Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence -Tuesday 1st March 2022 (2/3)

Full transcript

00:00:34 would you ask mr bird to come back in please okay

00:00:48 all right mr bird yes sir thank you very much yes mr chairman thank you mr bird um we were on the question of the word filler

00:00:55 filler or filler material and its introduction into what we've seen is 12.7 um and i just want to revisit an answer you gave us before lunch and its purpose

00:01:06 you gave us before lunch and its purpose uh just to be clear yes when the expression filler material not including

00:01:15 including sealants gaskets gasket sealants and similar brackets etc was added did you intend it to cover any core

00:01:24 any core of a composite panel whether or not the material comprising the core could be used in other applications for insulation purposes or

00:01:35 or only such materials as could be used for insulation purposes

00:01:42 the consideration at the time was in relation to the learnings from the edge fire and the comments from the nhbc for recollection

00:01:54 for recollection there was a discussion about utilizing the term filler which was primarily being driven for the purposes of controlling thermal insulation where it wasn't performing a

00:02:06 insulation where it wasn't performing a thermal

00:02:07 thermal offering a thermal performance but the discussion would have gone that actually it could relate ultimately to any filler material if

00:02:18 if it happened to be of a combustible nature and therefore the intention is it could be controlled so just to be very clear i think the answer is

00:02:27 answer is the former you intended it to cover any core of a composite panel regardless of whether that material comprising the core

00:02:36 core could be used in other applications for insulation purposes yes yes

00:02:41 yes yes and therefore is this right that it was your understanding and certainly your intention behind the language that the polyethylene core of an acm panel

00:02:54 core of an acm panel had to be of limited combustibility yes or rather the core the core of even though the material in that core would not ordinarily be used

00:03:07 would not ordinarily be used for insulation purposes yes sir right now while i'm on this document and this is a this we're going to come back to the question of filler in just a moment but while we're here for convenience can

00:03:18 but while we're here for convenience can i ask you please to be shown the next page

00:03:24 of approved document b clg one three zeros two two double zero 97

00:03:38 now this is the version of diagram 40 that went to press and which was published yes sir and you can see the heading diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces

00:03:50 provisions for external surfaces or walls you see the word or there i do and can you confirm we can do this by the documents if you like that the previous version said provisions for external services of walls

00:04:02 external services of walls correct sir can you account for the change from of to or i believe it's a typo it's a mistake uh

00:04:12 uh from recollection if you look at obviously the 2002 as amended approved document it talks of

00:04:19 talks of two walls

00:04:21 two walls if you look at our 2005

00:04:24 2005 consultation document approved document b that led to the 2006 edition it talks about two walls and if i could refer you back and

00:04:35 and if i could refer you back and obviously there is a reference in the top left hand corner here to talk to see paragraph 12.5 to 12.6 when that

00:04:45 when that provision in those paragraphs refers to diagram 40 it talks about provisions for external services to walls

00:04:53 to walls so i believe that to be a mistake a typo

00:05:04 all right but i'm getting it in a different way you don't recall any discussion or any rationale which would explain the change from of to or no sir can you explain the

00:05:15 to or no sir can you explain the mechanical reason for why that typo would have been where it made put another way why was anybody amending the title to diagram 40 at all

00:05:27 the title to diagram 40 at all i don't believe other than the number i don't believe there was any reason for it to be done other than the number yeah sorry the diagram number did when did you first notice that it said or and not of

00:05:39 said or and not of um

00:05:41 um not that long ago during preparations for this increase yes as i see not at the time and not at any time before the grenfell tower fire no did right

00:05:49 did right um now going back to philip we can can we please go to clg 3019641 your statement page 13 paragraph 32.

00:06:02 uh you say uh there

00:06:06 uh there um that after the publication of adb you say a considerable dissemination exercise was undertaken by the department in conjunction with the professional institutions and building

00:06:17 professional institutions and building control bodies it is my recollection that the revised guidance on functional requirement b4 of the regulation section 12 of the 2006 version of the adb and the reference to the control of fillers was addressed at

00:06:29 the control of fillers was addressed at these various events the original slides that formed part of the dissemination exercise

00:06:34 exercise are appended to this statement with slide 55 being the most relevant as it addresses the new guidance contained within paragraph 12.7 following such activity it was my

00:06:45 following such activity it was my understanding that the industry would have had a far greater appreciation of the term fillers and would have recognized that their inclusion in a design would amount to a relevant consideration for buildings over 18

00:06:56 consideration for buildings over 18 metres in height whether being constructed or retrofitted now

00:07:01 now let's look at that slideshow presentation it's at clg3019451

00:07:16 uh and if we go to page two we can see the first page

00:07:23 uh who authored this this would have been a joint effort from recollection between the departments and myself and tracy cole

00:07:34 cole and brian

00:07:36 and brian and sam greenwood right [Music]

00:07:40 [Music] when you delivered it did you present it with anybody was it you on your own or was it brian no how did it work normally

00:07:48 normally from recollection it might have been somebody from the department typically and

00:07:55 and and either brian or sam as well and then

00:08:01 and then as part of it

00:08:05 dissemination is a hugely important part of of what we do and the department hadn't always been the best at doing this

00:08:13 this so rather than just do items piecemeal we actually asked the relevant professional institutions not the only ones but the the primary professional institutions to work together

00:08:24 together and therefore from recollection this one would have been riba which i don't know british architects abe association of building engineers

00:08:35 abe association of building engineers because of quite a large percentage of their membership in being building control

00:08:40 control and the rics as well again with a sizeable contingent of their members are meaningful being building control we'd ask them to work together they would typically develop

00:08:51 they would typically develop an agenda

00:08:54 an agenda whereby

00:08:55 whereby we would weave in what we wanted to present or sort pertinent in this case the 2006 approved document b and they might add other people to the agenda it might just be half a day for

00:09:07 might just be half a day for recollection and we just cover what what we see here or they might have brought other speakers as well but i see so it wasn't limited to speakers from government no no if we if we go please

00:09:18 government no no if we if we go please to page 55 we will find slide 55 which you refer to in your statement if we can expand that a little please it says

00:09:27 says external wall construction insulation material stroke products in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc should be of

00:09:39 sealants and similar etc should be of limited combustibility cavity barriers section 9 external surfaces diagram 40 or meet the performance criteria given in vr135 etc now this just sets out the

00:09:51 vr135 etc now this just sets out the text of 12.7 doesn't it it does it doesn't provide any information on what types of products the government considered were fillers for the purposes of 12.7 does it it doesn't within the text no no it also draws an express

00:10:04 text no no it also draws an express distinction between insulation products and materials and external surfaces doesn't it it lists them separately yes and there's no suggestion in here that the requirement of limited combustibility applies to all components over 18 meters

00:10:17 applies to all components over 18 meters is there no nor is there any indication about what about the fact that the core

00:10:24 the core of a composite rain screen panel needed to be made of material of limited combustibility even though that material had no insulating purpose is there no no why is

00:10:37 insulating purpose is there no no why is that

00:10:38 that typically in terms of presenting style we wanted to draw out the changes within the approved document in this case 2006 and then depending upon the presenter and i i don't use

00:10:50 upon the presenter and i i don't use notes as a presenter i use these as an aid memoir that i would then present and talk through

00:10:58 through the slide

00:10:59 the slide it providing that embellishment um and and relationship as we went so it didn't definitively cover the points you raised so i i acknowledge that but

00:11:10 that but hopefully

00:11:11 hopefully they were spoken to when these were delivered right so you your evidence is that you would as it were filled in for filler and and provided a an explanation along

00:11:22 and and provided a an explanation along the lines of the evidence you've given to us today i would have i would have thought so yes well you would have thought so isn't the same as i remember doing that did you did you do it i i believe i did okay

00:11:35 i i believe i did okay just looking at what we have though do you accept i think i think you do that the slideshow doesn't tell industry that the phrase filler material was intended to refer to the core of a cladding panel made of composite materials does it it does not know nor does it signal let

00:11:47 does not know nor does it signal let alone signal that all significant elements of the external wall construction over 18 meters are to be of limiting combustibility on the slide no i mean this is the only document you

00:11:59 i mean this is the only document you mentioned in your statement mr bird can you confirm that the department didn't provide a circular

00:12:06 circular an faq a written document

00:12:10 document explaining what you meant by filler material that did not happen so so it was down to these road shows if i can use a word like that where you would come along and

00:12:22 where you would come along and explain it in your words yes that would mean that people attending might get different versions different iterations of an explanation and i'm assuming you didn't speak to a fixed script

00:12:34 fixed script no there was no fixed script however as i say that they were typically attended by

00:12:39 by somebody from the department primarily me but colleagues who might have delivered it somebody from the bre as well and so it was it was a joint

00:12:50 and so it was it was a joint contribution to expose and and highlight the the the main changes within the document

00:12:59 document at the end of the day you know it was a it was a huge piece of work to go from the 2002 as amended approved document b to the two volumes of the two

00:13:10 to the two volumes of the two the 2006 approved document and therefore there shouldn't be any illusion that people needed to read these documents through and take the time to do that

00:13:22 through and take the time to do that now at the end of paragraph 32 of your statement if we can just go back to that please you say and i've read this to you that after these uh presentations you say it

00:13:35 after these uh presentations you say it was my understanding that the industry would have had a far greater appreciation of the term fillers and would have recognized that their inclusion in a design

00:13:46 inclusion in a design would amount to a relevant consideration for buildings over 18 meters in height whether being constructed or retrofitted now i mean now first of all the term fillers is there's no term fillers is it

00:13:58 fillers is there's no term fillers is it it's filler but it's filler materials

00:14:01 materials apologies i should have used it in its fullness within this paragraph right

00:14:09 and what gave you to understand the industry understood that the expression filler material not including gas concealers and similar

00:14:20 not including gas concealers and similar etc

00:14:22 etc meant what you've told us today by virtue of publication of the approved documents by virtue of the dissemination exercise and again from recollection i

00:14:33 exercise and again from recollection i think

00:14:34 think i believe we did about 10 such events and there have been additional ad hoc events too and then the professional institutions themselves would have done individual

00:14:45 themselves would have done individual events with their own expert members in delivery um

00:14:50 um i believe that level of dissemination assisted the marketplace in understanding what these items were i would have expected

00:15:01 i would have expected that if there were considerable misunderstanding of what the term was we would have started to hear

00:15:08 hear from building control and designers and similar that they didn't appreciate what a filler was

00:15:17 did you get feedback from those who had put these roadshows on or those who had attended them that they now understood that for

00:15:28 them that they now understood that for example

00:15:29 example the core of a composite rain screen panel had to be made of material of limiting combustibility we wouldn't get that sort of feedback in return so if that is the case

