Continuation of DLUHC evidence examining the department's role in building regulations, the housing standards review impact on fire safety work, and resource constraints affecting the technical policy team.
00:00:20 Would
00:00:26 you ask Mr. Harold to come back in, please? Sure.
00:00:37 Right, Mr. Harold, ready to carry on? Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Grinch. Yes, thank you. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Harold. So before we broke off, we were uh discussing uh what your awareness was
00:00:48 uh discussing uh what your awareness was of correspondence that Brian Martin had been having, for example, with the NHBC about combustible insulation. I want to go to another email chain now. If we go to NHB 402792
00:01:03 and I want to look at page three of this chain.
00:01:09 So we can see here that on the 15th of June 2015, another email was sent by Steve Evans to Brian Martin. We're not going to read through the whole of this email chain um
00:01:21 through the whole of this email chain um which is quite detailed and lengthy, but I'm just going to take you to some of the paragraphs in this. So he says in the first paragraph um I write to request the department's view regarding
00:01:33 request the department's view regarding the need for limited combustibility external cladding finishes on buildings with a floor level exceeding 18 meters in height assessed in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document B.
00:01:46 paragraph 12.7 of approved document B. And um he goes on and sets out his own or the NHBC's understanding of the sections of the guidance he's asking about. And if we look at the final paragraph on page four, for example,
00:02:00 paragraph on page four, for example, he says this. He says, "Our own view is that there's little point in ensuring that an insulation product meets with the MOLC that means material of limited combustibility requirements when it can
00:02:11 combustibility requirements when it can then be faced with a cladding finish which whilst achieving a class N surface spread of flame requirement becomes a contributing factor in the spread of fire up the building when acted upon by
00:02:23 fire up the building when acted upon by a flame plume from a flashed over fire. However, there appears to be a difference in interpretation across the industry and so your opinion slashsteer
00:02:34 industry and so your opinion slashsteer would be very welcome. Thank you for your time. So, we're almost a year on from the first CWCT meeting that we looked at which was in July 2014.
00:02:45 looked at which was in July 2014. And we can see that the CW uh sorry the NHBC
00:02:49 NHBC is raising a different issue this time which is about the combustibility of the panels themselves not just the insulation within those panels. Now do you remember um seeing or hearing about
00:03:02 you remember um seeing or hearing about this correspondence at the time? Uh no. Were you made made aware at this point so in June 2015 that there was a difference in interpretation across the industry on the meaning and scope of
00:03:15 industry on the meaning and scope of paragraph 12.7 of the approved document? I don't recall being made aware. So we know now that Mr. Martins had discussions about that with the BR in 2013
00:03:26 2013 and early 2014. There's been the CWCT meeting in mid 2014 and now this. Um, let's look at Mr. Martin's response to Mr. Evans's email. This is at the
00:03:39 to Mr. Evans's email. This is at the bottom of page two. It's sent right at the bottom there on the 16th of June, 2015. And he says, um, hi Steve, I can't offer
00:03:51 And he says, um, hi Steve, I can't offer a formal view as such. Specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body. And then he goes on, as you say, the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building
00:04:02 that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread. And this is particularly important for a block of flats. People do sometimes try to play games with definitions. And where this happens, one should refer back to this objective. We
00:04:14 should refer back to this objective. We came across one incident where an EPS foam was used to fill a void behind some aluminium sheeting. because it was not included specifically for its thermal properties. The designers had concluded that it wasn't insulation and thus its
00:04:26 that it wasn't insulation and thus its use was okay. When it caught fire, the flames could be seen across the city exclamation mark. That's why the reference to fillers, etc. was included in the AD text. Do you have some
00:04:37 in the AD text. Do you have some examples of specific constructions you've come across? It may be that we could revise the text again or maybe test some of it. Now, can we take it that you were unaware of this response at the time?
00:04:48 at the time? Uh, yes.
00:04:51 Uh, yes. What what's your view about um the beginning of this email? He says at the the bottom of page two that he's unable to offer a formal view as such. Um was
00:05:04 to offer a formal view as such. Um was that um entirely correct in accordance with the department's procedures? As far as I can crawl, that was absolutely correct. Um, I remember when
00:05:15 absolutely correct. Um, I remember when I um uh instructed people on how to write correspondence and when I wrote correspondence in large part um myself, uh it would always start out with a
00:05:26 uh it would always start out with a caveat that anything that was um uh commented upon was was not a formal uh opinion and was without prejudice. I see. um because um we had no um well
00:05:41 I see. um because um we had no um well the formal opinion on compliance rested with the high courts etc etc. So, um, yes, it's right to say that a formal view isn't being issued, right? I mean, in the second sentence,
00:05:53 right? I mean, in the second sentence, he says specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body, but he's not being asked about a specific project, is he? He's being asked by the NHBC more generally about the interpretation of this clause. Yes.
00:06:05 the interpretation of this clause. Yes. Um, I need to look at the email again, but I don't think we need to do that. I I I think
00:06:13 I I think I think his point is that you need to make this judgment on a case-by case basis yourself. Right.
00:06:20 Right. Um but we go on to see, don't we, that he did in fact offer an explanation about the background to a particular clause. So he obviously felt able to do that. Yes.
00:06:31 that. Yes. Um
00:06:33 Um yes, because he's I don't think he's expressing a view as to what would comply or not. Right. But he's helping about what the right interpretation of that clause might be. Yes. Yes.
00:06:44 Yes. Or at least in this email he is or appears to be trying to. Um now I want to ask you now about some emails to do with international cladding fires. We've touched on these already, but let's go to some of these emails. If we go to
00:06:56 to some of these emails. If we go to CLG301073
00:07:01 and the bottom email in the chain is at the bottom of page one.
00:07:08 This email is sent by Peter Holland who is the chief fire and rescue advisor um to a number of officials including Brian Martin and Louise Upton. You can
00:07:20 Brian Martin and Louise Upton. You can see that there. Uh it's not sent to you just to be clear. Um it's the 21st of February 2015.
00:07:29 2015. Now we know that you are in fact copied into some of the responses above which we'll come on to. So this does come to you. You can take that from me now. Now Peter Holland um is addressing in the
00:07:43 Peter Holland um is addressing in the subject Dubai high-rise fire. And he says in the first paragraph, the fire last night in the badly named high-rise torch building appears to have spread rapidly up the outside of the building
00:07:54 rapidly up the outside of the building due to inadequate or non-existent fire resistance in the external elements of the structure. They have had previous fires in Dubai where this has been a similar problem. Thankfully, it appears
00:08:06 similar problem. Thankfully, it appears that the internal fire precautions have worked well enough to enable the circa 2000 occupants to escape safely. Brian Martin will be able to confirm that this shouldn't be a problem in this country.
00:08:19 shouldn't be a problem in this country. Peter
00:08:21 Peter um and then if we go up the next email in the chain, we can see that Mr. Martin replies
00:08:28 replies and he copies you in at that this point. Do you see that Bob Ledim and and yourself? You're copied there. It's the 25th of February 2015. 21st of
00:08:39 It's the 25th of February 2015. 21st of February 2015. And he says, as Peter says, they've had a few similar incidents in Dubai. There are provisions in the building regulations designed to
00:08:50 in the building regulations designed to prevent this kind of problem. So this shouldn't be a problem in the UK. There are of course no guarantees. Now to what provisions specifically did
00:09:02 Now to what provisions specifically did you understand this to be a reference? It would be B4. Right.
00:09:11 Right. So just the functional requirement in B4. Did you think he meant something else as well? Uh he would mean um the entire section of B4 in the approved document as well. Right. Did you actually check with Mr.
00:09:23 Right. Did you actually check with Mr. Martin which provisions he meant when he was referring to this.
00:09:30 Um I don't recall I don't recall. I I I remember that I did um react to this and um have discussions but I don't recall um all of the detail
00:09:42 but I don't recall um all of the detail of I don't recall asking that question because I thought it was I think probably quite obvious which provisions he meant. Right. And you
00:09:53 provisions he meant. Right. And you thought it was obvious which provisions he meant in the approved document as well as just in the functional requirements? Yeah, I don't recall whether I had to ask about the law or whether I did ask about it.
00:10:03 about it. What did you make of Mr. Martin's final words? There are of course no guarantees. Um because the system's fully devolved and we don't actually directly control
00:10:15 and we don't actually directly control what happens. Um there is always um uh a decision-m process that that is in the hands of others. Yeah. Do you remember discussing that with Mr. Martin about the extent of risk
00:10:28 with Mr. Martin about the extent of risk of this occurring in this country? Um
00:10:36 no. Well, I I don't have a recollection of of
00:10:41 of of I don't recall what we did discuss at that time to be honest. Yeah. Did you understand at this time that this fire involved ACM with a polyethylene core? Did you know that?
00:10:59 I I
00:11:04 have to be honest, I can't recall. I would assume that that by that by by that point that I did, but I don't have a specific recall of of of that.
00:11:16 recall of of of that. Right. We saw in Peter Holland's email in the third line there uh he said they have had previous fires in Dubai where this has been a similar problem. Did you take any steps to find out what those
00:11:27 take any steps to find out what those previous fires in Dubai were, when they'd occurred, and what materials were involved?
00:11:32 involved? Uh no.
00:11:34 Uh no. And why not? uh because I think at this stage I uh did look at the provisions in the regulations. I I I recall I think
00:11:47 regulations. I I I recall I think uh um sense checking uh the requirements they had and they seemed to me to be adequate to um cover this risk. Um so I
00:11:58 adequate to um cover this risk. Um so I thought that we had uh adequate requirements to control the use of combustible materials. Okay, we'll come back to that checking in a moment. Um, if we go to the top email in the chain,
00:12:09 if we go to the top email in the chain, we can see you send a response only to Brian Martin and you say, um, so this is on again on the 21st of February, 2015. You say, "You're on the ball." exclamation mark.
00:12:21 "You're on the ball." exclamation mark. Big fire though. Similar problems in China. I understand their high-rise building stock will prove to be an energyintensive and dangerous liability.
00:12:33 energyintensive and dangerous liability. Now, what did you understand about similar problems in China? What problems specifically were you referring to in this email? Well, I I um I've forgotten about this, but I think there had been um some uh
00:12:47 but I think there had been um some uh cladding fires in China um as well. And what did you know about those fires at this point? Did you know what materials were involved in those fires?
00:12:58 materials were involved in those fires? Uh I don't think I would have known what materials were involved in the fires. No,
00:13:03 No, I mean you go on to say their high-rise building stock will prove to be an energyintensive and dangerous liability. It seems that you know something about the regime in China which has led to these fires.
