Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence -Tuesday 1st March 2022 (1/3)

Full transcript

00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:32 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr anthony bird so i'm going to ask mr bird to come back

00:00:48 good morning mr bird good morning sir ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mrs good morning mr chairman good morning panel members good morning mr bird good morning uh you may recall that yesterday afternoon when we

00:00:59 that yesterday afternoon when we finished we were examining together the subject of bs 476 part six and seven and its potential withdrawal uh from either from the british standard or from adb

00:01:10 or from adb uh and particularly diagram 40. now i'd like to look next with you at a document on the same theme clg one triple zero four two two nine please

00:01:23 this is an email which starts at the bottom of page one on your screen and goes over to page two it's an email from somebody called chun jin cho

00:01:34 jin cho on the 7th of december 2009 to you and the subject is bs 476 and en 13501 and he says i am mr chair

00:01:45 and he says i am mr chair from the fire safety and shelter department singapore can i seek your assistance to clarify the equivalent standards of en 13501 and bs476 if you are not the officer concerned to

00:01:56 if you are not the officer concerned to answer my queries i would appreciate very much if you could direct the questions to the relevant officer and then if you turn the page please to page two he says this currently singapore is adopting bs 476

00:02:08 currently singapore is adopting bs 476 parts 11

00:02:10 parts 11 4 stroke 11 and part 6 stroke 7 to check the non-combustibility and flame spread properties of material respectively there were many inquiries from suppliers on the use of en standards instead of bs

00:02:23 on the use of en standards instead of bs for the relevant test we've checked the relevant information from the website and found that there were many write up mentioning the equivalency of en and bs standard as follow

00:02:35 follow and then he sets out two columns as you can see uk class and euro class and you can see how they relate to each other yes yes uh naught and against b or better under the

00:02:47 and against b or better under the euroclass column and then a paragraph three he says while we go through document b there is mentioned of euro class a1 and a2 considered as non-combustible and

00:02:59 a2 considered as non-combustible and limited combust stability respectively but there is no mentioned in document b that euro class b is equivalent to class naught bs 476 part six and seven and

00:03:12 naught bs 476 part six and seven and euro class c is equivalent to class one and two i mean i seek your good self to clarify whether it is a regulation or mentioned in document b that the following are

00:03:23 in document b that the following are equivalent uk class

00:03:26 uk class and euro class two columns again naught

00:03:30 naught as against b or better one and two as against c or better etc you see that yes and he asks for your assistance now if we scroll up to the next email in

00:03:42 now if we scroll up to the next email in the chain on page one we can see that a few hours later at 8 05 a.m you uh forward the email from mr chota dr debbie smith and brian martin

00:03:53 debbie smith and brian martin you see that um

00:03:56 um yes and you say it's halfway through your halfway down your screen and you say

00:04:00 say can you kindly assist please tar and yes why did you forward mr cho's email to them

00:04:07 them because by this time brian martin was the principal construction expert working for me and leading on the proof document b um because i this is december 2009 so

00:04:20 um because i this is december 2009 so brian had now formed uh had now joined the department and what about the bre why did you send this message to the bre because because we continued to work very closely uh with dr smith on such matters

00:04:34 closely uh with dr smith on such matters um at a european level and so i i felt it was most appropriate to share it with brian as the policy lead and dr smith what was the bre's role in helping you

00:04:47 what was the bre's role in helping you answer a question posed to government again

00:04:52 again from from

00:04:54 from from you know as we've seen through some of the evidence you've you've shown me across across the course of my my last few days debbie was utilized for her her excellent expertise in

00:05:08 for her her excellent expertise in european

00:05:09 european testing

00:05:11 testing um both in terms of helping to develop approved documents in the 2002 approved document b but also from recollection this time bre would have been providing us with

00:05:24 bre would have been providing us with feedback and insight to some of the discussions at european level

00:05:29 level uh within bsi and sen and so we probably had some recollection contracts there with debbie as well you say contracts with debbie yes

00:05:38 yes was the relationship between the the department and the bre governed entirely by arms length contractual relationships or was there some element of informality

00:05:49 of informality there could potentially be aspects of informality but from recollection debbie and her team would have been under under contract to support us on standardization at a

00:06:00 support us on standardization at a european level from and looking at the timing i would have thought that was in place at this time as well i see and uh

00:06:09 and uh bro you say brian martin was by now the principal

00:06:11 principal construction professional yes was there anything in this question that uh

00:06:17 uh you couldn't answer but you felt he was better placed to answer uh from my perspective um i'd entered my new role of head of technical policy and so i now had a locus for all technical

00:06:28 i now had a locus for all technical aspects of the building regulations and so bringing brian into the department to lead on part b meant i could focus my attention more broadly on other activities i understand that as a

00:06:39 other activities i understand that as a description of your different roles uh um in in the hierarchical sense but in relation to the substance what was it about mr

00:06:50 to the substance what was it about mr cho's question that you were not adequately equipped to answer because i probably didn't have time to deal with it and so i passed it on to in effect the heartbeat desk officer i see just to say to be clear you could have

00:07:02 just to say to be clear you could have answered this question but but you just you had other things on your plate and so you handed it to the person deputed to do that right i see were you yourself

00:07:13 were you yourself unsure

00:07:14 unsure of whether these were equivalent whether the uk classes and the euro classes were equivalent as mr cho asked from my perspective reading

00:07:25 perspective reading this email that you've just kindly showed me i wouldn't have used the word equivalent as we we covered um in quite some depth yesterday they're not equivalent they're two completely sets of different tests

00:07:38 two completely sets of different tests and therefore the transposition that undertook in 2002 was

00:07:43 was trying to give visible recognition to these new european test methodologies and as we discussed in relation to the note to diagram 40 yesterday as well they're not equivalent if you want to

00:07:55 they're not equivalent if you want to claim a class naught or if you wish to claim

00:07:58 claim a euro class you would have to undertake the test on that product what was your reaction

00:08:04 reaction to your seeing this question raised by somebody

00:08:09 somebody in the international market about equivalence i can't recall were you surprised or concerned that others internationally were drawing that equivalence or at least asking whether or not there was equivalence i i

00:08:22 whether or not there was equivalence i i really can't recall did the fact that adb was being interpreted in this way or at least questions being asked about whether it was the right interpretation not cause you to reflect on whether uh similar

00:08:35 you to reflect on whether uh similar misinterpretations might be taking place in the uk market no why is that because

00:08:42 because in terms of looking at the email and i can't remember this coming in this email i would have had a quick glance through and then i passed it over to debbie and

00:08:53 to debbie and and brian for them to consider i i can't even be sure that i picked up on the equivalence issue in in my cursory look and passing it over so you didn't you didn't strike you at

00:09:05 so you didn't you didn't strike you at the time did it then receiving this that the small print at the foot of diagram 40 was perhaps in some quarters either not being read or if it was being read was being misunderstood

00:09:17 it was an email coming in asking a question from another regulator i believe

00:09:22 believe um outside of the uk i would have just considered it and passed it through right

00:09:31 were you aware standing back a little bit from this email at this time or indeed at any time of manufacturers simply stating an equivalency between class naught and class b

00:09:43 class naught and class b without carrying out the european testing

00:09:46 testing or without carrying out the class not testing

00:09:49 testing not that i can recall no no so you weren't aware is this right you weren't aware of any manufacturers or any certification bodies saying that because a product had passed class b it achieved class b

00:10:01 class b it achieved class b it could be regarded as having class naught or vice versa not that i can recall let's go up to the top of the email chain there on your screen you can see

00:10:12 screen you can see on the 22nd of december 2009 debbie smith

00:10:17 smith sends an email to brian martin you're not copied in on it

00:10:23 with an attachment letter bm to cho and it says brian please see a draft response as discussed happy christmas debbie um now as you've told us of course brian

00:10:35 um now as you've told us of course brian martin by this point no longer worked at the bre but in the department didn't he he did i think he started in 2008 at the department that's correct but that was after some a period wasn't it of working

00:10:48 after some a period wasn't it of working part-time for the department and part-time for the bre that's correct you know when that started

00:10:55 that would have started on his arrival into bre

00:10:58 into bre so from recollection brian joined bre to take over from a gentleman called richard reed richard reed he was a technical adviser to the department on a part-time basis

00:11:10 part-time basis richard was due to retire brian was appointed within bre um

00:11:16 um and therefore that naturally moved into brian working part-time at bre and with us there yeah when did that start when did that dual uh location if i could put it that way

00:11:27 uh location if i could put it that way start

00:11:29 start whenever i forgive me i can't recall what date brian started at the bre maybe 2000 right 2 2003. we we can pursue that somewhere else but that that's helpful but

00:11:40 that that's helpful but did mr martin discuss this draft response with you not that i can recall now did the subject of the abandoned transition period or the um perhaps

00:11:51 transition period or the um perhaps unstarted transition period come up at all uh or the subject of the end date which had passed in relation to this in relation to this not that i can recall sir no

00:12:02 not that i can recall sir no at this time did you discuss the possibility of getting rid of national the national class system at least within approved document b as a relevant standard with brian martin

00:12:14 as a relevant standard with brian martin we might have discussed it at some point in relation to future reviews but i don't recall it at any point privately did this email therefore not

00:12:25 privately did this email therefore not prompt a discussion between you and brian martin or to your knowledge brian martin and anybody else about

00:12:32 about the uh

00:12:33 the uh potential for getting rid of the national class system within adb nicer so at this time is casting your mind back

00:12:43 back was it the thinking that class naught would remain within diagram 40 really

00:12:50 really for the foreseeable future so

00:12:54 so again from recollection we'd been through the approved document b

00:13:00 b 2006 review that was a fundamental review from recollection and it might have come later

00:13:11 and it might have come later than this email there was a consultation by the department looking to take forward a periodic review cycle to the to the approved documents as it was felt to be quite ad hoc and so

00:13:24 as it was felt to be quite ad hoc and so there was engagement with external stakeholders to suggest maybe we should become more periodic and cyclical and how we undertake reviews and i i can't quite recall the timing but there was a commitment in that

00:13:36 but there was a commitment in that consultation document at that point suggesting the next likely review point for fundamental review of part b was 2013

00:13:46 2013 from recollection but as to whether that discussion was taken that the bs-476 would have ultimately been withdrawn from reference in the approved

00:13:57 withdrawn from reference in the approved document at that time i can't recall if we'd had that discussion right we know as a fact that class naught was not withdrawn until 2018 after the grenfell tower fire yes sir

00:14:08 yes sir why is why was it left until after the grenfell tower fire to pull it from my perspective um i left the department in 2013.

00:14:19 department in 2013. um and so

00:14:21 um and so in terms of commitments at that time for approved document b back in 2013 the one commitment that government of the day had made was that the the approved document b would be revised

00:14:33 approved document b would be revised with the new version being in 2016 and 2017

00:14:36 2017 right um

00:14:38 right um and that commitment was made in a response

00:14:41 response to the coroner overseeing lack of house but as to why it took ultimately to 2018 i'm afraid i left the department in 2013. now

00:14:51 2013. now in late december 2009 what was the status of the revisions that came into the 2010 version of approved document b

00:15:03 uh forgive me i wasn't brian was leading upon those at that time i

00:15:09 i i vaguely remember something in relation to recognition of the lifts directive yes and the testing of lift fire testing of lift landing doors and there was a need to provide visible recognition

00:15:21 need to provide visible recognition to

00:15:22 to that new european method of test so i think that formed part of the 2010. the class naught didn't feature it was mit from recollection it was it wasn't a

00:15:33 recollection it was it wasn't a fundamental review and therefore class b class naught didn't feature it was giving visible recognition to lift landing doors why would you need a fundamental review given the

00:15:44 given the detailed discussion that had been and testing that had gone on

00:15:50 by then almost a decade before why not just get rid of class naught because that would be typically undertaken by by methods of developing a consultation

00:16:02 consultation bringing together all the relevant research work in relation to what you're proposing such as the removal of national classes and then putting out consultation with a

00:16:14 and then putting out consultation with a regulator impact assessment for three months

00:16:17 months and gleaning comments back working with the brac working party to develop the revised document and then ultimately publishing and therefore

00:16:27 therefore well by this time resources were already being quite tight and therefore to try and do something like that i suggest just in relation to an important but small part of the

00:16:38 to an important but small part of the approved document might mean we never get to touch the approved document b for a number of years thereafter and therefore typically what was looked on for what became the 2010 approved document was an

00:16:50 became the 2010 approved document was an administrative recognition of the lift landing doors arrangement with a view of ultimately hopefully doing a more fundamental review of part b what about 2013 why was class naught not considered

00:17:03 why was class naught not considered for abrogation in 2013 when those changes came round so from recollection by that time new government arrived by 2010 um

00:17:14 um there was not from recollection a desire for government to undertake i would be very very limiting on on the reviews being undertaken in terms of the building regulations

00:17:25 in terms of the building regulations and so

00:17:27 and so the the original commitment or suggesting that there would be something happening in 2013 didn't occur

00:17:36 why would you need to go through this great panjandrum of a consultation process etc when in fact all of that work had been done in 2000 and 2001. particularly after the testing in 2001

00:17:48 particularly after the testing in 2001 and the reports to you in 2002. we could certainly refer back to that but we are duty-bound to actually undertake public consultation to prepare impact assessments as to like

00:18:01 to prepare impact assessments as to like the effect and benefit to the to the industry at large and therefore as as a policy official we can't just make simple change well we can't make

00:18:12 make simple change well we can't make changes removing reference to national standards

00:18:15 standards without going through appropriate procedures including for example taking advice and consulting with the building regulations advisory committee it was a very formal set process that we have to go through to make changes to

00:18:27 have to go through to make changes to both the regulations and the statutory guidance even if they were matters of life safety uh with some pressing degree of urgency which urgency had not been felt in the previous decade

