Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Tuesday 8th March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:26 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to continue hearing evidence from Mr. Richard Harold, formerly of the DCLG. So I'm going to ask Mr. Harold to come back

00:00:38 I'm going to ask Mr. Harold to come back in.

00:00:46 Good morning, Mr. Harold. Good morning, sir.

00:00:50 Are you ready to carry on? Yes. I wonder if I can make a short um statement to uh clarify some of my on reflection clarify some of my testimony from yesterday.

00:01:01 from yesterday. Yes. What do you want to say? um

00:01:06 uh in uh being negotiating my way to be able to give testimony to the inquiry, I've dealt with some quite serious mental health issues. Yeah.

00:01:16 Yeah. Which have meant that I've not been able to engage with a lot of the documentation that has emerged since I gave my witness statement. And in some

00:01:29 gave my witness statement. And in some of the testimony yesterday on reflection, I recognized that I have gone beyond what I recollect and have um

00:01:40 um uh uh made statements on certain areas that I would like to correct if possible.

00:01:48 possible. um specifically um the extent of my recollection of uh my knowledge of um A2 limited combustibility requirements

00:02:00 A2 limited combustibility requirements and class zero requirements in the period before the fire. I cannot on reflection last night, I cannot identify specific memories of what my

00:02:11 identify specific memories of what my level of knowledge was at that time and I think I misrepresented that yesterday for which I apologize. Um

00:02:19 Um again I think in trying to um form a picture of uh my understanding at the time of reviewing um ADB4 in

00:02:30 at the time of reviewing um ADB4 in 2015.

00:02:31 2015. Uh my recollection thinking it through last night is much vagger than that that I gave yesterday. Um and uh I I I would

00:02:42 I gave yesterday. Um and uh I I I would like to um help the inquiry to uh kind of clarify that if possible. Um and in terms of um a statement I gave around a question about general competence

00:02:53 question about general competence yesterday, uh I wanted to add that um you know I have reflected every day since uh the fire on my role. Mhm.

00:03:03 Mhm. And uh I recognized that in the time that I was in post um I did not have sufficient uh knowledge and competence to make the difference that perhaps I

00:03:14 to make the difference that perhaps I should have done. And so I just wanted to add that to the statement of where I thought my competence was. But um I I just wanted to be transparent on those

00:03:25 just wanted to be transparent on those issues with the inquiry. Well, thank you very much indeed. I mean, I think we all recognize the difficulty when you're asked to recollect uh events that occurred several years ago and particularly when

00:03:37 several years ago and particularly when you're asked to tell us about your knowledge or understanding at that time. how difficult it is to separate that from what you've learned since as a result of going over the documents and I

00:03:49 result of going over the documents and I that's obviously a difficulty. Uh but thank you for clarifying those matters and um we shall obviously take them into account. Yes. Well, I hope that's helpful in in making the rest of my testimony um useful.

00:04:02 the rest of my testimony um useful. Yeah. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Grinch. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Um good morning, Mr. Harold. Yes. Just to reassure you, I am going to be going over as probably the main uh part of my questioning

00:04:14 the main uh part of my questioning today. Um looking at what you did and didn't know based on the emails about um matters such as you know combustible cladding um issues to do with class N

00:04:27 cladding um issues to do with class N things like that. So we'll go back over that so you'll get the chance uh to to um consider that again and um make sure that the testimony you're giving is entirely accurate. Um

00:04:38 entirely accurate. Um could I just interject um to say this before Miss Graange starts putting questions to you? Um I think again we all also understand how reliving some of

00:04:49 all also understand how reliving some of these things can be difficult and um if you feel at any stage you would like to have a an additional break, you've only got to say that. Thank you very much. And we shall do it.

00:05:00 And we shall do it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yes.

00:05:03 Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um I want to pick the chronology back up that we were looking at. um and and look at February 2017 now and an exchange of emails that occurred then. If we can go to CLG1308896

00:05:21 and I want to pick it up at the bottom of page two. Um there is an email from you dated the 9th of February at 9:21 at the bottom of

00:05:32 9th of February at 9:21 at the bottom of the page and we can see it says importance high subject subbuilding regs discussion document WA clearance and you say all please see reddrafted

00:05:44 and you say all please see reddrafted discussion document sub we are recommending that we talk minister 3 proposals before proceeding to write around and then you ask for certain things to be clarified and just to be clear we can see that goes to a number

00:05:56 clear we can see that goes to a number of people including Brian Martin and Bob Ledson.

00:06:01 Ledson. Um, so we can see that you're wanting to you've got a reddrafted discussion document and it's recommended that you talk ministers through the proposal before proceeding to write around and we just finish off looking at that email.