00:15:40 so if that is the case what was the basis of your understanding that the industry as you put it would have had a far greater appreciation of the term fillers in the sense that you've explained it today of course because of part of the dissemination

00:15:52 because of part of the dissemination process whilst only potentially ten events and others we've probably got to speak to somewhere between fifteen hundred and two thousand professionals in england in addition to what happens here with

00:16:04 in addition to what happens here with these sorts of disseminations in addition to as i explained what some of the professional institutions and associations would do of their own volition with their own fire experts rolling out this putting on

00:16:15 rolling out this putting on further dissemination exercises there would have been articles in the professional journals and similar and so

00:16:24 and so again

00:16:25 again i i understand it's a hugely important aspect filler and i do understand it needs to be couched in what was a very large revision an end to end of the approved

00:16:36 revision an end to end of the approved document with a number of items within it

00:16:39 it but it was my understanding at the time not receiving questions and concerns about what does it mean i therefore felt from what

00:16:52 i therefore felt from what i knew what i was and wasn't hearing that there would have been that level of appreciation right

00:17:02 was the purpose of this part of the guidance indeed the guidance altogether not to make it crystal clear to the ordinary reader

00:17:15 ordinary reader what they had to do without any sort of explanation from government uh that is the primary intent to make it as clear as possible yes did it not occur to you therefore

00:17:27 yes did it not occur to you therefore that although it was of course helpful to explain to industry the structure and principle changes

00:17:36 to adb so as to increase awareness yes on the one hand it was something altogether different

00:17:43 different to

00:17:44 to explain

00:17:46 explain to industry the intended meaning of an expression which was

00:17:52 which was which required explanation again

00:17:57 again from the point that we we discussed prior to the break i didn't necessarily feel that it did need further explanation at the time i felt it would be well

00:18:08 at the time i felt it would be well understood but

00:18:10 but from my perspective when you develop an approved document and typically the department with the resources it had previously we were in a much better position at this time

00:18:21 much better position at this time we could undertake these

00:18:24 these dissemination events and similar we were also very close and we would have utilized of course the brac working party would have been part of

00:18:33 part of the dissemination exercise too just thinking about it so

00:18:38 so we we can do what we can do and we roll out

00:18:41 out these these changes i can't recall items coming back to me saying i don't understand filler or similar at the time when did it first occur to

00:18:53 at the time when did it first occur to you

00:18:54 you that you needed to speak to 12.7 and explain it and tell your audience it applies to the core of a composite panel

00:19:03 panel uh as opposed to thinking well it's clear on its face what that means i it needs no explanation i i was under the impression that people did understand what it was so why did

00:19:14 did understand what it was so why did you need to give them an explanation at all

00:19:18 all sorry sir why did you need to give them an explanation of 12.7 at all in terms of the slides that yes because it formed part of the major part of the changes and of course what that slide was trying to provide a lead into

00:19:31 was trying to provide a lead into was of course the rearrangement of the guidance and the turnaround to that to lead with the external wall construction external surfaces and the changes therein and of course

00:19:43 and the changes therein and of course the other piece

00:19:46 that was on the slide as well was recognition that we now had a national full scale test method in terms of eight four one four and

00:19:56 and by this time the summer 2013 br 135 have been published that was also cited within the approved document now i want to turn to the question of review after 2006. you say

00:20:08 question of review after 2006. you say in your statement and the delegates need to go to paragraph 27 at page 11 that after 2008 the department as you put it moved to a more far more structured and cyclical approach to the

00:20:20 structured and cyclical approach to the undertaking of technical reviews seeking wherever possible to bring about changes no more often than every three years i yes so it's called the periodic review i think it formed part of the future of

00:20:32 think it formed part of the future of building building regulations i i believe it was around 2008 2009. yes so it was at your expectation then that

00:20:43 so it was at your expectation then that after the 2006 revisions the approved document b would need to be revisited after three years in other words in 2009. now the general suggestion within the consultation document

00:20:54 the consultation document was

00:20:55 was at that time was that it shouldn't happen more often than every three years and typically no part of the building regulations should be reviewed

00:21:06 regulations should be reviewed every two terms so every six years with the exception of the energy efficiency parts of the building regulations part l so

00:21:17 so and from recollection the consultation document

00:21:21 document that went out to support this proposal to move to a periodic review had within it

00:21:29 it approved document b being next i can't remember started or finished uh in 2013. and so that was in that that

00:21:40 uh in 2013. and so that was in that that consultation document now in paragraph 28 of your statement you uh say that the proposal to review trianaly was overtaken by the coalition government's

00:21:51 government's uh policy after 2010 yes of deregulation yes yes

00:21:57 yes yes but i think it's right isn't it that if the department discovered a need to make a change to adb because it wasn't properly understood and the effect of that misunderstanding was

00:22:09 effect of that misunderstanding was serious and it could do that outside the scope of the cyclical review couldn't it that would be my understanding yes yes now i'm going to come i'll come back to that i'll come back to deregulation

00:22:20 that i'll come back to deregulation um

00:22:21 um going on to sit but sticking with circulation circuit sorry cyclicality um clg

00:22:28 clg 407617 please this is an email

00:22:34 from you dated

00:22:36 dated the third of may 2007 to a group of recipients within the department including brian martin and sam greenwood and you can see that the subject has told stories rising to the challenge of fire safety

00:22:48 challenge of fire safety and

00:22:49 and it starts more from my mate dave sugden it's fortunate that i'm going away for three months otherwise i might have gotten more than a little irritated by this

00:22:58 this uh and uh you uh go down it's it's about sprinklers okay uh and

00:23:07 in the last sentence which is really what i want to focus on you say he also fails to mention our public understanding undertaking that funds permitting we will undertake a fundamental review of periods of fire resistance enshrined in adb as part of

00:23:20 resistance enshrined in adb as part of the next review five to eight years away i think that would take you to roughly 2013. but if you would sir yeah so that suggests you were you were envisioning review only on a much longer

00:23:32 envisioning review only on a much longer time scale than triangle i think as you've just confirmed yes where funds generally are a problem in dictating when a review could be undertaken

00:23:43 could be undertaken um

00:23:45 funding for supportive research funding for supported research funding for your team doing the drafting it got progressively harder right from when

00:23:57 when we

00:23:57 we we were witnessing a drive

00:24:00 a drive for

00:24:02 for better regulation at the end of the labour administration by the time coalition government came in in 2010

00:24:11 in 2010 there were a number of uh aspects looking at how they could better look at regulation and so there were control mechanisms in the form of the

00:24:22 control mechanisms in the form of the form of better term throttling new regulation by making provisions of one in one out which i believe came in 2012 which is whereby if you were bringing a new regulation into play at a

00:24:33 bringing a new regulation into play at a cost of x

00:24:35 cost of x you had to remove the same amount of money a deregulatory measure to allow you to do that that moved to one in two out in

00:24:46 in the start of 2013 i believe and then ultimately went to one in three out but i'd left the department by then that was what was utilized to control the flow of

00:24:57 what was utilized to control the flow of new regulation and then as part of coalition government coming in there was

00:25:05 there was i can't quite recall there may it might have been a manifesto commitment that they over the course of the next parliament they would reduce the costs uh and the cost burden upon home

00:25:17 uh and the cost burden upon home builders

00:25:18 builders so there was in effect a moratorium of um and controlling what further regulations you could bring forward or the department would bring forward and there was also

00:25:30 and there was also um

00:25:33 a red tape challenge undertaken whereby the government re-engaged with industry the relevant parts of industry to ask about the efficacy of regulations and should

00:25:45 the efficacy of regulations and should they be kept or should they they be removed and there was a red tape challenge i think it might have started in 2011 but the one for the built environment which would have included building regulations i

00:25:57 have included building regulations i believe was 2012. right i just wanted to really just want to date when it started to get harder so i mean updates 2010 thank you now let's go to clg 30136

00:26:10 now let's go to clg 30136 this is a covering letter 20th of may 2005 which accompanied your submission to the minister uh in relation to consultation on part b that we looked at earlier goes to yvette

00:26:21 that we looked at earlier goes to yvette cooper dated 20th of may 2005 uh copy to a number of people whose names will be familiar to you including yourself yes now if we look uh at the

00:26:32 yourself yes now if we look uh at the second paragraph there it says this we've had we have had a discussion with you that's yvette cooper about building regulations generally and touched on a possible new direction

00:26:43 touched on a possible new direction including the idea of a pause however part b may be one area you may wish to take a view on separately for that wider consultation and our advice is that the part b work should be

00:26:54 is that the part b work should be allowed to proceed now first were you party to the discussion about the pause

00:26:59 the pause i don't believe i was do you know why the idea of a pause was put forward briefly no i don't was it as a result of the costs of the

00:27:10 was it as a result of the costs of the review

00:27:11 review i just think we're about the 20 million mark

00:27:17 as i say this is not quite the end this is 2005. there might have been some other consideration underway that i can't recall as to why

00:27:28 recall as to why they wanted that pause i can't recall sir sorry and in fact i think as we've established before in the in the result after 2006 there were only there were amendments in 2010 and 2013

00:27:41 there were amendments in 2010 and 2013 but 2013 was the next review yes

00:27:44 yes now um if you in paragraph 62 of your statement

00:27:48 statement you say

00:27:51 you say minor amendments made in 2010 non-technical amendments in 2012 i think you mean

00:27:56 you mean 13. i do apologize but no

00:27:59 but no compelling evidence that you've seen that would have led you to consider that any wider changes to adb were necessary in the period 2009 to 2013 that's the gist of your evidence yes

00:28:11 that's the gist of your evidence yes that's my understanding right is it fair to say though that the department was receiving correspondence in the interim which was identifying concerns uh that that was quite common yeah quite common

00:28:22 that was quite common yeah quite common well let's look at one or two can we please go to clg one triple zero three five seven two

00:28:32 and you'll see that here is an email from brian martin to you on the 18th of february 20 2008 which he has received four days before that from philip reed

00:28:46 four days before that from philip reed political intelligence uh and if we look at that email he says dear brian thank your time this afternoon you see that yes if you look at the third paragraph down

00:28:57 at the third paragraph down he says we have serious concerns about the fire safety surrounding certain types of combust of composite panels and feel that the current standards and regulations need to be reviewed to ensure people's lives are not put at risk unnecessarily

00:29:08 risk unnecessarily there is a belief that there are loopholes in the existing framework that allows some manufacturers to offer products that are misleading in their sales documentation and are a genuine fire risk to the public i've attached

00:29:19 fire risk to the public i've attached the very basic briefing paper which covers some of the issues in more detail and the penultimate sentence there is is what i'm going to ask you about but if you scroll back up you can see