00:18:39 felt in the previous decade we would have to go through due process to undertake such things now just help me when in 2013 did you leave the department december so by that stage uh as this is right i

00:18:50 so by that stage uh as this is right i think isn't it the latino coroner's recommendations had been um published yes uh for some nine months

00:19:01 published yes uh for some nine months yeah they came at the end of march 2013 didn't they that's correct and we know that the minister's response to those recommendations promising a full review of adb by 2016 2017 came on

00:19:13 review of adb by 2016 2017 came on this is right i think the 20th of may that sounds about right um what did you have any role in the seven months or so before your departure from the department in

00:19:25 departure from the department in instigating any work on that

00:19:28 that review

00:19:29 review um

00:19:31 um no not directly from recollection what had happened already by that time is that the department has left a number of further research contracts to support the next review of approved

00:19:43 to support the next review of approved document b i believe those research contracts which were quite sizable were let in 2012 with a view to them being published or made available to the department by 2014

00:19:55 department by 2014 so

00:19:56 so the ship had sailed as it were there was work underway being prepared that would inform the next review and that was happening right did you do anything in the seven months or so between may

00:20:08 between may 2013 and your departure to push the abrogation of class naught and the withdrawal of ps476 higher up the agenda

00:20:20 higher up the agenda for recollection no we'd had a commitment by government to whom we serve

00:20:25 serve that there would be a new approved document

00:20:28 document in 2016 or 2017 and

00:20:32 and so that would amount to a fundamental review supported by the research to which i just referred and so i would have considered okay that's the way we now move forward

00:20:43 now move forward but again as i say i was had a technical policy at that time and so of course fire safety sat within my scope but it's fair to say the likes of energy efficiency parts of the building

00:20:54 efficiency parts of the building regulations were taking up a considerable amount of my time but as i say government had set a date of 2016 2017 and for a new adb yes

00:21:06 for a new adb yes and if

00:21:08 and if the new adb in 2016 and 2017 was going to remove class naught based on bs 476 part six and seven and came out in

00:21:19 and came out in even in 2016 that would mean wouldn't it that that some

00:21:25 some 15 years

00:21:27 15 years had been allowed to elapse between the testing

00:21:32 testing done

00:21:33 done with public funding by the bre under cc 1924 and the date of its removal that would be correct sir the point that i would add as well in

00:21:45 the point that i would add as well in 2013 it was quite an important point because that is the time that government decided that with the advent of the construction products regulations ce marking became mandatory

00:21:56 regulations ce marking became mandatory in the uk and therefore by virtue of where the test methodologies were available in the product standards you now had to apply the chc marking to the relevant products and have them tested

00:22:08 relevant products and have them tested to the new european methods of tests producing a declaration of performance so in 2013 that had happened as well why is that relevant to the um continuing to keep class naught

00:22:22 the um continuing to keep class naught and diagram 40 unamended between 2013 and the date of the grenfell tower fire which spans uh the entire period

00:22:34 uh the entire period are promised by government for a review of adb isn't it sorry could you ask the question again please sir yes why is what you've just told me about the um ce marking relevant to the fact that

00:22:46 ce marking relevant to the fact that government kept class naught within diagram 40 and indeed diagram 40 wholly unamended during the entire period between 2013 and 2017.

00:22:58 and 2017. so i'm sure we'll cover approved document be 2006 at some point but from from the perspective of the european standards it took a number of years for the

00:23:10 it took a number of years for the harmonized product standards the test methodologies and classification but even even around 2006 2007 onwards they weren't completing their

00:23:21 they weren't completing their publication so there were still situations where there were products and product standards that whilst they had a reference to methods of test there wasn't what we call fixing um and

00:23:32 there wasn't what we call fixing um and mounting standards that tell you how to actually test those products so in very simple terms for the for the purposes of the european testing the suite of standards needed to test

00:23:43 suite of standards needed to test products

00:23:45 products of all types wasn't completed and therefore to then remove

00:23:50 remove national standards without a complete suite

00:23:53 suite of european standards being in place could have been problematic

00:24:00 well just help me with this would not have been possible [Music]

00:24:06 [Music] for the government even going through the bureaucratic process which you've described

00:24:12 described to amended approved document b simply to say that all elements to the external wall must be of limited combustibility it doesn't do anything to

00:24:23 combustibility it doesn't do anything to remove class naught if you wanted out there for industry yeah it's just a question of how you frame adb

00:24:31 adb yes sir that is one possible way um again

00:24:36 again if that were to happen it would of course be subject to consultation and similar

00:24:41 similar um

00:24:42 um it's quite difficult raising it here given the public inquiry into which i'm referring to we are also mindful too that we had fires of special interest reports coming forward to inform the department of what

00:24:55 forward to inform the department of what was happening and we didn't start seeing fires internationally until sort of thankfully wouldn't want them at all but 2010 2011 2012

00:25:06 2012 and therefore it was then that the body of evidence was coming forward and i've raised this already but and please forgive me um we never agreed how i'd best refer to this is that the intention was also felt that

00:25:19 is that the intention was also felt that the functional regulations and the extent guidance at the time would still tend to suggest that such types of installation would not show compliance with the building regulations all right thank you thank you

00:25:31 all right thank you thank you i i just just going back and answer or two earlier why did you

00:25:37 suggest this i don't think you needed to remove

00:25:40 remove all of the national standards in their entirety you just needed to remove or clarify remove class naught or clarify diagram 40 didn't you why did that why did that cause such why

00:25:52 why did that why did that cause such why did the fact that the european tests were not as you put it fully developed even by 2007 matter to that because if you remove a national classification and there isn't sufficient and complete information

00:26:05 sufficient and complete information available how you then move forward with european tests then that could be problematic i don't understand that as we've seen from the euro what we haven't seen fully but as you know from the european amendments

00:26:16 you know from the european amendments yes

00:26:17 yes table a7

00:26:19 table a7 as it certainly kept became in 2006 contained european classifications for non-combustibility and limited combustibility which were achieved by european tests similarly class b in

00:26:31 european tests similarly class b in diagram 40. i yes i i agree sir and therefore would i be wrong in thinking that they were inserted by that the process of change to approve the approved document

00:26:44 change to approve the approved document um on the basis that those tests were achievable they were achievable for some products because there is a big body of what we call harmonized product standards some 400 now in total and still a great many

00:26:57 400 now in total and still a great many haven't been published even though you might have a harmonized product standard and methods of tests and similar there were discussions at a european level on how you mount and fix such products in

00:27:09 how you mount and fix such products in the test rigs because what we had for the first time at a european level because you had to achieve repeatability across all the laboratories across europe is that there were very specific

00:27:20 europe is that there were very specific provisions on how you'd mount and fix different types of products in the sbi test or similar and they were quite parochial to the product type and

00:27:32 quite parochial to the product type and so

00:27:33 so even back in 2002 when we produced the approved document european supplement it was clear that a large body of products couldn't at that time

00:27:45 body of products couldn't at that time test to the european methodology and that over time developed as more standards were ultimately published european standards to support new harmonized products

00:27:57 harmonized products mounting and fixing details for the for the test and similar did there not come a time when the

00:28:05 when the um

00:28:08 the the tests became practicably adoptable across the range of products available on the market so that you could say right well we can now get rid of class nor because it is an inferior test

00:28:20 inferior test um

00:28:22 um i can't recall ever seeing a detailed breakdown of when that became an option

00:28:28 an option um but that potentially could have been done but was it examined was were you on it were you monitoring the um perfection or the improvement of the european tests and the growth of the

00:28:39 the european tests and the growth of the products that could fit into it and be tested under it with an eye to getting rid of class naught as soon as you could i wouldn't have been doing it at that time

00:28:47 time let's turn then to approve document b 2006 to move forwards now can we start with clg-401508

00:28:58 this is a request for a framework agreement

00:29:01 agreement uh uh undated but created uh it appears from its contents in 2003. i say that because if you look at the last sentence of the second paragraph it

00:29:12 last sentence of the second paragraph it says work to review the current adb is to commence in january 2004. so that's a an educated guess on our part but would we re-write it i believe so yes sir now um the what was the purpose of this agreement or

00:29:27 agreement from recollection the undertaking of a review of a document the size of approved document b is a huge task and so it wasn't uncommon for the department to utilize

00:29:39 department to utilize outside expert external expertise to help oversee that revision and in this case this would have been the support contract

00:29:47 contract that

00:29:47 that bre

00:29:49 bre held

00:29:50 held to assist the department in the development of the new approved document b

00:29:57 and now if we go to uh page one you can see the first paragraph

00:30:02 paragraph yes um and in the la again in the last sentence there you see the reference there to the european amendments to provide visible recognition yes and then if you go to um

00:30:14 yes and then if you go to um page two you can see aim aim and objectives at the top of the screen at the top of the page with two tasks an objective one uh

00:30:24 uh is or task one uh is a survey of relevant stakeholders to identify further issues that they consider may be important

00:30:33 important to include in the revision of adb we therefore need to see to see a need to undertake a forward look exercise in which we consult our stakeholders to see what they would like to see in an amended adb and why

00:30:44 amended adb and why so that was one objective yes and if you go to page three

00:30:56 there's objective

00:31:00 objective 3 or task 3 and the bullet points there uh and under task four um technical support to officials in the drafting you see that yes i do yes

00:31:13 drafting you see that yes i do yes now

00:31:13 now there are other things in here as well but

00:31:15 but can we take it that this document um contained all the objectives of the government in amending adb and the processes by which it would go about

00:31:26 processes by which it would go about that

00:31:26 that it contained the expectation of what we needed from the contractor i'd be re to undertake it in terms of commitments of what government were expecting a large part of of what comes

00:31:39 expecting a large part of of what comes forward would included what was learned from the forward look to which you referred and ultimately public consultation as well but this was this was the broad framework in place for the

00:31:50 was the broad framework in place for the work that bre would undertake to support the department in completing the approved document be 2006. now the contract was let to the bre uh let's look at the bre's proposal for it it's a

00:32:04 look at the bre's proposal for it it's a bre401953 dated the 23rd of march 2004.

00:32:10 bre 401953 and

00:32:14 and you can see at the foot of the page the date

00:32:17 date and you can see its title and it's prepared for odpm yes which is the department at this stage um

00:32:27 now the the closing report to that we can go to it if we need to was addressed to you personally obviously in your capacity as official does that tell us that you are overseeing the carrying out of this

00:32:38 overseeing the carrying out of this contract uh in effect yes you are yes now let's go then to bre 401953 page seven of this document and you can see the

00:32:49 of this document and you can see the bre's proposal here and the proposal objectives and uh

00:32:55 and uh task one

00:32:57 task one paragraph one is uh

00:33:08 i'm sorry page eight apologies page eight if you go to page eight you can see proposed objectives and

00:33:15 and task one and the specific objectives of task one are one to conduct a forward look exercise the stakeholders by means of a targeted questionnaire face-to-face workshops and other innovative

00:33:26 workshops and other innovative techniques such as the setting up of an internet focal point to obtain information on the issues they identify to be important and requiring revision and if you go forward

00:33:37 and if you go forward please

00:33:38 please to page

00:33:42 10 under program of work item 4 task 1 forward look you can see the proposal in more detail there and and in essence it's right

00:33:53 there and and in essence it's right isn't it that that was intended as a wide consultation yeah so we were very fortunate i had access i had a new person join me with him in my team a policy expert

00:34:04 team a policy expert and

00:34:04 and we'd had sufficient funding to actually undertake a sizable amount of of research in a number of technical areas

00:34:13 areas to to feed into this review but what we wanted to do and we'd never done it before for any of the approved documents was to undertake two pieces of work even before we started to develop the draft

00:34:25 before we started to develop the draft the first of which was the forward look so this was very much about reaching out to industry and stakeholders to better understand what they would like to potentially see in a future approved document be

00:34:37 in a future approved document be and why

00:34:38 and why yeah and if we go to page 11 fourth paragraph down it says the forward look exercise

00:34:44 exercise is a new approach to the process of revising parts of the building regulations and will not be familiar to many of the key stakeholders uh as such care will need to be taken to

00:34:55 uh as such care will need to be taken to ensure the widest possible audience as well as a general press release we will approach all the relevant trade and professional bodies and ask them to promote the questionnaire to their members

00:35:05 members now

00:35:06 now that so that's the consultation exercise that that was proposed by the bre and was i think accepted as part of the contract that was led to them yes yes now let's then go to the forward look report that is at clg

00:35:19 look report that is at clg 401527 please

00:35:25 and on the first page you can see that it was prepared for you it was dated the 2nd of july 2004 and it's entitled forwards look yes and if you go please to page two you can

00:35:36 and if you go please to page two you can see that it was prepared for you by sam greenwood in the fire division of the bre and signed off by peter field at the bre yes yes and if we go to page

00:35:47 the bre yes yes and if we go to page seven there's a there's a reference to um regional workshops uh in watford manchester and cardiff and then if you go to page 36

00:35:58 then if you go to page 36 appendix a you can see that there are comments and suggestions for the review of approved document b and there's a it's a this is i think a

00:36:09 and there's a it's a this is i think a summary

00:36:10 summary for you of what the uh survey found and if you go to page 48 please

00:36:18 within it um you can see b4 is addressed there very short external fast bread 14.2 is about recommended space

00:36:29 14.2 is about recommended space separation and 14.9 says this the text was discussed at a recent seminar it causes confusion

00:36:38 confusion can the class naught be on combustible material now that's a that's a question small two lines buried away deep in the forwards look

00:36:50 buried away deep in the forwards look report

00:36:51 report um

00:36:52 um did you read it did you nate it i would have read the report from recollection there would be many items in here that

00:37:03 there would be many items in here that would have caught my interest i can't confirm that i definitively saw this

00:37:09 this um

00:37:10 um but i i would have read it right now when you got this report what process was in place for going through