00:06:13 just finish off looking at that email. Just go over to the top of page three. All can you give this one last look to ensure it's factually correct? Aim is for this to be on Gavin's desk. So, this is going to be Gavin Barwell when he

00:06:24 is going to be Gavin Barwell when he gets back from recess. Deadline Monday the 12 12 noon, please. And then in the next email up the chain on page two, we can see at 9:27, Mr. Martin just

00:06:35 can see at 9:27, Mr. Martin just responds to you um saying this. Richard, I reddrafted the part B parah following our chat with Simon and Steve. The 2013 coroner's report on the fire at Lacano House fire

00:06:47 report on the fire at Lacano House fire criticized the clarity of the guidance on part B fire safety and in response to this the then secretary of state Eric Pickles MP committed to review it. There are regular calls on the government to

00:06:58 are regular calls on the government to set out when and how this work will be taken forward. We have constrained the proposed scope of the review of part B to areas of highest priority but the fire lobby is powerful and there will be pressure to do more. So um there Mr.

00:07:12 pressure to do more. So um there Mr. Martin seems to be explaining to you some of the background to Lacanel House uh and what the intention is in terms of taking areas of highest priority forward

00:07:23 taking areas of highest priority forward in part B. Um then if we go to the next email in the chain uh here we have at the top of page two again on the 9th of February uh you back

00:07:35 again on the 9th of February uh you back to him. Um, you say, "Cheers, Brian. Is it worth mentioning that we've already made some progress on this? See below." And you therefore suggest an amendment

00:07:46 And you therefore suggest an amendment to the paragraph um that uh he's suggested. Actually, it's clear now. So, he's suggesting a paragraph for the ministerial submission. And what you're doing then in in red is adding a

00:07:59 doing then in in red is adding a suggested addition to that. Does that make sense? Yeah.

00:08:02 Yeah. Do you remember this at the time? Does this help? I I don't recall it now. I'm sorry. Um,

00:08:09 Um, so we can see the blue text uh as we read before from Brian Martin and then we've got in the second line your suggestion in red. We have already made significant progress in reddrafting the

00:08:22 significant progress in reddrafting the specific areas highlighted by the coroner but now need to consult on these with industry. So that was your suggestion and I think is it right? It says I I

00:08:33 and I think is it right? It says I I read progress. Uh, should that have read progress?

00:08:36 progress? Yes, it should have done. Yes. Yeah. Rather than significant process. And then looking at the very bottom of page one, there's an email timed at 9:36.

00:08:46 9:36. Brian Martin replies to you and he says, "Maybe significant is pushing it a bit. It suggests we've nearly finished. I wouldn't want to imply that a quick consultation exercise will be all that's

00:08:59 consultation exercise will be all that's needed. How about we've started work on a reddraft as recommended by the coroner, but we will need to work with industry to take this further. Do you see that?

00:09:10 further. Do you see that? I do.

00:09:12 I do. And then you reply, you say this. You say fine. The point is that we haven't been sitting on our hands on this brackets. Uh Steve's concern closed brackets. Now, was Steve

00:09:26 concern closed brackets. Now, was Steve Steve Quartermain? It would be. Yes. Um, so you're keen to emphasize at this point, is this right, that you haven't been sitting on your hands in relation to this part B review? Yes.

00:09:39 to this part B review? Yes. Yeah, that's exactly what the email says. Yes. Right. Um, if you hadn't been sitting on your hands, what would you say was an accurate description of what had been occurring with this stream of work?

00:09:58 Well, I think from the timeline we've been through, it's clear that it was subject to a whole series of delays. Yeah.

00:10:03 Yeah. Um, and

00:10:07 one of the difficulties with work planning is that you create dependencies on certain actions being taken and when they don't happen, it's very difficult to then reposition. you know, if you've

00:10:20 to then reposition. you know, if you've started something in train, it's very difficult to then pull that back and re, you know, reallocate or or restructure the way that you're planning to do things, particularly if they're very

00:10:31 things, particularly if they're very singular processes that have to be followed.

00:10:35 followed. Um, that's delayed our ability to have the engagement we wanted and that's slowed down the process of uh taking it forward. I think by that stage we'd

00:10:46 forward. I think by that stage we'd um done quite a quite complicated exercise of restructuring the two volumes of ADB. Um uh I think that there was progress in looking at the clarity of the drafting. Uh but we needed that

00:10:58 of the drafting. Uh but we needed that industry engagement to actually help us tell tell us how to actually make it easier for them to use. Right. Okay. So then we see Brian Martin's response just up from that. It's at the top of this page that you're

00:11:10 It's at the top of this page that you're looking at now. And he says, "I hear what you are saying, but I'm pretty sure the department's upper echelons have sat on my hands for the last 18 months." exclamation mark smiley face. Do you see

00:11:21 exclamation mark smiley face. Do you see that?