00:13:14 these fires. I visited my brother who lived in Shanghai in
00:13:22 gosh when was it 2008 perhaps? It's not relevant. Um I had visited my brother and um I'd witnessed the construction standards that were being used there and um the
00:13:36 that were being used there and um the buildings had were all energy um sorry were all uh air conditioned for heating and cooling um and badly built.
00:13:47 um and badly built. Uh they were energy intensive because they didn't have much insulation in them.
00:13:57 Right.
00:14:01 So they didn't have much insulation in their highest building. So it will prove to be an energyintensive and dangerous liability. [clears throat and cough] They were energy inefficient buildings that were badly constructed.
00:14:13 that were badly constructed. I see. Okay. Now, if we turn briefly to your witness statement now and look at page 19, paragraph 64,
00:14:26 you mention the fire at the torch in Dubai and you describe the content of the emails that we've just read. And then looking at the final three lines, you say this. I spoke to Brian after the
00:14:39 you say this. I spoke to Brian after the fire and I remember that there was a process of senseing what we knew of the events in Dubai against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base. So can you help us with
00:14:50 evidence base. So can you help us with this? What do you mean by a process of senseing against our own regime? What did that process actually involve? So it was just a discussion. Um I imagine I mean I
00:15:03 as I said this morning I've tried to re piece this together but my recall is poor
00:15:08 poor and um uh I recall basically just having a discussion about the provisions that we had to address these risks. I recall um working through the guidance and um
00:15:23 um working through the guidance and um coming to a view uh from that process that um the provisions in the approved document were adequate adequate in that respect.
00:15:34 So, um, as far as your recollection allows, and I appreciate you're struggling with this to some extent, but, um, did you actually sit down at
00:15:45 but, um, did you actually sit down at the same time as Mr. Martin with him and look at the approved document? I remember having discussions. I remember, uh, sitting down away from Mr. Martin and working through the document.
00:15:58 Martin and working through the document. Um,
00:16:00 Um, but I did not spend uh an inordinate amount of time doing so. I seem to recall. Um, I worked through it. I thought it was
00:16:11 through it. I thought it was um I looked at it. I'm sure I would have looked at it. As I said this morning, in general,
00:16:18 general, um, my approach to looking at the adequacy of guidance was, uh, based in a in a in a a kind of two-stage functional approach. It's not quite the linear and uh approach that's um discussed but I
00:16:30 uh approach that's um discussed but I had an approach to looking at guidance and I would have worked through it in that respect and I um at that time I I thought that this seems adequate.
00:16:41 thought that this seems adequate. How long do you remember spending on this exercise? Um
00:16:47 Um it may have been an hour. I I really don't recall. Right.
00:16:51 Right. Um, can we just bring up approved document B, the 2006 edition, CLG1607, page 96?
00:17:07 Do you have a recollection of looking at the guidance in section 12 at this time? I would have done. Yes. And do you remember looking at section 12.7 that deals with insulation,
00:17:18 12.7 that deals with insulation, materials, and products? I would have done yes.
00:17:21 done yes. Was it this particular piece of guidance that you thought or were led to believe addressed
00:17:27 addressed the potential problem posed by ACMP panels at height? No, not not solely this piece of guidance because the approach I always took was one that started with the functional requirement and work through
00:17:39 functional requirement and work through uh the guidance as a whole. I see. But do you remember this clause being part of your consideration at the time?
00:17:48 time? It would have been. Yes. When you say it would have been, what gives you that? Um, because I worked through the section as a whole,
00:17:54 a whole, right? And um, had you had a discussion with Mr. Martin before you looked at this about which parts of the guidance you should look to which addressed this particular matter?
00:18:06 particular matter? I I don't recall. And was there anything in 12.7 that gave you um or led you to the belief that you said the word was that
00:18:17 belief that you said the word was that it was adequate to cover the risk? Was there anything in paragraph 12.7 that um led you to that conclusion?
00:18:26 [sighs and gasps]
00:18:37 So this may seem small, but the use of the word gaskets uh implied to me that this was um relevant to
00:18:50 relevant to um a whole range of systems and products uh such as windows, uh doors, curtain walling,
00:18:59 walling, um rain, cladding, um as well as to uh the other materials that were listed. But it says not including gaskets.
00:19:10 But it says not including gaskets. Yes, because the gaskets are excluded from being of limited combustibility. Yes, I see. So, did you think, well, if it's excluding gaskets, what then other more significant things
00:19:22 what then other more significant things must be included? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I read the title of this and I I have continued to read it. Um I and I've asked myself why I thought this
00:19:34 and I've asked myself why I thought this but um I read it as insulation uh materials or products uh rather than just in in sorry it's very difficult to explain but if you imagine a comma after insulation then uh I had read this as
00:19:47 insulation then uh I had read this as being more broadly applicable I think right but but what was it that led you to think that um the polyethylene core in one of these panels had to be of
00:19:58 in one of these panels had to be of limited combustibility
00:20:05 because um I can't remember I can't recall.
00:20:10 recall. I mean I asked you yesterday whether you thought this guidance was clear that ACMP panels shouldn't be used if following this guidance and and you didn't answer that but the word you used was adequate. Now, can we infer that
00:20:23 was adequate. Now, can we infer that from that that you didn't come away with the impression that this guidance was clear about whether or not ACMP PE panels could be used?
00:20:45 Um,
00:20:51 I think that must be well I think the question I think I said yesterday I think the question that I was looking at was maybe the wrong question and it was about the control of combustible materials more generally.
00:21:03 materials more generally. Um
00:21:07 uh but
00:21:11 so I thought but in combination with the remainder of the section and um I I have to admit I tended to look at the guidance in the
00:21:23 tended to look at the guidance in the approved document through the lens of a building control body exercising its functions. Um I thought that in combination there was sufficient guidance for people to
00:21:34 was sufficient guidance for people to understand um uh the requirement uh for limited combustibility. Right. Did the word filler have any bearing on your the conclusions that you
00:21:45 bearing on your the conclusions that you reached?
00:21:46 reached? Um I I have to say I don't recall the extent to which that did or didn't. I just don't recall. Yeah. Can we agree looking at this
00:21:58 Yeah. Can we agree looking at this guidance now and taking into account I'm take it you're familiar with this guidance now that it's um not as clear as it could have been. I I accept that entirely.
00:22:12 I I accept that entirely. And that can we also agree that once you knew you'd had these events in Dubai [clears throat] with ACMP being used in that way and the dangers
00:22:23 being used in that way and the dangers that were clearly being highlighted based on that that you should have been looking to make sure that this guidance was crystal clear on that point.
00:22:38 I wish that I had thought that way. Um
00:22:52 the whole way that the um technical parts were managed was reliant on the system working within
00:23:06 was reliant on the system working within the functional approach. We were not a highly proactive reactive regulatory function. We were a behind the curve
00:23:18 function. We were a behind the curve function. We had um huge logistical barriers in front of us to amend guidance. I recognize we
00:23:29 us to amend guidance. I recognize we could have done some other things perhaps, but um the impet the the kind of bar that um would be set to um
00:23:41 um require a change and I recognize we were in the process of looking at ADB at the time um was high um and I'm sorry it's just
00:23:52 um and I'm sorry it's just we had become personally I I'll speak for myself I shouldn't say we I had become come
00:24:02 uh
00:24:06 siloed in my thinking. I I think I'd become very non-reactive because doing anything was so hard. Yeah. And
00:24:14 Yeah. And um
00:24:19 the question that was always asked before justifying doing anything was what was the evidence of failure in our market?
00:24:31 of failure in our market? Um
00:24:35 I could I can I make an observation? It's something that I've come to think over recent years reflecting on all of these events. But when I look across the portfolio of
00:24:48 when I look across the portfolio of areas of activity that we were doing in the division, um
00:24:54 um in terms of health and safety, they are all areas where there is very clear or substantive evidence of failure in the English marketplace. So even things like
00:25:06 English marketplace. So even things like overheating or ventilation, moisture difficulties, we had substantial evidence of failure and um
00:25:16 um the system because we couldn't see into the compliance piece in the middle. So [clears throat] if you imagine we're here setting standards, compliance, building, control and industry um over
00:25:30 building, control and industry um over here and then outcomes we are responding I think to the outcomes. Um, so I think what I'm trying to say is that the system as a whole, the the
00:25:42 that the system as a whole, the the entire way that it was structured was inherently um unresponsive to issues in the middle ground
00:25:53 ground and that was exacerbated by economic policies ra that dominated a regulatory framework. Mr. Can I just come in there because
00:26:05 Mr. Can I just come in there because the question has been [clears throat] excuse me going through my mind which perhaps I should have asked you earlier but I think this is an opportunity to raise it again. We saw in the correspondence with the NHBC
00:26:17 correspondence with the NHBC uh that it was said that some building control officers were allowing insulation that was not of limited combustibility to be used above 18 m. Do you remember that? Yes, I do.
00:26:28 Yes, I do. And [clears throat] your last answer prompts me in that context to ask you this. In the view of the department as you understood it, who if anyone was responsible for ensuring that uh the
00:26:41 responsible for ensuring that uh the compliance element of the system, building control officers were actually doing their job properly? Well, I'm I'm very glad you've asked that, sir. Um there was a separate policy team in the division.
00:26:53 policy team in the division. Mhm. um who had responsibility for the building act, the building regulations, all of the associated legislation, the party wall act, oversight of the building control system, um oversight of
00:27:06 building control system, um oversight of building control bodies to a degree. Um and and they had policy responsibility for how the system delivered compliance.
00:27:17 for how the system delivered compliance. Uh this is uh you know where we have got to is this is a functional system of regulation that has become prescriptive in its application or at least people
00:27:28 in its application or at least people are taking the most prescriptive advantageous position that they can. Um the system failure um I should say that that team again was rarely more than
00:27:40 that team again was rarely more than three or four people. They also had oversight of con um competent person schemes. So they were uh tasked um with a fairly light touch oversight role
00:27:52 with a fairly light touch oversight role for for for building control bodies. Um to the extent that we couldn't even compel them to provide information to the department if they didn't want to when we asked for it through the bits
00:28:05 when we asked for it through the bits um scheme. Um I thought you said they were in your department. Sorry, the I thought these were people in your No, the people are in the department, but but that the the people who had oversight of the building control system
00:28:17 oversight of the building control system had very weak information levers over building control bodies even, let alone the directional monitoring of their uh um behaviors. Uh private building control inspectors were overseen by uh
00:28:29 control inspectors were overseen by uh the construction industry council approved inspectors register or sick air. um local authorities were um effectively managed by the local author local authority pool and control effectively managed by the local
00:28:40 effectively managed by the local authorities um with public sector responsibility. Um if I um I I'm that the 84 act may have been appropriate when it was introduced
00:28:52 when it was introduced but neither the central government system
00:28:56 system um uh role and remit or powers were particularly amended um from 1984 onwards. Neither was the role remmit
00:29:07 onwards. Neither was the role remmit powers insight um and oversight on a technical or compliance basis but the system was progressively liberalized um over that intervening 33y year period.