00:37:19 through each of the points gleaned from the consultes

00:37:25 consultes in detail line by line laborious they may have been and making sure

00:37:31 sure that they had the relevant prominence in the next part of the exercise so

00:37:38 so from recollection this forward look um would have been provided into the brac working party and it would have been

00:37:50 and it would have been in addition to the backward look that arab undertook for us which was what what was working what what wasn't and how they came together so it would have been shared at this time with the black

00:38:02 been shared at this time with the black working party from recollection and i envisaged you it would have been a tool that would have been utilized by the bre as they started to develop the revised approved document be

00:38:13 the revised approved document be leading up to public consultation right now um i know you may not be able to remember this question specifically but do you know um

00:38:23 um who was saying that the text of adb

00:38:28 of adb dealing with external fire spread causes confusion uh i wouldn't know that sir this would have come from one of the three the three seminars and whoever the stakeholder would have said it did it surprise you

00:38:39 it did it surprise you that there was confusion and this question was being asked at all as i say it's it's quite a sizable report and there are and i haven't looked through it for many

00:38:51 and i haven't looked through it for many many years forgive me there'll be other similarly important points raised so i can't recall right

00:39:02 now now this was one recommendation in a list of hundreds was there a sorry a response not recommendation it was a response in a list of hundreds what was the process for within

00:39:14 what was the process for within government for filtering these out and prioritizing them so the expectation is that the forward look that was undertaken and the backwood look would feed in

00:39:24 feed in to the consideration and then development of the consultation version of the approved document b but who in government took a fine tooth came to this and gave it a priority ranking to decide what to

00:39:36 it a priority ranking to decide what to do with it i wouldn't say anybody took a fine tooth going through it and priority ranked it what was what was important is that we gathered this intelligence and understanding bre had

00:39:48 understanding bre had and fed

00:39:49 and fed that into the process of then working through

00:39:53 through the entire approved document to develop a consultation version right what happened to this observation um

00:40:03 um i i can't recall in terms of it would have gone it would have fed in it would have formed part of the wider considerations of the

00:40:13 of the um

00:40:16 um the consultation draft being developed and like all of the comments both in the forward look and backward look it would have been considered by both bre and the department in the

00:40:28 by both bre and the department in the round and working with the brac part b working party but to your knowledge my question what happened to it to your knowledge

00:40:40 to your knowledge did it result in any consideration giving rise to any change in the ultimate

00:40:46 ultimate product ultimately um all of the approved document was under consideration so working through the likes of what became section 12

00:40:58 the likes of what became section 12 and annex a of the approved document which talks about the testing of products and materials one envisages it would have been considered

00:41:10 considered as part of what changes we might make therein which then went out for three four months public consultation well envisages it but do you recall it

00:41:21 envisages it but do you recall it do you recall that one of the reasons for

00:41:25 for well what lay behind the changes in the 2006 version of approved document b section 12 as it became was this very question

00:41:33 question and consideration was given and changes were made ultimately to that well were they made in response to this question it potentially could have been in response to this question but also

00:41:44 response to this question but also in relation to what comments we receive back as part of the public consultation but i think you're giving me an answer sorry set on which is founded on on objective logic

00:41:55 which is founded on on objective logic which i understand what i'm really after is your

00:41:58 is your own recollection at the time of whether this question actually bore on the minds of you and your fellow officials in crafting the amendments to approve document b that

00:42:09 amendments to approve document b that we're going to look at i would like to think it was considered by the relevant officials and brac working party right i would like to think to say too but what happened

00:42:22 this is a huge document with an awful lot of comments officials

00:42:28 officials working party members would have been cited

00:42:31 cited on

00:42:32 on the points raised here and in fact this was

00:42:35 was published on the same day as well as the approved document be went out for public consultation in 2005. by virtue of being an end-to-end review of the approved document i believe

00:42:46 i believe such issues would have been considered right let's um let's turn to uh an event in 2005 namely a fire at the edge building in salford on the 6th of january 2005.

00:42:59 january 2005. uh

00:43:00 uh do you have a specific recollection of that event i i i i'm aware of it are you aware of it because of what you've read in preparation to give evidence or were you is it something that you i could

00:43:12 that you i could i could recall the edge fire from the time but i in my preparation i have also seen another day fair enough now let's go to clg three zeros one nine four five five

00:43:23 zeros one nine four five five this is the investigation of real fires report for the relevant period prepared by the bre for you as part of the ongoing investigation of real tires program this one has dated the uh

00:43:35 program this one has dated the uh the

00:43:35 the this one is dated the 31st of march 2010

00:43:41 if we go to page 76 we can see the report on the edge fire

00:43:49 at paragraph 4.1.148

00:43:52 and you can see this fsis so this is a um a fire of special interest yes yes a special interest study uh now it's long i won't read it all out

00:44:03 uh now it's long i won't read it all out to you um it's familiar to those following the inquiry but i'll summarize the first paragraph because it gives details there of the circumstances of the fire um and summarizing it is it was built it was a

00:44:14 summarizing it is it was built it was a 19-story building clad in san what are called sandwich panels made of an expanded polystyrene core with aluminium skins the fire started in the balcony area of the second floor the sandwich panels as

00:44:27 the second floor the sandwich panels as they were called delaminated and exposed the expanded polystyrene core to the fire

00:44:33 fire thereafter the spread of fire was as is said extremely fast spreading up 17 floors in less than 10 minutes with unusual downward far spread now

00:44:44 now that is summarizing that long paragraph looking at the final paragraph on page 76 it says this it was not possible to establish if the cladding system had been installed complete with cavity

00:44:55 been installed complete with cavity barriers at floor level in accordance with the approved document b but fire and rescue service sources believe that this was the case however the fact that the fire burned so rapidly through the core of this type of sandwich panel

00:45:08 core of this type of sandwich panel means that even if the construction complied with the current guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be restricted as such the fire and rescue services have grave concerns that when the building

00:45:21 grave concerns that when the building becomes fully occupied a fire of this nature could quickly become out of control and put the lives of occupants at risk

00:45:29 now um you got this report when you read this report um were you concerned by this fire and by what he said about it uh i would have been yes yes were you concerned specifically by the fact that

00:45:40 concerned specifically by the fact that it had been established that even though the construction complied with the guidance then in force fire spread would have been rapid unrestricted and would have put lives at risk i would have julie noted that um may we

00:45:52 i would have julie noted that um may we go back to the text please mr miller yes can we get back a page please to page 76

00:46:05 so my immediate question would be would have been

00:46:09 have been does

00:46:10 does this arrangement comply um in terms of my concerns over the use of

00:46:17 of combustible insulation at height so

00:46:21 so yes i would have yes it picked up yes yes now the relevant sections of the guidance then in force were the provisions of diagram 40 that we've seen namely those from 2000

00:46:32 namely those from 2000 amended to give visible recognition to class b yes as was decided in 2002 yes yes

00:46:39 yes um did you or anybody else so far as you know at the department consider that this fire at the edge and the findings in the investigation of real fires report here might need to to be communicated

00:46:51 might need to to be communicated immediately immediately to fire and rescue services nationally and to designers to builders and others involved in construction i can't recall if this document was

00:47:03 i can't recall if this document was shared with fire safety colleagues that oversee the fire and rescue service um if that happened um

00:47:13 um but from

00:47:15 but from recollection this immediately would have fed into the approved document b review but i

00:47:21 but i i can't recall how any further information about this would have been shared more broadly maybe potentially by the outreach arrangement by bre publishing fires of special interest and

00:47:35 publishing fires of special interest and at times presenting on findings but i can't recall if there's any specific immediate response to put this out to the market we haven't seen in the documents any alert

00:47:46 documents any alert given by government either to fire and rescue services or to designers or to builders or anybody else involved in the uk and construction industry about the risks which had

00:47:57 which had um eventuated at the edge as a result of the construction which apparently complied

00:48:02 complied we've not seen any evidence like that and my question is why is that um i can't recall sir but i believe there was further discussion about this particular fire

00:48:13 particular fire with the bre and the discussion about maybe some concerns over whether the insulation wasn't being provided as a as

00:48:26 as a as a product for the purposes of providing thermal insulation it was there as a stiffening filler type material that wasn't necessarily been recognized

00:48:37 that wasn't necessarily been recognized potentially in this case as needing to be a material of limited combustibility i'm i'm also mindful that this particular this is from recollection

00:48:48 this is from recollection the senior brigade officer in question for this fire

00:48:54 fire was somebody that worked in the department simon hamm from recollection and i know discussions were held and information shared between bre and the fire rescue authority to aid

00:49:07 and the fire rescue authority to aid their understanding and similar and so from recollection you know that might well have gone forward to help further advise brigades more generally now leave aside

00:49:19 brigades more generally now leave aside because we'll come back to it the process of amendment and the relevance of this fire to the amendment leave that on one side for the moment my question is a prior one

00:49:31 question is a prior one when you saw the report on the edge fire and the fact that

00:49:39 that although

00:49:40 although this type of sandwich panel had facilitated rapid fire spread nonetheless it comply with current guidance

00:49:47 guidance why wasn't the market as it were and fire and rescue services across the country alerted immediately to this risk

00:49:58 from recollection i would have probably wanted to understand more information in relation to this fire um and

00:50:11 and as i say there was an exchange of information between bre from recollection and the chief fairly chief officer within the brigade

00:50:23 fairly chief officer within the brigade and so

00:50:24 and so that such learnings were being shared at this level my immediately immediate thought on this was to think about what this might mean

00:50:35 was to think about what this might mean as you've already suggested so that what we'd have to do if this was you know something that we need to be born in mind for the the part b review certainly

00:50:46 the the part b review certainly um

00:50:47 um but

00:50:49 but discussions between the bre or one or two fire and rescue services is not the same thing is it as a general alert across the whole of the uk construction industry

00:50:58 industry no it's not um the benefit i suppose if it was the gentleman i'm thinking it was he would have been a member of safoa and so would have shared the information but no i agree with you sir no

00:51:10 no i agree with you sir no and you had no reason i would suggest to think that this was a one-off and therefore no reason to think that the risk wasn't worth investigating to make sure that it was negligible or not

00:51:21 make sure that it was negligible or not from recollection it was the first time i'd seen something like this um

00:51:26 um and

00:51:28 there wasn't evidence coming forward through the fires of special interest that

00:51:32 that something like this had happened before of this nature for this example and therefore it was something that we we recognized and we'd have to take action for as part of the part b review

00:51:45 action for as part of the part b review that was actually already underway as part of the part b review but as i say before that why not a general alert given that you couldn't discount this as a one-off

00:51:56 discount this as a one-off typically

00:51:58 typically the department didn't issue a general alert but

00:52:04 but from recollection as i said at the start of this part of the discussion we work very closely with our majesties inspectors as well and so there might have been

00:52:15 and so there might have been some exchange there with those that oversee the fire and rescue authorities in addition to as part of the outreach arrangement that bre undertook as well

00:52:26 arrangement that bre undertook as well for for

00:52:28 for for making this information available now you just referred to the inspectorate now help me mr bird with that i'm sorry to go no not into a slight diversion but wasn't the inspectorate

00:52:41 wasn't the inspectorate abolished

00:52:42 abolished this this around this time by the rro the regulatory reform order i don't it's not my understanding that her majesty's inspectors of the fire service were ever abolished

00:52:54 were ever abolished the

00:52:55 the fire precautions act 1971 might have been replaced by the regulator reform fire safety order that's that's

00:53:03 that's as to the actual the demise of the inspectorate i can't recall that i thought they still maintained their advices well they were replaced by a different body i think okay um but um is it

00:53:17 body i think okay um but um is it was it your is it your evidence that that replacement body that either had come in by this time or was about to come in as a result of the rro fsa uh

00:53:28 come in as a result of the rro fsa uh was communicated with by you and and and asked to disseminate this information widely i can't recall if that definitively happened now can we then look at clg3018832

00:53:49 and now this is this is an email from brian martin to you on the 18th of january 2005 copying in sarah colwell martin ship sam greenwood and peter field as you can see yes

00:54:00 yes and it says this anthony

00:54:04 anthony having reviewed the recent cladding fire in manchester and having received a number of technical inquiries on this issue sarah sam and i have come to the conclusion that the guidance in adb on external wall construction is in need of

00:54:16 external wall construction is in need of clarification this appears to be as a result of changes in construction practice whereby the intent of the original guidance has been circumvented i've attached some proposed changes to the current version 12 draft

00:54:28 the current version 12 draft consultation this still needs some work as in its modified form this would prohibit timber framed buildings over 18 meters high however we do feel it is important that something on this matter is included within the consultation to

00:54:40 is included within the consultation to ensure that this matter is given to you consideration now i'm just um pausing that do you con do you remember this email do you remember i don't remember the email but i have no doubt that it came in and

00:54:51 i have no doubt that it came in and thereafter it would have been discussed and can we take it that the recent cladding fire in manchester is a reference to the edge fire i believe so yes sir did you agree with the conclusion that the the guidance on

00:55:02 conclusion that the the guidance on external wall construction was as mr martin puts it in need of clarification so there there would have been discussion and context whether it happened before or following this email

00:55:14 happened before or following this email and i believe this is where the concern came that

00:55:19 that people were utilizing in this case polystyrene as a material which typically has a thermal performance to it but it wasn't being used for its thermal performance criteria necessarily it was being used

00:55:31 criteria necessarily it was being used as part of a paneling system that provided decorative detailing to the building

00:55:36 building from recollection and therefore when you looked at what was the extant guidance in adb 2002 whilst there is the general provision

00:55:48 whilst there is the general provision about

00:55:50 about care being taken with combustible materials generally when you then went to the the provision that sat beneath paragraph 13.7 i think for recollection it was talking about controlling

00:56:02 it was talking about controlling thermal insulation only in ventilated cavities and therefore there was there would have been discussion as to well what can we put into the