00:11:21 that? I do.

00:11:22 I do. Did you agree with Mr. Martin's comment there that the department's upper echelons had sat on his hands for the last 18 months? I believe I do. I have seen this um

00:11:33 I believe I do. I have seen this um email chain more recently. Um, and I know that I did agree with that. I believe um I think I think that if we scroll up, I think my response is

00:11:46 if we scroll up, I think my response is that I think that um

00:11:51 I think the department may have forgotten about us completely. I saw something to that effect. Yeah, I'll go to your response in a minute. I'm just interested in as to whether you agreed that the department's upper echelons had sat on Brian Martin's

00:12:02 upper echelons had sat on Brian Martin's hands for the last 18 months.

00:12:08 I was beginning to think at that time and I've already effectively resigned from the civil service at this point in frustration at not being able to

00:12:22 frustration at not being able to get on with work or the stress of trying to actually deal with the repercussions of that that prioritization. At that time, I was starting to think

00:12:33 At that time, I was starting to think that

00:12:35 that there was a risk that there was some form of concerted effort to slow this process down so that we would be available to go into another cycle of just pure deregulation to deal with the

00:12:47 just pure deregulation to deal with the department's budgets. And I don't have evidence for that, but I do remember it starting to be a real concern. Um

00:12:58 Um there were there was at least one subsequent event that made me feel that um

00:13:06 um the department's uh commitment to this work was and and uh the planning director's commitment to this work was um

00:13:19 this work was um a problem not just lacking but actually somehow actively problematic in that and in thought very briefly what was that subsequent event? So um 3 weeks

00:13:30 that subsequent event? So um 3 weeks before the result of the general election or sometime in May uh so it's a couple months later uh Bob Ledman sat me down and told me that um the majority if

00:13:41 down and told me that um the majority if not the bulk of the funding that had been allocated to the investigation of real fires contract and a flexible analytical support contract that we had procured which was frankly our only way

00:13:53 procured which was frankly our only way to properly resource the work we needed to do. Yeah. were being reallocated to fill a black hole in the planning budget.

00:14:01 budget. Right.

00:14:01 Right. And that left that left me uh again I was I was furious for many reasons um about that. Yeah. And just briefly the upper echelons who who did you understand Mr.

00:14:13 echelons who who did you understand Mr. Martin to be referring to there when he talks about the upper echelons of the department? I I think we had started to form a view and again there's a subsequent discussion that would suggest this may

00:14:24 discussion that would suggest this may be true uh that the prioritization policies in the department were just consistently working against us. We were always

00:14:33 always uh at the back of the queue for briefings when the administrations changed. We were all, you know, lower priority by far for submissions uh getting up to ministers. Um and I I

00:14:46 getting up to ministers. Um and I I think a few weeks after the Granfell Tower fire, I remember meeting a member of the Secretary of State's private office.

00:14:54 office. Um we bumped into each other. I didn't know them very well. We'd met in a few meetings on a particular area of policy. Uh but he he was a good person and we we kind of connected. Um I'm afraid I can't

00:15:06 kind of connected. Um I'm afraid I can't remember his name. Okay. Um

00:15:10 Okay. Um and we talked about how we were both doing in the aftermath because it was obviously a very intense period. But unprompted uh I recall him saying to me, you know,

00:15:21 uh I recall him saying to me, you know, something along the lines of private offices really need to get together after this and do some serious thinking about how we've been prioritizing the department's work. Right. Yes. Thank you.

00:15:33 Right. Yes. Thank you. Um now,

00:15:35 Um now, um you reply to this. Um if we go, uh one email up. So it's the second email down now on the page. 952. You say, um

00:15:47 down now on the page. 952. You say, um they're not even aware your hands exist to sit on. Let's just agree to guild liies where necessary. Do you see that? I do.

00:15:55 I do. Now, what did you mean by the first sentence? Uh why were they not aware that Brian Martin had hands to that existed to sit on. Uh it's me just expressing my

00:16:06 Uh it's me just expressing my frustration with a sense that we have no priority at the top of the department. I mean our engagement with um director level civil servants was you know it was

00:16:19 level civil servants was you know it was sporadic because they were very busy but we didn't have any engagement with um civil servants above that grade. I certainly didn't um in in that period at all. Um, and we're

00:16:30 in that period at all. Um, and we're feeling we're feeling that we're always the back of the queue, frankly. Okay. And then you say, "Let's just agree to guild liies where necessary." Um, what did you mean by gilding liies?

