fact that there had been a debate going on in the industry at least
01:10:09 at least for as long as since the summer of 2014 if not earlier about the meaning and scope of 12.6 and 12.7
01:10:18 12.7 um
01:10:20 um i don't recall asking mr martin that question precisely did he tell you that that was that had been the case
01:10:31 i'm trying to recall whether we had that conversation um
01:10:39 i mean obviously it was a very fast moving
01:10:42 moving situation so i cannot be absolutely clear at what point i gathered various bits of information and and and from whom so i wouldn't want to say that he i'm afraid i find it very very difficult
01:10:54 i'm afraid i find it very very difficult to give you a definitive answer um to that question right you don't i think your evidence please correct me if i'm wrong we need to understand it very well
01:11:05 understand it very well you don't recall being told by brian martin that there had that a debate a controversy had existed in the uk construction industry about the meaning of 12.7
01:11:17 about the meaning of 12.7 in particular the meaning of the word filler
01:11:26 so
01:11:30 i don't recall precisely what conversations there would have been about this and whether this was covered and if so how and if so when um
01:11:39 um clearly as as the events and the investigations unfolded
01:11:45 unfolded and in particular as we found many many more buildings had acm core panels on them than we anticipated as we did through the initial testing series that raised
01:11:57 initial testing series that raised questions about why was this the case which clearly raised
01:12:01 raised issues as to why people felt that these panels
01:12:05 panels were
01:12:06 were indeed
01:12:07 indeed compliant
01:12:08 compliant so
01:12:10 so um i think by that stage obviously there was an issue for us that clearly for whatever reason there was a mis people were not interpreting those provisions in the in the approved
01:12:22 those provisions in the in the approved document in the way that was our interpretation uh the department's interpretation otherwise you know that that those materials would not have been on
01:12:31 been on on buildings did brian martin tell you that there had been a controversy different points of view
01:12:42 a controversy different points of view perhaps out there in the uk construction industry on
01:12:48 on the meaning and scope of 12.7
01:12:54 as i say i'm finding it difficult to recall exactly um
01:13:06 i'd find it surprising if he didn't that he if he that he didn't tell me uh because otherwise why would there why would there have been so many of these panels on other buildings
01:13:17 many of these panels on other buildings well that's the yes exactly exactly i i appreciate the point you're trying to make well i'm just trying to get your evidence
01:13:24 evidence i'm sorry
01:13:25 i'm sorry um
01:13:26 um i'm struggling to think at what
01:13:29 at what what point i became
01:13:31 i became [Music]
01:13:33 [Music] more really aware of the debates that have been happening in some of the industry associations
01:13:45 and i find it quite difficult to recall at what point that was well do you recall becoming aware that there was a debate or had been a debate
01:13:56 or had been a debate just that fact sure so um
01:14:01 i became aware i was made aware um or found out or discovered from various things that were being said that there had been that debate what i'm struggling with as it were is
01:14:13 what i'm struggling with as it were is when you know that first came to my uh attention and appreciation that was going to be my next question you we've got to the point when you yes
01:14:23 yes learned that there had been a debate and maybe was still a debate yes can you remember when you learned of that
01:14:36 well i'm thinking it must have been pretty early on post grenfell because as i said there um clearly there were problems because we'd seen these panels
01:14:47 because we'd seen these panels so i imagine i would have been told i'm sure i would have been told i would have been told that uh clearly um there was parts of the industry were interpreting
01:15:00 parts of the industry were interpreting that
01:15:01 that um term or that provision in approved document b differently from our intention whether i was told there was a controversy uh i don't in those terms i i don't
01:15:14 uh i don't in those terms i i don't recall and and do you have any recollection of how it was you learned of that of the existence of that controversy well uh
01:15:25 well uh at at a point in time for example i became aware of the exchanges that the cwct
01:15:33 cwct had
01:15:34 had at its uh at its meeting at some of the meetings um
01:15:40 um so
01:15:40 so i became aware of that at what point precisely because i'm afraid i don't recall right but i think i think i suppose i'm sorry if forgive me i think i'm struggling with
01:15:52 me i think i'm struggling with terms like controversy as opposed to terms like you know misunderstandings or differences of interpretation which which i was obviously became rapidly
01:16:03 which i was obviously became rapidly aware of because of the problems that we discovered which i'm not sure i made um sort of a leap from that so there's been a controversy about this as well the difference of opinion i think we'll do for difference of opinion
01:16:15 do for difference of opinion well clearly there had been differences of opinion as reflected in the um in the in in the fact that um uh
01:16:22 uh designers and others had taken you know had taken decisions to for these panels to be installed on on buildings so in that in that respect chairman yes well you're not surprised
01:16:33 chairman yes well you're not surprised to learn that there was a difference of opinion so significant um well of course i was surprised as to why there was such a problem of compliance
01:16:44 compliance and such a widespread problem of compliance did you ask brian martin to explain to you how it had come about that you had not known about this difference of opinion out there in the industry
01:16:55 industry before the fire um i don't recall asking him that precise question things were moving very fast at that time
01:17:04 time and we were obviously focusing on um on on what needed to be done at that point in time rather than looking back on you know on on
01:17:18 of how those
01:17:21 those differences of opinion on adb 12 section 12 had come to pass well did it not strike you at the time that the fact that you had not learned about this difference of opinion out there in the industry indicated that
01:17:33 out there in the industry indicated that something with the horizon scanning of the policy of the department had gone seriously wrong well i would certainly accept that did you not ask brian martin to explain to you in simple terms or how come
01:17:51 i'm trying to think of the sorts of conversations clearly we would have had conversations including very senior levels as well as to why um
01:18:00 um things that we discovered had happened and there were discussions as to and close attention paid to
01:18:09 paid to the
01:18:10 the to the drafting of that section of the approved document so clearly
01:18:15 clearly um
01:18:18 we senior officials ministers wanted to understand that
01:18:23 that question and wanted to understand why
01:18:29 there were those differences of view so i would have been speaking to brian about
01:18:35 about that
01:18:37 that i don't think i asked him in terms because we would say we were so focused on
01:18:43 on on what was happening in the future why didn't you tell me that
01:18:48 that earlier
01:18:51 i may have done i don't recall having that conversation with him
01:18:59 well whether you asked him or not did brian martin ever offer you an explanation about what he knew about differences of opinion and to the extent that he knew it why he didn't tell you well um i mean as as more evidence
01:19:12 well um i mean as as more evidence emerged over time and became i became aware
01:19:15 aware of uh
01:19:19 evidence of differences of opinion then i would ask i asked brian for the background of what was going on did he ever explain to you why he hadn't told you that there was a difference of
01:19:31 you that there was a difference of opinion out there and people have been asking questions about 12.6 and 12.7 for some time yes they had um as i discovered yes did he did he tell you uh why