00:29:30 but if you scroll back up you can see that brian martin responds

00:29:34 uh in the way you get to see a few days later he says this philip many thanks for your email as i explained today if you're concerned that a manufacturer is deliberately misleading people with its literature

00:29:45 misleading people with its literature then this is something that should be taken up with the relevant trading standards authority i understand that euro bond have already made such a complaint to the advertising standards authority and this has in part been upheld

00:29:56 been upheld but um

00:30:00 it's right is it not that concerns about loopholes in the existing framework would probably fall within the remit of the department wouldn't they potentially yes did you endeavor to find out what the

00:30:13 did you endeavor to find out what the loopholes might be to which mr reed was referring

00:30:16 referring um i can't actually recall this this email

00:30:20 email coming to me but

00:30:22 but no doubt

00:30:23 no doubt i would have discussed it with brian and the fact that brian suggested actually

00:30:30 actually there's something here that you might wish to consider for the advertising standards authority and directed him that way

00:30:37 that way why though why not also conclude that there was something for you to consider namely the belief that there are loopholes in the existing framework that allow manufacturers

00:30:49 allow manufacturers to pump out misleading sales documentation as alluded in mr reed's email he spoke with brian and discussed it through i

00:31:01 i i can only presume that i would have had a discussion with brian and he would have taken me through what the detail was and if it was a case of you know people making claims that they shouldn't really have made

00:31:14 that they shouldn't really have made then that's not necessarily in directly for the department first and foremost that's something that an advertising standards authority should consider

00:31:26 should consider there are two parts to this though aren't there the there's the fact that manufacturers were offering products that are misleading in their sales documentation and there's also that the point being made that it's it's based on the

00:31:38 made that it's it's based on the existence of a perception that there are loopholes in the existing framework why wasn't that latter point something for you to get to the bottom of

00:31:47 of as i say i can you know i can't recall the email or any any subsequent discussion with brian but if brian had spoken it through with the gentleman then i would envisage that brian by this

00:32:00 then i would envisage that brian by this point

00:32:02 point um

00:32:03 um i don't think he'd been formally placed in the department he might still have been working for bre to hit then but brian would have managed to assess as to actually this is something that we need to consider or actually when he

00:32:15 need to consider or actually when he explored with mr reed and got to the nub of what the issue was i would have expected that if brian felt actually this is advertising standards it's not a

00:32:26 advertising standards it's not a perceived loophole it's they are blatantly making claims they shouldn't be made

00:32:31 be made do you remember asking brian martin that question what are the loopholes do you remember being told by him don't worry he's wrong about that there aren't any loopholes i can't recall any such discussion

00:32:43 discussion let's go to clg triple zero 19508 please

00:32:52 this is about a month later 20th of march 2008

00:33:03 clg triple zero 19508 it's an email from you to tracy cullen brian martin 25th of march 2008 and you say please deal if only to say that any

00:33:16 say please deal if only to say that any work we do let and it is not all for us to support straight pay for will be guided by the necessary steering group thanks ant and below that we see the important document an email from larry

00:33:27 important document an email from larry cody to you on march 20th to 2008. yes uh subject innovative construction products and techniques yes now um it is

00:33:38 products and techniques yes now um it is a longish email i want just to focus with you if i may on the second paragraph

00:33:43 paragraph but it says this during the last month rockwool has been assessing the dclg report

00:33:49 report for innovative construction products and techniques bd52503

00:33:55 as manufacturers of non-combustible insulation and fire protection policies many of the issues covered in this report have been of very great interest to us for a number of years and as such

00:34:06 to us for a number of years and as such we have developed products systems and expertise relevant to these methods of construction and then he says this having witnessed the speed and extent of damage resulting from fires in buildings during recent years

00:34:17 during recent years we share the concern the traditional methods of evaluating the risk from such events may not sufficiently be added may not be sufficiently adequate in their current form to be applied directly to alternative

00:34:30 to be applied directly to alternative construction methods and products indeed we believe that in certain circumstances new and possibly large scale tests may be necessary to adequately assess the

00:34:41 be necessary to adequately assess the performance of a construction system such as the relatively new bs-8414 tests for spread of fire on facades did you understand

00:34:52 did you understand mr cody to be expressing concern that class naught was inadequate i think is expressing concern in relation to some of the fires that have been

00:35:04 some of the fires that have been witnessed here um and therefore his preference um potentially would be to use the the new full scale 8414 test

00:35:16 new full scale 8414 test well he says we share the concern yes the traditional methods of evaluating the risk from such events may not be sufficiently adequate in their current form

00:35:27 their current form to be applied directly to alternative construction methods and products yes what did you understand by that i again i think it's you know coming from an individual manufacturer that makes a very good product in this case

00:35:39 very good product in this case non-combustible they would as they expressed from recollection they would like to see things like the new full-scale test methodology or more materials of limited

00:35:52 methodology or more materials of limited combustibility because they believe it to be correct and robust and the right way to proceed but they do make products themselves which are

00:36:02 are non-combustible and

00:36:04 and you know i've known larry cody not seen him for a very long time but he's an absolute gent but

00:36:11 but these are you know an email like this would not be uncommon from a manufacturer who makes a material which is of limited combustibility or non-combustible and i might get other

00:36:22 non-combustible and i might get other might be other comments have come in from manufacturers that make maybe a plastics based product but he was expressing a concern that actually perhaps moving forward they would like

00:36:33 perhaps moving forward they would like to see

00:36:36 greater use of the full-scale test and more application of materials of limited combustibility they do talk about fires generally

00:36:43 generally thankfully not necessarily deaths and injuries

00:36:46 injuries and there was still remains a push by some parts of industry as well that actually such a move to use more materials of limited compatibility would give greater levels of property protection as well

00:36:58 of property protection as well and so i don't know if mr cody was addressing that as well

00:37:05 now your suggested response which i've read to you is at the top of page one can i say it again which we need to scroll

00:37:12 scroll back up to

00:37:17 it's something of a brush off isn't it

00:37:22 i've invited tracy and brian to consider it

00:37:26 it but

00:37:27 but from my perspective it was saying you know quite clearly that any work we do undertake you know will be guided by the necessary steering group

00:37:36 group and by virtue of

00:37:39 of the discussion that we had over cc 1924 i'm not saying would have happened in terms of mr cody but this is one side of the industry

00:37:50 the industry from a mineral fibre perspective that didn't enjoy a close relationship working relationship with the plastic space side of the industry and so what i was saying here is please please deal with it

00:38:02 with it but we're going to be quite clear that actually any decisions on on how the work proceeds will be led by the steering group and not by sort of from from us giving a point or a

00:38:13 from from us giving a point or a direction it needs to be core up with the steering group even though mr cody may have been raising a point in his own commercial interests as part of holding and

00:38:27 pushing a particular market position the point he was making which was that traditional methods of evaluating risk may not be sufficiently adequate yes

00:38:40 may not be sufficiently adequate yes there's a point you knew from the two reports in september 2002 as a result of the cc 1924 test yes and here we have uh some

00:38:49 uh some uh six years later exactly this problem being brought to your attention by a manufacturer so my question is given that it comes back to you from industry why not grapple with it

00:39:03 industry why not grapple with it as a problem rather than dismissing it which i'm suggesting to you you do as something raised by one manufacturer in order to protect his patch i'm not dismissing it per se what i'm saying

00:39:15 dismissing it per se what i'm saying here is because he's referring to a particular contract that was let to the bre is that

00:39:23 is that what i want to happen is for the steering group to move forward and consider anything as part of a collective steering group from my perspective we can't sit outside

00:39:35 from my perspective we can't sit outside the steering group for this piece of work

00:39:38 work and receive representations from different parts of industry so it was to say it will be guided by the steering group

00:39:50 what was the steering group there would have been as is quite typical there would have been an industry advisory steering group overseeing the work entitled innovation construction products and techniques

00:40:03 construction products and techniques did you ask the steering group to look into the adequacy of class north i

00:40:09 i can't recall the scope of the works um but looking at it it was it was addressing again truly innovative construction products and techniques so

00:40:21 construction products and techniques so i believe from recollection it would have been looking at modern methods of construction off-site

00:40:27 off-site um construction within delivery and build on site so it it it was it was looking at products coming down for the future and approaches so not looking at the advocacy of class naught

00:40:40 looking at the advocacy of class naught no but the backdrop of it would have been considering the implications of such designs and processes from a fire safety perspective which didn't lead you to going

00:40:51 which didn't lead you to going immediately or even in the medium term re-examine the appropriateness of class naught sitting in diagram 40 in the by then 2006 version of the proof document b no no let's go to clg one triple zero three

00:41:03 no let's go to clg one triple zero three six four five

00:41:09 bottom of page three

00:41:13 this is an email sent by bill parler on the 7th of march 2008 to jeanette henderson

00:41:20 henderson bill parler is of the um association of special for specialist fire protection and this is in the context of the code for sustainable homes and he says in the

00:41:31 and he says in the first main paragraph i can easily agree and note that adb will still apply but we've had a very large dependency on the class naught contrivance for building products since the 1960s this

00:41:43 building products since the 1960s this was originally introduced to permit paper-faced plasterboard previously the weakness of the class naught approach has been largely compensated by relatively robust and traditional building techniques however now with

00:41:54 building techniques however now with modern methods and sustainability as a buzzword designers have taken their eyes off the ball the consequence is that we see massive increase in fire load introduced

00:42:05 massive increase in fire load introduced into the building fabric often protected by little more than a thin film of aluminium foil if the foil or alternative covering remains intact class naught can be maintained

00:42:16 maintained if not then flashover can be reached in seconds yes seconds not minutes with combustible lining products vulnerable points will occur wherever building services penetrate the

00:42:27 building services penetrate the combustible materials it's not just about damaged systems the prefabricated modular system has similar worries associated with the basic using of an innovative design

00:42:38 innovative design regressively we are sailing ever closer to a great calamity and less sense and underlined better understanding prevails in recent times the weakness of

00:42:49 in recent times the weakness of over-reliance of the class naught approach was demonstrated in the sandwich panel market where steel sheet covering was used much more robust than aluminium foil

00:43:02 and he goes on in in a similar but not quite as pertinent

00:43:09 and then he says uh

00:43:14 underneath that i should continue in fact the large spate of fires deaths and near death that followed caused appendix f to be added to adb as guidance but not as a requirement unfortunately designers have not linked

00:43:25 unfortunately designers have not linked the two issues at all these hazardous panels and modern methods of construction now

00:43:31 now this email if you look up the chain comes

00:43:38 comes to tracy carl on page three and eventually makes its way if you continue up the chain

00:43:52 to uh the very top are page one to you and it's sent to you from brian martin on the third of april 2008. yes uh

00:44:05 in fact i think in fact it comes to you also from tracy cull two days before that if you look at the foot of page one so you get this email at the time yes yes yes did you not read this email