00:29:20 over that intervening 33y year period. Um I'm sorry. Is it okay if I carry on because I'd like to make a couple of points.
00:29:25 points. Yeah. When you finish answering my question.
00:29:28 question. Sorry. Um sorry chair. I've forgotten who I'm speaking to. No, it's all right. He's the most important one. Don't worry. [laughter] Uh the the 1984 act has two absolutely
00:29:39 Uh the the 1984 act has two absolutely critical flaws. One is um a failure for any requirement for uh independent periodic review. Uh I was raising this issue from 2014 onwards in particular um
00:29:50 issue from 2014 onwards in particular um because I had had a background in governance of architecture registration where this was an absolute nor absolute is mandatory requirement. I put I put that in place for them. Um uh so there's
00:30:03 that in place for them. Um uh so there's no requirement for periodic review and that is a a core policy consideration that should have been picked up at some stage in that 33 year period. Um there's no there's no
00:30:14 year period. Um there's no there's no powers or ability to directly survey or intervene in the market or compel the market to cooperate. Um and in in combination the evidence
00:30:25 Um and in in combination the evidence never comes forward to identify that the system is failing. So that never prompts the review and because there's no review there's no need to obtain the information or start to actually um have
00:30:38 information or start to actually um have a a proper consideration or evaluation of whether um the building control system is working. So it has become um these things are kind I think become somewhat self-fulfilling. Well,
00:30:49 somewhat self-fulfilling. Well, [clears throat] I see that. But although every now and then, as we've seen from the run of emails which I was mentioning, the information does come forward. And in that case, Mr. Martin
00:31:01 forward. And in that case, Mr. Martin was told by NHBC that there were uh there were examples of building control sanctioning what appeared to be uh improper use of materials. And I it
00:31:14 improper use of materials. And I it struck me that that might have been a matter of concern to the department. Was it?
00:31:23 Well, yes. But I think that that
00:31:29 yes, of course it it is,
00:31:34 but you still don't have the right posture or shape to respond effectively is my sense. the the the functions in. So I I think about the technical function in particular and I think about
00:31:46 function in particular and I think about the way that um we worked and I think it became obsolete around the turn of the millennia. I think it's been inadequate
00:31:58 think it's been inadequate for a substantial period by the time that these events happen. Um but the opportunity to address those defaults starts to disappear as soon as
00:32:09 defaults starts to disappear as soon as you get into a better regulation agenda which says actually regulation's bad. What we want to do is kind of push back on doing more when you've already got a light touch regime. Push back on that.
00:32:20 light touch regime. Push back on that. uh and then into a deregulatory agenda that further um uh constrains resources but also I think psychologically
00:32:31 psychologically over time
00:32:33 over time uh has an impact um on people's willingness to comply with regulations as well as on the actual function in government. Well, thank you very much. That's helpful. I'm sorry to have taken you.
00:32:45 helpful. I'm sorry to have taken you. No, no, not at all. Great. No, no, it's all very helpful. Thank you. Um just in terms of this point about um your policy colleagues who did have some oversight of building control. I think you told us
00:32:58 of building control. I think you told us before the lunch break that when NHBC was raising these concerns about the use of combustible insulation at height effectively it was you Mr. Ledum and Mr. Martin that dealt with that. You didn't
00:33:10 Martin that dealt with that. You didn't take external advice. You didn't communicate with others in the department. Does that mean that you didn't inform your colleagues in the policy teams dealing with building control that you'd been notified that
00:33:22 control that you'd been notified that there were these building control problems?
00:33:25 problems? Um I don't recall speaking to them. I you would need to um ask Mr. Ledom because he line managed that team as well.
00:33:34 well. Right. Well, we can do that. Just going back to this sense checking exercise um that you refer to in your statement and we were discussing. Is it fair to summarize uh some of your
00:33:45 Is it fair to summarize uh some of your evidence like this? Um that you were reading this document generously and through the lens of um the fact that it was going to be
00:33:56 of um the fact that it was going to be very hard to change that document and therefore you were perhaps applying a very low threshold as to when you would consider it was adequate. Is that fair?
00:34:14 I thought that there was adequate guidance for a competent building control body to make sure that they assessed the contribution the the combustibility of materials in um uh the
00:34:25 combustibility of materials in um uh the external wall construction. I thought that a competent building control body reading that guidance would um absolutely check uh even um yeah even if
00:34:36 absolutely check uh even um yeah even if they thought it wasn't covered by 12.7 and there were other elements of construction they would undertake that on the basis of the information provided.
00:34:44 provided. Yes. But I thought what you were telling us just a few minutes ago, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you were reading this document through the lens of somebody who knew how difficult it was going to be to change it
00:34:57 was going to be to change it uh with your masters and therefore perhaps you were reading it in a more generous way than you ought to have done. Is that fair?
00:35:12 I think that psychologically we were just
00:35:17 just beaten up. Frankly, I just think we were not
00:35:24 confident. We were we were stretched and over time that must impact on your psychology. So is the answer to my question yes.
00:35:46 I don't think I was trying to be over generous. I thought I was trying to be realistic. Um,
00:35:55 now can we also be clear? What did Mr. Martin say to you at the time about uh the extent to which our own regime as you describe it addressed this potential
00:36:06 you describe it addressed this potential risk.
00:36:08 risk. I think we would have had a discussion about filer material having been introduced in 2006 but my re as I say you know I've tried to reconstruct these conversations in my mind and I I I can't
00:36:20 conversations in my mind and I I I can't actually find an actual recollection. Do you remember how confident Mr. Martin was that the guidance uh was adequate? I don't recall. You don't recall at all?
00:36:32 You don't recall at all? No.
00:36:33 No. Do you recall pressing Mr. Martin on how clear he thought the guidance was? Testing him, saying, "Well, you know, you're reading it that way, but couldn't it be read this way?" Was there any
00:36:45 it be read this way?" Was there any challenge to him? No, I I did not challenge Mr. Martin enough.
00:36:52 When you say no, I did not challenge Mr. Martin enough. You mean on this specific occasion? I
00:37:03 I remember
00:37:11 well I I because I can't recall the the conversation but if I am not
00:37:21 I I I should have been more challenging in general um in terms of uh probing uh the adequacy when problems came forward across the regime, but I'm
00:37:35 came forward across the regime, but I'm I tend to be uh not overly challenging. I think it's part of my nature, unfortunately. I'm not necessarily good at that kind of process.
00:37:48 good at that kind of process. Yes, fair enough. Now you refer in your statement to the fact that you sense checked what we knew against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base.
00:37:59 regime and knowledge and evidence base. What do you mean by that specifically? Um
00:38:03 Um knowledge and evidence base. I I think what I meant at the time was was whether we had any evidence of um ACM youth in our market.
00:38:14 um ACM youth in our market. Right. And what did you conclude about that? Uh, I must have concluded that there wasn't evidence that it was being used.
00:38:22 used. But surely all you would have had at that point is just no evidence on the point. No evidence either way. So, wasn't the next logical step to find
00:38:33 So, wasn't the next logical step to find out whether such products were being used on high-rise buildings in the UK?
00:38:41 Of course, looking back, you are absolutely right. We are doing these kind of sense checks on the guidance on a daily weekly basis
00:38:52 on the guidance on a daily weekly basis as queries come in. Uh we've got into a habit of
00:38:58 habit of um
00:39:00 um relying on our own understanding. Um, this is pur purely about expediency and resource because these investigate you could make the same argument and I realize it's not as critical by any
00:39:13 realize it's not as critical by any means but you could make the same argument
00:39:16 argument um 100 times a year in terms of checking um various different aspects of compliance um uh and we had no mechanisms to allow
00:39:28 um uh and we had no mechanisms to allow us to do that. I mean we could have bid for funding research, we could have taken it forward. I fully accept that. But there's no readily available deployable mechanism to understand
00:39:40 deployable mechanism to understand what's happening in the marketplace. Um we don't have a we don't have as far as I was concerned the right legal powers to be uh intervening in that way.
00:39:52 powers to be uh intervening in that way. I I may be wrong about that, but um it was uh something that we um in in yeah, we would find very
00:40:04 um in in yeah, we would find very I can't recall us doing that kind of work.
00:40:08 work. But but but this is a pretty major risk being identified, isn't it? These are major building fires of of high-rise potentially residential buildings. I appreciate you know there are lots of
00:40:20 appreciate you know there are lots of risks in your day-to-day job and you'll have [snorts] those drawn to you and so you may have got a bit risk blind but aren't these particularly serious risks that ought to have stuck out such that
00:40:32 that ought to have stuck out such that you did at least something to work out whether that was a problem that you actually had in in this country. We've we've I think that we were so
00:40:43 We've we've I think that we were so again it's kind of about morphology of the system in some ways. So we are not a risk assessed based uh kind of function. Um the risk is
00:40:57 uh kind of function. Um the risk is buried in the policy formulation and that in itself is buried in the economic models that are used to justify where the line exists on regulatory measures.
00:41:08 the line exists on regulatory measures. By which I mean that where risk shows up in our thinking is in um undertaking analysis for changes or to justify improving the regulations
00:41:21 or to justify improving the regulations and it's kind of locked away as a subsidiary issue. It's also usually history facing. It's usually predicated and biased towards historical data
00:41:32 and biased towards historical data rather than um offsetting future risk. Yes, I follow that. But again, you've had fires that have happened. They might not have happened here, but they've
00:41:43 not have happened here, but they've happened involving these materials. So, there was an evidential base showing the risk. Wasn't it just common sense to anybody looking at this information that
00:41:54 anybody looking at this information that it was screaming out for somebody to check whether we had this problem in the UK?