00:56:13 well what can we put into the consultation document that makes it more relevant that actually you need to think about

00:56:20 about all such insulation products and not necessarily because they're providing an insulation mechanism they've just been included because it was an appropriate product to

00:56:32 because it was an appropriate product to use

00:56:33 use as an add-on as a as a decorative panel to the building what were the changes in construction practice

00:56:40 practice that

00:56:41 that what did you understand brian martin was referring to in the last sentence in the first paragraph

00:56:52 i can't recall but we would have discussed it [Music]

00:56:57 [Music] when we followed up on this email what was the intent of the original guidance as you understood it that he also refers to the intent of the original guidance i would envisage is that

00:57:08 that it was to control appropriate materials and products that were combustible

00:57:17 depending upon the type of building the height and its position

00:57:23 just while we're on the point about ventilated cavities i think it's right isn't it going back to the 2000 amendments that that reference to ventilated cavities in

00:57:34 reference to ventilated cavities in that part of 13.7 came in in 2000 because before 2000 in the 1992 version of adb it wasn't there correct sir why is why was it introduced in 2000 as we

00:57:45 is why was it introduced in 2000 as we discussed on thursday afternoon i

00:57:49 i just arrived into the department in

00:57:52 in 1998

00:57:54 1998 working to tony edwards the principal fire safety professional what became the 2000 edition of the adb had already been out for public consultation and had then come back in

00:58:05 come back in and therefore i can't recall what the reason was okay now continuing with the second paragraph of his email you can see that he says uh he attaches

00:58:16 you can see that he says uh he attaches some proposed changes and then he says this still needs some work as in its modified form this would prohibit timber-framed buildings over 80 meters high exclamation mark yes then it goes on as we've seen

00:58:31 let's go to the attachment

00:58:35 it's at clg three zeros one eight eight three three

00:58:42 bearing in mind the sentence i've just read to you now

00:58:46 now uh you can see that what has happened here is that he's taken a text which now says

00:58:57 which now says external surfaces with 11.5 and 11.6 you see that yes with some changes within it

00:59:07 and under the external wall construction 11.7 and 11.8 yes yes

00:59:17 yes yes and under 11.8 you can see that he has deleted the words ventilated cavities in hasn't he yes he has

00:59:32 and if you look at the second line of 11.8

00:59:39 uh you can see the words or any other material i do now

00:59:46 i do now those words weren't in fact in the 2000 straight 2002 version were they no they were not

00:59:55 can we take it that

00:59:57 that leaving aside the deletions in here

01:00:02 in here this text

01:00:04 this text as at the 18th of january 2005 was what had come back from consultation no right what was this text this was text

01:00:15 right what was this text this was text from brian suggesting some potential changes that we could put into the consultation document which was to be published in the july 2005.

01:00:26 the july 2005. right so just help me leaving aside the deletions in other words the unchanged version

01:00:32 version was a version is this right which was a proposed full consultation but was a a version with which you were content uh no

01:00:40 no um this this was following brian's email this was his and maybe the team's initial discussion as to what we might need to do in

01:00:51 as to what we might need to do in relation to specifically 11.8 that then goes in to the draft document for public consultation and so if we look at 11.8

01:01:05 and so if we look at 11.8 i understand the deletion what it was saying categorically is that in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level all insulation should be a material of limited combustibility

01:01:17 combustibility i think there was an added text about or any other material used yes which is what brian refers to that of course that would have huge connotations if you worded it in that way

01:01:29 worded it in that way for the likes of the use of timber frame construction even plasterboard with paper-faced finish even laminated glazing and so it was just a a point to discuss

01:01:42 and so it was just a a point to discuss further as to what might find its way into the eventual approved document b consultation mr burn i'm sorry it may be my fault

01:01:50 my fault that's very helpful to know that um but what i'm just interested to know is what was the text what was the status of the text

01:01:59 the text upon which brian martin was working it was developing text right and it was being developed by him and the department you presumably

01:02:10 department you presumably text is

01:02:12 text is being our contractor the text would have been developed and

01:02:16 and commented upon and it would have been developed and refined and commented upon um ultimately leading to a consultation yes i follow so this is pre-consultation during the

01:02:27 so this is pre-consultation during the process of the departments and the bres working it up yes i follow

01:02:32 i follow um

01:02:37 do you agree that the effect of mr martin's changes as proposed here would have been to have made clear that any material in the external wall

01:02:48 that any material in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility it would have made it clear yes the all material and indeed exactly indeed adding the words or any

01:03:00 exactly indeed adding the words or any other material and deleting the uh qualification used in ventilated cavities or invaded cavities in if you like yes

01:03:10 like yes the effect of those that language would have made it wouldn't it completely clear that any material whether it's insulation or something else yes

01:03:22 else yes would have to be of limited combustibility yes in other words the entire

01:03:26 entire external will build up yes yes and did you understand that at the time yes i did and was did you understand that that was the aim it i did

01:03:38 it i did however

01:03:40 however the point raised by brian is that the problem with such provisions is that when you control all material in an external wall that

01:03:52 all material in an external wall that has a massive knock-on effect because it also affects timber it timber frame construction was there a policy in the department that um tim use of timber over 18 meters should be preserved in some way there was

01:04:04 be preserved in some way there was recognition that timber where it is safe to do so should be utilized or could be utilized as part of a of a solution you say where it was safe to do so that rather begs the question

01:04:16 to do so that rather begs the question isn't it

01:04:17 isn't it no

01:04:18 no how are you going well let me ask it differently how are you going to accept timber and permit its use in a controlled way over 18 meters

01:04:29 over 18 meters subject to the timber structural frame being suitably protected to ensure its integrity from a potential fire and and specific detailing um there was a project called

01:04:41 um there was a project called timber frame 2000 looking at this very issue of how

01:04:46 how timber framed buildings could be designed in a way that were safe in terms of fire safety and structurally robust but but if i may just go back and as

01:04:57 but but if i may just go back and as brian alludes the problem with saying any other material wasn't just timber frame it would have a knock-on effect that typically if you were laying plasterboard up as part of the construction

01:05:09 construction it wouldn't be allowed because it's typically paper-faced if you're including windows and glazing units which might have e-coatings on them or polymers if

01:05:20 have e-coatings on them or polymers if they're laminated that would in effect limit their use as well and so this

01:05:27 this suggestion um would be rather wanting and very very limiting to the point that it would restrict an awful lot of

01:05:38 that it would restrict an awful lot of of elements that would otherwise normally accept right so

01:05:43 so uh does that tell us that your understanding of his message and this draft was that he did not wish to achieve a wholesale

01:05:55 wholesale ban

01:05:56 ban on materials in the external world build-up

01:06:00 build-up that were

01:06:03 combustible in any way i think the discussion that would have followed on this would be that has some quite fundamental implications um

01:06:15 um we need to think about that more carefully

01:06:18 carefully so

01:06:19 so in other words taking it in stages he wanted

01:06:23 he wanted to exclude some combustible materials from his proposed prohibition or restriction yes

01:06:30 yes um i think where we got to is with

01:06:34 with with

01:06:35 with the edge fire to the back of our mind was

01:06:39 was actually

01:06:40 actually in that instance we're bothered about all insulation wherever it is and then thinking about where if we need to say anything further about

01:06:53 if we need to say anything further about other material more generally do you recall a discussion with him or with the bre about how to go about putting in place a restriction which

01:07:05 putting in place a restriction which accepted

01:07:07 accepted some kinds of material such as timber or plasterboard with a paper face examples you've given we would have discussed the development of this paragraph

01:07:18 of this paragraph for feeding into the part b review

01:07:22 right but as to where we got with that i can't recall so right but the roots of this are important and do we have your evidence as follows that

01:07:32 that at this time after the edge fire it was not your intention

01:07:38 intention and not the government's intention to introduce a wholesale ban on materials in the external wall build up

01:07:49 materials in the external wall build up which were which were combustible the intention was to

01:07:57 was to refine

01:07:58 refine a class a

01:07:59 a class a a draft approved document b that was

01:08:04 that was in this case cognizant something we'd been seeing from the likes of the edge fire

01:08:09 fire that gathered that but not necessarily definitively and always limiting combustible material in all situations ah so just to just to be

01:08:20 situations ah so just to just to be absolutely clear it was not your intention at this time to require all materials used in the external wall build-up of a high-rise building a building above

01:08:32 of a high-rise building a building above 18 meters to be of limited combustibility correct did that intention ever change between january between 2005 and the publication of adb

01:08:43 between 2005 and the publication of adb as in its revised form in 2007.

01:08:47 in 2007. so

01:08:49 so from recollection this document went out for consultation or a version of it certainly the ventilated cavities piece was removed

01:09:02 or any other material used was not included in the final draft that went for consultation but the strikethrough on ventilated cavities happened so the intention was

01:09:14 cavities happened so the intention was showing that we control all insulation that went out for public consultation and then

01:09:23 and then the text was reviewed again subject to the comments that were received

01:09:30 i'm not sure that really answers my question did government's intention change

01:09:38 change between

01:09:39 between this draft and how you've described it and the eventual publication of approved document be in 2007. the 2006 changes

01:09:53 it changed in the context that it was quite clear that

01:10:00 that one would always you have got the overarching provision that is

01:10:05 that is um

01:10:06 um 11.7 anyway about the perceived risks um a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health and safety which we've discussed uh previously

01:10:19 we've discussed uh previously but as for the the the specific guidance in 11.8 it was recognized that

01:10:27 that we needed to control insulation generally wherever it should be positioned or actually any material that could be combustible

01:10:38 that could be combustible ultimately that might be provided in the building and not thought about because it wasn't performing a thermal performance or meeting a thermal performance requirement

01:10:56 in fact as well we'll come to it later but

01:11:02 but after the consultation the second sentence of what is here 11.7 came out altogether didn't it the second sentence of 11.7

01:11:14 the second sentence of 11.7 the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overclouding or in ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external services in

01:11:25 provisions for external services in diagram

01:11:27 diagram 40

01:11:28 40 from recollection satisfied

01:11:31 satisfied sorry sir

01:11:32 sorry sir for recollection that did come out but 11.7 was refined and actually it

01:11:39 it rather than just referring to the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation what went in is the use of all combustible materials

01:11:53 can be an issue in tall buildings so it was actually that piece was actually expanded to make you think about buildings and design generally so that was expanded as the warning think about

01:12:04 was expanded as the warning think about what you've got and then what became 12.

01:12:09 12. i think it was 12.7 11.8 here that specifically no doubt we'll discuss picked up the issue of insulation and filler material

01:12:20 issue of insulation and filler material so

01:12:22 so again it's very forgiving so it's quite difficult without it in front of me this whole suite in what became section 12 was revised and from recollection reorganized as well in

01:12:35 from recollection reorganized as well in terms of

01:12:36 terms of how it flowed and how it covered external walls coming back to my question

01:12:46 does it work like this this draft pre-consultation with its amendments you agree would have had the effect of requiring all materials in an external

01:12:58 requiring all materials in an external wall built up over 80 meters to be of limited combustibility but that was too much

01:13:06 too much or too blunt an instrument and too much of a requirement too restrictive because you wanted to preserve the uses of timber frame buildings and possibly paper-faced cementitious parts particle

01:13:18 paper-faced cementitious parts particle board

01:13:20 board and perhaps other products so we're looking for something less than a

01:13:27 than a such a restriction yes and did that intention did that governmental intention ever change one way or the other between january 2005 and the eventual

01:13:41 between january 2005 and the eventual publication of the 2006 amendments to approve document b in april 2007

01:13:56 forgive me so from recollection we

01:14:01 we we strengthened what is here 11.7 which is the overriding consideration piece to include think about all combustible materials

01:14:13 combustible materials but in terms of the

01:14:15 the you know that's that is the overarching warning in control but for specific pieces in 11.8 here that

01:14:24 that became

01:14:26 became um

01:14:27 um installation material and fillers in the 2006 approved document b but as i say

01:14:35 say um from the point of view you're referring to government this was a draft being developed to go into a draft for public consultation to then respond

01:14:48 as part of that i'm sorry to nag but i i i'm not quite happy with now i can i'm after is a fact and we have your evidence about the fact

01:15:00 and we have your evidence about the fact of the government's intentions at this stage and you we've got that what i'm asking you is as a fact did the government's intentions change

01:15:10 change between january 2005 and

01:15:14 and april 2007 when the 2006 amendments were published there was something changing in tension by virtue of the changes ultimately made in the 2006 approved document well um

01:15:27 in the 2006 approved document well um the changes in the 2006 document might reflect the changes in intention but i'm not but but what i'm after is what was the change in intention

01:15:38 the change in intention the intention on this occasion was just very specifically capture materials that were being used in a way that perhaps they weren't originally intended

01:15:49 perhaps they weren't originally intended for and so we were trying to specifically and definitively capture in the case of 18 meters or above thermal insulation and filler type material

01:16:00 material right let me try one more time when this was eventually published and it wasn't in this form was it government's intention to require all or all significant elements of the external wool build up over 18 meters

01:16:12 wool build up over 18 meters to be of limited combustibility not always no not always no right

01:16:21 right and the not always is would be is this right timber paper-faced products those sorts of materials yes and what else laminated

01:16:32 laminated glass skirting boards it would the words as given here are uh it would capture an awful lot of materials

01:16:42 materials and that would have been enough to raise concerns that that is not the intention to do that for all materials in this way for all situations above 18 meters

01:16:53 for all situations above 18 meters mr bird thank you very much is this a convenient moment yes i think it is we'll have a break now mr bird we'll come back at 25 to 12 please again don't talk to anyone about your

01:17:04 again don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room thank you sir all right

01:17:13 thank you 25 to 12 please

01:35:08 would you ask mr bird to come back in please

01:35:17 [Applause]

01:35:22 all right mr third yes sir thank you yes mr miller yes thank you mr chairman mr bear can i just go back to the investigation of real far's report and page 76 where we looked at the edge fire that the reference to that is clg