01:19:42 why you hadn't discovered that did he explain to you why it was that you hadn't learned that until after the fire um
01:19:48 um i've
01:19:49 i've mr martin um was very clear um to
01:19:54 um to to in the discussions that we had about the interpretation of um of
01:20:01 of um of what those provisions in adb were intended to achieve and um
01:20:09 and and therefore that was that was he he gave me very clear advice as to what the interpretation of those provisions were
01:20:19 were and we discussed those and i wanted to understand those and so it's obviously so i had a better understanding of what abb
01:20:28 abb 12 said and was intended to say so in that sense he would have explained
01:20:35 explained the background including you know reference back to the the rationale for changes originally in adb in the adb 2006. but did you ask him
01:20:47 did you ask him whether he was surprised to learn that so many people had misunderstood 12.6 and 12.7 as he would have it well we were shocked when we started to uncover the
01:20:59 uncover the extent
01:21:00 extent of and the number of buildings that were covered in acm you say we were shocked i mean collectively from what you could see was he shocked yes
01:21:11 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is um we'll have a break for the afternoon now uh mr ledson we'll come back at 20 to 4 please yes and as
01:21:22 come back at 20 to 4 please yes and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break all right thank you very much
01:21:36 thank you mr millet 20-4 please thank you
01:39:38 would you ask mr ledson to come back in please
01:39:54 all right mr lydson ready to carry on thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr chairman thank you mr ledson can i ask you please to be shown mr martin's witness statement again uh page 54
01:40:05 witness statement again uh page 54 paragraph 155.
01:40:11 and he says that there were certainly concerns raised about the testing of cladding products including acm panels and insulation materials during the period to 14th of 2009-14
01:40:22 to 14th of 2009-14 2017 and i was aware as were senior officials within the department of the issues regarding the testing of such products however within the context of the system
01:40:34 however within the context of the system of building regulations in england it was my view that relevant industry bodies were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance and ensure that the functional requirements of the regulations particularly requirement b4
01:40:45 regulations particularly requirement b4 webbing met where i was able to i tried to assist the industry during the period in question drawing on my knowledge from both my time in the department and at vre previously
01:40:56 vre previously now focusing on what he says in the first part of that paragraph were you as the senior or a senior official within the department aware of quotes
01:41:07 within the department aware of quotes concerns
01:41:09 concerns uh raised about the testing of cladding products including acm panels and insulation period insulation materials in that period um
01:41:19 um well i was certainly aware or was made aware as i said in my witness statement of the issues around the uh classification or the test uh the the bba certificate um that was drawn to my attention so i
01:41:31 um that was drawn to my attention so i was certainly aware of of that and i presume
01:41:34 presume that is what mr martin is referring to here
01:41:38 here right do you well can you as a senior official recall any other concerns raised about the testing of cladding products including acm panels um
01:41:49 um i don't recall any discussions sorry i don't recall any discussions specifically about the testing of acm products um
01:42:00 products um during this period right so so far as you can recall the only thing you were aware about representing a concern was about insulation materials and specifically the bba certificate
01:42:12 the bba certificate would this be right in relation to yeah i believe that's correct i mean in relation to kingsville and k-15 yes so clearly i mean i was away made aware of that um
01:42:25 now in the period between 2011 and 2017 june 2017 were you aware of acm panels and acm panels specifically with a polyethylene core
01:42:36 polyethylene core as a product used in the external cladding system of high-rise buildings no did you not hear about those products in the context of discussions in 2015 and 2016
01:42:47 and 2016 about cladding fires internationally in particular apologies um [Music]
01:42:52 [Music] i was aware from some of the some of those fires that um acm panels similar
01:43:01 similar may have been involved and uh the advice that i received was that
01:43:07 that that may be the case but that's the um the the the way that the building regulations and the approved document guidance were written uh would should ensure that um such
01:43:18 uh would should ensure that um such panels should not be used on
01:43:21 on buildings in england because they would not be compliant who gave you that advice that advice would have come to me from mr martin right either directly or indirectly insofar as he was referring or replying to
01:43:34 he was referring or replying to queries from others no we may come back to that in due course were you made aware at any time during your tenure as deputy director of the division that the department had undertaken a full-scale test at the bre
01:43:45 undertaken a full-scale test at the bre on a system incorporating acm panels with a polyethylene core back in uh in july 2001
01:43:53 july 2001 long before your time as part of a government-funded project to review the guidance in br135 no you were never made aware of that i was not made aware of that in the in
01:44:04 i was not made aware of that in the in the period leading up to the grenfell fire right you i think are aware of it now i'm aware of it now how did you well when did you first come to learn about the existence of that test
01:44:17 well i have to say that i believe i it was first i made aware of it actually after i had left my um post
01:44:26 um post in the technical policy division i think that um
01:44:29 that um i think there was a um there was reference to it i think there may have been a bbc report there was a report referred to it and that was the first time i was aware
01:44:41 and that was the first time i was aware of that
01:44:42 of that obviously the i was not in i was not in a position to respond to that report a because i didn't know about it and b i'd moved role at that point in time so that was you know that must at least
01:44:54 that was you know that must at least have been after um june 2019 yes well i think in the course of this inquiry in fact um indeed yes apologies yes were you made aware or
01:45:05 yes apologies yes were you made aware or did you at any time ever hear any discussions about concerns relating to the use of acm panels with a polyethylene core or an otherwise combustible core in the external wall arrangements of buildings over 18 meters
01:45:17 arrangements of buildings over 18 meters in in england and wales not in
01:45:21 not in no because um as i said uh
01:45:26 uh when queries were raised about whether the um fires in dubai etc could happen in the uk the advice
01:45:37 could happen in the uk the advice uh received was to the uh was that no because they were non-compliant with building regulations requirements so was it can we take it from that answer that
01:45:48 it can we take it from that answer that if you had been asked the question are acm panels with a polyethylene core permissible above 18 meters in england and wales in fact the uk generally you would have you would have said no i would have said no on the basis of
01:46:01 would have said no on the basis of what an assurance by mr martin advice received yes advice received yes did you yourself have any understanding in that period about the dangers presented to occupants of high-rise
01:46:12 presented to occupants of high-rise buildings uh by acm polyethylene core products when used in external clouding systems well
01:46:20 well i had an understanding in so far as obviously the there had been those fires in dubai etc um
01:46:27 um which obviously um were shocking unfortunately with with with within with um you know the results were not um in terms of fatalities etc were
01:46:38 um in terms of fatalities etc were immersively less