00:44:16 yes yes did you not read this email that i've read to you as a very clear warning about the dangers inherent in retaining the reference to class naught in approved document b it was co it was copied to me i i may well have read it

00:44:27 well have read it um i can't recall it but again

00:44:31 but again those are examples of where by i think this was the association of specialist fire protection have come forward with their thoughts and observations

00:44:42 and observations but

00:44:47 these were comments that people would make from time to time it covered a number of items there including off-site construction from recollection and the earlier

00:44:58 and the earlier email you showed me about innovative construction products and techniques i believe was part of the work that was left to better understand this aspect

00:45:09 left to better understand this aspect um

00:45:10 um they spoke in there about the new appendix f and they built in approved optimum v which was about sandwich panels

00:45:17 panels so

00:45:17 so yeah

00:45:19 yeah it was yes it was a download and it was given an awful lot of of of of sort of references but even things to which mr parlour referred was the fact that you could put

00:45:32 referred was the fact that you could put foil lined insulation material again it directly into a building exposed as a surface that's

00:45:41 that's typically i've never seen it happen in 33 years that you put that inside a flat or similar so we'd have been aware of some of these concerns here they've been duly noted but they were

00:45:53 they've been duly noted but they were but one part of industry but in specifically this case i was copied in on it

00:45:58 on it but i can't recall um

00:46:02 um receiving it right

00:46:04 right yeah well uh if we go to page one that we're on and you see the foot of page one tracy carl sends it to jeanette henderson copying you in and brian martin on the 1st of april

00:46:15 martin on the 1st of april she says jay further to this exchange there are two separate issues and if you turn the page to page 2 you can see the second of the issues what are the fire implications of using

00:46:26 what are the fire implications of using more sustainable building products which is what bp is referring to yes bp being built parlor yes many are concerned at the fact that many insulating products can contribute significantly to the spread of fire and that a number of the

00:46:37 spread of fire and that a number of the exemplar structures at bre don't actually meet current brs which exclamation mark both in terms of some of the materials used and the design straight layout for example open plan

00:46:48 straight layout for example open plan staircases in tool houses external walls covered in very burny stuff etc and we do want to do research on both issues with a project on sip panels etc

00:47:01 uh this i hope this fills in some of the gaps her last paragraph but happy to chat when i'm back in next week or color brian in my absence it might be worthless brian drafting a quick reply to bp's last email to reassure him that

00:47:13 to bp's last email to reassure him that buildings that are constructed for a purpose rather than display still have to meet the requirements of part b and that we will be looking at these further issues idc i think i've worked out that idc is in due course

00:47:28 do you beli did you believe at the time that approved document b in its 2006 iteration addressed these concerns

00:47:35 concerns yes

00:47:36 yes what did you understand the references here to the bre to relate to the so there's a demonstration park uh within the bre at garston uh which is it's it's innovation park where they

00:47:48 it's it's innovation park where they were building examples of highly sustainable buildings both domestic and and i think there's a school building as well and i think

00:47:59 building as well and i think bill was concerned the parlor that actually it was his opinion they didn't show compliance with the building rigs and that response there is tracy suggesting

00:48:10 suggesting it's a building it's covered by the building rigs it would need to show compliance um

00:48:15 um and just wanted to go back and and say that to

00:48:19 that to um

00:48:20 um mr parlour now if he was still disagreeing with this demonstration park uh in this way then that would be something that perhaps he would raise directly with bre management

00:48:33 would raise directly with bre management so the point i'm really seeking to get from you is whether you were surprised to see

00:48:37 to see uh an industry participant of the eminence of mr palah and his organization raising with you in pretty clear trenchant and historic terms the inadequacy of class naught and whether

00:48:48 inadequacy of class naught and whether that triggered in your mind a need to go back to the question of class naught against the background of everything you and i have discussed about it and ask yourself well should class

00:48:59 and ask yourself well should class naught still play any part in a proof document b and specifically diagram 40. i don't believe i had that thought at this time i enjoyed a very good relationship uh

00:49:10 i enjoyed a very good relationship uh with with bill parlour and working in somewhere like the asfp we would have had

00:49:16 had a good

00:49:17 a good dialogue even though at this point i'd stepped away from part b but it didn't make me think that at this moment in time i should

00:49:26 i should we should re-look at class naught the one point that was raised here for sustainability is that the innovation construction products and materials piece that you just showed me

00:49:37 materials piece that you just showed me i believe that was an example of a piece of work that was trying to very look at this very issue of off-site construction more sustainable so

00:49:48 so not at this time no can we then move to 2012 and clg 3-0 is 19179

00:50:03 this is an email from brian martin to louise upton copy to you and stephen kelly and the email underneath it

00:50:16 doesn't appear to have a particular set of participants but he says hello french was quite rusty

00:50:24 uh and

00:50:29 uh what he's doing i think i'm trying to summarize this for you is it's sending a video to you of the fire that had taken place in france in ruby okay that

00:50:38 okay that month right yes and what i'm interested in for your purposes is the email at the top of the chain if you can just go to the top of page one for you

00:50:49 page one for you and brian martin says for info the video on the second link is pretty alarming this wouldn't be in accordance with building regs brackets probably okay brackets

00:51:02 probably okay brackets now you got that email uh did you consider carrying out a review at this point to ensure that there was no such risk of a similar

00:51:11 similar system to um like that constructed in rue bay being built in the united kingdom um i don't believe i did the issue is with obviously

00:51:23 the issue is with obviously member states have their own national building regulations and therefore one would have to completely understand what provisions they have both active and passive vibe provisions in a

00:51:35 and passive vibe provisions in a building to understand what existed and why the building might have performed in this way is

00:51:44 is is this the building in france that ultimately had

00:51:50 system so it was an external cladding system is that correct i don't know well i don't know but being shared a video of a big fire yes

00:52:02 being shared a video of a big fire yes of course it's very relevant um if i'd had the time i'm sure i would have watched it um

00:52:09 um brian's comment there um it wouldn't be in accordance with our building rigs i know probably um

00:52:17 um it is unfortunately a fire that that we do we do see these fires around the world um

00:52:23 world um and if we can glean understanding and appreciation from them to help us in our understanding then that would be most useful but as it's a video link

00:52:34 and we don't have specific details um i'm not too sure what more we could do with it

00:52:43 what did you understand by brian martin's words probably this wouldn't be in accordance with building regulations probably exactly that without knowing the details

00:52:54 exactly that without knowing the details um

00:52:55 um he didn't believe it it would be in accordance with our bill and rex but not definitively so hence he's put the word probably there why not definitively because

00:53:06 why not definitively because what was let me ask it differently what was it about what you knew about this fire that meant that you couldn't come to a conclusion whether a fire like this couldn't happen here because it was um

00:53:15 um because of the effect of the building regulation because we don't know unless forgive me unless there is information here as to the specific products that have been utilized and the nature of the combustible insulation and

00:53:27 of the combustible insulation and similar

00:53:29 similar you know this is this is you know a tragic fire that's been videoed but we'd have to understand it in completeness as to how it has been designed how it has been built and ultimately what products

00:53:42 built and ultimately what products aren't contained within it did you after this did you take brian martin's remark and investigate first what the ruby building was comprised of

00:53:55 what the ruby building was comprised of in other words what its cladding system consisted of and secondly examine it and the fire the causes of the fire and the spread of the fire

00:54:06 fire in order to answer the question would it be in accordance with the building regulations so as to inform yourself about whether there were any defects in the in the regulations or approved document b

00:54:17 document b i didn't um but obviously from brian's perspective um he might have undertaken further investigation i noticed he's also sent it

00:54:28 i noticed he's also sent it to colleagues elsewhere within the department too um so you

00:54:34 um so you i didn't undertake any such investigation i wouldn't have had had the time to do that but why didn't you ask him to i i don't maybe i maybe i did i don't know

00:54:45 i don't maybe i maybe i did i don't know we see no evidence of that no okay um so my question is why not ask him and say to him brian could you get to the bottom of what this was made of cause of the fire get a report if you can from the french fire and rescue service

00:54:57 the french fire and rescue service uh get to the bottom of how it was built and come back and and double check it against our own building regularly and by virtue potentially brian might have asked that of of bre under his contract

00:55:08 asked that of of bre under his contract for fires of special interest did he i don't know you don't know can i ask you then about something else which is the investigation of real fires contract in 2012 and what happened to it in 2012.

00:55:20 in 2012. we've already looked in some detail at the working relationship between the department and the bre and i want to ask you about the investigation of real fars project now first i think it's right isn't it that

00:55:31 first i think it's right isn't it that project had been running since about 1988. from recollection yes yes and uh

00:55:38 and uh let's go to bre-401054

00:55:42 this is the investigation of real far's report prepared by the bre for the period april 2003 to march 2004 uh it's prepared for you yes and we can

00:55:54 uh it's prepared for you yes and we can see the period the date of the document at the bottom of the second of april 2004

00:55:59 2004 and if we go to page three we can see that one of the objectives of the project

00:56:04 project if we have that expanded please in the second paragraph it said it says this the information gathered is primarily used to inform approved document b for england and

00:56:15 approved document b for england and wales with occasional input to the regulatory documents in scotland and northern ireland this information must offer

00:56:21 offer select effective solutions to real fire problems which can only be done by examining information from real fires positive feedback is provided where guidance has helped to minimize fire spread and threat to life

00:56:33 spread and threat to life now did you understand that that i've read to you to be the principal purpose of this project uh

00:56:40 uh yes from recollection at this time over what period did you commission and receive reports such as this um i believe i had a contract in place for my entire time

00:56:53 a contract in place for my entire time that i was overseeing part b of the building regulations so when i was promoted in 2000 and then effectively charged desk officer for part b

00:57:05 officer for part b and then

00:57:07 and then when i was promoted in 2007 from recollection i can't guarantee it this

00:57:14 this important document continued now i want to ask you about a particular change to the contractual arrangements in 2012 the year before you left can we go please to

00:57:25 can we go please to bre 50951

00:57:33 this is the bre's proposal

00:57:38 in relation to a

00:57:41 a framework research piece of work prepared for brian martin yes dated the 1st of october 2012. do you remember seeing this at the time no

00:57:51 no were you involved in assessing this proposal or other aspect of letting this contract i don't believe so no you weren't do you know who was it would have been led by brian right he was the desk officer for part b was anyone ever seeing it

00:58:03 anyone ever seeing it there would have been support from a colleague who oversaw all research so uh a policy colleague

00:58:16 a policy colleague um

00:58:17 um who was that oh i forget collee's he worked for bob ledson but he was in charge of that it might have been andrew newton