00:42:06 Uh, in retrospect, you know,
00:42:13 of course I wish that that's where we got to, but we were so um hidebound by
00:42:24 um hidebound by uh the kind of structures that we sat within and the mentality that was shaped by our remmit that I think and beaten Like I said, I think we, you know, we're not feeling confident or adventurous or
00:42:37 not feeling confident or adventurous or forward-looking. Um,
00:42:42 Um, my when I took over a head of technical policy role in 2014, my ambition was to return this area of policy to a minimum level of life. I thought it was suffocating and that was my focus and I
00:42:54 suffocating and that was my focus and I I ended up finding that that boundary was almost impossible to move towards anyway. So I
00:43:05 I I wish that we had the confidence to have been thinking in that way, but I don't think we did. Yeah. Do you think looking at it now, you should have taken further steps to
00:43:17 you should have taken further steps to make those inquiries and investigations? [clears throat]
00:43:24 Well, of course, in hindsight, that is absolutely the case. Um, but I wish we had the right remit and resources and backing to have been in a
00:43:36 resources and backing to have been in a position to do that. But Mr. Martin is your eyes and ears in industry. We know he was attending industry group meetings. He was attending conferences. He had a lot of
00:43:47 attending conferences. He had a lot of contacts in this industry. He wasn't totally siloed away from it. And we've seen again and again, and we'll see more, that he's being fed back some pretty serious information about
00:43:59 some pretty serious information about the risks. Why couldn't you say to him, pick up the phone to the CWCT and find out if these products are in use in the UK on tall buildings? Wasn't it one
00:44:10 UK on tall buildings? Wasn't it one phone call by him to make those investigations just informally? Yeah, look, I I I I accept I failed um to think in
00:44:21 think in we've become totally internalized in our thinking. Um and
00:44:28 and uh yeah, it's it's
00:44:39 Yeah, I can't say anything more than that. I'm
00:44:46 Sorry. I I'm normally Yeah, it's it's uncharacteristic of me not to react. I don't think that personally I have,
00:44:57 have, you know, the information that's coming to me is sporadic and fractured and I'm not putting the picture together, not least because I am uh absolutely uh
00:45:09 least because I am uh absolutely uh mentally over capacity delivering other exercises that we've been tasked with. Yeah. Okay. Now, in January 2016, there was another major fire at a 63story
00:45:21 was another major fire at a 63story hotel called The Address downtown in Dubai. If we can go to another email chain, hom 3043106
00:45:37 and we look at the bottom of page one, the first email in the chain right at the bottom. So, this is quite tiny type so we need to blow it up. We can see the subject is Dubai hotel fire. It's from
00:45:48 subject is Dubai hotel fire. It's from Mr. Leadsum to Mr. Martin and you are copied in on the 4th of January 2016. And he says, "Brian, anything we need to be aware of slashw worry about for part
00:45:59 be aware of slashw worry about for part B?" And then going up the email chain, we can see that Mr. Martin replies to Mr. Leim at uh 9. So, um, about 20 minutes or so later
00:46:12 So, um, about 20 minutes or so later with you still copied in and some others now copied in, including Luis Upton. And then it it we can see that Mr. Martin says might get some questions raised.
00:46:23 says might get some questions raised. Nothing new here. The fire is most likely to be similar to several others that have hit Dubai over the last couple of years. It relates to a cladding product which is a laminate of aluminium and polyethylene or similar. This stuff
00:46:36 and polyethylene or similar. This stuff is it's very rigid and makes nice shiny buildings. Sadly, when it gets exposed to a fire, the aluminium melts away and exposes the polyethylene core. Whoosh!
00:46:47 exposes the polyethylene core. Whoosh! exclamation mark. Requirement B41 is designed to prevent this kind of thing. Paragraph 12.7 says, "In a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level, any insulation product filler
00:46:59 level, any insulation product filler material, not including gaskets, sealants, and similar, etc., used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility. The polyethylene core of the offending product would be considered as a filler material so
00:47:12 considered as a filler material so should not be used over 18 m. So that's his response. Um
00:47:23 now looking at the last line of that email did you understand what Mr. Martin meant by it would be considered as a filler material.
00:47:36 I I again I'm I apologize. I don't recall this exchange and I find it very difficult now to explain what I would have understood at the time. But I would I would I'd be
00:47:48 the time. But I would I would I'd be sure that I would well he's he's repeated at 12.7 there. So I'm sure that I would Can you recall whether this was the first time it had been explained to you that Mr. Martin believed that that
00:48:01 that Mr. Martin believed that that particular section to be the one that would prevent this kind of thing from happening in this country? I I genuinely can't recall whether we'd
00:48:12 I I genuinely can't recall whether we'd had that discussion earlier. Yeah. Do you remember at this time going to the approved document to see the guidance in context and to ensure that you understood it?
00:48:23 you understood it? I'm sure that I'd done that before and therefore I don't know whether I would repeat that exercise. Did you know at that time did you notice at the time that the heading of the paragraph was insulation
00:48:35 paragraph was insulation materials/products which might lead the reader to think it was only dealing with insulation materials.
00:48:43 Um,
00:48:49 I had misread or misinter or interpreted that title differently consistently, right?
00:48:55 right? I thought it had application to a wider range of products. As I said, the reference to gaskets suggested to me that it was uh not limited to insulation alone.
00:49:07 alone. Were you aware at this time of the debate and confusion within industry about the meaning of this paragraph of the approved document and specifically in relation to whether or not the term filler material did in fact capture the
00:49:19 filler material did in fact capture the core of an ACM panel? Uh I don't believe I was aware of that debate. No.
00:49:27 Can you think of any possible reason given that Mr. Ledum's email was specifically directed to whether or not there was anything for the division to worry about in part B. Can you think of
00:49:38 worry about in part B. Can you think of any reason why Mr. Martin did not tell you at this stage that there was confusion and debate that had been running on within the industry about this matter?
00:49:52 Sorry, could you repeat the first? Yes. Did you can you think of any possible reason? So, we see that Mr. Ledom is saying to Mr. Martin, anything we need to be aware of or worry about
00:50:03 we need to be aware of or worry about for part B? Can you think of any possible reason why Mr. Martin isn't telling you and Mr. Ledome about the fact that there he knew full well there was a debate about this within the
00:50:14 was a debate about this within the industry? He knew full well that the BR had raised concerns, that the NHBC had raised concerns, that the CWC had raised concerns. Can you think of any reason why he wouldn't communicate that in this
00:50:27 why he wouldn't communicate that in this email?
00:50:30 email? Uh I I
00:50:32 Uh I I uh no
00:50:33 uh no I mean he should have done shouldn't he? He should have had a much longer email which explained that this was an issue that had been rumbling for some time and on which pretty authoritative bodies had
00:50:45 on which pretty authoritative bodies had raised concerns. Yes. Um I would have wanted him to. Yes. And he should have done, shouldn't he?
00:50:57 Yes.
00:51:00 At this time in January 2016, do you know whether any steps were taken to ascertain whether such products were on use on high-rise buildings in the UK?
00:51:11 use on high-rise buildings in the UK? Uh, I don't believe we we did. I don't believe we took any such steps.
00:51:19 So, you didn't ask Mr. Martin to seek any informal feedback at this stage. So this is the the second time this has been brought to your attention in 12 months.
00:51:28 months. Yeah.
00:51:32 Now I want to take you to some correspondence now from February 2016 between Brian Martin and Nick Jenkins of the Cading Consultants Booth Mury. If we can go to CLG 3031093
00:51:49 and if we go first within this to page five.
00:51:58 So um turning to page five towards the top of the page um there's a Nick Jenkins email to Mr. Martin on February the 16th at 136 and he's copied in
00:52:10 the 16th at 136 and he's copied in Steven Howard and Sarah Cowell at the B and he says um hi Brian I'm forwarding this query to you as recommended by Sarah Cowwell of the BRE as you will note from the correspondence below Sarah
00:52:21 note from the correspondence below Sarah advises the DCLG are the body with responsibility for ADB2 this matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and if one thing is evident
00:52:32 industry and if one thing is evident that there is much confusion and misunderstanding. Your soonest review of the matter would therefore be most welcome. I look forward to hearing back from you with some clarification.
00:52:43 from you with some clarification. Regards, Nick. Now, the substantive email in which Mr. Jenkins details his concerns is much further down the chain at page 10 sent to Sarah Cowwell on the
00:52:54 at page 10 sent to Sarah Cowwell on the 20th of January. If we go to page 10 here, we've got his email to her, 20th of January, 2016. and he says, "Hi Sarah, I hope this
00:53:05 and he says, "Hi Sarah, I hope this finds you well. We haven't met. However, I understand that you might be the best person to help me with some clarification I'm seeking in relation to my understanding of the current UK regulations as they apply to wall constructions for buildings over 18
00:53:16 constructions for buildings over 18 meters featuring raincreen panels for from ACMS." And he goes on, "Last week I attended a cider eyes/BRE facads conference on the topic of fire safety. During the day, I
00:53:27 topic of fire safety. During the day, I asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of raincreen cladding panels formed from various grades of ACM aluminium composite materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems for buildings
00:53:38 multi-layered wall systems for buildings over 18 m. There was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel. And then he goes on in that email to explain his understanding of the source of the ambiguity. And if we can go to the final
00:53:51 ambiguity. And if we can go to the final paragraph um on page 10, he says this. He says in my understanding compliance is not achieved via an if either one or two are satisfied scenario rather only a via and
00:54:05 satisfied scenario rather only a via and if one and two are both satisfied scenario. He's talking there about the requirements in 12.6 and 12.7. He says I think this is a logical especially following the recent evidence of fire
00:54:17 following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the Middle East with combustible cladding panels. A simple read through the approved document, however, would not tell you
00:54:28 document, however, would not tell you this.