01:46:40 less but in terms of issues in england and wales
01:46:43 wales no because as i say the advice i received was that they would be non-compliant and therefore should not be being used right was it your understanding that it was quite clear
01:46:55 quite clear from the
01:46:56 from the approved documents approved document b particular that aluminium composite panels with the polyethylene core were banned above 18 meters um well the advice that i received
01:47:08 advice that i received led me to believe that um yes they wouldn't they were non-compliant therefore they would not be be used was any was that advice that you saw or heard based on any analysis of the language
01:47:21 analysis of the language of the provisions of approved document b which would lead you to that conclusion um the advice i received would have referred to the functional requirement and possibly to adb in general terms i don't think the
01:47:33 adb in general terms i don't think the advice i received set out in forensic detail um
01:47:39 um the
01:47:40 the you know the relevant provisions particularly of the edb section 12. did you know that it was the view of debbie smith dr debbie smith of the bre that an acm panel with a polyethylene core should as he's told
01:47:51 polyethylene core should as he's told she told us never ever be used on a building over 18 meters um well i was not aware of that until you know she made that statement to the inquiry now i'd like to ask you about some
01:48:03 now i'd like to ask you about some documents in 2013 can we start please with clg one triple zero five eight nine five
01:48:16 this is an email run in november 2013 between brian martin and tony baker of the bre we don't need i think to go through the whole of this chain but i need to set it in context if we
01:48:28 but i need to set it in context if we start at the bottom of page two you can see that here is an email from tony baker to brian martin copy to sarah colwell and stephen howard on the 25th
01:48:39 colwell and stephen howard on the 25th of november 2013 uh and he writes as follows hi brian i hope you're keeping well i hope you can help with the following we are seeing an increasing number of inquiries in which
01:48:50 increasing number of inquiries in which we're being asked for our opinion straight interpretation of diagram 40 and adb b4 clauses 12.6 and 7 in relation to the build-up of systems using board finishes
01:49:01 using board finishes and we would like to reach a general understand so we can respond to all parties in the same way and then there's some bullet points first bullet points systems with board type outer layers the boards are typically 12 15 to 20 millimeters thick
01:49:14 typically 12 15 to 20 millimeters thick and achieve b s3 d2 clause 12.6 guidance references diagram 40 in relation to the classification of the finish which would be acceptable over 18 meters as being b s3 d2 but 12.7
01:49:26 over 18 meters as being b s3 d2 but 12.7 talks about insulation or filler materials which make up the wall being limited combustibility as the minimum maximum surface finish is not defined a debate is opened up
01:49:38 is not defined a debate is opened up within the industry as to whether or not the boards can be called the finish or the filler and then if you turn the page based on our experience from the original pii program we would suggest that the
01:49:49 program we would suggest that the definition of the surface finish thickness and filler would assist in clarifying this point and would therefore be grateful for your thoughts now that's the first in the chain my first question is to you have you
01:50:00 my first question is to you have you seen this correspondence previously uh no
01:50:04 no so it wasn't forwarded to you at the time i don't recall that it was afforded to me at the time no right were you aware in or after november 2013 that the bre had been receiving inquiries
01:50:15 bre had been receiving inquiries about the definition of the word filler in paragraph 12.7 of the approved document b or any other any other other of the matters to which tony baker refers in this email um i do not recall
01:50:27 refers in this email um i do not recall being told that so brian martin hadn't mentioned this to you i don't know him mentioning it to me in part he may have done but i don't recall that were you aware that in approved document b and indeed in the approved documents generally were key words and phrases
01:50:39 generally were key words and phrases were ordinarily listed and defined well i'm aware that obviously there are a glossary of terms yes yes yes were you aware that the term filler or filler material or filler material etc uh as
01:50:52 material or filler material etc uh as contained in paragraph 12.7 after 2006 was never defined um well i wouldn't have been aware at the time i mean clearly subsequently that would have been apparent to me now
01:51:04 that would have been apparent to me now if a definition of a particular word or phrase had not been provided in the glossary in the approved document and and it came about later to be seen to be needed would it fall to the department to provide such a definition
01:51:15 department to provide such a definition um it certainly we could have we could provide such a definition yes and that would fall to your building regulations team yes and that would fall to the building regulations team too you take forward yes and in that team brian
01:51:26 forward yes and in that team brian martin yes in respect of adb brian martin yes in respect of adb yes um and and that could be done could it by way of for example a circular or an faq depending on exactly what we what um
01:51:40 depending on exactly what we what um clarification was needed then those could have been used as ways to
01:51:44 ways to communicate thank you
01:51:47 thank you and then if we go back to um the email run please page two at the top uh i'd like to show you brian martin's response
01:51:56 response which is sent just over half an hour later on that day 25th of november 2013 and he says this hi tony i see where you're coming from the problem we have with class b is that you can have a thin surface that gives you
01:52:08 can have a thin surface that gives you the performance and back it with something less desirable so there's no such thing as a as a class b material the word filler was introduced because of a particular incident where a polymeric foam was used to keep an
01:52:20 polymeric foam was used to keep an aluminium stiff panel stiff the foam was not used for thermal reasons so it wasn't insulation quotes on quotes it still burned of course exclamation marks sarah will remember
01:52:32 exclamation marks sarah will remember the details i'm sure i'm thinking out loud here but i think a homogenous class b board would be fine effectively a class b material question mark but a lamination of board with
01:52:43 mark but a lamination of board with something else should revert to the limited combustible ability criteria
01:52:48 criteria does this make sense don't quote me on this yet what do you think brian now putting aside the technical detail of the question that brian martin is
01:52:59 the question that brian martin is considering here were you aware in late 2013 or at any time after that that the meaning and the scope of the word filler material in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
01:53:11 in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b uh in other words what elements of an external wall were to be of limited combustibility were matters which brian martin appeared to be undecided about um no
01:53:21 um no well you were no well we've seen from the evidence of other witnesses that after this exchange a meeting was arranged which took place uh on the 30th of january 2014 at eland
01:53:32 uh on the 30th of january 2014 at eland house
01:53:33 house between brian martin's and sarah colwell and tony baker of the bre were you aware of that meeting taking place at the time do you think i don't no i don't recall being aware of it
01:53:44 no i don't recall being aware of it you don't know what was discussed or what was resolved no did mr martin not report it to you um well he did not report it to me whether he reported it to mr harrell um i don't know all right
01:53:57 mr harrell um i don't know all right now looking at it now do you consider that there were matters uh the meeting for example that perhaps the need for a definition of the term filler which you should have been made aware of