00:58:28 that it might have been andrew newton actually right potentially

00:58:37 uh but not you nicer right well let's see how we go with this then um

00:58:44 um you may not be able to help me but to go to page four um well perhaps we could take it more shortly um were you aware of the contractual arrangements in relation to the real fast project

00:58:56 in relation to the real fast project um

00:58:56 um after

00:58:58 after this bid had been received and um accepted no sir you weren't can you tell us anything about the investigation of real project or the contractual

00:59:09 project or the contractual arrangements underlying it typically in in at this time onwards again it would have been seen as being an important and vital piece of understanding and

00:59:21 understanding and appreciation of what was happening when it came to fires anything that can provide the department with evidence of what's happening what might be perceived to be working or not would

00:59:32 perceived to be working or not would always be most useful can you tell us anything about why this bid

00:59:39 bid document

00:59:40 document reflects a a requirement from government that it should not contain any policy recommendations um

00:59:51 um not definitively here but for recollection and i believe this is still the same now with the department's contracts which it publishes online

01:00:03 publishes online from recollection what what the department what we were wanting at the time is a clear appreciation of what happened from a fire perspective and what the potential implications

01:00:14 and what the potential implications might be

01:00:17 might be but first and foremost to understand the fire that happened why it happened how it happened and then thereafter because

01:00:29 and then thereafter because if something was of note there would typically be a further report on that file especially if there was a a visit it could either be in that document or in

01:00:41 an end of contract document or something that could go into potential implications uh

01:00:47 uh in in that environment so i think what what it was trying to do from recollection and please forgive me was just keep the focus at this stage for this report on what actually

01:00:58 for this report on what actually happened

01:00:59 happened and if there was a need for further insight and and similar things that might need to be considered for reviews of in this case part b that could be picked up in a sep a

01:01:10 that could be picked up in a sep a separate report from recollection but that is just from memory

01:01:18 was there any thought given at the time given the ruby fire that we've just discussed

01:01:23 discussed and

01:01:24 and the emergence of international fires towards the end of 2012 in the uae to asking

01:01:30 to asking those who are running this project at the bre to look further afield and

01:01:36 and look at overseas ceasefires to see if they were fires of special interest and report to you on them uh that's maybe a discussion that brian had with bre you can't tell us anything about that no sir

01:01:47 about that no sir can i then turn to a completely different topic which is the latino house fire now as you know i'm sure um the lack of house fire occurred on the 3rd of july 2009 and there were six deaths and it led to an inquest which

01:01:59 deaths and it led to an inquest which occupied the coroner um francis kirkham for some three months between january and march 2013.

01:02:10 uh now you'll you'll know i think perhaps you knew this at the time that lachen was a 16 story block of two-story maisonette flats built between 1955 and 1960

01:02:21 flats built between 1955 and 1960 and refurbished in 2006 and seven yes yes

01:02:25 yes and that

01:02:27 and that resulted in the majority of its external walls being replaced with external cladding and the system of aluminium framed window units certainly certainly panels on the

01:02:38 certainly certainly panels on the external wall if not a cladding system

01:02:41 and the units incorporated double glazed windows partially glazed doors and and composite infill panels which are the relevant product for this purpose yes yes yes

01:02:52 yes yes um now um you'll remember i think also and tell me if you don't that an investigation into that fire was carried out by sir ken knight who had become the uh chief fire and

01:03:03 who had become the uh chief fire and rescue advisor as a result of the legislative changes in the fsa in 2005. yes sir

01:03:09 yes sir uh now if we go to hom three zero four zeros

01:03:14 zeros one zero nine two what i'm showing you here is ken knight's final report of the secretary of state dated the 30th of july 2009 and you deal with this in your statement

01:03:27 and you deal with this in your statement at paragraph 170 at page 54 and you say you were copied into this document when it was submitted at the end of july 2009 as it was can we take it that you read this report

01:03:38 can we take it that you read this report when you were copied into it

01:03:43 i would have presumed so um it depending it would be dependent upon what i was doing at the time but obviously what i've put in my um

01:03:53 um witness statement was paperwork that was provided to me by the department because i had something really left in 2013

01:04:03 2013 so they were able to confirm that i had received it i can't i can't recall reading it uh but i may have

01:04:14 but i may have had a scan through right but i can't recall doing the best you can with what you knew about your practice and your the customly way you dealt with documents you were sent yes

01:04:25 dealt with documents you were sent yes is this the kind of document a document from the chief fire and rescue advisor to the secretary of state about a fire which killed six people a document that you

01:04:36 a document that you would have read i would have thought so uh or if i didn't have the chance to have read it um i might have sat down with brian and maybe sir ken as

01:04:47 sat down with brian and maybe sir ken as well and discussed it as well but wherever possible yeah i would have thought i would have attempted to right yeah let's look at page 24

01:04:58 right yeah let's look at page 24 please there's a heading on page 24 um under paragraph two the incident and if you look down at paragraph 2.2 it says this

01:05:08 says this although investigations are still ongoing it is believed that the fire then spread externally to the 11th floor where the masonette directly above became involved in the fire this is not unique fire spread caused by the

01:05:19 unique fire spread caused by the significant heat and flame coming from the uncontrolled firefighters having withdrawn from the ninth floor far on the tenth floor and rising externally up the face of the building the fire in the

01:05:30 the face of the building the fire in the flat on the 11th floor was particularly ferocious and there appears to have been an abnormally high fire load in this area at this point it seems that the fire also spread downwards externally

01:05:41 fire also spread downwards externally so spread downwards externally setting light to masonettes on the fifth and seventh floors yes yes it appears that the external fire spread to the floors below was caused by burning products from the fire

01:05:53 caused by burning products from the fire above which fell and entered the masonettes via open windows on what was a very hot day these products could have come from anything that had burnt within the masonettes on the ninth and tenth floors

01:06:05 floors and then over the page to page 25 from the early findings the method of external fire spread is not seen as particularly unusual the issues about melting plastic windows initially reported in the media do not seem to

01:06:18 reported in the media do not seem to have been a factor as during the review the window frames were confirmed as aluminium however whilst the windows and in-field panels does not appear to have been an exceptional cause of the fire spread this matter will be subject to

01:06:29 spread this matter will be subject to confirmation by the full investigation now that made clear didn't it that there had been external downwards and upwards for our spread yes the first paragraph of

01:06:40 the first paragraph of uh

01:06:41 uh section three is in fact entitled uh

01:06:45 uh extra internal and external fire spread yes yes

01:06:49 yes yes and uh if you look on that page of page 25 under emerging issues it says this although the cause of the fire at latin house has been identified the fire development and fire spread was unusual

01:07:03 development and fire spread was unusual the initial investigations have not as yet been able to identify the mechanisms that caused the fire development and spread

01:07:10 spread was it your own view at the time having read this report that the fire development and external fire spread was unusual

01:07:17 unusual yeah the fact that it noted that there was downward spread would have definitely caught my attention right now we know that the bre investigated the fire at lachnal for the department and

01:07:28 fire at lachnal for the department and dr crowder of the bre has told us that his primary contact in the department was brian martin would that be right yes it would if we then go to bre405878

01:07:40 this is the bre as far as a special interest report or fosse i think it was an acronym to uh at lacanal and you can see that on

01:07:51 uh at lacanal and you can see that on page

01:07:52 page one that the date of this document is the 17th of december 2010 prepared for the metropolitan police and if you go to page two of this document you'll see

01:08:03 to page two of this document you'll see who prepared it david crowder uh and approved by dr karine williams yes

01:08:09 yes now uh if you go please in this report to page

01:08:15 195

01:08:20 this is the report into lachenal

01:08:27 so and you can see that the date of this document yes uh so this was submitted to the department at around about the same time as the ken nitrous report right yes were

01:08:38 as the ken nitrous report right yes were you aware of this report from the bre at the time i don't recall this one you don't recall it did you remember do you remember

01:08:45 remember do you remember discussing the bre investigation or its results with brian martin

01:08:51 martin brian would have kept me appraised so if i hadn't read it and i can't recall then brian would have kept me broadly attuned to what was going on because it

01:09:03 attuned to what was going on because it was

01:09:04 was of importance to understand what actually happened here and how it happened

01:09:09 happened so

01:09:10 so yes yes

01:09:11 yes yes let's look at the next page please page 196

01:09:16 and if we look at the first paragraph on that page five lines down it says on odd floors do you see towards the right hand side yes on odd floors the external wall to

01:09:27 yes on odd floors the external wall to each bay consists of a full height painted aluminium window frame assembly with layered polymeric panels forming the lower halves of these sets figure a1 and figure a5 on even floors of block

01:09:39 and figure a5 on even floors of block work

01:09:40 work a half wall providing sorry with door and window set leaves room for a narrow balcony on each side of the building figure a6 providing additional meads of escape to the main stairwell this is described in more

01:09:52 stairwell this is described in more detail later balconies have steel guard rails and polymeric panels fitted to them figure a7 now within this uh short space of time

01:10:03 now within this uh short space of time it looks like the investigation of real fires project team had actually identified polymeric products within and on the external walls of vladimir house yes yes now dr crowder of the bre has

01:10:16 yes now dr crowder of the bre has confirmed in his evidence that he gave to the inquiry day 230 page seven lines two to ten for our purposes that the significance of this finding

01:10:27 this finding is that that meant that the team knew that combustible products had been used in the external wall refurbishment and they knew that at this early stage okay that's what he told us

01:10:38 okay that's what he told us now just bearing that in mind i just want to show you one or two other parts of the report page 202

01:10:48 uh if you look at the third paragraph done it says falling burning debris from flat 79 and 65 most probably from both the window facade assemblies and the contents of flat 79 ignited materials in

01:10:59 contents of flat 79 ignited materials in flats 37 and 53 located on the fifth and seventh floors respectively it has not been possible to determine which source of falling debris was responsible for each flat that was ignited footage from

01:11:11 each flat that was ignited footage from channel 4 confirmed reports that these two flats happen to have windows open these windows appear to be open in such a way that would enable them to collect falling debris into the flat flat 37 appeared to become involved

01:11:23 flat 37 appeared to become involved shortly before approximately two minutes flat 53

01:11:27 flat 53 and then if we go to page 203 halfway down the page

01:11:31 first heading in bold potential implications for building regulations the following issues are of note with respect to building regulations and approved document b

01:11:42 approved document b and then he goes on to say in the third paragraph from the bottom external fire spread

01:11:46 spread you see that yes and he says yes so external fire spread yes fire initially spread up externally from flat of origin fire spread down due to

01:11:57 flat of origin fire spread down due to burning material falling wind may also have been significant in blowing the fire through the corridor so both upward and downward external flight spread were observed at latinos

01:12:08 flight spread were observed at latinos as we've seen yes and the significance of that is identified by dr crowder in this report yes yes but there's no further commentary provided here about the possible reasons for the observed