00:54:29 this. And then on the second paragraph there, he says, "If my understanding is correct, and the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding and the 3mm thick core associated with
00:54:40 and the 3mm thick core associated with 4mm ACM is to be considered a filler material. Then as far as I'm aware, the only ACM available to the UK market that meet the ADB2 definition of being materials of limited combustibility are
00:54:53 materials of limited combustibility are al alpolic A2 and a Luca bond A2. Both of these products are classified A2 in accordance with and then he gives the European standard and he goes on in our
00:55:04 European standard and he goes on in our experience of supplying fabricated ACM raincreen panels to specialist cladding contractors in the UK market we are rarely asked to provide such A2 rated
00:55:15 rarely asked to provide such A2 rated ACM materials. The vast majority of ACM panels we are asked to provide for architectural application are either Aluca bomb plus alpolic FR or Larsen FR
00:55:26 Aluca bomb plus alpolic FR or Larsen FR products all of which are classified as a B in accordance with the European standard and thus whilst they can be classified as products that are hard to burn are not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance
00:55:38 limited combustibility in accordance with table A7 appendix A of ADB and he goes on in many instances it's not even the BS1D D not rated ACM panels were asked to supply but standard
00:55:50 asked to supply but standard polyethylene core material ACM that burns quite efficiently. What's more, I'm aware of many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the UK
00:56:01 buildings recently constructed in the UK where such panels are installed in combination with various foil-faced rigid foam thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance
00:56:12 limited combustibility in accordance with tables A7 appendix A of ADB2. As a responsible supplier, Booth Murray Euroad would like to put a guidance note out to the market written specifically on routes to compliance in relation to
00:56:25 on routes to compliance in relation to the use of ACM raincreen cladding panels and associated thermal insulation products used as part of multi-layered builtup wall systems. Before we publish any such guidance, we are ensuring that
00:56:36 any such guidance, we are ensuring that we have our facts straight. With that in mind, I would very much appreciate your thoughts on my understanding of the current regulations. Now, did you see this correspondence at
00:56:47 Now, did you see this correspondence at any time before the Grenell Tower fire? I don't believe so. Um, before the Grenell Tower fire, were you informed by Brian Martin or by anyone else of any of the matters that
00:56:59 anyone else of any of the matters that Mr. Jenkins has raised in this email? I have no recollection of being so informed.
00:57:06 informed. Were you told by Mr. Martin or anyone else that he had been made aware in clear terms that many tall residential buildings clad in ACMP products had been
00:57:17 buildings clad in ACMP products had been recently constructed in the UK? Uh, no.
00:57:22 Uh, no. Were you aware of any discussions about that within or outside the department at any time before the Grimful Fire? I don't recall being aware. Now, Mr. Martin's response is halfway
00:57:35 Now, Mr. Martin's response is halfway through page four. If we go up to that,
00:57:41 it's sent at 1709 on the 16th of February, 2016. And he says this, um, "Hi, Nick. It's for the designer and the building
00:57:52 for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement B4 has been met. ADB gives guidance on this by saying that the external walls should not provide a medium for fire spread in tall buildings. It then offers
00:58:04 spread in tall buildings. It then offers two approaches, a set of rules or a full-scale test. In the rules, we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium for fire
00:58:15 but could provide a medium for fire spread. I think the core of an ACM pan ACP panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler. So unless the core material meets the rules, then the AD
00:58:27 material meets the rules, then the AD suggests a full-scale test. However, if the designer and building control body choose to do something else, then that's up to them. And then over the page, he says, "I'm on
00:58:38 And then over the page, he says, "I'm on the road at the moment." So drafting this from memory. Now, what's your reaction to that response?
00:58:48 Perhaps
00:58:53 we could go back to look at the bottom of page four where we can see um well
00:59:06 it's a generic description of the regulatory framework. Uh clearly I don't know if Mr. Martin has read the email chain all the way to the bottom at that
00:59:17 chain all the way to the bottom at that point if he's out on the road. Uh but um I mean there are um truthful statements there
00:59:29 um truthful statements there but um
00:59:38 it doesn't seem to address the issues that have been raised. No, I mean do you consider it to be satisfactory given and I think we have to we'll ask him but we think we have to assume that he had read
00:59:50 think we have to assume that he had read the chain below given that he's been told about the widespread use of ACMP products in high-rise buildings in this country.
01:00:00 country. Do you think it was a satisfactory response in the light of that?
01:00:06 Um
01:00:15 it may be a I think it's it's [snorts] the issue of uh the question as to why that is not then escalated.
01:00:28 Sorry. What what I mean is uh I I would need to look at the I I'd need to look at all the this in more detail to
01:00:37 to say um really comment on the nature of the response. Uh I'm finding um this a bit overwhelming to be honest. Um
01:00:50 but I again I would hope that at that point this would be raised internally. Yes. I mean, in the emails we were just looking at on the 4th of January 2016,
01:01:02 looking at on the 4th of January 2016, just over a month previously, Brian Martin had been clear and definitive in his answer to Mr. Ledson's question on exactly this subject following the fire at the address downtown. You'd asked him if there's anything to
01:01:13 You'd asked him if there's anything to worry about, and he said polyethylene core of the offending product would be considered a filler material, so should not be used over 18 meters. Um, can you help us as to why he seems
01:01:26 Um, can you help us as to why he seems to be giving a slightly different answer here, saying it could reasonably be considered to be a filler? I I I can't um I can't offer you an
01:01:38 I I I can't um I can't offer you an explanation for that. I'm sorry.
01:01:44 Were you ever aware in 2016 that Mr. Martin was telling industry not that ACMP was an offending product which should not be used over 18 mters but instead that the core of the panel could
01:01:55 instead that the core of the panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler. Uh no I wasn't aware of this exchange. No
01:02:03 No there's no reaction none in his response to the information Mr. Jenkins has provided about the historic and ongoing use in this country of ACMP on high-rise buildings. Can you help us understand
01:02:15 buildings. Can you help us understand why that was? Uh, no I can't. And just to be clear, were you informed by Mr. Martin about the historic and
01:02:27 by Mr. Martin about the historic and ongoing use of that product at any time before the 14th of June 2017 before the Grenell Tower fire? I don't recollect recollect being
01:02:38 I don't recollect recollect being informed.
01:02:40 informed. Can we agree that you should have been made aware of this email chain and the consequences of it immediately? Uh,
01:02:50 Uh, again, assuming that Mr. Martin had read the full email chain, then yes, I would want that to be escalated. Well, you keep saying assuming he read the email chain. I mean, Nick Jenkins's covering email was pretty clear that
01:03:02 covering email was pretty clear that this was an important matter on which he required an answer. Yeah. Sorry, I'm I I'm I'm not familiar with what flows below the text that I can see at the moment. I understand. Um if you had been made
01:03:13 I understand. Um if you had been made aware of this information immediately, as you should have been, what would you have done? This would be an issue that would have we'd have escalated immediately.
01:03:25 we'd have escalated immediately. Yeah. And escalated to who? We'd have gone to our directors and then taken it further on. Further on to ministers ultimately. Yes. Yes. There would have been a series of
01:03:36 Yes. There would have been a series of decisions made as to what we might need to do to deal with that. Yeah. When you were first made aware that the use of ACMP PE was pretty prevalent in the UK at height on on tall
01:03:50 prevalent in the UK at height on on tall buildings, what was your response? Absolute shock. Yeah.
01:03:54 Yeah. Complete shock. Now, Mr. Jenkins tried again later that night. Um, the next email up in the chain at the top of page four,
01:04:07 he says this. He says, "Brian, um, hi Brian. Many thanks for your prompt response. In light of the fires that have taken hold of a number of buildings clouding in ACM panels in recent years, I also think that the core of ACM panels
01:04:19 I also think that the core of ACM panels should most definitely be considered as a filler. Some ACM cores meet the rules of ADB. However, the ones commonly used in the UK at present don't. To the best
01:04:30 in the UK at present don't. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no full-scale 8414 tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of ACM panel. I am aware that two manufacturers of ACM have plans to test to have such tests carried out.
01:04:43 test to have such tests carried out. This, however, unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the UK over 18 meters tall that feature ACM panels currently meets the B4 requirements. There are many such buildings and their
01:04:54 There are many such buildings and their numbers are growing. Whilst I appreciate it is for the designer and building control body to consider if requirement B4 has been met, I do think the current situation is of grave concern. Surely
01:05:05 situation is of grave concern. Surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules question mark. With the above in mind, do you think it would be worth setting up a meeting with the relevant bodies and experts represented to review the
01:05:17 and experts represented to review the current presentation of the rules?
01:05:24 Now, I think I know your answer, but I'm going to ask you, did you at any time before the fire at Grenful Tower receive the news that um at least in the opinion of um a kind of fairly major figure
01:05:38 of um a kind of fairly major figure within the cladding industry, no existing buildings in the UK over 18 meters that featured ACM met the B4 requirements? I have no recollection of that. Did you
01:05:49 I have no recollection of that. Did you ever receive the news that there were many such buildings and their numbers were growing? No.
01:05:56 No. It was plainly a life safety matter of the utmost seriousness which needed to be addressed urgently. A red alert situation. Do you agree?
01:06:09 Yes. This should have been escalated. As far as you're aware, did any of that information reach the ears or desks of any other senior official or any
01:06:20 any other senior official or any minister?
01:06:24 Um I
01:06:27 um as far as I'm aware, uh no. And can you help us as to why it didn't? No, I'm afraid I can't. Now, if we go to the bottom of page two, we see Mr. Martin's response the
01:06:39 we see Mr. Martin's response the following morning, 17th of February, 2016, he says, "Thanks, Nick." And [clears throat] then over the page, he says, "I'm not sure the text is really all that ambiguous given that it
01:06:51 really all that ambiguous given that it must cover all forms of construction. People often argue that it isn't clear when they're trying to justify doing something that is clearly wrong. I'm not entirely sure that even the ACM products
01:07:04 entirely sure that even the ACM products that have flame retardant cores would meet the rules of thumb in the approved document. So, it'll be interesting to see if any of them get through an 8414 test, but that's just my opinion. We've
01:07:17 test, but that's just my opinion. We've recently commissioned a survey of part B users with a view to feeding into the next revision. In the first instance, it might help if you put your views into that, please. And then he says there's a meeting of
01:07:28 And then he says there's a meeting of the CWCT group to talk about cladding and fire safety. It's run by Bath University. Maybe you could ask them if you can get involved. Brenda Aptton details below is organizing things
01:07:43 now.
01:07:48 Do you accept that that just exchange that we just saw shows that Mr. Martin was warned warned in the clearest of terms in this exchange that ACMPP
01:07:59 terms in this exchange that ACMPP products used in um fires such as those as the torch in the address in Dubai were also on buildings in the UK. Uh that seems um very clear from this uh
01:08:11 Uh that seems um very clear from this uh correspondence. Yes. And he was also informed in clear terms that this situation was widespread, historic and ongoing.
01:08:21 um without reviewing the text. If that's what the text says, then yes. And Mr. Martin, we can see, was asked repeatedly in this exchange to provide or at least consider providing a clear and unambiguous statement of the
01:08:33 and unambiguous statement of the requirements and guidance on this subject as a matter of urgency. Yes. Um again, without actually reviewing the text, I will uh take your word that that's
01:08:43 that's And no such action was taken at any time before the Grenville Tower fire, was it? Um, I don't recall any such action being taken
01:08:54 taken and there was not even a friendly warning email to building control bodies on this occasion as there had been in 2014 to the NHBC uh in relation to the use of combustible
01:09:05 uh in relation to the use of combustible insulation on high-rise buildings. Was there?