01:54:06 aware of um
01:54:07 um well
01:54:09 well clearly there are issues here which i would have expected mr martin in the first instance to talk to the relevant head of technical policy team and then if necessary if it smelled necessary to draw to my attention then
01:54:21 necessary to draw to my attention then yes to draw to my attention and richard harrell being that person richard harrell being that person though admittedly early 2014 clearly had only been imposed for a month i see moving forward into 2014
01:54:35 i see moving forward into 2014 further um
01:54:38 i'll give you a fact it is a fact that on the 2nd of july 2014 a meeting of the cwct fire group was held and brian martin attended the meeting at least for some of it yes
01:54:51 least for some of it yes now take this from me that the meeting had been arranged in order for a cross-section of industry fire safety experts manufacturers and others to discuss a number of issues on which the cwct
01:55:03 cwct had been receiving inquiries right and i'm i'm assuming that you're familiar with the body cwct yes yes and some of those issues or one of those issues included the use of composite panels
01:55:15 included the use of composite panels such as acm and the and the use of combustible insulation yes were you aware of the time that that meeting was taking place um i don't believe so were you would you not know if one of your
01:55:26 you would you not know if one of your officials was out of the office at meetings with industry bodies well i would not necessarily know that um
01:55:33 um one of the desk offices i was out meeting industry that was part of their job
01:55:38 job so i would not to be you know as it were interrogating their diary um so
01:55:45 um so no that it's perfectly reasonable that i would not have unknown that brian was at that meeting all right but there was no system of reporting back to you or perhaps the rich of harrell when he came back and
01:55:54 back and gave a debrief um well it would depend on exactly what the nature of the meeting was and what the conclusions of that meeting were and what mr martin or any other desk officer in any other
01:56:06 any other area had drawn right from that meeting there wouldn't have been a formal debrief as such it would have depended on the circumstances now we know that the department was a a
01:56:18 now we know that the department was a a papers only member of the bca yes the building control alliance did you ever get to see the papers sent to members of the bca relating to matters discussed at their meetings not as a matter of course no
01:56:31 not as a matter of course no who would
01:56:32 who would um
01:56:35 um so
01:56:36 so the department had a
01:56:40 had a quasi-observer status on the bca so we would occasionally attend meetings in that capacity and indeed i did attend once or twice meetings of the bca
01:56:52 meetings of the bca in a sort of general capacity um i'm not sure whether there were papers at that meeting but certainly we were not there as a participant with regards to
01:57:03 with regards to technical groups developing technical
01:57:06 technical guidance notes then
01:57:09 then i think it would depend to an extent on the circumstances as to whether um
01:57:15 um members of the technical team the relevant member of the technical team was was involved or asked to comment on on papers
01:57:24 on papers now let's go to the minutes of the cwc team meeting clg 30 is 19336
01:57:38 um just casting your eye down it you can see if we can just expand it please a little we can see it more clearly it was held on wednesday the 2nd of july 2014 at 2 p.m
01:57:50 2014 at 2 p.m and if you look at the list of attendees you can see who's there yeah david metcalf in the chair uh sarah colwell is there barbara lane from arab fire is there brian martin is there from the dclg yes
01:58:02 brian martin is there from the dclg yes yes
01:58:02 yes uh uh now have you seen this minute previously um i've seen this minute previous to um
01:58:10 um today because it was you know the um the circumstances of this meeting were drawn to the department's attention post grenfell yeah did did you see it at the time do you think i i don't think i saw it at the time
01:58:22 i i don't think i saw it at the time yeah july 2014 no no i'm not going to go through all of it with you but i do want to ask you about two particular sections of it can we go please to page three first of all final heading there and you can see on that page use of acm on high
01:58:34 can see on that page use of acm on high rise buildings now let's look at that it says this acm refers to aluminium composite material the normal material normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeters
01:58:47 aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeters thick separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick this material generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class naught or class b s one d naught there are
01:58:59 or class b s one d naught there are versions available with a mineral core which can achieve a 2d s1d naught there are also similar materials available with other materials such as copper used for the facing [Applause] there have been major fires in buildings
01:59:11 there have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world including the middle east and france where acn materials have been used for the cladding with the acm responsible for the external fire spread
01:59:22 the external fire spread were you were made were you made aware of these discussions by brian martin at any time
01:59:27 any time um well not at the time of this meeting at any time after that uh well subsequently um pogba is after the fire um yes were you aware at the time or
01:59:39 um yes were you aware at the time or later any time up to the grenfell tower fire that the normal material is the phrase used in the first line there comprising an acm panel consisted of two skins of aluminium
01:59:50 skins of aluminium uh over a pe core um i wouldn't have been aware at the time did you know how commonly those products were being used above 18 meters in the united
02:00:01 used above 18 meters in the united kingdom no
02:00:04 no i think you were aware that date that there had been major fires in other parts of the world involving acm panels and external first but as you as you've told us yes
02:00:14 coming back to that topic those i think had been discussed within the team as far as you were aware but haven't they um well there will have been some exchanges
02:00:23 exchanges involving um i mean i'd asked a question at one point and i think the uh there was an exchange which i believe i was probably copied into or i saw subsequently that mr martin had with the then chief
02:00:35 that mr martin had with the then chief fire officer similarly to ask about whether the circumstances of the fire of that particular fire would be um likely in the uk and i believe mr martin answered
02:00:46 answered uh that
02:00:48 uh that the materials as were understood to have been involved would not be compliant with building regulations and therefore should not be being used right now looking back at the minutes in the second paragraph on page four which is
02:00:59 second paragraph on page four which is the second part of the document i want to look at with you after the
02:01:03 after the words in italics at the top which is a reference to an academic article it says this it was stated that clause point clause 12.7 of adb is intended to
02:01:15 point clause 12.7 of adb is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene cord acm in buildings over 18 meters as they are not classed as limited combustibility this is not clear from the wording of
02:01:26 this is not clear from the wording of the current clause the current clause is preceded by a heading insulation materials stroke products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to
02:01:38 the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this is not clear it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an faq approved documents can be downloaded
02:01:50 approved documents can be downloaded from and then there's a planning portal website
02:01:53 website link the page for each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin were you made aware