01:35:33 fire that the reference to that is clg three zeros one nine four five five page seventy six uh and uh if you look at the last paragraph on that page we looked at it together yes um and the third line

01:35:45 together yes um and the third line however the fact that the fire burns so readily through the core of this type of sandwich panel means that even if the construction complied with current guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be

01:35:56 the panels themselves would not be restricted now um we can see from the email that i showed you of the 18th of january two weeks later

01:36:07 18th of january two weeks later that there's no reference or hint in that correspondence that either you or brian martin or the bre thought that um this type of sandwich panel clearly didn't comply

01:36:19 didn't comply that we don't see that in the correspondence do we in terms of the correspondence the report here yes no no um

01:36:27 no no um and that is what led therefore to concerns that adb might need to be changed isn't it yes yes

01:36:35 yes yes but similarly nor do we see any any reference in the correspondence to the fact that

01:36:41 fact that the the builder um had overlooked in some way the second sentence of 13.7 the what one might call the warning that even though the external surface complied with

01:36:52 the external surface complied with diagram 40 it might not necessarily be good enough to meet the functional requirement my question is did this report on the edge fun not lead you to think or perhaps to question your previous

01:37:04 or perhaps to question your previous assumptions that the warning contained in the second sentence of 13.7 to the effect that even though it complies it might not meet the functional requirements

01:37:15 functional requirements wasn't getting through to industry i i can't claim that i thought that at this time right well sorry to interrupt but did you wonder how how could it be then that

01:37:27 wonder how how could it be then that these panels have been placed on the outside of this building because

01:37:31 because from your point of view something had gone badly wrong yes yeah that that's that's a fair comment sir

01:37:38 sir um it

01:37:39 um it would have been a surprise that this was happening and um in terms of the reference to the last sentence talking about what may lay beneath a class not material

01:37:50 class not material again

01:37:52 again the concern being that the overarching provision within the approved document be is to think about all materials in terms of combustible materials and what that might lead to

01:38:04 what that might lead to it was it would have been a surprise to me that this was happening but

01:38:10 but again

01:38:11 again from recollection some aspects of this product was it wasn't being used for thermal insulation purposes it was a detailing issue from recollection

01:38:24 detailing issue from recollection as well that would have been discussed and therefore there could have been people thinking it's not being used for the purposes of installation it's actually for a decorative finish

01:38:35 decorative finish and therefore that would have come out i'm sure in the discussion that ultimately followed from brian's email but with receptive that doesn't touch the point does it because your point is that there is a sufficient

01:38:47 your point is that there is a sufficient warning

01:38:48 warning of the need to check everything against the functional requirement this

01:38:54 this builder yes or whoever specified these panels

01:38:58 panels appears not to have done that or if he did it he didn't understand the warning clearly enough did that not concern you that others might also not understand the warning clearly enough

01:39:09 the warning clearly enough um i can't recall at the time but it would have been a point that i would have thought through i'm sure and ultimately led into the discussion that we had a few days later

01:39:21 few days later in terms of what more we could do in the approved document be which was instigated by brian's email but yes sir all right thank you very much yes mr miller

01:39:31 miller yes can we then turn to

01:39:35 to the consultation and

01:39:38 and first look please at clg three zero is one three six seven one

01:39:47 now um this is a ministerial submission from you mr bird date dated the 24th of may 2005 to yvette cooper who was then

01:39:58 may 2005 to yvette cooper who was then the minister for housing yes yes if we go to paragraph one you can see that uh you seek approval to publish the consultation on part b

01:40:09 part b and paragraph two you can see the recommendation you agree to the publication in bold you say as soon as possible of the part b adb consultation

01:40:20 possible of the part b adb consultation package

01:40:21 package and then under three you can see uh timing urgent the published commitment is to launch the consultation in spring 2005.

01:40:32 the consultation in spring 2005. and what has made it urgent um

01:40:37 um potentially the enormity of the task at hand

01:40:41 hand um you typically work to a time scale with an approved document where

01:40:47 where you were bound by in effect the regulation publication dates of the months of april and october and wherever possible

01:40:56 possible one would try and give as much time to the marketplace on publication of the finalized approved document to aid dissemination and understanding and so i

01:41:07 and so i envisaged that given the size of this consultation and it was a full review in addition this was the first time we had broken the approved document down into two component parts dwellings and

01:41:20 into two component parts dwellings and buildings other than dwellings and just the shif and just the sheer time it had taken to get this far can we look at page two please paragraph eleven

01:41:33 under consideration yes yes um you say or it says also the potential impacts of not consulting on the proposals for tall buildings at this

01:41:44 the proposals for tall buildings at this stage even as minded to could be significant and then if you look through the bullet points you can see increased pressure from fire and rescue service and fire brigades union

01:41:55 brigades union a probable small number of fire deaths which could nevertheless have been avoided and then third severe criticism of government if significant public deaths or losses

01:42:08 if significant public deaths or losses occur which could have been mitigated by the measures proposed now with those concerns uh and the need for urgency a consequence of the fire at the edge

01:42:20 a consequence of the fire at the edge no they were not from recollection this was in relation to the work following 911 in new york where a sizeable package of work was undertaken looking at the

01:42:31 of work was undertaken looking at the physiological capabilities of firefighters in tall and deep buildings and as part of this particular review of part b

01:42:41 part b there were provisions developed off the back of

01:42:45 back of real fire experiences and fire research to see what additional facilities and provisions we needed to provide the fire brigades for when i'm engaging in search and rescue

01:42:57 search and rescue and that's why when all the consultation package was published all of the supporting research reports under the auspices of the billing disaster reception group were also published

01:43:10 were also published now can we turn to adb 2006 itself this is a clg one six zero seven please

01:43:23 now there we have the first page 2006 edition as you can see coming into effect april 2007. yes yes and if we go please in it to page 96

01:43:37 we see at the heading insulation materials stroke products 12.7 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler

01:43:48 level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies

01:44:00 cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 40 in section 9. now can we take it that you are familiar with this paragraph yes can we agree that one of the amendments to it um

01:44:10 um it was the addition to the text as against the 2000 and 2002 editions was the introduction of the wording in that paragraph filler material

01:44:21 that paragraph filler material brackets not including gaskets comma sealants and similar close brackets etc yes

01:44:29 yes can we also agree that the previous wording that that restriction applied to applied to insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the

01:44:40 used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction yes yes and the reference to ventilated cavities in was removed yes yes

01:44:51 um now i think it might be helpful to put up at the same time so everybody else can see what we're talking about the 2002 version of the equivalent of this paragraph 13.7

01:45:03 of the equivalent of this paragraph 13.7 that's clg140740

01:45:07 at page 89.

01:45:22 and you can see the changes can't you if you look at page

01:45:28 page 89 is where section 13 begins and if we turn to page 90 we can see the rest of 13

01:45:37 and the provision relating to insulation materials you'll you will find under 13.7 under the heading external wall construction in the second paragraph there yes yes so you can see the differences

01:45:49 differences uh originally it had no heading of its own it was called it said insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should whereas in the 2006 version it said it

01:46:01 whereas in the 2006 version it said it had its own heading and its own sub-paragraph the heading was insulation material straight products and it now referred to any insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc used in the

01:46:13 sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction yes yes so those are those are the changes now i want to explore next the origin of those changes with you and what you understood them to mean at the time we've seen the brian martin email on the

01:46:25 we've seen the brian martin email on the 18th of january 2005 suggesting that um 13.7 as it was should be clarified and he proposed in his draft as we've seen to delete the three words ventilated cavities in yes yes

01:46:37 words ventilated cavities in yes yes we've covered that now let's go then to clg uh

01:46:41 clg uh six zeros 22 please this is the draft of the 2006 edition of approved document b

01:46:50 as it was sent out for consultation and you can see that from the first page because it says the proposed new edition yes yes yes and it's dated july 2005 and

01:47:02 yes yes yes and it's dated july 2005 and it comes from the odpm correct correct um if we scroll gently through pages three four and five and start at page three

01:47:14 and start at page three uh

01:47:14 uh that's b1 and you can see the amendment's in blue can't you yes uh page four

01:47:21 page four we continue b2

01:47:24 b2 b3

01:47:25 b3 some changes there this is just to the index page five if we go to that b4 external fast bread uh various different section numbers have changed yes yes portal frames has

01:47:38 have changed yes yes portal frames has disappeared and so um we can we can see the changes in

01:47:44 in blue and a new gray and text i think correct correct uh

01:47:50 uh for example if we go back to page three so that people looking at this document can understand it if you go to page three

01:47:56 three um you can see there under section three flats and masonettes has been deleted and instead you can see the word apartments in its place yes yes now let's go to page 147.

01:48:12 now that is the heading external wall construction the numbering has changed it's no longer 13.7 it's 11.6 and

01:48:22 and you can see that it has a heading external wall construction

01:48:29 and in the paragraph immediately below which is the second paragraph on the page

01:48:34 page the warning in 11.6

01:48:38 in 11.6 is

01:48:39 is that the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overclouding or ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the

01:48:50 risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram

01:48:53 diagram 30

01:48:55 30 may have been satisfied yes yes

01:48:59 yes yes so that consultation document retained that

01:49:03 that uh qualification if you like yes yes let's then look at the fourth paragraph on the page which starts uh in a bit under under 11.7

01:49:15 uh in a bit under under 11.7 as it was then proposed that reads in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in the external wall construction

01:49:27 wall construction should be of limited combustibility yes yes

01:49:32 yes yes and we can see there that the words in ventilated cavities had been removed yes but there were no other changes proposed to that section of the guidance

01:49:43 of the guidance no

01:49:47 looking at therefore what went out to consultation that shows doesn't it that the government was intending to require all

01:49:58 to require all material used in the external construction as it says to be of limited combustibility without exception sorry sir could you ask that question again that shows doesn't it that what

01:50:09 again that shows doesn't it that what went out to a consultation was a text which

01:50:16 which had no exceptions

01:50:20 but required all material used in the external wall construction sorry to be of limited combustibility if i'm looking at 11.7 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above

01:50:31 with a story 18 meters or more above ground level yes insulation material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility it's only referring to insulation material all right

01:50:44 so

01:50:46 does that tell us well let me try it differently does that preserve the intentions of government as you described before the break

01:50:57 as you described before the break not to

01:50:59 not to have a new scheme which required that all materials used in the external wall construction should be should be materials of limited combustibility

01:51:10 in other words only insulation i suggest not and

01:51:17 and this is something we undertook i believe on thursday is that

01:51:22 is that in terms of the functional requirements and the performance statements you have to read the full provision and therefore by virtue of what was extant in 11.6

01:51:34 extant in 11.6 the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety it then goes on about the use of certain situations and then it talks about

01:51:45 situations and then it talks about the reference to diagram 14 performances that's the overarching sort of health warning that when using the approved document in this way you need to think about it yes that

01:51:56 way you need to think about it yes that and that unlocks a consideration by a competent designer and a competent building control body to go okay we need to think about potential risks what then followed is what

01:52:07 what then followed is what typically

01:52:09 typically we're looking at all insulation now but don't forget you do need to refer back in case if the designer starts to use products that he or she thinks

01:52:20 use products that he or she thinks oh that that's something that might suit me

01:52:23 me not really caught by insulation but does it provide a medium for risk and spread and that would unlock as we discussed on thursday the discussion with building control

01:52:35 now this

01:52:38 this document

01:52:39 document as you i think you've confirmed went out to consultation some seven months or so after the edge fire and some seven months minus two weeks or so

01:52:50 so after the discussion that you would see we've seen by email yes uh about what that meant for adb yes yes

01:53:03 can you point out what it is in 11.7 or 11.6 and 11.7 taken together which would address the concern

01:53:14 concern or problem that the edge fire had revealed

01:53:20 by virtue of 11.7 not just referring to ventilated cavities

01:53:28 it was all insulation so the intention was

01:53:32 was whatever its purpose all in insulation and we wanted to test that from recollection in consultation to see if that sufficiently answered

01:53:43 that sufficiently answered the

01:53:44 the the need

01:53:45 the need and the point of concern

01:53:50 so you thought did you that the simple expedient of deleting the words ventilated cavities in taken together with the general warning in 11.6 would address the edge

01:54:01 11.6 would address the edge problem

01:54:03 problem from recollection yes

01:54:08 although of course as i think you said to the chairman before uh

01:54:13 uh after the break the problem with the edge fire was that designers some designers weren't

01:54:19 weren't receiving the message which was intended to be imparted to them by that second sentence in what is at this stage 11.6 yes yes so how did that compute

01:54:31 so how did that compute again from from recollection we held a

01:54:34 we held a discussion and we wanted to go out and test this

01:54:38 test this and put it out for public consultation to see what further comments came back from recollection and that's what we undertook right do we take it from that and perhaps the

01:54:49 do we take it from that and perhaps the process more generally that that in putting something out to consultation that represents government's most up-to-date thinking on what the document being

01:55:00 thinking on what the document being consulted on should look like subject to the consultation subject consultation yeah yeah yes now the wording we've just been looking at

01:55:09 at in the eventually published version filler material not including brackets etc was not in the published consultation draft was it no it was not um

01:55:19 um now you address how the word filler came to be introduced into this document in your statement and let's have it up it's at your

01:55:30 and let's have it up it's at your statement clg three zero is one nine four six one page twelve in three paragraphs paragraphs 29 to 31 and i'm not going to read them all out to you but if we need to look at it we can just to refresh your memory of what

01:55:42 can just to refresh your memory of what you've told us there yeah but am i right in thinking that in effect you say that the nhbc raised the issue in consultation that's paragraph 29 the bre had reported in the real files

01:55:54 the bre had reported in the real files report on the edge and then you um consulted with brian martin following which the addition uh

01:56:03 uh of the words filler material not including gasket sealants and similar et cetera was added from recollection yes yes now let's look at the nhb c response

01:56:14 c response well well let me show you power 29 first you say this um

01:56:19 uh you set it out uh following the public consultation in july 2005 we received a response from a console t at the nhbc who suggested that and here's the quotation clarification is

01:56:32 here's the quotation clarification is required

01:56:33 required within clause 11.8 the predecessor clause to power 12.7 on the 2006 edition of adb

01:56:40 of adb as to whether insulation material includes sandwich panel core material whilst the removal of reference to ventilated cavities is helpful currently there is confusion as to whether metal cladding panels that

01:56:52 as to whether metal cladding panels that use polystyrene as a filler can be used on buildings over 18 meters in height typically these panels are faced both sides by aluminium and as such may be considered by designers to be

01:57:03 considered by designers to be non-combustible

01:57:07 now i'll show you that let's look at the nhbc response that's at clg402410

01:57:17 this is i think the document you're quoting from there's the first page and if we go to page 26

01:57:29 uh take take from me that the from the first page there's a deadline for return of this which was at the 8th of november okay

01:57:37 okay sorry 18th of november okay and this is a november 2005 document take that from me now their response is here on this page let's go to the bottom of page 26 and you can see

01:57:48 and you can see in

01:57:52 in uh shading there that's about closers

01:58:04 uh i'm so sorry i think i really want page 24.