00:16:41 Um, what did you mean by gilding liies? Um, so I think that

00:16:48 that there may be some other emails on this. Um, but

00:16:53 Um, but I think Simon Gallagher had told me uh to tweak the discussion document and some of the other information to make it

00:17:04 some of the other information to make it more palatable for rightound um or to help us get clearances to um publish matters. and I I reviewed you know it

00:17:16 matters. and I I reviewed you know it there we did this uh through the summer of 2016 we were trying to the dis the core of the discussion document what we needed to say to industry uh didn't

00:17:27 needed to say to industry uh didn't really change but we we were having to uh realign the argument for doing it to the government's broader policy um to enable us to get right around clearance

00:17:38 enable us to get right around clearance and that's what I meant by gilding liies it's basically um taking the argument for why this is necessary and um uh making it appear trying to find ways to

00:17:49 making it appear trying to find ways to make it appear more attractive to the rest of government and to to to ministers to a degree. I see. I mean, if that's what you meant, isn't that rather an odd phrase? Because that phrase conventionally means trying

00:18:00 that phrase conventionally means trying to improve something that's already beautiful or excellent. Oh, um I've obviously misinterpreted that for my entire life. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. I I would quite if I'd

00:18:11 No, that's fine. I I would quite if I'd known that I would have said I'd have used that interpretation instead. It is what you meant. Let's um it's basically but a gloss on this. That's right. That

00:18:22 but a gloss on this. That's right. That a gloss that perhaps we don't agree with, but a gloss that's going to make it more palatable for ministers. Well, not just for ministers but more importantly for rightound clearances because obviously we would need to get

00:18:34 because obviously we would need to get approval from HM Treasury and Cabinet Office and number 10 and a number of other government departments who had an interest and uh the business department's very interested in

00:18:45 department's very interested in regulation um because uh they run policy on that. So it's about uh and you know it's a perfectly genuine concern. It's just frustrating because you know

00:18:56 just frustrating because you know there's another week gone, another two weeks gone whilst you change something and then get it cleared again.

00:19:02 again. Yeah.

00:19:03 Yeah. Um

00:19:03 Um but just to be clear, very clear what you were changing are is what you're saying that you were changing it to make it uh more consistent with their deregulatory agenda. Is that what you're saying?

00:19:15 agenda. Is that what you're saying? Um I wouldn't know. The discussion document uh had a front end that positioned it as far as I can remember and it was the text in that area that set out why this fitted in

00:19:27 area that set out why this fitted in with broader government policy. Right.

00:19:29 Right. And that's what I think it was looking at.

00:19:31 at. Are you sure that you didn't really mean let's mask the truth about how much progress we've made and make out we've made more progress than we have? No.

00:19:41 No. You're certain about that? I'm absolutely certain about that because we see at the top of the page, Brian Martin responds to you at 11:11 a.m. and he says this, "You can roll a

00:19:52 a.m. and he says this, "You can roll a turd in glitter if it gets us moving." smiley face. Now, what did you understand him to mean by that?

00:20:00 by that? Uh, do whatever you need to do to get the discussion document out, I think, was

00:20:07 was what he's saying. But um this is a question I never thought I'd utter, but what was the turd in that? Uh I think well look you'd have to ask

00:20:18 Uh I think well look you'd have to ask Mr. Martin, but um uh I I think all he's saying is um uh

00:20:29 I don't care what you have to do. Just get it to get it going. I think that's what he's saying really. Right. because we can see that the context for this emails was you suggesting that significant progress had

00:20:41 suggesting that significant progress had been made and Mr. Martin saying well that's pushing it a bit. So isn't one interpretation of this that what he meant was what you'd achieved so far was akin to a turd but you were going to

00:20:52 akin to a turd but you were going to have to dress it up in order to get people interested in it and persuade them that you'd done some more work than you actually had. No, because what we're talking about is so the lower email

00:21:07 talking about is so the lower email chain refers to progress on ADB. What we're talking about here is the discussion document. Uh it's not it's not the um

00:21:19 Uh it's not it's not the um it's not part B that we're talking about in these later parts of the exchange at all.

00:21:23 all. I see. It's the discussion document and the sub or whatever whatever we need to do to get this out of the building is what he's talking about there. So you're having to sprinkle glitter on it. Glitter that will be attractive to

00:21:34 it. Glitter that will be attractive to the seniors i.e. make it more of a deregulatory package. Is that what you're saying? There were other policies in government that we I think tried to reference there at one stage it was called the

00:21:45 at one stage it was called the productivity review. That was another form of of gilding if you like to make it more palatable to certain areas. What was very difficult was that that it was difficult to identify broader government

00:21:57 difficult to identify broader government agendas that this actually fitted within.