01:12:20 the possible reasons for the observed external fire in either direction up or down is there would appear not no no now we know that um brian martin told the bre uh at the end of july 2009 28th of july

01:12:32 uh at the end of july 2009 28th of july two days before the ken knight report that for the purposes of the fire investigation contract with the department the bre need not revisit the fire at lacanal and having raised the matter with his

01:12:43 and having raised the matter with his colleagues in the frd the bre could now as he put it step away from the investigation do you remember that vaguely did mr martin discuss that with you i believe he did

01:12:56 you i believe he did why and

01:12:58 why and sorry sorry continue i'm about to say something yeah something of this importance would have been discussed with me

01:13:07 bob bledsoe had a division and we probably would have discussed it with sir ken knight as well

01:13:19 and what was the reason for asking the bia bre to step away from the investigation i believe at this point there was two aspects there was

01:13:32 london fire rescue service were wanting in fact i believe they have a duty to undertake their own investigation and i believe

01:13:43 and i believe forgive me for recollection the met police were also investigating this fire and so

01:13:50 and so the discussion probably would have covered that notwithstanding we would like to learn from this fire but when the relevant fire rescue authority that has

01:14:02 has a locus to actually investigate especially where unfortunately there were deaths and the met police were undertaking their work too

01:14:10 too it was agreed that perhaps we should step away and wait for their work to be shared where they could with us to clean learnings from that now let's move on in the year clg one

01:14:23 now let's move on in the year clg one triple zero four one nine three

01:14:31 mr chairman i'm just looking at the clock actually and just thinking whether it's wise to go into this document before the break would you rather stop there uh it's sensible um we're making reasonable progress i think we can afford to take the break i should just

01:14:42 afford to take the break i should just say i'm not we're not going to get to the next witness this afternoon so i did wonder about i'll take the opportunity during the break to to warn him and he can be released before the tube strike problems become worse

01:14:53 the tube strike problems become worse yes and um we better apologize for having kept in here all day i will certainly do that yeah right well we'll take our break now mr bird we'll come back at half off three to resume and again please don't

01:15:04 three to resume and again please don't discuss your revenue

01:32:43 would you ask mr bird to come back in please

01:32:51 [Music]

01:32:56 all right mr bird yes i need to carry on yes okay

01:32:59 yes okay yes now i want to show you clg one triple zero four one nine three please uh this is the email we were going to look at it's an email from ken knight to sandy bishop copied to you and brian

01:33:11 sandy bishop copied to you and brian martin

01:33:12 martin uh if you um uh you need to go to the bottom of the chain for it please

01:33:24 and

01:33:30 it's dated the 15th of december 2009 restricted latino house and he sets out the fact that he attended a meeting with the metropolitan police

01:33:41 police uh and uh

01:33:43 uh and uh in the second paragraph he says the mps outlined there the results i'm sorry i misread that because of the taipei he says that the mps outlined their results of a recent building

01:33:55 their results of a recent building research establishment report copy attached which indicates that fire testing on the panels beneath the windows of the latino house flats were demonstrated to propagate flame and fail the required level of surface spread of

01:34:06 the required level of surface spread of flame to meet the building regulations requirements the panels were installed in lateral house as part of the 2007 refurbishment program the earlier assumptions arising from the bre tests

01:34:17 assumptions arising from the bre tests are that the panels enhance the vertical spread of flame from the flat of origin and may have contributed to the downward fire spread due to falling burning fragments of the panels

01:34:28 fragments of the panels now if we scroll up please we can see your uh response

01:34:37 we go yeah that's it if you go to the page two in the middle there same day you respond

01:34:46 uh and you say i suggest we need to be very careful here clearly we need to understand what actually happened and discussions with building control the specifier the installers and others but we don't want

01:34:57 installers and others but we don't want to set any hairs running what did you mean by that quite simply we needed to understand what actually happened in terms of the fire

01:35:07 fire and how the refurbishment was designed it in terms of

01:35:16 what date of the regulations it was due to meet and similar so i think it was just saying

01:35:22 saying we need to do it properly but we just need to have the full gamut of the evidence why would acting on the bre's findings set hairs running [Applause] because

01:35:33 because again

01:35:35 again if we don't have the full understanding and appreciation of all aspects

01:35:41 aspects of

01:35:42 of the fire and needing to be quite clear in terms of the builder the designer what they were designing to

01:35:52 it was just you know just to gather all the information first but you weren't going to be gathering all the information first because you'd put a stop to the bre's investigations earlier in the year

01:36:03 bre's investigations earlier in the year i hadn't put a stop to the brac well the bre had been told uh to step away from the investigation and as you told us the reason for that was that the

01:36:15 reason for that was that the it was that the lfb and the met were doing their own investigations yeah that was my understanding was why bre was stood down by the department yeah but that's right so the question

01:36:26 yeah but that's right so the question then is well

01:36:29 you weren't going to be gathering any further information because the department had told the bre to step away but from recollection then because of the need to learn and

01:36:41 then because of the need to learn and understand the situation i believe that such information was due to be ultimately shared with the department as well so

01:36:50 so again when you don't have bre in this case there and then providing such information if we were receiving it via met police when allowed or the fire

01:37:02 via met police when allowed or the fire and rescue service all i was setting out there is that we clearly need to make sure that we have all of the pertinent information did you consider that the conclusions that the panels were involved in the fire spread

01:37:14 panels were involved in the fire spread of the vertical fire spread were wrong no

01:37:17 no given that the department hadn't sought further assistance from the bre on this uh on what basis did you think you were in a position to reach any of you at all

01:37:28 um as i say that's why i don't want to start any hairs running wanting to know all of the information

01:37:36 but you won't get going around in circles slightly but you weren't going to get any information is this right until the met had concluded their investigations as had the lfb i i don't know so what were you waiting

01:37:47 i don't know so what were you waiting for

01:37:50 when when would you understand what actually happened using your words uh when we understood what the work was undertaken by whom

01:38:02 by whom um

01:38:03 um what iteration of the building regulations um and in this case approved document b was applicable just to understand the full gamut of the situation right

01:38:15 the full gamut of the situation right now you say discussions with building control to specify the installer and others should assist was it the department who was going to be having those discussions not directly now indirectly no well how

01:38:26 no well how again as part of this was now a formal investigation i was under the impression that these people involved with this work would have

01:38:37 would have entered into into discussions with these professions and those involved with the building work so i'm i'm not sure i'm following you

01:38:45 you looking at your first and i don't want to

01:38:47 to lengthen this unduly but looking at your first main sentence here after we need to be very careful you

01:38:55 you say

01:38:56 say we need to understand what actually happened and and discussions with building control to specify the installer and others should assist who would be involved in those discussions who did you contemplate typically those involved in

01:39:09 contemplate typically those involved in the formal investigation would be having discussion right so that's the police yes

01:39:13 yes how would the police discussions as it were with building control for example help you

01:39:18 help you because again it would be about understanding the situation what role they held in the building work if any and it's again it's trying to get the full

01:39:28 full raft of information pertinent to this important and tragic fire but you would not actually ever get to see what those discussions contain would you because they'd be subject to

01:39:40 because they'd be subject to police procedures uh potentially initially but they might be released thereafter i see now if you get up to brian martin's reply at 10 51

01:39:51 we scroll up to page one uh he says

01:39:58 uh same day

01:40:01 and it's to you honestly i leave you alone for five minutes and and then he says i'm not convinced about this the pictures of the elevation of latino house don't suggest to me that the spandrels were particularly

01:40:13 the spandrels were particularly significant it's nothing like irvin okay now when you received that email did you unquestioningly accept his suggestion that the cladding or the external panels rather at latin were

01:40:25 external panels rather at latin were quotes nothing like irvin um

01:40:29 um i don't know what i thought for me i would i would consider all the relevant evidence when we had it right

01:40:39 right this is brian's opinion do you know what it was based on no

01:40:43 no you say at the top of the thread if we just go up to that uh in response to him literally a minute later nor is peter wise

01:40:54 nor is peter wise which is why we just go for a general fire safety message not focused on elevations i promise that i do listen to you

01:41:01 you but why did you consider that a general fire safety message was sufficient for recollection it would have been in relation to a general fire safety message in the first instance and then

01:41:13 message in the first instance and then when we had the detailed understandings we could see if there were any potential implications for the approved document i believe that's what i'm referring to now i want to turn to the coroner's recommendations and the department's

01:41:25 recommendations and the department's response

01:41:26 response uh

01:41:27 uh you deal with this to some extent in your statement at paragraph 34 page 17 and perhaps we will look at that because you set it all out there that's your

01:41:38 you set it all out there that's your statement clg3019461

01:41:43 page 17 paragraph 34

01:41:50 and you can see the recommendations that you set out the first is provides clear guidance in relation to regulation b4 of the building regulations with particular regard to the spread of fire over the external

01:42:01 the spread of fire over the external envelope of the building and the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection recommendation one is expressed in words that adopts a

01:42:13 is expressed in words that adopts a format which are intelligible to the wide range of people and bodies engaged in construction maintenance and refurbishment of buildings and not just to professionals who may already have a depth of knowledge of building regulations and building control matters

01:42:24 regulations and building control matters that's right that's recommendation too and then finally provides guidance which is of assistance to those involved in maintenance or refurbishment of older housing stock and not only those engaged in design and construction of new

01:42:35 in design and construction of new buildings that's recommendation three now i put that to you really for your own um just to remind you of what you said about those now we then look at clg 50461

01:42:49 and what i'm now showing you is the submission drafted by brian martin on the 11th of april 2013 four or two don foster now don foster

01:43:00 four or two don foster now don foster was the minister with the responsibility for the building regulations at the time wasn't he that's correct yes and the heading is lateral housing quest rule 30 rule 43 recommendations regarding building regulations

01:43:11 building regulations just looking at it on the page do you recall whether you had any input into this draft if i didn't input directly to the draft i would have had discussions with brian

01:43:22 with brian about

01:43:23 about the development of the draft going forward did brian moss did brian martin ask you to approve this document no i don't believe he did did you nonetheless approve it and see it before it went

01:43:34 approve it and see it before it went i i can't recall could i maybe see the end of the document yes of course scroll down to page four please

01:43:42 that's the end of the document oh i do apologize then it suggests that there was a list if we go back up a page three yeah there we go cc your cc donation i cease upton and peter holland

01:43:54 donation i cease upton and peter holland yeah

01:43:55 yeah yes yep so i would have been copied in on it well indeed but did you did you approve it before it went out

01:44:03 i don't recall approving it i might have discussed it with brian and bob led some as well actually now let's go to page four please sorry page one please paragraph four