01:58:09 page 24. that's right page 24 uh under any other issues clause 11.8 clarification is required and you can see the text there yes which is

01:58:20 see the text there yes which is essentially quoted in your in your statement yeah now that suggests doesn't it not only that there was confusion as to whether these sorts of sandwich panels were permissible

01:58:32 permissible but also that there was a belief held by some designers out there that metal-faced cladding was itself non-combustible yes by virtue of the response here yes yes

01:58:43 response here yes yes the inclusion of the word filler just didn't wouldn't resolve the problem of manufacturers and designers not understanding what type of cladding panels were permissible would it

01:58:55 from the discussion that took part

01:59:00 took part between brian and i i think what we took from this point was that

01:59:07 that just even given the provision in terms of it should be non-combustible or limited combustibility there is concerns that because of how it is

01:59:19 because of how it is a panelised system in this case that it could be perceived as non-combustible and therefore what we were trying to do by virtue of paragraph 12.7 and adding the words filler is to

01:59:31 12.7 and adding the words filler is to again

01:59:32 again try and address the point that you need to think about what might be filled within such a panel system and don't just think about it it's it's

01:59:43 and don't just think about it it's it's it's insulation and it's the filler material within in this case the panel system

01:59:50 system so it was the discussion was trying to address this and provide further insight to make sure hopefully to make sure that people think about

02:00:01 think about this type of installation

02:00:06 was this the first time you became aware that there was this confusion out there which confusion sir confusion as to whether metal cladding panels that use polystyrene as a filler can be used on buildings over 18 meters in height

02:00:18 buildings over 18 meters in height well that

02:00:20 well that sort of relates back to the edge fire as well i see so yes that was the first time but this confirmed it did it's not confirmed to you that there was a wider problem

02:00:30 problem it confirmed that an example here that there could be this issue and that we need to address within the approved document

02:00:40 now let's see

02:00:44 how this goes did you not see that there was a risk that designers manufacturers and in others perhaps building control officers regarding the

02:00:56 building control officers regarding the cladding panel itself as being judged solely on its outer face and not by reference to its core when it comes to reaction to fire um

02:01:07 comes to reaction to fire um this is coming from the nhbc so they're building control so and the biggest building control body in the country so the fact that they had picked this up is is a good thing and so that wouldn't have been happening on their sites

02:01:20 have been happening on their sites i

02:01:21 i from

02:01:22 from from the comments that we received that again would have been discussed it was shown that there is this potential and therefore it was imperative that we did

02:01:33 it was imperative that we did place

02:01:34 place um revised guidance within the approved document to try and better articulate that

02:01:42 that they are a material that needs to be considered whether they're in insulation material

02:01:47 material and being used for installation purposes or not and that that was the intent of adding in

02:01:54 adding in the term filler now let's see if we can identify with more specifically how the word filler came into the text here's the november 2005 consultation

02:02:06 here's the november 2005 consultation response from the nhbc yes let's then go to clg one triple zero two zero eight two

02:02:20 this is draft

02:02:23 draft approved document b and if you look at the top right hand corner you can see it says draft 22nd november 06. yes and i think the 15 it means version 15 does it

02:02:34 think the 15 it means version 15 does it i i can't recall right well that would that be the normal system i would have thought yeah um

02:02:41 um so it's about a year after the nhbc response

02:02:44 response if we go to page one two eight

02:02:52 uh that is where section twelve starts construction of external walls yes yes and if you turn to one two nine

02:03:02 uh you see there the heading external wall construction 12.5

02:03:09 12.5 external surfaces has is a heading of 12.6 12.7

02:03:15 12.7 is insulation materials yes and then cavity barriers is the heading for 12.8 and 12.9 yes now there's been a significant reorganization of adb this

02:03:26 significant reorganization of adb this part of adb yeah close consultation yes yes yes

02:03:32 and now we see in 12.5 the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health and safety the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and

02:03:44 materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings yes that was a change sir that was a change certainly because it referred to

02:03:55 referred to the use of all combustible materials to again the health and safety the the warning provision think about all combustible materials in the cutting system and that would have yeah so that and

02:04:07 and that would have yeah so that and that replaced the references to cladding framework

02:04:10 framework and

02:04:12 and insulating panels i think from recollection so that was again just trying to make it clearer to the reader that

02:04:20 that the overarching provision is that the envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's going to be a risk to health and safety therefore

02:04:31 therefore consider all combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings

02:04:42 well let's compare it to the 2000 edition which didn't change in the 2002 um clg one

02:04:51 clg one five zeros one two please page 96

02:04:57 let's have both on the screen at the same time i'm so sorry if we can do that so keep this this version up if we can

02:05:07 draft 15 and let's have what it was being amended from the 2000 version or the 2002 version of the same in this particular for this particular

02:05:19 in this particular for this particular purpose

02:05:20 purpose clg one

02:05:22 clg one five zeroes one two please page ninety six

02:05:32 yeah uh

02:05:49 i think you're going to need to go back to page nine let's try 94. sorry let's try 90. sorry let's try page 90.

02:06:00 90. yes and then go back a page to 89.

02:06:04 yes thank you very much so 13.7 under external wall construction we can see the now familiar second sentence there yes yes but could i just point out that in addition to changes which we'll no doubt

02:06:16 addition to changes which we'll no doubt talk through so the actual flow of of the guidance has changed as well so rather than just entering the guidance in the way you would read it and only looking at external surfaces

02:06:27 it and only looking at external surfaces and and the point that you raised um in discussion i believe last thursday about people might just dip into the approved document and just look at external surfaces and that's them covered

02:06:39 covered what we actually undertook in well certainly in this version here on the left was to actually talk about external wall construction in the round and provide the general guidance there in and then cover off external surfaces

02:06:52 in and then cover off external surfaces and then provision well let's just take it in i don't think i asked a question but let's just take it in stages now we've actually got the right documents here in front of us um first of all as you rightly say the structure of this part of

02:07:03 structure of this part of yes of the guidance has changed it's been reversed hasn't it you start with external wall construction yes within which you find references to two things external surfaces and insulation materials yes yes

02:07:15 materials yes yes um

02:07:16 um we looking at the the warning sentence in 13.7 which previously existed under external wall construction under 13.7 that's been moved now isn't it to 12.5 yes yes but let's just compare them the

02:07:29 yes yes but let's just compare them the 2000 version says i'll read it again for everyone's benefit the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overclouding or in ventilated cavities may present such a

02:07:40 ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 may have been satisfied 12.5

02:07:48 12.5 now says in its draft form admittedly but it doesn't change or at least not materially the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health and safety yes yes

02:08:02 to health and safety yes yes statement of the obvious isn't it you would like to think so yeah the use but the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall

02:08:13 cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings

02:08:14 buildings where do we see in that new formulation the warning that even though you have satisfied the particular requirements of the linear guidance the linear route to

02:08:26 linear guidance the linear route to compliance provided by diagram 40 nonetheless you may not meet the functional requirement where do we see that

02:08:38 it was it was it was removed yes why i can't recall but from

02:08:48 recollection the discussion that led to the development of this revised

02:08:55 revised flow of information within the approved document

02:09:01 may well have amounted to because we were now talking about the external wall construction in the round and we actually placed the health and safety overarching um reference at the start of the

02:09:14 um reference at the start of the narrative

02:09:15 narrative and because we were being quite clear that the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk upfront

02:09:26 upfront from recollection perhaps this precluded the need

02:09:30 the need for the paragraph referring back to diagram 40.

02:09:40 that's that first and second sentence of paragraph 12.5 dilutes the warning previously contained in the second sentence of paragraph 13.7 out of all existence doesn't it

02:09:51 existence doesn't it the intention of 12.5 and it's it's its extension to include all materials i think was an attempt to say think about everything whereas

02:10:03 think about everything whereas within the second sentence second sentence of 13.7 it then deep dives into the use of combustible materials for the cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation is an overcladding

02:10:15 insulation is an overcladding and therefore and i can't recall the discussions but i think

02:10:21 think it would have been considered that because we included a reference to think about all combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present a risk

02:10:32 may present a risk then

02:10:33 then that was felt suitably direct and clear for the purposes of the revised guidance why did you remove the reference to diagram 40

02:10:46 i can't recall specifically but i think it was part of the consideration of development of

02:10:54 the paragraph given what your evidence should told us over the last two days namely the importance of this general warning in the second sentence of paragraph 13.7

02:11:07 in the second sentence of paragraph 13.7 as it had become in 2000 yes 12.7 from 1992

02:11:15 and given the lack of understanding that the edge fire had demonstrated to you out there in the market why wasn't it essential

02:11:26 why wasn't it essential to pres not only to preserve that warning to be met but to make it even clearer

02:11:31 clearer that if you have a class naught external panel in your hands you

02:11:36 you cannot be sure that you have satisfied the functional requirement

02:11:42 again i can i can only think back to the discussions that would have led to this new revised draft that there was consideration given that this

02:11:54 there was consideration given that this provided what was needed in terms of guidance to support external wall construction more generally how does the second sentence specifically

02:12:05 does the second sentence specifically you could take the first sentence as its as its background how does that second sentence specifically tell you that even though you may have satisfied the linear root of compliance either

02:12:17 the linear root of compliance either through meeting diagram 40 or through a full-scale test nonetheless you need

02:12:27 you need to

02:12:29 to do a safety check against the functional requirement every time where does it tell you that

02:12:37 in terms of sorry sir can you repeat the question

02:12:42 i'll try it more simply what is it in the in 12.5 that tells you that even though you may have satisfied the linear route to compliance using diagram 40

02:12:53 using diagram 40 or

02:12:54 or 12.7 as it became nonetheless you need to make sure that you've satisfied the functional requirement because mere satisfaction of diagram 40 doesn't get you there

02:13:06 diagram 40 doesn't get you there again from my understanding in terms of the use of the document you will always have the functional requirement and the specific performance statement

02:13:17 performance statement within mind and so by virtue of the overarching health and safety paragraph 12.5

02:13:24 12.5 there is the warning to think about all combustible materials in the cladding system need to be considered yes but telling people to think about all

02:13:33 all combustible materials in the cladding system simply tells them um that they've got either to comply with the linear route to compliance uh which is 12.6 or 12.7 or a full-scale

02:13:44 which is 12.6 or 12.7 or a full-scale test there's nothing there to say that even if they do that it still it might not meet this functional requirements is it

02:13:54 is it is there

02:13:56 is there i would

02:13:57 i would i still suggest that you need to think about any combustible materials in that wall environment and that's what 12.5 is attempting to achieve but this is

02:14:09 attempting to achieve but this is guidance isn't it mr bird it is statutory guide and so telling people to think about something as general as the dangers presented by combustible materials is going to provoke an answer in a designer well i know about that how

02:14:21 in a designer well i know about that how do i comply and then you look in and you see how you comply isn't that what the point of the guidance was it is otherwise what's the point no no i agree it is yeah and therefore you're all important your

02:14:33 therefore you're all important your sheet anchor all important sheet anchor of the second sentence of 12 13.7 that used to tell you that satisfying diagram 40 might well not have been enough because you need to go and check it against the

02:14:44 need to go and check it against the particular height use and position of the building is gone yes

02:14:49 yes i can see how that might be considered but you would always have to revert back to the functional requirements but this doesn't tell you that you should but you but you for meeting the building

02:15:00 but you for meeting the building regulations you always need to meet the functional requirements the effect of this isn't it is to say

02:15:09 is to say putting oneself in the position of a cladding subcontractor for example uh the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings

02:15:19 buildings i know that right what am i allowed to do okay 12.6 external services of all should meet the provisions in diagram 40. yes here is my panel it's got class

02:15:31 40. yes here is my panel it's got class naught i've met the provisions in diagram 40. can i use it you then carry on and read where relevant the guidance in 12.7 where it talks about

02:15:42 where it talks about insulation material and then subsequent to this updated and filler material you would have to flow through the guidance that would then take you through your

02:15:53 that would then take you through your consideration of all of the external walking yeah we'll come back to filler in a moment whether or not it does catch the core i'm not on that point i'm just asking you to explain to me how an ordinary user of this document would

02:16:05 ordinary user of this document would understand that satisfaction of diagram 40 isn't necessarily enough by virtue of what you have to achieve in the

02:16:16 what you have to achieve in the functional and similar i understand in terms of levels of competence and understanding but again it's not a single root of a designer

02:16:26 designer or a builder in this case going i've met that that's all i've got to do from their reading i'd suggest you need to carry on but with the interaction of building control