02:02:05 were you made aware by brian martin following this meeting or at any time after this meeting that members of the cwct fire group had reached a consensus that guidance into a paragraph 12.7 was
02:02:18 that guidance into a paragraph 12.7 was not clear
02:02:20 not clear um
02:02:21 um no
02:02:23 no not at all um well not not in the in the in the period up until the the grenfell fire
02:02:33 were you made aware by brian martin that it was not clearly understood by at least some in the industry that the paragraph was apparently quotes intended to prohibit
02:02:46 apparently quotes intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters close question um well he didn't make me i don't remember having a discussion or being briefed right to that effect
02:02:57 briefed right to that effect so does it follow that although you were told as it were it couldn't happen here in relation to the uae fires
02:03:05 uae fires he never gave you the analysis in order to support that well he didn't give me a detailed analysis no right why didn't you ask for one um because i took the advice that he provided as an
02:03:17 took the advice that he provided as an experienced fire safety professional obviously well versed in the um the guidance understanding experience or the guidance that um if that uh therefore you know his his view
02:03:29 that uh therefore you know his his view and opinion uh was uh was was soundly based do you consider that you should have been made aware of these discussions and the lack of clarity as perceived by this
02:03:41 the lack of clarity as perceived by this group at least in paragraph 12.7 of adb as understood by those using the document
02:03:47 document well
02:03:49 well this would have been suddenly something that i would have expected and i know i think there's a bit of debate i don't know whether mr martin was at this point at this um at this part of the discussion or not
02:04:04 but certainly
02:04:06 certainly given
02:04:07 given these
02:04:08 these points raised i would have expected at the very least that
02:04:14 that we would need we should look at that as part of the clarification adb section 12 a clarification process right
02:04:25 are you able to enlighten us about how it came about that you weren't told about these matters no um i mean this is this is with the benefit of
02:04:36 benefit of hindsight um
02:04:41 and um as well as i think there was um you know i think when when
02:04:47 when when when the when this when these when i when i did become aware of these minutes um
02:04:52 um i did ask about you know what happened and i was led to understand that this mr martin had not been party to this discussion at this point because he was only there for part of
02:05:03 because he was only there for part of the meeting which is why the action and the last sentence refers to
02:05:09 to sarah colwill agree to racist with brian martin so that implies that he wasn't there to hear this now i don't know what happened in that regard
02:05:18 regard so in that sense um i don't know what brian knew when to be able to tell either mr harrell or or me so that was the first point and
02:05:29 or or me so that was the first point and again the second point and again i accept that this is with the benefit of of hindsight um i am now aware
02:05:39 aware of the work which was happening in relation to the bca guidance note 18 which was covering similar ground in terms of providing uh supplementary guidance on the
02:05:50 uh supplementary guidance on the operation of um
02:05:54 um of of uh an implementation and understanding of uh section 12. i don't know for information whether anybody for example from either the labc or
02:06:06 from either the labc or any of the approved inspector organizations at this meeting to have made as it were join those those dots so those were two things which were happening at about this time
02:06:19 happening at about this time and i believe mr martin was aware or if he was not aware at this point in time
02:06:26 time he was aware relatively soon thereafter about the work related to bca guidance note 18.
02:06:35 note 18. so clearly there would have been a consideration that if the bca is going to issue some guidance doing the same thing is that going to as it were
02:06:43 were deal with the issue i didn't have that debate with mr martin that was not to my recollection discussed with me so i am slightly speculating here well as you said is
02:06:54 speculating here well as you said is hindsight i mean were you aware of bcaa technical game guidance note 18 at the time not at the time it was published no any time before the grandfield tower fire i'm trying to recall whether i was aware
02:07:05 i'm trying to recall whether i was aware of it before grenfell
02:07:11 i might have been but not in the sense but just in a general sense that they have published this guidance note without interrogating the wise and wherefore or rationale for it
02:07:22 it where you were aware in july 2014 going back to this document on the screen that the heading of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b insulation materials stroke products
02:07:34 insulation materials stroke products had led some readers at least to understand that that paragraph referred to insulation rather than any part of the external cladding panel i do not believe i was
02:07:45 cladding panel i do not believe i was right
02:07:46 right did you ever hear any discussion about the possibility of drafting or publishing an faq on this subject i can't recall that right
02:07:57 i mean in the first instance i would have this would have imagined would have been discussed with um with mr harrell but i don't know if those discussions happened and i don't recall
02:08:10 it being raised with me and it sounds from your earlier evidence about faqs generally that there would have been no difficulty or anything precluding the department from publishing an faq on this subject as sarah caldwell suggests um there
02:08:24 as sarah caldwell suggests um there would have been a no in principle there would have been a bit of process to go through as i described but in principle as this was a clarification then i think it would have been legitimate for us to consider
02:08:35 consider an faq or
02:08:38 an faq or a
02:08:39 a letter to build and control some of the mechanisms which we talked about earlier now
02:08:46 now do you know can you agree that no other action was taken to clarify in 12.7
02:08:54 in 12.7 in in any formal way for example a circular or an faq
02:09:02 was that decision not to do so taken by
02:09:07 taken by brian martin alone or by brian martin and richard harrell or by all of you
02:09:13 well i don't recall as i say i don't recall discussions about this um right and as i say given
02:09:20 given the um as i understand it um
02:09:23 um the um
02:09:26 the ambiguity of the message that was passed on to mr martin um then um uh in relation to the um the action um
02:09:37 um i'm fine
02:09:38 i'm fine i can't really comment
02:09:42 i see
02:09:44 so and that's because you simply i was not aware i weren't aware and weren't a party to any of those wasn't a party to any of the discussions no now can we go back to your statement
02:09:55 now can we go back to your statement clg3019465 page 57
02:09:58 page 57 paragraph 220
02:10:02 we looked at this passage very briefly earlier on in your evidence mr ledson yes uh in relation to the use of combustible insulation on high rises and you say
02:10:10 you say this as you said i was only aware of one specific case and we've already read that and allowed two i'm not going to read this loud again
02:10:19 you go on to say this was dealt with by the g7 technical team leader brian martin who followed the matter up with the national house builders council nhbc and then the british board of agreement bba the classification body concerned
02:10:32 bba the classification body concerned the bba informed us of the actions which they had taken and set out in the email exchanges i was informed by brian martin of the case at the time and agreed the actions he took can we look at the emails you're referring to
02:10:44 emails you're referring to first those with the nhbc which will find it at clg 50686
02:10:53 now if you look at the um top email in the chain we may need to have that expanded a little bit you can see that it's sent to you and richard harrell by brian martin
02:11:04 you and richard harrell by brian martin on the 11th of july 2014 at 3 49.