01:44:14 page one please paragraph four uh and you can see the recommendations made to don foster by brian martin and he says you agree to respond to the coroner's recommendations at nxa

01:44:27 recommendations at nxa page three regarding building regulations as follows a acknowledge that the guidance and approved document b for safety can be difficult for inexperienced people to apply be commissioned a review of guidance

01:44:38 be commissioned a review of guidance given to members of competent person schemes to ensure that there is proper understanding of the scope for the schemes and where fire protection requirements affect window installations c

01:44:47 c set up the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document be in 2016 to 17 following a full review of the fire safety aspects of building regulations this would use the department's new style guide for easy to

01:44:59 department's new style guide for easy to read approved documents and take account of current research which is due to deliver in 2014. now

01:45:07 now if you go to the next page please paragraph 11 under considerations you'll see there the bottom of the screen he says this however a rewrite of approved document b

01:45:18 however a rewrite of approved document b would be a significant project and we would therefore recommend that this be done as part of a fuller review the department has not made any statements about when the next review would be carried out but with ministers agreement

01:45:29 carried out but with ministers agreement we have commissioned research intended to feed into a future edition this work is due to be completed in 2014 and we would expect that a revised approved document could be published during 2016-17

01:45:41 2016-17 now focusing on those time scales there which to some extent are reflected in the recommendation given to the minister yes did that reflect your understanding of the time scales which would be involved

01:45:52 the time scales which would be involved in meeting this recommendation yes it did if we then turn to the response that the department sent to the coroner we find that at clg402788 please

01:46:06 this is dated the 20th of may or stamped 20th of may 2013 and is sent to the coroner by eric pickles mp who was then the secretary of state for communities and local government

01:46:18 and local government now um i have a few questions in relation to the recommendations here i want to ask you about you say in relation to recommendation one that given that the coroner had been considering the 2000

01:46:30 considering the 2000 edition

01:46:31 edition of adb the view was taken that her particular recommendation that clear guidance be provided in relation to b4 had already been addressed as part of the full technical review

01:46:42 review um culminating in 2006 that's what you say in your statement yes sir yes now is that that's the review is it that that we looked at before which resulted in the 2006 edition of adb

01:46:55 the 2006 edition of adb sorry could you ask that again sorry i i well let me let me rather than try to paraphrase that and take you back to your statement yes can we go to your statement of page 18 please and look at

01:47:06 statement of page 18 please and look at paragraph 45

01:47:10 this is in relation to recommendation one it's a very long paragraph and that's why you will understand why i was trying to summarize this sorry um you refer then

01:47:21 you refer then to the review that took place between 2004 and 2006 is that the review and the consultation which resulted in the 2006 edition of adb which we have been discussing yes yes

01:47:33 discussing yes yes now do you accept that that edition did not address all the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection as you put it

01:47:51 sorry were you reading that then sir that last point you just said yes

01:47:56 yes sorry

01:47:57 sorry the full tenant review

01:48:07 could you ask the question again of me sorry sir

01:48:11 sorry sir well i i i showed you the recommendation yeah reading from the recommendation we can go back to that if you like sorry all right i'm struggling a bit all right well let me see if i can i can do better

01:48:22 well let me see if i can i can do better than that can we go back to paragraph 34 on page 17 the page before

01:48:30 43 sorry and and you can see recommendation uh

01:48:35 uh you can see the recommendations there yes particularly recommendation uh one

01:48:41 uh one circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection yes that was the recommendation yes do you accept that the work done in the 2006 edition

01:48:53 2006 edition didn't address in any way quotes the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work might reduce existing fire protection

01:49:18 so for recollection this is relating to the situation whereby you have an existing building and then you undertake additional works to it

01:49:29 to it so in this case the addition of new windows new infill panels and similar so

01:49:39 so by virtue of what was happening with tantamount to building work then if that work had been undertaken now then the 2006 edition would be just as applicable to building work on the

01:49:51 as applicable to building work on the existing building as it would be to a brand new building yes

01:49:56 yes and in light of the discussions we've had

01:49:59 had to gather your evidence over the last couple of days or so do you still maintain that the amendments made to

01:50:06 to 12.5 to

01:50:08 12.5 to 12.9 particularly twelve points five six and seven in the 2006 edition of approved document b were sufficient to address the

01:50:19 b were sufficient to address the coroner's recommendation here

01:50:23 that clear guidance should be given about the circumstances in which attention should be paid to whether the proposed work refurbishment work might reduce existing fire protection

01:50:35 might reduce existing fire protection yes

01:50:36 yes i do

01:50:37 i do because

01:50:38 because i believe

01:50:39 i believe from recollection that the building work that took place on la canal house was to the 2002 approved document so i suggest with the reordering

01:50:50 so i suggest with the reordering reappropriation of the text and similar controlling more thermal insulation etcetera

01:50:57 etcetera would meet the need because if this was built and the the work undertaken to the 2002 approved document

01:51:06 document then it was only thermal insulation in ventilated cavities so i suggest that this move

01:51:15 this move in 2007 would have placed more demands on the building work taking place so yes

01:51:24 right so

01:51:28 so your view is it that 12.6 and 12.9 were sufficient to address that recommendation and didn't need to be revisited in the light of lachlan it was my opinion

01:51:40 it was my opinion from recollection looking at this that that was the case but again as further learnings came out given the secretary of state made a commitment to the next full review of approved

01:51:52 to the next full review of approved document b then anything further could be revisited as part of that process right

01:51:59 right was there anything in what you had discovered about lachnal and had read in the bre's report to lead you to think that 12.5 to 12.9

01:52:10 to lead you to think that 12.5 to 12.9 of approved document b in its 2006 form needed revisiting

01:52:19 not that i can recall

01:52:23 was that true right up until the time you left the department in december 2013.

01:52:32 yes yes i believe it was and up until that time is it the case that you heard not a single word of dispute or disagreement or confusion

01:52:43 or confusion um about the meaning of the word filler and its intended effect in 12.7 not that i can recall

01:52:54 not that i can recall nor any hint any flitter flicker or flutter of confusion

01:52:59 confusion between class naught as a concept and limited combustibility is a concept nothing i can't say nothing but i can't i can't recall any confusion at all about equivalences

01:53:11 any confusion at all about equivalences between class naught and class b not a hint not flicker not that i can recall but i i i would say this wouldn't i you know

01:53:22 i i would say this wouldn't i you know by this time i was pretty much full time on the energy efficiency parts of the the building regulations so

01:53:29 so those sorts of comments from industry expressing thoughts observations about the extent part b would have gone typically to brian

01:53:39 if we turn back to page 18 of your statement

01:53:43 statement you say paragraph 45 there in the long paragraph

01:53:47 paragraph about two-thirds of the way down my recollection you see yes my recollection is that the division also felt that the coroner's recommendation had also been addressed by the section being reordered to provide clearer

01:53:58 being reordered to provide clearer guidance in the 2000 edition incorporating 2002 amendments the guidance on regulation b4 covered external services first then offered guidance in relation to external wall construction which was found to be

01:54:10 construction which was found to be confusing the 2006 edition instead started with external wall construction and the indication that 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

01:54:21 is likely to be a risk to health or safety the 2006 edition and it goes on

01:54:26 who in the division um

01:54:29 um felt

01:54:30 felt uh what you've expressed there or agreed with that again as i point out this is from from recollection and forgive me this was

01:54:41 forgive me this was my witness statement for some three and a half years old now i had been provided very kindly by the department who had managed to rebuild some of my email account

01:54:52 account given that i'd left the department some in 2013 and so it was recollection that we would have discussed

01:55:02 this brian bob in terms of the what we were looking at was an installation following the guidance in the earlier iteration of the adb

01:55:16 iteration of the adb and so it was felt that things

01:55:19 things should have improved provisions should have increased however there was with the other recommendations as well there was still the commitment thereafter by secretary of state that we would

01:55:33 by secretary of state that we would well i wouldn't be there by then but the department would start in effect in 2013 2014 thereabouts on a full full review

01:55:44 can you go forward in this statement please to page 21 and look at paragraph 54

01:55:53 you say there in the fourth line the decision not to produce further guidance at this time which would have required a further review of adb was supported by a suggestion in the covering submission from louise upton to the secretary of

01:56:04 from louise upton to the secretary of state dated 13th of may 2013 that a review might also have a disruptive effect on the construction industry which was an area of the uk economy that the government was particularly trying

01:56:16 the government was particularly trying to reduce the burden of regulation on and stimulate economically yes

01:56:23 yes did you

01:56:24 did you and indeed do you still consider that those considerations were appropriate factors to weigh in the balance when considering recommendations made for the preservation of life

01:56:35 for the preservation of life i believe

01:56:36 i believe they did form part of the submission and therefore were relevant but answering directly the coroner's recommendations the commitment was still made

01:56:47 made as to what steps would be taking for the in this case and it covered more than just a proof document b the next the next steps for a full review which would have also included

01:56:58 review which would have also included by then the publication of a number of pieces of research that could have fed into that full review let's go to clg eight 40278 again

01:57:11 and go to page two which is the letter from lord pick well mr pickles as he then was to the coroner page two final paragraph

01:57:22 final paragraph where he says and this is in relation to recommendation two we've commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations we expect this work to form the basis of a formal

01:57:33 this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016 stroke 17. yes do you agree that as a substantive exercise

01:57:45 exercise so far as you were concerned up until the time you left that was never carried out that was never carried out did the department to your knowledge during the period may to december 2013 when you left have a plan to get to that

01:57:58 when you left have a plan to get to that position

01:58:01 this date would have been worked out on the basis of likely resource within the division

01:58:08 division the delivery of a suite of research in 2014

01:58:13 2014 and therefore if as long as you could start sufficiently early potentially 2014 maybe late around the end of 2014 then

01:58:25 maybe late around the end of 2014 then you could potentially deliver an approved document in that time frame

01:58:42 uh i just want to ask you one or two questions finally or penultimately about deregulation and the red tape challenge you cover this at your statement at paragraph 28 on page 11. can we please

01:58:54 paragraph 28 on page 11. can we please go back to that

01:59:02 you uh

01:59:05 uh identify the future of building control document in the first part of that paragraph yeah and then at the foot of that page you say as a result of the global financial crisis that began in 2008 the coalition

01:59:16 crisis that began in 2008 the coalition government introduced a raft of policies aimed at stimulating the uk economy these manifested as an intention to cut through red tape by introducing a one in one out rule introduced on first of january 2011 this rule became one in two

01:59:29 january 2011 this rule became one in two out on first of january 2013 whereby no new regulation was permitted to be introduced without other regulations being cut by a greater degree the drive to cut red tape generally

01:59:40 the drive to cut red tape generally allied with a commitment to reduce the burden of regulation on house builders in the 2010 spending review formed the basis of the kurdish and government's deregulatory agenda and although the building regulations