02:16:37 with the interaction of building control as well

02:16:38 as well which would be the checking of a building control application because this is notifiable building work that between them they would ensure that they cover that what they were undertaking would ultimately show

02:16:49 undertaking would ultimately show compliance with the building regulations mr bird isn't there an unhappy tension built into this whole set of guidance you you are using the guidance

02:17:00 guidance to tell people how they can expect to comply with the functional requirements for the more common situations all right but the overriding

02:17:11 but the overriding point that you say is to be obtained from the guidance is you've got to look at the functional requirement in other words

02:17:18 words it's effectively putting into the guidance a statement that says even if you comply with the guidance you may not have complied with the functional requirements and that's not really what the guidance is

02:17:30 really what the guidance is there to do is it it

02:17:34 as we've already discussed and forgive me from i'm julia repeating myself the guidance is there for some of the more common situations it is not deemed to satisfy

02:17:46 situations it is not deemed to satisfy and therefore by virtue of following it you may show compliance and it does say that in the approved documents and therefore wanting to be helpful

02:17:58 wanting to be helpful this guidance is offered in in that spirit

02:18:01 spirit but there is still and as i was taught as building control just following the adb is not necessarily enough that's not to say that's not how some people have now

02:18:12 that's not how some people have now started to perceive that you i would always revert if there was a question

02:18:18 question to the functional requirements for any part of the party or any part of the building regulations because the status of the approved documents are exactly that they are statutory guidance for the more common

02:18:29 statutory guidance for the more common situations but if followed ten may not show compliance so in a performance-based system there's always that expectation that that should happen sir

02:18:40 that should happen sir i just wonder whether it would be more helpful to the people who are trying to use this

02:18:46 use this to state in absolutely explicit terms that even if you follow this guidance you may not get home it

02:18:55 it from recollection forgive me so is that not said at the front of the approved document

02:19:02 but i believe something along those lines

02:19:05 lines are broadly there sir all right thank you yes well

02:19:09 well i invite you to come back to my question

02:19:15 which is do you accept that the

02:19:21 that the uh

02:19:23 do you accept that the intention underlying the second sentence of what was 13.7

02:19:32 was diluted out of all existence and replaced by a much more general and willier statement in the second sentence of para 12.5

02:19:43 12.5 i don't believe that was the intention sir but if that's how it is now being read then

02:19:50 i'll have to you know from your perspective from what you're saying then i can see why that might be the case and in a bid to make perhaps makes this perhaps more accessible and to simplify it

02:20:02 and to simplify it uh you made a generic statement which completely removes the thrust of the important warning contained in that second sentence in what was 13.7

02:20:13 what was 13.7 that wasn't the intention but it was the effect wasn't it do you accept that

02:20:20 could we potentially have a look at what became

02:20:23 became in the left hand draft or latest draft diagram 40 please sir uh

02:20:31 sir uh yes i think so we need to um turn the page please

02:20:37 yep page 130.

02:20:46 thank you sir if we could go back to the text let's go back to 129 yes please

02:20:58 then i i could see how that could be considered in that way yes thank you now i'd like to go back if i can to uh filler yes um

02:21:13 can we go to

02:21:15 clg1302070

02:21:27 and now what this is i shall tell you uh is

02:21:32 is the last

02:21:35 the last modification of this document dated to the 22nd of november 2006 in other words the same date as version 15 we've just been looking at take it from

02:21:46 we've just been looking at take it from me that that is the case

02:21:49 have you seen this version before do you think

02:21:55 and i i'll let me let me see if i can assist it's different in respect of 12.7 because it now contains the word insulation product filler material etc

02:22:06 filler material etc okay so as i set out in my witness statement

02:22:11 statement potentially this followed a discussion between myself and brian martin that there was concern that we hadn't suitably addressed the comment recognition from

02:22:24 the comment recognition from the nhbc

02:22:26 the nhbc and

02:22:27 and potentially the edge fire as well and so i think there was

02:22:32 there was what the date of this document sir this is the 22nd of november 2006. so it's a year after yeah so it's quite late in the this is after consultation yes towards it production

02:22:43 towards it production as is as is normal given that the enormity and size of these documents that therefore i envisaged that the discussion that to which i refer in my

02:22:54 discussion that to which i refer in my witness statement with brian about adding the word filler material would have happened and this might be that very text that was developed

02:23:06 that very text that was developed and the word added right

02:23:10 right so around this time 22nd of november 2006. i i remember a discussion with brian the fact that filler wasn't in

02:23:22 the fact that filler wasn't in the version that went out for consultation so it was always going to be

02:23:26 be post consultation yeah but it obviously happened obviously quite late as part of the refinement of the approved documents now um you can see here what's been

02:23:38 now um you can see here what's been added

02:23:39 added uh the words uh well the the title is now insulation materials stroke products yes and what's been added is the words uh

02:23:50 uh filler material etc yes yes this is the first time i think i'm writing asking you that that we see the word filler in any proposed drafting of this text

02:24:02 drafting of this text um

02:24:04 from what you described in the dates yes sir do you remember seeing this document at that time in other words the addition of the word filler material etc but not yet bearing the brackets which

02:24:17 the brackets which exclude certain products

02:24:20 i can't recall i i just say there was

02:24:26 there was a lead

02:24:28 a lead draft which you just showed me draft 15 and therefore this must have been developed

02:24:36 developed what's the date of this document sir uh 22nd of november let's put both up yes um can we have keep this on the screen uh but let's have draft 15 we looked at before clg one triple zero two zero

02:24:49 before clg one triple zero two zero eight two

02:24:58 so yes

02:25:00 yes exactly and in that i think we need to turn to page one two nine

02:25:09 i showed you that yes the version on the uh

02:25:16 uh right hand side bought the date of the 22nd

02:25:19 22nd november 2006 version 15. take it from me

02:25:23 me the the version on the left-hand side we're now looking at which is an uh another amendment bears the same date from the um the metadata i believe i'll correct that that's wrong

02:25:35 correct that that's wrong um but here you see if you compare them um on the right hand side it says insulation materials as a title yes on the left hand side it now says insulation materials stroke products

02:25:48 insulation materials stroke products on the right hand side it says in a building with a story 80 meters or above ground level any insulation material used in the external wall construction etc yes on the left-hand side it now says any insulation product

02:26:01 says any insulation product filler material etc used in the external wall construction do you remember seeing those changes on the left-hand side from the version on the right-hand side at

02:26:12 the version on the right-hand side at the time i believe this one on the left came followed from the discussion that i had with brian martin to which i refer to

02:26:23 refer to in

02:26:24 in my witness statement right

02:26:27 then let's go let's move on we may need to go back to these two documents but let's go to clg one triple zero two one nine six

02:26:52 now this is uh an email run and i'd like to show you the the foot of page one and over to page two um on page one at the bottom there's an

02:27:03 um on page one at the bottom there's an email from somebody called steve bergner yes on friday the 15th of december 2006 to

02:27:10 to uh

02:27:11 uh tempo gdl and john saunders also gdl um and copy to you yes and indeed others uh and

02:27:20 and who is steve bergner he was our interface so he was our intelligent client for typesetting documents

02:27:28 documents and and publication and preaching of documents right and he and the subject is um

02:27:33 is um read first thing on monday 18th please adb

02:27:36 adb as you can see and then if we turn the page after he says hi could you please email a pdf of the dclg approved document b volume 2 through to neil richardson and natalie payne first thing monday morning et

02:27:48 payne first thing monday morning et cetera please copy and ashley bird on this occasion and then he says this the changes made to this document on friday

02:27:55 friday were minimal so this should be straightforward the client however wants a last check rather more changes were made to volume one we've received this safely thanks

02:28:07 one we've received this safely thanks and then if you go up the email chain please to page one

02:28:15 uh we can see an email from you on the 18th of december three days later uh neil just to confirm we are now content with volume two can you please incorporate the front and back covers

02:28:26 incorporate the front and back covers and turn into a form suitable for uploading to the web yes now um let's look then at and this is this is as you see just a month or so after the two documents of the 22nd of

02:28:37 after the two documents of the 22nd of november we've been looking at yes and it approves it for publication if we then look at the version that you approve for publication that is at clg one triple zero

02:28:49 that is at clg one triple zero two two double zero let's have that please and if we turn in it to page 96 we can see the formulation

02:29:00 we can see the formulation uh we are now familiar with that i showed you before insulation materials stroke products yes 12.7 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any

02:29:12 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material and then

02:29:16 and then it says

02:29:18 it says not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a did you

02:29:29 did you discuss

02:29:30 discuss any changes with brian martin or anybody else to this text between the last version that we saw on the 22nd of november which contained the words

02:29:42 of november which contained the words insulation product filler material etc yeah

02:29:45 yeah and you're approving this version for print on the 18th of december 2006 a month or so later i can only presume we did have a discussion and this was further uh

02:29:59 and this was further uh refinement added to the approved document now who did you have that discussion with it would have been brian anybody else

02:30:08 we might have had a discussion within the wider team

02:30:14 anybody outside government

02:30:18 um

02:30:22 i can't recall but it wasn't untypical that we would as we as we get close to publishing an approved document

02:30:33 approved document it becomes quite apparent that it will be subject to refinement and tidying up and that refinement could potentially include issues relating to further assist with interpretation

02:30:47 further assist with interpretation but

02:30:50 i don't know if it had any discussions with people outside of the department but thereafter editions of

02:31:02 editions of drafts were provided and made available to wherever we could the the brac working party so i don't know if anything further went there but i can't recall

02:31:13 further went there but i can't recall sir

02:31:18 do you know of any or whether these changes

02:31:23 produced any new documents

02:31:27 the reason i ask the question is we've not been able to find any documents and nor has the department because we've asked again which show the document trail and the changes from the versions i showed you

02:31:40 changes from the versions i showed you on the 22nd of november right to this to this version the insertion of the words not including gaskets sealants and similar i can only presume therefore it was added as part

02:31:51 presume therefore it was added as part of

02:31:52 of further refinements and and checking and proofreading as it was happening um within the department as part of this process right now were those was that

02:32:04 process right now were those was that edition

02:32:05 edition one of the changes minor changes to which steve bergner referred in his email of the 15th of december friday the 15th of december 2006.

02:32:16 december 2006. i

02:32:17 i i i wouldn't know i can't recall what would have what i say would have functionally physically how would these

02:32:28 functionally physically how would these changes have been made was this brian martin at a computer or scribbling with a burrow or was it you how did those words get in physically into the text it could be any of those mechanisms so they

02:32:41 could be any of those mechanisms so they could as i say we would have discussed something like this

02:32:45 this they would then perhaps be put on a manuscript that were then provided back to

02:32:52 the company that were typesetting or i believe that's the document you showed me

02:32:58 me um

02:33:01 um dated towards the end of november

02:33:05 november where the

02:33:06 where the filler was first used it could have been taken and manipulated on on um on a document a digital document and then also provided back to the typesetter who had control

02:33:18 back to the typesetter who had control of the master

02:33:25 from recollection at times we would all have had the ability to read through the document because

02:33:37 the document because just the importance of getting it correct

02:33:40 correct that there would be one lead typically one lead paper copy and because i typically work in manuscript i would have read through it marked it up tracy cole who was

02:33:53 up tracy cole who was my policy lead on part b sam greenwood potentially working with us and brian but it could have been an amalgam of manuscript

02:34:05 manuscript and there might have been um a submission where if it was easier to just offer some text

02:34:14 some text in a word document one presumes that could have gone in as well was it held in word on a laptop or on a hard drive somewhere or was this held

02:34:25 hard drive somewhere or was this held in some more remote but multiply accessible location like it was typically sent to us so the document would come back from the typesetters volume one and volume two

02:34:36 typesetters volume one and volume two and that would have been available

02:34:39 available i think

02:34:40 i think but

02:34:42 but but but from recollection no because steve bergner used to always walk around with hard paper copies so

02:34:52 i think they would have been marked a manuscript right and who coined the words in brackets who was responsible for coming up with those words for recollection i thought that

02:35:03 for recollection i thought that would have been something discussed in that that meeting to which i refer between brian and myself so adding the words filler um

02:35:14 um those words there as well and

02:35:18 and also the

02:35:19 also the the title

02:35:20 the title adding the words forward slash products so from recollection i think we would have discussed that as

02:35:28 as brian and i i can't remember if anybody else was there in terms of to help further refine and and understand being mindful we'd had the comments from the public consultation from nhbc

02:35:40 the public consultation from nhbc talking about filler and we still would have had at the back of our mind as well the edge fire

02:35:49 do you remember a discussion about narrowing down the scope of the phrase filler material etc narrowing it down to narrowing it down so that it didn't

02:36:00 narrowing it down so that it didn't include things like gaskets and sealants i think we would have discussed that yes do you remember it from recollection i can only remember

02:36:11 from recollection i can only remember filler and the title but i'd envisage that we would have we would have discussed it so does that tell us that there was a perception between you and brian martin at the very least that the phrase filler material etc was too

02:36:23 the phrase filler material etc was too wide

02:36:24 wide and and there were certain things that needed to be excluded from it i think

02:36:30 i think when you make up a construction product or a system there are many component parts and

02:36:38 and like we're trying to do here was actually say our concern in this case would be thermal insulation combustible but also filler type material because you can't perform

02:36:50 because you can't perform and undertake a robust weather with a tight design without using gaskets and sealants similar which are typically combustible in their own right but they are small

02:36:59 are small they're small components that if you if you could say they had to be non-combustible there might not be a limited compatibility there might not be any alternatives you could use

02:37:10 any alternatives you could use right now whose idea was it to insert the word

02:37:14 the word filler or filler material i believe that was from discussions that brian and i had um whose idea was it though was it his or was it your idea

02:37:25 or was it your idea from recollection as part of the refinement of the approved document brianwood and sam greenwood would have been working through