00:21:59 within. Right. I see. Thank you. Now, um we know that Melanie Doors was the permanent secretary of the department from March 2015. She's told us in her witness statement to the inquiry that the

00:22:11 statement to the inquiry that the morning of the 14th of June 2017 when the Grenville fire occurred was the first time she'd heard of the Lacel House fire, the coroner's recommendments or recommendations or the commitment to

00:22:23 or recommendations or the commitment to simplify ADB by 2016 2017. Now, can you help us as to uh how that position came about that the permanent secretary of the department didn't know

00:22:34 secretary of the department didn't know about any of these things until the Grenell Tower fire? Um, I think that they need to do an audit of who. So, I when I put submissions up, I took instructions from Bob Ledson as to who

00:22:46 instructions from Bob Ledson as to who to copy in to those submissions and um, you would need to audit, I guess, who sent those submissions where. Um, and then what happens to them after

00:22:59 Um, and then what happens to them after that when they go into um, u private offices uh, or elsewhere? It's not it's it's beyond my Okay.

00:23:07 Okay. I can't I just simply can't provide you with any information on that. You can't help us. No. Okay. Now, we know that the final draft of the discussion document and the submission seeking approval of the proposed scope

00:23:18 seeking approval of the proposed scope of work contained within it was sent to Gavin Barwell on the 23rd of March 2017. If we can look at that submission, it's at CLG3019392.

00:23:35 Now um this is the submission. It's prepared by you. It's cleared by Bob Ledson. We can see that on the top right hand side. We can see its purpose

00:23:46 right hand side. We can see its purpose in paragraph one. Minister's previously approved development of a discussion document setting out the potential scope of work on building regulations policy over coming years. This submission seeks minister's agreement on the proposed

00:23:57 minister's agreement on the proposed scope as set out in the final draft discussion document. Um and then we can see the timing is routine. So this was this submission was not put up as an urgent submission was

00:24:09 not put up as an urgent submission was it? No. Because urgent submissions were the the label urgent was used when there was um an absolute

00:24:21 was um an absolute um very immediate deadline that needed to be made. You know a day or two days or something of that nature. Right. But but can we agree and we can look through the whole submission um that there's no hint in this which tells

00:24:34 that there's no hint in this which tells him that this document has been years in the making and is now delayed to the point of embarrassment and that he needs to get on top of this urgently. That that wasn't the message that was being given in this submission and I want to

00:24:45 given in this submission and I want to know why.

00:24:51 Uh well,

00:25:07 I I I I don't know how to answer that in in some respects. I think part of

00:25:19 I think we wouldn't want to get into an argument about a delay. We just wanted to get the document out and published. So starting to get into a discussion about why it's late would or those

00:25:32 about why it's late would or those factors, you know, we were just focused on well now we've actually got the opportunity to get this to the minister. Can we get it to him and then get this out? That's all we cared about at the time.

00:25:43 time. Um, but we had been ready to put this up in September 2016 pretty much and uh it had been delayed. The the there's a

00:25:55 had been delayed. The the there's a submission to Gavin Barber in September. So maybe early October 2016 we were probably ready to go with this. But um we were I was told that minister

00:26:07 we were I was told that minister wouldn't be looking at anything other than the highest priority submissions um until the housing and planning white paper was published. That was originally scheduled to be published in late

00:26:18 scheduled to be published in late October, early November. And so you go right, okay, that's another 3, four weeks.

00:26:26 weeks. We will live with that if that's the decision. But actually it wasn't until the middle of February that it was then published and it was a constant process in that period of it'll be next week

00:26:38 in that period of it'll be next week another week you know so you're constantly saying well okay we can wait another week it'll take us much longer to try and look at how doing this another way so what I'm trying to say is that um at least probably 5 months of

00:26:49 that um at least probably 5 months of the day delay is down to um decisions made in Mr. Mr. Bara's private office, right?

00:26:56 right? And it would not be appropriate to um actually start, it wouldn't not just be appropriate, it

00:27:07 it wouldn't not just be appropriate, it would be quite destructive to our relationship with our private office if we start pointing fingers and saying this is delayed because of the decisions of your private office. Well, you didn't necessarily need to point fingers, but

00:27:18 necessarily need to point fingers, but couldn't you point out more clearly the delays and the need for some urgency in getting this draft discussion document out so that you could actually begin the work you really wanted to begin? I accept I accept entirely that we

00:27:30 I accept I accept entirely that we should have stressed the urgency from our point of view of these uh these processes more. Yeah. If we look at the bottom of page three, we can see that there was a

00:27:42 three, we can see that there was a paragraph in this submission about um

00:27:47 um Lacanel. We see it in the bullet point under key risks and issues. Right at the very bottom says the 2013 coroner's report on the fire at Lacel House criticized the clarity of the guidance on part B fire safety and in response to

00:27:59 on part B fire safety and in response to this the then secretary of state Eric Pickles committed to review it. And then we we see the wording that Mr. Martin suggested, "We have started work on a redraft as recommended by the coroner,

00:28:10 redraft as recommended by the coroner, but we will need to work with industry to take this further." Now, again, the 2016 2017 commitment to the review of Part B is not included in that paragraph, was it? No.