02:11:10 at 3 49. and he says richard bob see below yes yes and he forwards a short chain of emails to you yes can we take it from the paragraph of your witness statement we've just looked at that you read the emails in the chain at that time um yes
02:11:24 emails in the chain at that time um yes yes
02:11:25 yes and did you look at the attachments namely the bba certificate or certificates for kingspan's k15 product um i imagine i would have looked at them
02:11:39 i imagine i would have looked at them if you were going to ask me how did i understand the technical detail behind them i thought he would say no
02:11:44 no but i would have been obviously that was theirs
02:11:47 theirs information that had been provided to us so i think i probably would have at least
02:11:52 least looked at the certificate to understand what it was that was being talked about okay now let's go to page two in this email run please uh about halfway down that page and you'll see an email sent by brian martin
02:12:04 see an email sent by brian martin to neil smith at nhbc on the 2nd of july 2014 at 11 42 in the morning now just to note that's the morning of the afternoon or the morning before the afternoon in which the cwct meeting was
02:12:16 afternoon in which the cwct meeting was held
02:12:18 held he says this hi neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently allegedly several people have been several buildings have been erected where pir insulation has
02:12:29 been erected where pir insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height apparently people are under the impression that pir is the material of limited combustibility which it isn't again allegedly many of these
02:12:40 it isn't again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats i have no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources the purpose of my email is a friendly warning you might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of
02:12:52 plan checkers that they are on top of this happy to discuss regards brian
02:12:56 brian now before we go to the nhbc's response how do you discuss these allegations with brian martin before he sent this message
02:13:03 message i don't believe so did you know he was communicating with the nhbc over this um not until he forwarded the email chain right a few days later would it have been normal
02:13:15 normal to copy richard harrell and you into it um
02:13:19 um when it was sent rather than forwarding it to you not necessarily when it was sent because as the email to mr smith suggests mr bright and mr martin had been identifying
02:13:31 been identifying quite a worry and he wanted to find out a little bit more about what was going on
02:13:37 on so i think it was perfectly appropriate that he did that before he briefed with mr harold and myself
02:13:45 did you know who the relatively reliable sources were from whom this information had come to brian martin not specifically did you ask him um i can't recall if i asked him
02:13:59 did you understand why this friendly warning as he puts it was sent in such uh in particular to the nhbc um
02:14:10 well obviously the nhbc were a significant um approved inspector who uh
02:14:17 who uh undertook a lot of work in the the house building sector um i don't know whether at this point in time there were any specific issues
02:14:29 time there were any specific issues that
02:14:30 that affected or had been as part of the information that mr martin had received allegedly
02:14:37 allegedly bore on any possible possible nhbc
02:14:41 nhbc projects but i think at this point what mr martin is doing quite rightly is trying to understand as he said
02:14:51 whether the nhbc knew about this and what they were doing about it hence uh the request or the suggestion in the last paragraph of his email yes
02:15:02 in the last paragraph of his email yes but and do you know why he didn't send this friendly warning to other building control organizations such as
02:15:08 such as the labc
02:15:10 the labc or indeed the bca itself um
02:15:13 um well i think at this point in time it was appropriate to engage with the building control bodies as the enforcement or the compliance checking bodies yeah that's my question
02:15:24 bodies yeah that's my question well the bca is sort of i'm sorry i was drawing a distinction between the bca as as a
02:15:32 a mechanism for basically the private sector and the public sector building control bodies to uh to work together um
02:15:39 um i'm
02:15:41 i'm i would i'm presuming and i don't know i'm presuming that mr martin may well have felt that the
02:15:47 the um as an organization um the nhbc which with its its reach into the house building sector and the ability which it has as a
02:15:58 and the ability which it has as a central organization which covers the whole of the of england would be able to have a better sense and pull together information quickly about what was going on
02:16:09 about what was going on as opposed to working through the labc where the labc the only way the labc probably could have responded to this was basically talk trying to talk to you know all 300 local authority
02:16:20 you know all 300 local authority building controls which obviously would have been a much more convoluted and lengthy
02:16:25 lengthy process so i think and and i i think and if that was his judgment obviously he would have to answer that i think that's a very sensible
02:16:32 sensible judgment to make let's talk to an organization but you don't know i don't know
02:16:37 know did you understand what he was saying there to be a serious safety issue um well certainly it was a matter of concern did you escalate it to any more senior official not no why is that well at this point um
02:16:49 well at this point um we wanted to find out what was going on so i felt that uh before or you know we would need to understand better
02:16:59 better the issues that were behind this and what was happening and what the nhbc and indu time the bba were doing so that we had a clear
02:17:10 were doing so that we had a clear if we needed to escalate we had a clear understanding of the nature of the problem and would be in a position to say something about it now you say in your statement it's the final line of
02:17:22 your statement it's the final line of parrot 220 we don't need to go to it the u.s that you were satisfied that brian martin had taken appropriate action in relation to this matter um
02:17:30 um did you consider at the time that a friendly warning to just one building control organization albeit the nhbc was an appropriate way to of dealing with that matter what i meant was that he had
02:17:41 that matter what i meant was that he had taken action firstly with the nhbc and then subsequently when there is the realization that the issue was with the bba to take action to find out
02:17:53 take action to find out what was going on which he did and also we see the subsequent correspondence which mr martin had with the bva
02:18:02 the bva and of and of course then subsequent follow-up correspondence with with the nhbc
02:18:07 nhbc now let's go to the nhbc's response which is the second email on the page on page one we go up to that
02:18:18 it's it's lengthy yes but i just want to pick out the key parts if i can it's a it's a response from steve evans to brian martin dated the 11th of july