02:37:35 through making sure we've covered all the points raised covered off 240 plus responses etc and made sure that the document had responded

02:37:46 that the document had responded to all aspects of public consultation so again i should imagine brian approached me saying we haven't suitably covered off the filler situation from an hbc

02:38:00 off the filler situation from an hbc and the edge so it might have been brian approaching me and having us having that discussion but the word filler was that did that enter the conversation the discussion

02:38:11 the discussion from

02:38:12 from a report about the report about the edge fire from the bre or the nhbc consultation response from regulation it was used in both it

02:38:23 from regulation it was used in both it was

02:38:25 was it was did was that a was that was the fact that it was used in both

02:38:32 in both did that bear on your thinking on the choice of the word i believe it would have standing back and looking at 12.7 in the version that was sent to press and was published

02:38:44 was sent to press and was published what did you intend 12.7 to mean by including

02:38:48 including the words insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc so the intention was we wanted to be provide greater clarity over

02:39:00 provide greater clarity over the control of insulation products generally that's why we stepped away from just referring to

02:39:09 vent insulation in ventilated cavities there must have been concern however that

02:39:17 that again are we sure we're making clear to the reader that there are these other products and

02:39:25 and and actually even just polystyrene products which aren't being utilized for their thermal properties they're being utilized for inclusion in building works for decorative paneling and because they

02:39:36 for decorative paneling and because they weren't there to afford a thermal performance people were thinking they're not controlled because they're not there as an insulation product and so

02:39:46 and so considering as i set out in my witness statement what was being said by the nhbc and you rightly drew to my attention that actually

02:39:58 attention that actually some people don't realize that these materials are controlled

02:40:05 the as i say there was the term filler there but it was still being there used potentially as an insulation product bearing in mind the

02:40:14 the report from the edge fire i believe it was felt that that would be provide greater clarity as to what you'd refer to products that might be utilized in these types of

02:40:27 might be utilized in these types of panels and similar that

02:40:29 that are there

02:40:31 are there for rigidity or similar but you need to consider them did you suggest to brian martin or did he suggest to you that you should

02:40:42 that you should ask you should inquire whether that term was readily understood in the construction industry to have a well-known particular meaning the word filler i can't recall if we had that discussion

02:40:53 that discussion did you take any steps to ensure that the word filler was generally understood in the construction industry in the sense in which you intended it um at this point no

02:41:06 um at this point no i can't i don't believe so but again

02:41:10 but again you know we tend to write approved documents we try to write approved documents in a way that you would use common words that might have a common intention or understanding and therefore a filler in this respect is something

02:41:22 a filler in this respect is something that typically feels so void or similar and therefore it was felt that that would be

02:41:28 would be again from recollection the choice of words we used no doubt the fact it was used by an hbc and

02:41:37 and i think it was referred to in the age of fire

02:41:40 fire would have would have assisted i suppose maybe brought us to that point but more generally when we then rolled out the approved document b from recollection this did form part of

02:41:53 from recollection this did form part of a wider slide on section 12 where we attempted to cover the changes made here and specifically that did include a reference to filler

02:42:04 reference to filler now we haven't seen anywhere here in this document a definition of the word filler given that you didn't consult industry about what commonly might be understood by that word why not

02:42:17 might be understood by that word why not why not define filler with the benefit of hindsight and whilst and while i'm sat here and why i'm sat here now

02:42:25 here now that's a very fair observation sir and where we are we we should have provided some form of um

02:42:34 um description further to just the term filler but at the time

02:42:39 the time what gave you the confidence that the word filler would be so well it understood in the industry in the sense you intended it but it didn't need a definition because i think i believe we felt

02:42:50 believe we felt as as i said a moment ago is that we'll tend to try and use sort of terms whereby

02:42:59 whereby it would naturally be apparent that that is what we're referring to a filler fills a void um

02:43:06 um and therefore it was felt that that was the intention in relation to use of the word in this case but it could also as you say a filler fills a void but

02:43:17 but there are different kinds of filler products or materials such as can spray yes

02:43:23 yes yes i i agree but the but talking about here in terms of insulation materials and products specifically it was felt

02:43:34 it was felt that filler would provide uh sufficient description as to what we were referring to but but i'm sorry sorry i'm sorry no but i

02:43:45 i'm sorry sorry i'm sorry no but i i believe you raised a fair point and with the benefit of hindsight we should have provided a definition you say a filler is something that fills a void

02:43:56 a void um

02:43:57 um but isn't it right that the core of a composite rain screen panel is not a

02:44:04 is not a it's not filling a void is it

02:44:11 in terms of

02:44:14 what because it's formed by bringing together the materials well it's a composite panel as we know comprising uh two sheets of aluminium skin around a polyethylene or

02:44:26 skin around a polyethylene or polyurethane core yes yes yes but the core isn't acting as a filler it's not filling a void between two separate elements it's part of a composite single product isn't it i understand

02:44:37 i understand why you say that but i can only sit here and offer you uh how i can recall the discussion going and what the intention was and categorically filler was

02:44:49 and categorically filler was the term that we utilized for capturing you know those types of materials that could be utilized in a building in this case between

02:45:01 in this case between a panel type material or similar and we thought

02:45:04 thought from recollection that that was the most befitting way to describe it but why put it in

02:45:10 it in a section devoted to what is called insulation materials or products because

02:45:18 because from my perspective as well the intention was to relate to insulation materials and products and i again

02:45:29 and i again and with the benefit of hindsight it perhaps isn't the clearest but the intention wasn't to just talk about insulation because

02:45:40 because and i suppose that's the case as well and

02:45:43 and in relation to to the edge it wasn't it was an insulation material but it wasn't being used for insulation purposes and so

02:45:51 and so the subheading there was an intention that it it would address insulation materials

02:45:57 materials and products what kind of products insulation products or any products potentially any product but i have to be quite clear that you know what was in our mind at the

02:46:08 you know what was in our mind at the time

02:46:09 time was

02:46:11 was from the nhbc and from um

02:46:13 um [Music]

02:46:15 [Music] the edge was polystyrene but there would have been consideration there of ultimately it could be anything that's utilized in a decorative panel in that way

02:46:26 that way which

02:46:27 which could

02:46:28 could actually be a problem if it was combustible and that was why we used the term filler but why do it that way why not say

02:46:35 not say all composite rain screen panels must be composed throughout the materials of limited combustibility

02:46:42 that would have solved it in hindsight sets here i can see how it looks that way yes but what i'm interested in is how you got yourself into such a muddle over this why not just say what you meant rather than

02:46:53 just say what you meant rather than slowly letting this uh gather confusion um and letting it end up in a in a section that on its face appears to be devoted to insulation and of course as i

02:47:04 devoted to insulation and of course as i say i i i respect that the heading could have been better uh afforded but it is a heading there's still there's still the need to read the provision beneath it that is 12.7

02:47:16 provision beneath it that is 12.7 we could have done it in a multitude of ways i i can i can see how that might be the case but the words below it say any insulation product all right filler material yes well that's not that's not

02:47:27 material yes well that's not that's not referring to any insulation product and and any core of any composite rain screen panel regardless of its purpose or regardless of its makeup is it and what the intel well i

02:47:40 makeup is it and what the intel well i can only speak as to the intention behind of what we proposed from that discussion of what we envisaged phillip would be and it would was to be what i've just described

02:47:53 so to be clear your understanding of the words used was that the words filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc was to

02:48:05 etc was to apply to the core of an external cladding panel yes

02:48:12 of all types potentially yes in all circumstances over 18 meters in indi as described there yes

02:48:23 did you understand the words filler material

02:48:27 material not including gasket sealants and similar et cetera to apply to any other parts of an external wall system in addition to the core of an external padding panel sorry sir can you ask a question again

02:48:38 sorry sir can you ask a question again did you understand those words insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc to apply to any other parts of the external wool buildup as well as the core of an external

02:48:51 as well as the core of an external cladding panel it would have primarily have been in relation to the external panel um

02:49:00 um that would have been the the the original intention did you understand did you intend the scope of this new wording to extend to the external surfaces of the cladding panels as well as to the core

02:49:16 sorry so i don't understand its application to the surface sorry are you talking about a product

02:49:23 product on the outside face of a system yes yes you did yes on what basis did you form that view because we were experiencing or the

02:49:34 because we were experiencing or the example we had from the edge fire was that these were on the outside face of the building and around the detailing where again the insulation thermal insulation in this case was

02:49:46 thermal insulation in this case was being used as a stiffener it wasn't there providing its thermal performance for the building envelope

02:49:55 envelope and therefore actually the intention was to capture it using the term filler sorry you may have misunderstood my question sorry i'm talking about the external surface yes did you understand that the provisions

02:50:07 did you understand that the provisions of the 12.7 extended the requirement of limited combustibility not only to the core of a composite external rain screen panel but to its skin also no diagram 40 would still have been

02:50:19 no diagram 40 would still have been relevant that's what i was interested in did you at some stage come to the view that the external surface of cladding panels

02:50:26 panels rather than only the core were caught by 12.7 and should also be of limiting combustibility no right

02:50:33 right so in your mind was it clear from 12.7

02:50:38 from 12.7 that it applied and applied only uh

02:50:43 uh to

02:50:43 to insulation properly so called and to the core of a combustible sorry the the core of a a composite external panel that would be my understanding but not its skin

02:50:55 its skin not its external surface no but that would still be subject to following the guidance for diagram 40. now

02:51:03 now we may come back to that in a moment but we can see as you've told us the word filler wasn't defined and you didn't consult on its meaning why didn't you consult on its meaning

02:51:14 why didn't you consult on its meaning by virtue of we went out to consultation with the draft that you kindly showed us earlier

02:51:22 earlier and by virtue of the nhbc offering its comments

02:51:26 comments and

02:51:27 and further consideration and refinement this was in effect a response to the comments that were received

02:51:36 received given that you told us over the last two days that making changes to the approved documents required a consultation yes why didn't you think that the change to 12.7

02:51:48 that the change to 12.7 to address this particular problem did not also require consultation given that the word filler was one used

02:51:59 the word filler was one used on two occasions only and not and not one that you understood to be generally understood in the market unfortunately um that that would amount to the perfect world but when you're dealing with

02:52:10 world but when you're dealing with somewhat like 300 pages of the two versions of approved document b there's always a degree of refinement to the documents following public consultation if we then

02:52:21 following public consultation if we then had to launch into another public consultation because we'd further refined it um so in response to the consultation i'm not being flippant so it would potentially be in a continual state of

02:52:32 potentially be in a continual state of consultation that i understand um but why not adopt a slightly more limited and pragmatic approach for example go back to the nhbc and say to them thank you for your

02:52:43 and say to them thank you for your consultation response we're most interested in it you use the word filler can you assure us that that word is understood in the industry to cover or denote

02:52:55 or denote the core of a composite rain screen panel we could have done that so why didn't you because where we the discussion that brian and i had

02:53:06 the discussion that brian and i had was that we wanted to best capture these types of materials used in this sort of way

02:53:12 way and we felt from discussion that the term filler captured that and that's why it found its way in to the eventual approved document b notwithstanding as i think you've

02:53:24 notwithstanding as i think you've answered already the title insulation product material stroke products and notwithstanding that the expression immediately follows the word any insulation product notwithstanding the title and as i say

02:53:35 notwithstanding the title and as i say you know i can only apologize for that that

02:53:38 that was not the intention it was to cover insulation materials and products but i'd always suggest that you know it is a subheading and it should have been better than we have before us here but

02:53:50 better than we have before us here but you would always go in and read the provision

02:53:56 how confident are you that both you and brian martin would have considered that this this

02:54:03 this this provision applied to the core of an acm panel

02:54:07 panel when it was inserted as it seems to have been

02:54:10 been in late november or mid-december 20 2006. the the whole point of adding that term was definitively to deal with that situation right

02:54:23 with that situation right was it intended to restrict all material in the external wall

02:54:29 wall to materials of limited combustibility in effect yes but but you know i need to be very clear the original driver came about from the edge fire which was a polystyrene

02:54:41 fire which was a polystyrene and the nhpc referred to a polystyrene as well

02:54:45 as well so that would have been the driver but the intention ultimately would be to think about all such material because if you weren't thinking that

02:54:56 if you weren't thinking that a plastic space insulation was combustible we want to attempt to make sure that you you realize that it should be could relate to any

02:55:07 it should be could relate to any material filler if it wasn't of a material of limited combustibility let me

02:55:15 let me let's see if we can replace there's a long and i think rather complex answer you told us that you by the words by the changes to 12.7 you intended to

02:55:26 by the changes to 12.7 you intended to catch the core of a composite rain screen panel and require that to be of limited combustibility yeah or panels even and also decorative panels as well but yeah yeah all right

02:55:38 panels as well but yeah yeah all right we've got the core point i'm now asking you

02:55:41 you whether it was intended to go further and to restrict all material in the external wall build up including external facings

02:55:52 including external facings to materials of limited combustibility no

02:55:55 no no no so do you say that this was not intended to be a catch-all

02:56:02 cover all materials in the external wall build-up it's not a catch-all right

02:56:11 did you discuss with brian martin at the time

02:56:16 that question in other words whether the external skin external facings of a composite panel above 18 meters

02:56:27 above 18 meters was caught by 12.7 or not i can't recall that we had that discussion

02:56:35 do you recall whether brian martin said anything to lead you to believe at the time that he thought that 12.7

02:56:42 that 12.7 was requiring

02:56:46 not only the core of a composite panel but its external facings as well to be of limited combustibility

02:56:57 i i really can't recall i

02:57:01 can't recall sorry

02:57:10 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well mr bird it's time we had another break

02:57:17 break get some lunch this time so we'll stop now we'll resume tease at two o'clock and uh the usual injunction please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room thank you sir

02:57:28 you're out of the room thank you sir thank you very much two o'clock cheers

02:57:52 you