01:59:51 and although the building regulations division still undertook some revisions of the approved documents particularly those concerned with energy efficiency which occupied most of my time its activity was mostly focused on supporting this wider deregulatory

02:00:02 supporting this wider deregulatory agenda my recollection is that the building regulations were not exempt from what has been referred to as the red tape challenge and then you go

02:00:14 and then you go so that's your evidence there you if we then look at um page 59 of your statement paragraph 189

02:00:22 you say this on 30th of september 2010 i attended at the third 2010 meeting of brac the fourth agenda item was a

02:00:33 the fourth agenda item was a presentation on the government's new one-in-one out policy in line with the stated policy the presentation to brack committee was that regulation must be a last resort and the cost-benefit analysis must stack up

02:00:45 cost-benefit analysis must stack up did you at any time yourself consider how these policy constraints might affect how you were able to carry out your role yes how

02:00:55 how with this this approach we were finding that as officials um and i believe i've mentioned it somewhere else within my witness statement here

02:01:06 else within my witness statement here we also were seeing quite a significant reduction in head count um and

02:01:12 um and so from my perspective um i think including my plus myself i had five technical members of staff by the time i left in

02:01:21 left in and so what we found ourselves was spending

02:01:25 spending an inordinate amount of time looking at how we could deregulate undertake other activities supporting deregulation which meant we couldn't necessarily with

02:01:36 which meant we couldn't necessarily with the resources we had focus in in the in the job at hand did you consider that it had any effect on the review of approved document b

02:01:48 by virtue of the commitment in the periodic review consultation where there was a suggestion that the review i believe would start in 2013

02:02:01 i believe would start in 2013 i believe it would have chimed um but i need to point out that that was two different governments and so i don't necessarily believe

02:02:12 and so i don't necessarily believe at the time that i was in the department where we were being limited and hadn't done anything on part b but we had just set a time scale for the next full review

02:02:24 next full review um

02:02:25 um did anybody consider or and if so raise the this this point or question whether the approved documents

02:02:34 documents fell outside the one in one out and later one into our regime which were directed at the regulation rather than statutory guidance i'd there would have been discussions and

02:02:45 there would have been discussions and it's my recollection that we were caught by one in one out one in two out so going forward it was my understanding that that was a relevant consideration

02:02:57 that that was a relevant consideration did anybody put up a fight and say well the regulations is one thing but all this is is guidance about how you might be able might be able to comply

02:03:09 might be able to comply it doesn't fall within the scope of the agenda i if that discussion did take place it would have happened far far higher than i right do i take it that you never raised this point with anybody um

02:03:22 point with anybody um i might have had discussions with bob um but that would have been it you refer in paragraph 202 of your statement at page 62 if we can look at it please

02:03:35 to a letter and you say this on the 15th of june 2011 the department sent a letter from minister bob neal to oliver letwin regarding the red tape challenge and the

02:03:46 regarding the red tape challenge and the appropriateness of the inclusion of fire safety regulations in it

02:03:51 now the letter itself is at clg 3019153

02:03:57 let's look at that

02:04:04 it's dated the 15th of june as you can see 2011 it's sent to oliver letwin who was the minister for government policy at the cabinet office the title is red tape challenge fire safety

02:04:15 tape challenge fire safety you see that yes uh and bob neal i think was the first was the um [Music]

02:04:21 [Music] he was the fire safety minister i think that's great yes uh and

02:04:27 uh if you uh look down at the first two paragraphs the basis of his point is that he was complaining essentially that

02:04:38 essentially that uh fire safety was red tape and was was objecting to its removal reduction or revocation yes that's the that's the point being made in this yes um you know if you go to page two of the letter it

02:04:49 if you go to page two of the letter it refers to the latino fire that will house fire yes yes uh and uh it says in the third paragraph down the timing is also particularly sensitive as we approach the anniversary of the tragic fire at my

02:05:01 the anniversary of the tragic fire at my house in camberwell in which six people lost their lives key to the ongoing investigation will be the application of the fire safety order and any suggestion that it may be removed is likely to be emotive

02:05:11 emotive given that this is a sensitive issue in london one could easily see how such a red tape review would lead to negative coverage in papers like the evening standard

02:05:20 standard um i've shown you a bit of this did you have any input into this letter i don't believe so no did you did you see it at the time i would have done did you agree with the concerns expressed by mr neil in it yes you did now you also

02:05:34 mr neil in it yes you did now you also say in your statement if we just go to that page 14 paragraph 34 please that

02:05:45 from around the end of the period of the last labor government pressure started to be placed on the department across whitehall and there was a drive to seek to reduce resources including the head counted research

02:05:56 including the head counted research budget

02:05:57 budget included in the building regulations division

02:06:00 division uh and you set out with the implications for the government for for your department did you consider at the time how that affected how the department was able to operate yes uh how how was that how was

02:06:13 operate yes uh how how was that how was it able to operate in in light of this well how exactly again with the declining resource both in terms of research monies and design declining resource in terms of

02:06:25 design declining resource in terms of head count coupled with the undertaking of and being cognizant of the various deregulatory measures we were left less and less time to focus in on as our

02:06:38 less and less time to focus in on as our roles as typically desk officers for the different parts of the building regulations and therefore from my perspective when i was down to staff numbers that low

02:06:50 staff numbers that low typically in the past where we'd had

02:06:55 desk officers that might just be overseeing one part of the building regulations i might ultimately have to draw them off to go and undertake reviews of other parts that didn't necessarily always sit

02:07:06 parts that didn't necessarily always sit with them so it was it was just it was a very very difficult time and

02:07:13 and what i haven't touched upon here as well albeit technical policy staff were thankfully protected at this stage and i said we had all gone through applying for our own jobs and

02:07:24 and i believe in 2010 as well so the

02:07:29 the the headcount had gone down by 40 in the department uh in the time that i was there

02:07:34 there which was a sizable period of time so it was getting increasingly hard to undertake the job at hand i felt

02:07:45 the job at hand i felt that we did the best job we can do with the resources we had but

02:07:52 i'd had quite enough of it

02:07:58 i've got one more question and it's a technical question um about approved document b can i take you back to

02:08:07 to six clg

02:08:07 six clg seven please which is the 2006 edition of approved document b we've looked at this before i think a number of times this time i want to show you page two if i can please it's clg

02:08:19 it's clg one

02:08:19 one six zero seven

02:08:29 uh no that's

02:08:33 no that's it's clg one six zeros

02:08:36 six zeros seven

02:08:45 yes uh

02:08:47 uh it's slightly different um it's not it's a

02:08:51 a black and white version but if we go to page two please and this is the as published version the version you sent off in december between 2006

02:09:02 sent off in december between 2006 you can see a description of the main changes you see that yes i do and if we go please to um page

02:09:12 page three

02:09:16 uh you can see it goes straight into the contents

02:09:20 contents yes

02:09:21 yes yes

02:09:22 yes um if you go back to page two you can see that it covers b1

02:09:31 b1 and b3

02:09:32 and b3 yes yes there's no b4 in there is there and for recollection can we go to the back cover sir because it might carry over into the back cover

02:09:43 it might carry over into the back cover i can't remember forgive me yeah main changes are continued on the inside back cover the the the text on the right hand column at the very bottom right

02:09:53 right i'm not sure we've got that oh let me let me see if i can explore that particular interesting avenue over the break i'm not going to ask for but subject to that i've come to the end of my prepared questions mr bird so i'm

02:10:05 of my prepared questions mr bird so i'm going to ask the chairman now to take the usual break uh i may revisit that with you uh at the end of the after the break and there may be other questions that i have for you but mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes thank you

02:10:16 that a convenient moment yes thank you very much well mr bird when council gets the end of his questions we have to have a short break to enable him to check that he's not left anything out although you may think that's unlikely and we also have to allow an opportunity

02:10:28 and we also have to allow an opportunity for others who are following the proceedings but not from this room to suggest questions that ought to put you so we'll

02:10:36 so we'll break now for 15 minutes mr yes that'd be fine that'd be long enough we'll come back at 25 past four and see if there's any more questions for you then okay thank you thank you very much

02:25:23 would you ask mr bird to come back in please

02:25:35 right mr birdwell we'll see if any more questions for you thank you yes mr chairman we're halfway through the question i think that i was um attempting right unsuccessfully to ask and can we please get back to

02:25:47 ask and can we please get back to clg1607

02:25:51 i was on page two and you uh pointed out that the main changes are continued on the inside back cover i can now show you the inside back cover can we please go to page one six

02:26:04 nine and uh here they are at the foot of the page b4 do you see yes i do so uh and you can see two changes identified national boundary notional boundaries space separation yes yes uh and roof

02:26:17 space separation yes yes uh and roof coverings yes with the new european system of classification for roof coverings yes nothing there about 12.5 12.6 12.7 or diagram 40 is there no sir

02:26:28 12.6 12.7 or diagram 40 is there no sir no why were those changes not highlighted here from our perspective undertaking a full review of the approved document b

02:26:39 review of the approved document b um it was a huge sizable task and involving in the end hundreds of pages of statutory guidance we typically develop

02:26:49 develop the

02:26:51 the sort of main changes document um as we go

02:26:55 go and therefore it was it was just circumstances that actually to what you've just referred didn't find its way into that listing so was it a function of

02:27:07 that listing so was it a function of timing yes so too late to put to explain what filler meant or at least flag it up as an important change

02:27:18 i think just with the volume with a full fundamental review of part b and we put sprinklers in for the first time in in in b3

02:27:27 in in b3 again trying to remember them all and then prioritize all of the changes um

02:27:33 um things would unfortunately fall off the list um and and so that's just what's happened here and what's been caught is what's been caught but as i say these were two brand new

02:27:44 but as i say these were two brand new iterations of the approved document b and yes while people could dip into these listings the expectation would be they'd still need to read them thank you very much well mr bird thank you very much you've

02:27:55 well mr bird thank you very much you've been extremely helpful and i'm very grateful for your evidence to the inquiry it reminds me for me only to say thank you very much thank you very much and it's right i should thank you as well mr bird on behalf of all three

02:28:06 well mr bird on behalf of all three members of the panel you've given evidence for a long time and uh but we i'd like you to know that we have found it very interesting and very helpful to hear what you have to tell us so we're very grateful to you

02:28:18 to tell us so we're very grateful to you for coming along and giving us the benefit of your recollection and uh knowledge so thank you very much indeed thank you all very much and you're now free to go of course thank you thank you

02:28:39 yes just a minute well that must be the end for today it is and tomorrow morning we have another another witness from the department good thank you very much well we break there for the day and we resume

02:28:50 we break there for the day and we resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you very much

02:29:33 you