01:09:08 there? Uh, not as far as I'm aware. Well, I I'm not aware of such an email or or communication.
01:09:16 Were you ever concerned that Mr. Martin was displaying a rather casual approach to fire safety matters. Did that ever concern you in the time you were line
01:09:27 concern you in the time you were line managing him? No. Uh
01:09:33 No. Uh Mr. Martin has a a particular character, but he had always struck me as taking fire safety matters extremely seriously.
01:09:45 extremely seriously. What do you mean when you say he's got a particular character? What do you mean by that?
01:09:49 by that? Um,
01:09:51 Um, he is a very prosaic um
01:10:04 concise uh person. Um
01:10:11 and he expresses him herself in a particular way which may often or at times give an impression of casuality. But my knowledge of Mr.
01:10:25 of casuality. But my knowledge of Mr. Martin was that he always took fire safety matters um to uh very seriously. He was very passionate about fire safety in my experience. Did you ever have cause to
01:10:37 experience. Did you ever have cause to to reprimand him or discipline him for being dismissive um in in for example in email exchanges about matters of fire safety? I I never received Well,
01:10:54 no. If Mr. Martin was someone who you understood and and worked with him and and he was taking fire safety matters seriously. Can you help us understand
01:11:06 seriously. Can you help us understand how these wnings were ignored by him as fire safety policy lead in the department? Um I'm afraid I I just I don't understand.
01:11:18 understand. You can't offer an explanation as to why he would have ignored these warnings at this time? No, I can't. Now, we know that on the 17th of March 2016, Mr. Martin attended a second
01:11:31 2016, Mr. Martin attended a second meeting of the CWCT fire group. Um, again, were you aware at this time, March 2016, of that of Mr. Martin attending a meeting of that group?
01:11:42 attending a meeting of that group? I don't recall. Were you told anything about anything at all about the meeting after it had had taken place, but before the fire at Grenell Tower? Uh again, I'm afraid I I don't have any
01:11:54 Uh again, I'm afraid I I don't have any recollection. If we turn to the minutes of that meeting at CLG301 9440
01:12:05 on page two, sorry, let's just look at the minutes first. So this is the second lot of minutes from March 2016. We can see a similar cast list in terms of those that
01:12:17 cast list in terms of those that attended and Brian Martin is there in the middle of that list. [snorts]
01:12:22 [snorts] And if we go to page two of these minutes under the heading combustibility of material, it says approved document B clause 12.7 requires insulation and filler material
01:12:35 requires insulation and filler material in the external walls of tall buildings to be of limited combustibility. BCA guidance note 18 extends this requirement to all material in the wall. It was accepted that clause 12.7 was
01:12:48 It was accepted that clause 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation. The title of the clause is also misleading. Insulation materials/products and this will be changed in the next
01:12:59 and this will be changed in the next revision of ADB. Now, do you remember ever seeing minutes to this effect? Uh, no. I don't recall seeing minutes to this effect. Did you see these minutes in the course of preparing your witness statement?
01:13:11 of preparing your witness statement? I don't believe that I did. Right.
01:13:15 Right. If we look at Mr. Martin's witness statement when he was dealing with this and go to CLG301 9469
01:13:23 9469 page 49
01:13:32 paragraph 138 he deals with this meeting he says this he says on the 17th of March 2016 I attended the second meeting of the CWCT technical group at the
01:13:44 of the CWCT technical group at the meeting a draft roadmap map to summarize the measures needed to ensure a facade complies with the prescriptive rules of ADB was presented. I recall being satisfied that the road map adequately
01:13:55 satisfied that the road map adequately set out how compliance with the functional requirements could be achieved. The minutes go on to note that 2015 BCA guidance note 18 had extended the limited combustibility requirement
01:14:06 the limited combustibility requirement to all material in the wall of a tall building. This was not an objectionable clarification. Indeed, at the meeting, it was accepted, as is recorded, that paragraph 12.7 of ADB was open to
01:14:19 paragraph 12.7 of ADB was open to interpretation. Acting on behalf of the department, I undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of ADB. The C the conclusions of that section of the
01:14:30 C the conclusions of that section of the discussion were that and then he sets out some text from the the minutes. Now, were you made aware at any time before the Grenville Tower fire that uh
01:14:41 before the Grenville Tower fire that uh Mr. Martin as your fire safety policy lead considered paragraph 12.7 of the approved document to be poorly written, open to interpretation, and misleading?
01:14:52 open to interpretation, and misleading? I don't recall doing so. Sorry. Being informed. And were you aware that he told others that he considered that to be the case?
01:15:05 that he considered that to be the case? Uh, no.
01:15:07 Uh, no. Did he tell you that others in the cladding industry had expressed the view that 12.7 was poorly written, open to interpretation and misleading? I have no recollection of that.
01:15:18 I have no recollection of that. Now, in terms of what he says there about BCA technical guidance note 18, if we turn to your witness statement now, CLG 301
01:15:28 CLG 301 9487,
01:15:30 9487, page 21, I want to go to paragraph 76. [snorts]
01:15:36 [snorts] You tell us there you say in July of 2015 the building control alliance published an update to technical guidance note 18 use of combustible cladding materials on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height. The
01:15:47 exceeding 18 meters in height. The guidance reflected the fundamental performance requirements of ADB. Either either the use of materials of limited combustibility for all key components or to submit evidence that the complete
01:15:58 to submit evidence that the complete proposed external cladding system has been assessed according according the accept acceptance criteria in BR135. It also stated that the use of material
01:16:09 It also stated that the use of material of limited combustibility related to all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 m. And then if we go on over the page, you
01:16:20 And then if we go on over the page, you say this includes the insulation, internal lining board and the external facing material. Smaller gasket parts and similar low-risk items can be excluded from this requirement. Now, first of all, just going back and
01:16:33 Now, first of all, just going back and looking at what you say at the bottom of the page that we just read where you say that an update to the BCA technical guidance note was published in July 2015. Can you can we take it that you
01:16:45 2015. Can you can we take it that you were aware of the publication of that update at the time? I believe I was aware of it. Yes. When did you first become aware of that updated guidance note?
01:16:56 updated guidance note? Um, I can't remember. Um but I remember uh because of the February fire in Dubai um taking a an interest in its
01:17:08 um taking a an interest in its publication um and particularly um the uh explanation or reinterpretation if you like of um the requirements of um
01:17:20 you like of um the requirements of um ADB.
01:17:22 ADB. Right. When you talk about the February fire in Dubai, are you talking about February 2015 or February 2016? February. Well, this is uh it's February 2015,
01:17:30 2015, right?
01:17:32 right? And did you read that technical guidance note yourself when it came out? I believe I did. Yes. And do you remember how you become aware of it?
01:17:40 of it? I don't.
01:17:43 I don't. Before July 2015, had you been aware of the first iteration of that technical guidance note which was issue N and it was published in June 2014? Uh
01:17:53 Uh I don't recall being aware of that first note.
01:17:56 note. Right.
01:17:58 Right. So you were aware that the BCA was advising as the main route to compliance option one that all elements of the external wall were to be limited combustibility. Yes.
01:18:09 combustibility. Yes. Yes.
01:18:10 Yes. And you say there in the third line the guidance reflected the fundamental performance requirements of ADB. Yes. Yes.
01:18:20 Yes. Was that your understanding at the time that it actually reflected the performance requirements of ADB?
01:18:47 I think I'm
01:19:00 I think this is Yeah. Um
01:19:24 I'm afraid that my understanding of this has become a bit blurred. Yes.
01:19:29 Yes. Because can we agree that there wasn't anything within [clears throat] the approved document that told you that all elements of the wall needed to be of limit to combustibility was there?
01:19:41 No. It's extends further than that. Yeah.
01:19:45 Yeah. Yes. So this BCA technical guidance note was going beyond the guidance in approved document B. Yes. Yes.
01:19:57 Mr. Chairman, I'm kind of mid-topic, but this is probably as good a moment as any. Um, if we could have a break at that, that would be great. That's fine. Well, Mr. Harold, we'll have a short break at this point. We'll
01:20:09 have a short break at this point. We'll come back, please, at 25 to 4 again discuss your evidence with anyone else. Thank you. Thank you very much.
01:20:24 Right. 25 to 4, please. Okay. [clears throat]
01:36:43 would you ask Mr. Harold to come back in please?
01:36:59 All right, Mr. Tur. Yes. Thank you, sir. Right. We'll continue. Yes, was strange. Yes. Thank you. So, we before we broke um broke off, we were discussing the BCA technical guidance note. Yes.
01:37:09 Yes. From um June 2014 and then June 2015. Can we just look at Mr. Martin's witness statement CLG 301 9469 page 49.
01:37:27 And if we look at paragraph 138, if you look in the fifth line down in if we pick it up five lines down, he says, "The minutes go on to note that
01:37:39 says, "The minutes go on to note that 2015 BA BCA guidance note 18 had extended the limited combustibility requirement to all material in the wall of a tall building." And he's talking there about the minutes of that CWCT
01:37:51 there about the minutes of that CWCT group meeting from March 2016. [snorts] And he goes on and says this um this was not an objectionable clarification. Indeed at the meeting it was accepted as
01:38:04 Indeed at the meeting it was accepted as is recorded that paragraph 12.7 of ADB was open to interpretation. Yes. Now a requirement which is being extended
01:38:15 extended from applying to insulation and the core of composite panels to also include all elements of the wall including the external surfaces of the walls was not a
01:38:27 external surfaces of the walls was not a clarification was it? It was a change. Can we agree that a change to the guidance note? Well, it it w it wasn't changing approved document B, but it was different from
01:38:39 document B, but it was different from the guidance in approved document B. Oh, sorry. You're referring to the proposed amendment to the text of ADB.
01:38:48 So, Mr. I think the point that Strange is making is that uh the BCA guidance note
01:38:57 note said that the limited combustibility requirement applied to all elements and that that was an extension. Therefore, it was a change of substance to what was
01:39:08 it was a change of substance to what was in the what was in ADB. That's that's the point, isn't it? Exactly.
01:39:13 Exactly. Yeah.
01:39:16 Yeah. Yes. I I accept your point. Yeah. So it's not a clarification, is it? It's it's doing something over and above what the approved documents done.