00:28:21 No. And do you accept that it should have been?

00:28:24 been? Um, yes.

00:28:28 Um, yes. And just to be clear, by the time of the Grenfield Tower fire in June 2017, the discussion document had still not been published. Yes, that's correct. Now, you say in your statement that you

00:28:40 Now, you say in your statement that you never had a response from Gavin Barwell's office to this submission, but if we look at CLG 3034284

00:28:54 here, we can see an email dated the 18th of April at the top of the page from Tim Lunig. learning learning

00:29:05 learning uh in Gavin Barwell's office to all advisers

00:29:10 advisers um saying Gavin was content with the recommendations in this sub particularly interested in the working parts B&M and he thought Tim Nick Kirn now um what's the significance of this submission is

00:29:21 the significance of this submission is that is that an email that's enough to signal the minister's um agreement to the submission so it's from Gavin Barwell's private office to Tim Lernigan copy copied in

00:29:33 office to Tim Lernigan copy copied in sorry and all advisers it's not from Tim Lig

00:29:37 Lig sorry you're right to correct

00:29:39 correct so this is Gavin off barwell's private office feeding back on the submission and asking for advice from uh special advisers and policy adviserss Tim Lernig was a policy adviser he wasn't a special

00:29:50 was a policy adviser he wasn't a special adviser and he's asking for their views um

00:29:55 um and thoughts on uh the discussion document and the proposals I see so are you saying you still needed did a submission an email signaling that having taken into account those views

00:30:06 having taken into account those views the minister was now finally happy. Yes, we need we need a an email saying yes go ahead back back to us not to others. I should note I did um a couple of weeks putting the after putting the

00:30:17 of weeks putting the after putting the submission up I did uh I do recall going up to Gavin Bar's private office and my recollection is that the private secretary said that Gavin had looked at the submission but he didn't have feedback yet. So I do recall that it was

00:30:30 feedback yet. So I do recall that it was progressing. Right. Yes. Now, if we could just look at the final draft of the discussion document. This is at CLG3019391.

00:30:43 Here it is the March 2017 uh discussion paper. Now, you can take it from me that there is nothing in this discussion document about the guidance on external fire spread in this document. Part B, if

00:30:56 fire spread in this document. Part B, if we look at it, starts on page 24 of this document. It's quite a long document. Part B, fire safety. And if we scroll through, there's a number of headings below that. Perhaps

00:31:08 number of headings below that. Perhaps if we look at the next page, there's headings about property protection, headings about specialized housing. We go below that. Headings about smoke alarms.

00:31:19 alarms. Keep going. Basements, means of escape for disabled people, links with the fire safety order. Keep going.

00:31:30 Keep going. That's it. Do you see that? Uh yes.

00:31:34 Uh yes. So there was there was nothing here that assisted with u matters of external fire spread was there. Um so my understanding of the commission

00:31:45 Um so my understanding of the commission that I had in relation to this to um uh deliver uh was um improving the clarity of that guidance not changing the

00:31:57 of that guidance not changing the technical requirements of the guidance. So it was um about improving the legibility and usability of the document to make that part work u section 12 if

00:32:08 to make that part work u section 12 if you like work better. Uh this was uh so it was rolled in really with the simplification exercise uh rather than the technical review change because we did not at that time think that the

00:32:20 did not at that time think that the technical requirements were uh in default.

00:32:25 default. Right. Okay. Well, let's we'll look at some emails that might be relevant to that in a moment. Um but that's your explanation as to why we don't see any reference to external fire spread in

00:32:36 reference to external fire spread in this document. Um, you know, I don't remember having a discussion or making a conscious decision about that in any way.

00:32:41 way. Right.

00:32:42 Right. Um, but that would be my uh explanation based on my recollection of where we were.

00:32:47 were. Right now, in April 2017, the election was announced to take place on the 8th of June 2017. If we could look at another email, we see C at CLG1309037.