02:18:30 to brian martin dated the 11th of july which came to you on the 15th as we've seen a copy to diane marshall and neil smith and it said dear brian et cetera
02:18:40 et cetera and then the second paragraph says the issue is in respect of the use of kingspan coolthem k-15 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingspan's
02:18:51 the confusion has arisen from kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters however since 27th of october 19 2008 the product held a bba certificate
02:19:02 the product held a bba certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7
02:19:09 12.7 7.1 subject to advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height then it says this it was on this basis
02:19:20 then it says this it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats we understand that labc have also issued a
02:19:31 understand that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters in january of this year we were made aware of a revised bba certificate for k-15 issued on 17 december 2013 also
02:19:42 k-15 issued on 17 december 2013 also attached the new certificate removed the passage which indicated that it was acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire but that it has only
02:19:55 stages of a fire but that it has only been tested and therefore is only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls 8.2 as we had a number of projects under construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing k15 nhbc approached
02:20:06 design utilizing k15 nhbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingsplan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with bsa414
02:20:17 treatments in accordance with bsa414 part 1 2002 and then they there's something about the tests being promised later in the year and then
02:20:26 and then in the next paragraph it says this there is no reason to suspect the buildings which have been built with kingsman k15 are at risk at this time it
02:20:37 kingsman k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
02:20:42 out kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer
02:20:53 industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 metres as well as informing other stakeholders such as the bca and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions now that's long i'm afraid
02:21:05 discussions now that's long i'm afraid and there are some passages in there i've emphasized but going back to your witness statement please page 57 paragraph two two one you say there to put this in context
02:21:16 you say there to put this in context mhclg is not an enforcement body neither does it have a role in the crediting test and certification bodies such as the bba a member of my team brian martin followed up to see what
02:21:27 brian martin followed up to see what action was taken that action was judged to be appropriate on the basis of the information provided we concluded that the bba had acted appropriately on to withdraw the incorrect certificate and to take action to inform customers as
02:21:38 to take action to inform customers as set out in the response from the bba in the email chain what action did you understand the bba to have taken to inform customers as you put it
02:21:48 put it um well i would have to refer to the emails that mr martin had with the bba to be able to recall exactly what um
02:21:59 exactly what um uh
02:21:59 uh right why we reached that conclusion what was the basis on which you understood that action has been taken to inform customers well i think we had received assurances from the bba
02:22:10 assurances from the bba or what i took to be assurances from the bba
02:22:13 bba right
02:22:14 right did you read the assurances from the bba for yourself um when i was certainly copied in
02:22:19 copied in to the correspondence or certainly some of the correspondence including reports from the uh from the bba as to what what had happened and the action that they had taken
02:22:32 and the action that they had taken and i believe i must have either they said directly or i
02:22:37 i took from what those emails said that they had taken action to inform any of those who had been affected by the incorrect certificate um now let's look
02:22:48 incorrect certificate um now let's look at bba
02:22:50 at bba 50178 please let's see if you can help us with that
02:22:59 this is john albin's email to brian martin of the 23rd of july 2014. so this is a couple of weeks or so after
02:23:08 after the
02:23:09 the 11th of july 2014 email and he says brian the mistake was basically caused by human error the project manager involved in their line manager no longer work in the bba's
02:23:20 manager no longer work in the bba's operations department and then he goes on to explain how they're addressing the overall issue training an additional level of checking more emphasis on certificate templates
02:23:31 certificate templates etc
02:23:33 etc and an offer of a meeting is that the email you're referring to um that must be the email i'm referring to there's no indication that you saw that at the time did you you think um
02:23:42 um [Music]
02:23:44 [Music] i whether i saw it on the 23rd of july i don't know but i'm pretty sure that mr martin forwarded it on uh to me otherwise i wouldn't have said what i said in my witness statement
02:23:57 what's what communication from the department did you inform customers at the bba certificate we didn't take any action to inform customers right then if we look at page 58 of your statement please paragraph 222
02:24:11 uh you say there mhclg could have taken up this issue as a complaint made by mhclg to the united kingdom accreditation service a cass ucas asking
02:24:22 accreditation service a cass ucas asking for an investigation and possibly asking newcast to consider removing bba's accreditation however that was not thought appropriate in this instance because the evidence presented to us suggested that this was a one-off
02:24:33 suggested that this was a one-off instance to which the bba had responded appropriately and was not indicative of systemic issues which would warrant ucas intervention then if you look at the next paragraph 223 my understanding is
02:24:44 next paragraph 223 my understanding is that this was an issue about a product which had been misclassified the testing processes and methodologies themselves were not to my knowledge raised as an issue now you refer to evidence
02:24:55 issue now you refer to evidence presented to us in paragraph 222 which you say suggested that this was a one-off instance what was the evidence that had been presented to you by the bba well the evidence would have been
02:25:07 bba well the evidence would have been the evidence would have been the responses from the bba to the uh inquiries which were raised with them by mr martin right so you mean the explanation given
02:25:18 right so you mean the explanation given to mr martin by the bba that this was an unfortunate and rare oversight yes down to human error et cetera so just that all right i mean i'm i had thought though i may be misrecalled recollecting
02:25:29 though i may be misrecalled recollecting that there had there was other correspondence with the bba you are right and you are right and i would i should show you that bba 50178
02:25:38 50178 page 2
02:25:40 page 2 a little earlier in the month 16th of july 2014
02:25:44 july 2014 as you can see it's a longish email it predates the one i showed you before