01:39:27 above what the approved documents done. So [snorts] um I accept um I'm finding a lot of this very hard to take in, but I accept that I should have identified the lack of clarity in this part of the regulation u
01:39:40 clarity in this part of the regulation u approved document. Yes. In your experience, was it possible for industry guidance to change or extend the meaning or scope of any
01:39:51 extend the meaning or scope of any provision of the guidance in approved document B? Uh
01:39:56 Uh the BCA guidance note was something that people could follow as an option. It was not actually capable of modifying the actual application of the regulations or the statutory guidance. It's it's
01:40:07 the statutory guidance. It's it's industry-ledd guidance. Yes. Exactly. A and no revision or amendment to the text was made to indicate this apparent extension to approve document B was it?
01:40:18 approve document B was it? No.
01:40:19 No. Were you aware ever of any attempts by Mr. Martin or the department more generally to communicate this new extended
01:40:28 extended uh interpretation of paragraph 12.7 to a wider audience other than members of the CWCT fire group? Uh, no.
01:40:39 There would be a reason for not being able to site the guidance or promote it though because the guidance note contained options that weren't contained in the approved
01:40:50 weren't contained in the approved document as such. Yes. like the desktop um assessment, but you're not aware that there was ever any discussion about communicating a view that when looking at paragraph
01:41:02 view that when looking at paragraph 12.7, you ought to think about that as applying to all materials or all elements of the external wall. I I I don't recall having that
01:41:13 I I I don't recall having that discussion. Were you aware of any discussions between Mr. Martin and the BCA when this note was being prepared? Did he ever tell you that he talked to the BTA about this guidance note?
01:41:25 this guidance note? Uh, I honestly don't know. It's possible that he may have mentioned that, but I I don't have a specific recollection. If we can go to some emails now, NHB 403453.
01:41:39 We don't need to go through the whole of this chain, but if we go to page two of it,
01:41:48 this is an email sent by Steve Evans of the NHBC to Brian Martin on the 15th of August, 2014. And we look in the third paragraph of that email. Mr. Evans writes, he says,
01:41:59 that email. Mr. Evans writes, he says, "I've also attached for your information a copy of the BCA guidance note on the use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings, which has been produced to reinforce the requirements
01:42:10 produced to reinforce the requirements of the regulations and to aid industry on how they can provide prove compliance when proposing to use materials on buildings over 18 meters that are not materials of limited combustibility."
01:42:22 materials of limited combustibility." And the note was attached to that. And then if we look at the top of page two, we can see on the 15th there on the 15th of August 2014, Mr. Martin writes back and he
01:42:35 2014, Mr. Martin writes back and he says, "Thanks, Steve. That's very helpful. Is the BCA note published?" And then if we go up to page one, we can see to the next email in the chain. Steve Evans replies about an hour later
01:42:48 Steve Evans replies about an hour later saying, "It's due to go on the website shortly. We are presently changing providers. I understand. So there is a slight delay. And then Mr. Martin's response one up
01:43:01 And then Mr. Martin's response one up from that
01:43:02 from that is um okay thanks. Whoever wrote it did a good job. Do you see that? I do.
01:43:09 I do. Is that not in all practical ways at least um the department's approval of the document?
01:43:19 Uh
01:43:25 no. Um if you're actually going to approve a third party document, you would go through formal process within the department to do that. So it's not an approval by the department,
01:43:36 an approval by the department, right?
01:43:38 right? But was that something that um Mr. Martin um was authorized to do to not formally approve it but to in emails like this to indicate that someone had
01:43:50 like this to indicate that someone had done a good job with guidance. I indicating he has no problem with it. He's happy with it.
01:43:58 [sighs and gasps]
01:44:02 I I don't think that there's
01:44:09 anything particularly wrong with that. Um,
01:44:16 it's just a compliment, isn't it?
01:44:22 Right. Yes. Now, going back to Mr. Martin's witness statement again and looking at page 49. So, CLD 30's 1 9469 page 49 paragraph 138
01:44:37 page 49 paragraph 138 in that final sentence um well sorry it's the penultimate sentence there we can see two lines up in the the plain text above the text in italics he
01:44:48 plain text above the text in italics he says acting on behalf of the department I undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of ADB now were you made aware at the time that Mr. Martin had given this undertaking to
01:45:01 Mr. Martin had given this undertaking to change this misleading clause. Um, I don't recall being made aware. No. Did he tell you at any time before the Grenell Tower fire that he had done so?
01:45:14 Grenell Tower fire that he had done so? I don't recollect. Did Mr. Martin, as far as you were aware, have the authority to give any such undertaking?
01:45:28 As the policy lead, he could commit to um taking that text forward. Ultimately, until it was approved by the department, it was not going to be formally um
01:45:40 it was not going to be formally um endorsed or approved. Yes. But he's not he doesn't say I undertook to take this forward for discussion with B does he? He says I undertook to change this misleading
01:45:51 undertook to change this misleading clause and we were interested in whether you could help us as to whether in fact that was something that he could do. Um you cannot change text in an approved
01:46:02 Um you cannot change text in an approved document without going through appropriate process. Right.
01:46:08 Were you aware at any time before the fire at Grenville Tower that paragraph 12.7 required amendment?
01:46:16 I don't recall being aware.
01:46:20 Now in in March 2016, there was no ministerial agreement to a review of ADB, was there? The discussion document was still in the process of being drafted and it hadn't been submitted to ministers, had it?
01:46:32 ministers, had it? March 2016. Uh I think you're correct. Yes. Yeah. And we know that the final discussion document, we looked at it earlier today, did not include any reference to the ambiguity in paragraph
01:46:43 reference to the ambiguity in paragraph 12.7 or any suggestion that the paragraph required change as we've seen. That's right, isn't it? I think that's correct. Yes.
01:46:54 I think that's correct. Yes. Can we go now um to another email chain CLG1308347
01:47:07 and I want to look at the second email down on this page which is an email sent by Mr. Ledum on the 20th of July 2016 to the grade six and grade seven staff in the
01:47:18 six and grade seven staff in the building regulations team. Now that mailing list would have included you. Yes. Uh yes.
01:47:27 Uh yes. And we don't need to read through it all, but we can see in his opening line, Mr. Ledson writes, "Our new minister has asked for a slide pack on building regulations, EPC's." Do you have that?
01:47:40 regulations, EPC's." Do you have that? Uh yes.
01:47:41 Uh yes. And he goes on to give some details about what's needed. He says, "I think we need the following slides." And he gives, you know, overview of what the building rags cover, overview of building control system, etc.
01:47:53 building control system, etc. And then if we go to the top email in the chain, which is a response from you just to Mr. Ledson sent um at 12:59 the same day, it reads,
01:48:04 um at 12:59 the same day, it reads, "Bob, can you also include maintaining cost-effective technical standards in response to evolving industry practice?" Or something similar in the bullets. This is needed as a counterpoint to the
01:48:16 This is needed as a counterpoint to the deregulatory agenda and important that ministers recognize that there are risks if they decide not to maintain the core standards. Eg flammable tower cladding
01:48:28 standards. Eg flammable tower cladding dot dot.
01:48:30 dot dot. Now why did you write there flammable tower cladding as one of the risks? Because of the overseas fires that we had seen. Um so for instance um Dubai is
01:48:44 had seen. Um so for instance um Dubai is um a notoriously um
01:48:49 um poorly regulated market where project teams self-certify compliance with their building standards and they have many problems as a result. Uh so it was using the example of uh
01:49:02 Uh so it was using the example of uh issues that I'd seen overseas as a way of exemplifying to ministers um what might happen if you continue to
01:49:15 um what might happen if you continue to deregulate rather than focus more on the core technical standards. Yes. And can you help us as to whether you were aware when you wrote this email of the debate which had been raging
01:49:26 of the debate which had been raging about the meaning and scope of the approved document in so far as it applied to uh ACMP materials? I believe I was not aware.
01:49:39 As far as you were aware, was the new minister Gavin Barwell briefed on the subject of flammable tower cadding? I don't believe he was. No.
01:49:50 Did you think that he should have been briefed on that subject? At that stage in time, I did not believe that those risks were material in our
01:50:02 that those risks were material in our marketplace. Right. But knowing what you know now and having seen emails for example that Mr. Martin was receiving, can we agree that uh Mr. Barwell absolutely should have
01:50:13 uh Mr. Barwell absolutely should have been briefed on the subject of flammable tower cladding? Those issues should have been surfacing within the department and being uh briefed to
01:50:25 the department and being uh briefed to ministers. Yes. Yes. Now I now want to ask you some questions about the fire sector federation. If we can go to your witness statement at page 18, paragraph 61.
01:50:38 at page 18, paragraph 61. We don't need to read through all of it, but if we look at the very last line on that page, the end of paragraph 61, it it reads um it notes that the fire
01:50:50 it it reads um it notes that the fire sector and if we go over the page, fire sector federation had established a non-governmental working group to produce recommendations for changes to part B when it was next reviewed. Yes.
01:51:02 part B when it was next reviewed. Yes. Yes. Now, did you ever attend any meetings of that fire sector federation working group that produced recommendations for changes to part B? No.
01:51:13 No. As far as you were aware, did any official from the department and attend meetings of that fire sector federation working group? Uh, I do not know.
01:51:24 Uh, I do not know. As far as you were aware, were any suggestions made or any information passed to the department and to your team specifically by that group about changes needed to part B?
01:51:37 I expect that the fire sector federation if they had come to a series of conclusions would submit them to the department but I I don't recall
01:51:49 I don't recall personally whether I saw such recommendations or um advice right let's look at an email chain CLG301
01:51:58 CLG301 9394 four.
01:52:08 This is an email um from Mr. Martin to you and Mr. Ledum on the 13th of June 2017.
01:52:17 2017. He attaches a brochure from the Fire Sector Federation campaign for a review of ADB. Do you see that? Yes, I I do recall that. I'm afraid I I um I was uh thinking that the time
01:52:30 um I was uh thinking that the time scales we were talking about were earlier, but I do recall this arriving at that time. Yeah. And and let's have a look at the brochure um that was attached. It's at CLG3019395
01:52:42 and it's uh there and you can see the heading why does approved document B need to be reviewed and it says then on the left hand side in the white text the last review of the
01:52:53 in the white text the last review of the approved document B was carried out in 2006. We have witnessed significant changes to building design and construction over the last 10 years. It is now out of date, placing businesses
01:53:04 is now out of date, placing businesses and communities all over the UK at potentially fatal risk. Now, did you agree in June 2017 that the guidance in approved document B was out
01:53:15 guidance in approved document B was out of date and potentially fatally so? I didn't believe that was the case. I knew that there were areas that we needed to work on, but I hadn't come
01:53:28 we needed to work on, but I hadn't come to that conclusion. Right. That was to prove to be the case exactly nine hours later. Yes. Uh yes.