00:33:02 On the 12th of May, you email Bob Ledom suggesting what should be included in some initial slides on the building regulations for new ministers. We can see that from the first sentence of your

00:33:15 see that from the first sentence of your email. And in the second paragraph, you say, firstly, I think we need to present both planning and building regs in tandem to ensure that ministers pay equal attention to building regs priorities. And then in in parenthesis

00:33:28 priorities. And then in in parenthesis you say it will always be the poor cousin otherwise see first slide attached. Do you see that? Yes.

00:33:34 Yes. Now what did you mean here when you said that building regulations policies will always be the poor cousin uh in comparison with planning? uh planning policy. If you the easiest

00:33:46 uh planning policy. If you the easiest example of the difference between the two policies is to look at any political manifesto

00:33:51 manifesto including the 27 manifestos. You will always find um a great deal written about planning and housing supply. Uh planning is a very political realm. uh

00:34:02 planning is a very political realm. uh you will struggle to find any reference or commitment in any manifesto to the building control system or the building regulations other than specific issues where that might be a vehicle for

00:34:13 where that might be a vehicle for delivery. So it is I think perenn had it has been it was certainly during my time a perennially kind of marginal um area of policy compared to some other

00:34:26 um area of policy compared to some other areas and that affected the way that it was prioritized in my view. Right now, we can see from the documents that you appear to have spoken to Bob Ledom about post-election options and followed this

00:34:38 post-election options and followed this with an email to him in May. If we go to CLG1309051

00:34:49 so um here um this is on uh the 17th of May 2017. So still before the election and you say Bob we spoke about post-election options I've used today to

00:35:01 post-election options I've used today to do some thinking on this and then you say options include and the second uh point you make in that first list is force decisions at an earlier stage if

00:35:12 force decisions at an earlier stage if we are clear on manifesto implications evaluate how these align with the work we know is necessary and seek minister's early agreement to use the discussion document to state direction of travel more positively i.e. commit to a part B

00:35:25 more positively i.e. commit to a part B review, part M review rather than just muting them so we can get on with the necessary work. Do you see that? Yes.

00:35:34 Yes. So, uh, is it right? Is it fair to say that over the past four years, in fact, what had been happening was that a part B review had only been muted rather than

00:35:45 B review had only been muted rather than a decision actually being made to carry it out.

00:35:49 it out. No, I I I don't accept that. So um uh again it's an internal email. The wording is not chosen with with exceptional uh care. But uh what I was

00:36:00 exceptional uh care. But uh what I was trying to say there I think was rather than publishing the discussion document saying we're going to go out have discussions then go nap on um the policy

00:36:12 discussions then go nap on um the policy um uh I'm saying actually amend the discussion document say we are starting work now and here's what we're doing. We will do further engagement. So it's just in a way it's um committing to that

00:36:24 in a way it's um committing to that scope so that scope can go forward immediately rather than waiting until you've gone through the discussion document process to u finalize that decision. So it's effectively to say to

00:36:35 decision. So it's effectively to say to ministers, we want you to commit to this scope now. So we get on with it immediately whilst we tell industry what's going on rather than telling industry what's going on. And the purpose of that discussion was to send to check whether there was anything

00:36:47 to check whether there was anything missing that we needed to include in the scope. Um I think in my witness statement I I I said you know we had uh not had the opportunity to set out a

00:36:58 uh not had the opportunity to set out a proper platform for engagement with industry for by this stage probably eight or eight and a half years because the kind of formal review process ground to a halt after the 2008 crash.

00:37:11 to a halt after the 2008 crash. Okay. Um so what I'm saying is um tell ministers right we have to actually just you just need to decide now that this is what you're going to do and we'll we'll backfill with anything that's needed rather than doing that discussion and

00:37:23 rather than doing that discussion and kind of consultation process first right I see and and and why not do that back in 2015 why wasn't that the tactic then

00:37:34 then because we wanted to do the sense check for precisely that reason I you know this is um We're in a a position so where, as I

00:37:46 We're in a a position so where, as I said before, we're very dependent on industry disclosure to understand what's going on. We don't have the ability to interrogate the market directly. We don't have market surveillance powers.

00:37:58 don't have market surveillance powers. Uh we need to ask questions. We need people to submit information to us to do that.

00:38:02 that. Yes.