02:25:50 and uh in the second paragraph he says the reference to paragraph 12.7 seems to have been an unfortunate and rare oversight that would not escape the internal checks and measures that bba currently operate a review of other certificates has
02:26:01 a review of other certificates has confirmed that this has been not reproduced elsewhere now my question is is that the evidence you're referring to that's the evidence about the combination of those two emails yes well it's not evidence there was it it's just the bba's expert abs
02:26:13 the bba's expert abs right was it sufficient for you for that just to be uh an explanation rather than something a little bit more um empirical um
02:26:23 um well the bba obviously is a very is a reputable organization with a very important role and i would expect that if the bba is approached by the department on a
02:26:35 is approached by the department on a matter like this that the eba would provide an absolutely accurate and clear explanation of what happened and a response
02:26:44 response to the questions and that would be and therefore um there would have been no reason for me or i think mr martin or mr harrell or indeed the others who
02:26:55 or mr harrell or indeed the others who are copied into this email mr babbitt mr price who worked in the in the team to to doubt
02:27:01 to doubt what the bba were were telling us now as i said in my witness statement um
02:27:08 um my view
02:27:09 my view having
02:27:10 having read this and we and i did discuss this with mr bryant mr martin and mr harrell i do recall discussing this with him at the time the collective view we had was to accept the assurance we received and i took
02:27:22 the assurance we received and i took this as an assurance because you know the reference to the this was a matter which the mr alvin had spoken to the chief executive of the vpa about
02:27:33 about i accepted the assurance that they had taken
02:27:36 taken appropriate they had described the situation correctly and they had taken appropriate action as um as i said in my witness statement
02:27:48 witness statement uh the avenue the only avenue open to the department because the vba is an independent body independent from the department would be to go through the um through a through ucas as the
02:27:59 through a through ucas as the accreditation body um
02:28:03 um there's a complaint is raising an issue with ucas
02:28:07 with ucas um but i
02:28:08 um but i on the basis of what we were told did not see or did not appreciate and did not think that there was a systemic issue here which would warrant
02:28:20 which would warrant ucas
02:28:21 ucas investigation as opposed to a one-off problem
02:28:25 problem uh a one-off case and that was the impression which i derived from from from the responses from the bba right now um
02:28:36 right now um mr leslie mr chairman i'm looking at the time it's now 4 30. yes uh it probably won't come with a surprise to you or perhaps to mr ledson that i have not finished uh and i'm afraid not nearly finished uh
02:28:50 uh and i'm afraid not nearly finished uh i'm i'm going to ask you to rise now the arrangements that we are we've made subject to you and subject to the witness
02:29:00 witness are
02:29:01 are for us to interpose the next witness mr richard harrell to start at 10 o'clock on monday morning and i'm told that he will take until tuesday evening that's the estimate
02:29:13 tuesday evening that's the estimate uh and then to in then to have mr ledson come back if he would be so good as to do so
02:29:20 do so to finish his evidence on wednesday that will obviously have a knock-on effect on the rest of the timetable but primarily i i'm keen to learn from mr led simon from you mr chairman whether that proposal is acceptable
02:29:32 that proposal is acceptable yes all right well now mr ledson i think we'd all hope that we might finish your evidence today but it obviously hasn't been possible and i'm sorry for that um i'm afraid it's not possible for you
02:29:44 um i'm afraid it's not possible for you to continue on monday morning for practical reasons which i won't trouble you with um the suggestion is that uh you should come back and resume your evidence on wednesday now would that be possible for
02:29:56 wednesday now would that be possible for you
02:29:57 you um well of course i will fit in with the best arrangements that are most suitable for the inquiry well that's very good of you so um we'll say that shall we that uh
02:30:08 we'll say that shall we that uh we'll break your evidence at this point and
02:30:11 and resume on
02:30:13 resume on wednesday at ten o'clock in the morning yeah yes um right mister yes and just say that yes mr lesson is clear current strike rate i
02:30:25 mr lesson is clear current strike rate i would anticipate that we will be done subject to finding some cuts by lunchtime but i but that is not a guarantee i was going to ask you that because i'm sure that mr ledson would like to know yes um how much time we're
02:30:37 like to know yes um how much time we're going to require with him well it sounds to me mr ledson as though there's a chance but i wouldn't put it higher than that that you will be free by lunchtime on wednesday but i think you would be
02:30:48 on wednesday but i think you would be wise if you can to keep the whole day free
02:30:51 free i will keep the whole day clear i think that would be prudent and i don't expect it as much and clearly it's important that yes you take you know i wish to give my evidence so i will fit in yes with my um
02:31:04 so i will fit in yes with my um um i mean the only comment i would make obviously this will be information on wednesday that if there's any risk of a further runoff then obviously into thursday for example problems in relation to uh mr howell's evidence that means that he run over
02:31:15 evidence that means that he run over then clearly well we'll keep you as fully as soon as we can if there are any changes to the yes uh expected timetable now the only other thing to say is i've said to you every time you've left the room please don't talk to anyone or
02:31:28 room please don't talk to anyone or it's going to be difficult because you're going to have the weekend coming up and some additional days because i think i must ask you please not to discuss your efforts of course anything relating to
02:31:39 efforts of course anything relating to it with anyone um while you are as it were
02:31:43 were in limbo i absolutely appreciate it and um
02:31:46 um i'll be grateful if that if you always observe that carefully all right well then on that basis we'll stop now and we'll look forward to seeing you again on wednesday of next week of
02:31:57 again on wednesday of next week of course at 10 o'clock in the morning yes thank you very much indeed would you go to the usher then please
02:32:13 well right mr millet so um we will expect to see a different witness on monday morning yes thank you mr chairman it will be richard harreld who will be examined by ms grange queen's council right thank
02:32:25 ms grange queen's council right thank you and um know that we shall be seeing well we should be seeing uh mr led some on wednesday and next week when no doubt you'll be
02:32:34 you'll be back in the driving seat yes thank you all right thank you very much when we break at that point we resume at 10 o'clock on monday morning please thank you