01:53:37 Uh yes. On page four, I want to look at some of the comments that's in some of the figures in there. Now, it's slightly difficult to read, but um in white text on the blue
01:53:49 but um in white text on the blue background in that column on the right hand side of the page, there's a heading in the middle, other findings from the Fire Sector Federation and CIC. I think that's construction industry council
01:54:00 that's construction industry council surveys. Do you see that? I do.
01:54:03 I do. And it tells us um 92% of fire sector federation members indicate a need to make changes to building regulations and approved document B. Yes. Yes.
01:54:13 Yes. More than half of the construction industry council find the guidance in approved document B difficult to use. Yes.
01:54:20 Yes. Yes.
01:54:21 Yes. 100% of Fire Sector Federation members agreed the need to address inconsistencies in building definitions. Yes.
01:54:30 Yes. Excuse me. [clears throat] Yes.
01:54:33 Yes. And then below that, over 88% of FSF members and 42.3% of CIC members agree approved document B is not adapted to suit the trends used in today's
01:54:45 suit the trends used in today's construction meth methods, design, and usage. Yes. Yes.
01:54:51 Yes. Do you remember reading this when it was sent to you on the 13th of June, 2017?
01:54:59 I have a suspicion that I did, but I um not
01:55:07 not I think I did. Yes. And do you remember what your thoughts were about, for example, these survey results? They're pretty they're pretty stark, aren't they, in terms of the what
01:55:18 stark, aren't they, in terms of the what this information is telling you. Yes. But it did many of these gelled with um what uh the core ambitions of
01:55:30 with um what uh the core ambitions of the simplification process that I'd been trying to deliver in terms of the quality of the guidance. So, uh, improving usability, addressing
01:55:42 So, uh, improving usability, addressing inconsistencies. I'm not trying to make a point. Um, but yes, I I I recognize the, um,
01:55:52 clear uh, majority of support for these changes.
01:55:57 changes. Yes.
01:55:58 Yes. Now, let's look at the way in Miss Mr. Martin brought this to your attention. Can we go to CLG301 9394?
01:56:09 He says both uh the Federation have been sitting on this until after the election. It's now on their website. And he gives the link. And then he says, I expect our new minister will have this leaflet shoved up his nose at some point
01:56:22 leaflet shoved up his nose at some point soon. Brian, now what did you understand, Mr. Martin, to mean by that last phrase?
01:56:32 um that uh the Fire Sector Federation would approach um whoever our new minister was um I think it was Alec Sharma at that time, wasn't it? Um to explain their
01:56:45 time, wasn't it? Um to explain their views.
01:56:46 views. Would you agree that this email is dismissive and casual to the point of being cynical?
01:57:02 Um, I don't think it Well,
01:57:10 it's Yeah. No, I think it's just a turn of phrase. Was this characteristic of his approach to fire safety concerns raised with him at this time?
01:57:27 I don't believe so. But can you explain why he's not saying to you some really important information in here about approved document B, how
01:57:38 in here about approved document B, how people are using approved document B, what they think of it, how clear it is. If he was taking fire safety seriously, wouldn't that be the covering email he's sending and not this one?
01:58:04 it it's Mr. Martin's uh way of doing things. He's like I say concise
01:58:15 doing things. He's like I say concise if you like. Um um
01:58:21 um I I don't believe this indicates or I wouldn't have taken this is indicating at the time and Mr. Martin wasn't taking these issues seriously. But um you know
01:58:33 these issues seriously. But um you know it's an internal communication. It's not meant for
01:58:36 meant for No, I appreciate that. But it's not just concise, is it? It's not saying both here's some guidance, Brian. It's more than that, isn't it?
01:58:49 than that, isn't it? It's being very dismissive before you've even opened the document.
01:59:00 I don't know what to say really. Was this characteristic of your division's approach to fire safety concerns being raised by external stakeholders at the time?
01:59:13 I don't believe so. I
01:59:27 all I can do is apologize.
01:59:31 Okay. Now, can I take you back to an email that we looked at um yesterday? If we can go to CLG1308356.
01:59:50 This is your email um that we looked at 27th of July 2016 where you are seeking the release of the seven work streams reports.
02:00:01 reports. And in your evidence yesterday, you said you were using this email to try and um pressure the stats the spads into releasing these reports. Yeah.
02:00:11 Yeah. Now, I want to look at um the penultimate paragraph again in this email. So above the one that's bold and underlined, there's a paragraph that reads, "We do not believe the publication of any of
02:00:23 not believe the publication of any of these reports is likely to be of importance/interest outside specific trade sectors and are over and are overall are low risk. They are very
02:00:34 overall are low risk. They are very important to our work. However, now I just want to understand clearly from you what you meant by that first sentence. When you said they are overall low risk, what did you mean by that?
02:00:47 what did you mean by that? So it's uh that's a low political risk, i.e. that they are unlikely to contain anything that would be uh politically uh contradictory to the government's position or cause embarrassment to
02:00:59 position or cause embarrassment to ministers. So it's not a life safety or a building safety risk. It's about political risk, which is why the reports are cleared by SPAD's office in the first place. Yes. Were you aware that a number of
02:01:11 Yes. Were you aware that a number of these reports did raise quite important life safety issues?
02:01:18 Yes. And that's why in the second paragraph I flagged that some of the reports have life safety implications. Yes. So for example, the first report periods of fire resistance identified
02:01:29 periods of fire resistance identified that modern levels of thermal insulation increased the temperatures within a compartment and generated higher levels of ther thermal radiation. You were aware of that. Yes. Yes.
02:01:41 Yes. And were you aware that report seven on means of escape for disabled people, including a survey which was entirely damning of the adequacy of means of escape guidance for disabled people?
02:01:53 escape guidance for disabled people? Uh we were desperate to get these reports published so that they could be in the public realm and start to have the impact that was necessary um precisely for those reasons.
02:02:05 precisely for those reasons. Right. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, I've come to the end of my pre-prepared questions. If we could perhaps have [clears throat] um the usual break. The usual break. Exactly.
02:02:15 Exactly. Yes. Well, Mr. Harold, you may know this, but I'll just explain anyway. When council gets to the end of her questions, we have to have a short break both to allow her time to check she's
02:02:26 both to allow her time to check she's not missed anything out, and also to allow other people who are following these proceedings from other places uh can suggest questions that perhaps we ought to put to you. So we'll break now.
02:02:37 ought to put to you. So we'll break now. Do you think um quart 4 will give enough time?
02:02:41 time? Yes, I think that will be fine. Right. We'll break now. We'll come back at quart 4 unless we get a request for additional time which does sometimes happen.
02:02:50 happen. Okay.
02:02:50 Okay. And then we'll see then whether there are any more questions for you. I think good. Thank you very much. Would you like to go with the usher please?
02:03:06 Thank you very much. I'll say quart 4, but if more time is required, you can let us come and tell us. We will. Thank you. Thank you very much.
02:25:07 Would
02:25:16 you ask Mr. Harold to come back in, please?
02:25:28 All right, Mr. Harold. Well, I'm sorry we did keep you longer than I indicated. I'm afraid it does happen sometimes, but we're now ready to go on and see if there any more questions for you. Thank you, sir. Yes, Mr. Graeme.
02:25:39 you, sir. Yes, Mr. Graeme. Yes, thank you. Just just one question, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Harold, we've covered a lot of ground in the last two days,
02:25:45 days, and what I want to ask you is um if you had the chance again, uh what would you have done differently, if anything?
02:25:54 Uh clearly I deeply regret uh not escalating or ensuring that concerns around um Kingsbank K15 were escalated
02:26:05 around um Kingsbank K15 were escalated at the time that that came to our attention. Um
02:26:13 it's something that we should have done I feel and I have deep regrets about that.
02:26:20 that. Um,
02:26:25 I find it very difficult to take in what I've learned over the past two days and I don't
02:26:33 I don't um
02:26:37 I don't know how to process those into my experience of the other problems that we were facing.
02:26:49 I if I had my time again would not be as reticent to load responsibility onto others
02:26:59 others um higher up the chain in terms of um
02:27:05 um the frustrations and concerns in a more in a general sense and um
02:27:12 um I regret that. I regret not being more confident in the importance of what we were doing. Um
02:27:24 I find it very difficult to understand um
02:27:33 how we've actually come to um where we are in in many ways. Um,
02:27:46 I, you know, I can only
02:27:50 I deeply regret the failings, my failings that have been exposed by the evidence that we've heard. Um uh and I can only apologize
02:28:03 uh and I can only apologize um to the victims and and their families of Grandfeld Tower and all who have been affected. I am uh I am deeply ashamed
02:28:15 affected. I am uh I am deeply ashamed of of the part that I've played in this absolute tragedy and um
02:28:22 um uh I
02:28:24 uh I I hope that we can learn key lessons about the regulatory culture we have in this cultury. I I hope that we can learn about
02:28:37 I I hope that we can learn about um the need to temper our obsession with innovation and uh the the the predominance of economic theory over um more pragmatic
02:28:48 economic theory over um more pragmatic human concerns. And I hope that we end up with a an industry that actually is serving the people it uh aims to deliver
02:28:59 serving the people it uh aims to deliver for in a way that keeps them safe. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Harold. And um we appreciate it's not been an easy experience the last two days, but we are
02:29:10 experience the last two days, but we are very very grateful for you coming and giving us your evidence. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Well, Mr. Harold, I I'd like to thank you on behalf of all three members of the panel. It's been uh you've given
02:29:21 the panel. It's been uh you've given evidence for a long time and I sense that it's not been an easy experience for you but we've noted your uh the clarity and [laughter] sincerity with which you've given your evidence.
02:29:33 which you've given your evidence. Thank you sir. And uh we have found it very useful to hear from you because uh it gives us an insight into what was going in on in your department over these years leading up to the fire. So we are very grateful
02:29:45 up to the fire. So we are very grateful and it will be very useful to us when we come to make our decisions. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed for coming. Thank you. And now you're free to go. Thank you sir. Thank you.
02:30:06 Yes, Mr. Grange. Well, yes. Thank you. That is it for the day. I think it is. And I think we have Mr. Ledson back to finish his evidence first thing tomorrow
02:30:14 tomorrow and we have Mr. Ledson tomorrow as you say to finish his evidence and maybe someone else I don't know we'll see followed by Mr. Well it's okay night we'll see how we get on anyway thank you very much thank you very much 10:00 tomorrow then
02:30:25 thank you very much 10:00 tomorrow then please