00:38:03 Yes. And um

00:38:06 And um that engagement is really important in us getting things right. Yes, I I understand that. And we we'll come to quite a lot of examples of that later in your evidence. Um we can see in this email you say this is

00:38:19 we can see in this email you say this is based on three broad conclusions. And then you say in point one you say the simplification plan will be successful in dealing with editorial consistency and format which is good but has

00:38:31 and format which is good but has highlighted a lot of problems with the quality of the technical requirements in the approved documents. Do you see that? Yeah. Now, I thought you were just telling us a moment ago in the context

00:38:43 telling us a moment ago in the context of the discussion document that you hadn't identified that the technical requirements actually needed to change, but here you seem to be saying that the simplification plan and whatever work you've done on that has highlighted a

00:38:56 you've done on that has highlighted a lot of problems with the quality of the technical requirements in the approved documents. So, so which was it? So

00:39:06 there is a difference between modifying a performance standard or a requirement and

00:39:15 and um the quality of how that's expressed. I think um I mean I don't recall precisely what I um meant by this but I I believe what it's referring to is how

00:39:28 I believe what it's referring to is how well drafted um and clear the technical requirements are rather than whether the performance standards or requirements are actually wrong.

00:39:38 wrong. Right. And did that include can you help us with this the clarity of the guidance on the use of combustible cladding materials in tall buildings? I I simply don't know.

00:39:50 I I simply don't know. I don't believe that that I was thinking of that level of fidelity. Right. Then in the second broad conclusion you you say this. You say we will not have sufficient capacity to meet priorities as well as get all of

00:40:01 meet priorities as well as get all of the AD up to a good standard in the next parliament utilizing internal resource alone. This includes assessing and then you've got secondary life safety risks that have been flagged by industry

00:40:13 that have been flagged by industry bodies such as frameless glazing uh/office to resi ballastrades in ADK concern about carbon monoxide in ADJ suggestions of dangerous roofing

00:40:25 suggestions of dangerous roofing practices etc etc which are starting to form something of a backlog. Now just help us with this. Why do you describe these as secondary life safety risks

00:40:38 I uh

00:40:46 I don't know. I think probably because the evidence wasn't there to for us to fully understand what those risks were. Right. Um, were there any primary life safety risks

00:40:59 were there any primary life safety risks that you weren't listing here, but which you were aware of? This is May 17, so we're just one month before the Grenful fire.

00:41:11 Well, catastrophic risks would be primary risks. Yes. Yeah. So, structural failure and major fires would be up there with in that category. What about the risks posed by the use of

00:41:22 about the risks posed by the use of ACMPPE

00:41:23 ACMPPE polyethylene in tall buildings? Was that recognized as either a primary or a secondary life safety risk by this time?

00:41:33 Uh by that at that time I don't recall being aware of suggestions that uh ACMP was being

00:41:45 of suggestions that uh ACMP was being used anywhere. So I believe that the system was functioning at that point and delivering um compliant outcomes. So I would not have

00:41:57 would not have um I would not been thinking that that it is a risk but every part of um the regulations or the vast majority of them

00:42:08 regulations or the vast majority of them and the statutory guidance are addressing risks. It's about whether we know that they're materializing or not. Right. Now you attached to this email a draft program of work for after the

00:42:19 draft program of work for after the election. If we can go to that now CLG1309052.

00:42:28 So here we go. We can see from the title building regulations program of work post election. And I want to look at the bottom of page two.

00:42:39 bottom of page two. There's a heading technical review of building regulation requirements. And it says this. There are a number of pressing technical updates/reviews where the need to undertake work is likely to have either political priority or is

00:42:52 have either political priority or is urgently a need needed to address identified deficiencies. In a rough priority order, we can anticipate this to include some or all of the following.

00:43:03 to include some or all of the following. And then you've got a list and the first point is resolve technical issues in part E noise. Second point, update part L to reflect updated SAP. What's a SAP?

00:43:15 L to reflect updated SAP. What's a SAP? A standard assessment procedure. Yeah. Uh third point, update part LF to reflect government energy policy and research findings. And then point four,

00:43:26 research findings. And then point four, review of part B, fire. Now, why was the review of part B fourth in this list which was in priority order? Yeah, it's an internal document. It's a

00:43:37 Yeah, it's an internal document. It's a rough priority order. Um, all four of those and I think there's a subsequent long much longer list of other parts that sits below that. So, this is not the list in its entirety, I don't

00:43:48 the list in its entirety, I don't believe, is it? No. But the point I'm making is why wasn't the review of part B fire at the top of that list because some of those other issues simply couldn't have affected life safety, could they? Part E

00:44:00 affected life safety, could they? Part E noise.

00:44:03 noise. Uh in in terms of those these parts we've got listed here, in my mind they they all needed to be started pretty much immediately and um I I apologize for not putting part B first. Um

00:44:15 for not putting part B first. Um do you accept that you should have done now given what we've seen in the other emails about um deficiencies in technical requirements, the need for part B becoming pressing, etc.

00:44:30 part B becoming pressing, etc. This was for internal discussion. It wasn't intended to signify a a kind of actual uh priority order,

00:44:41 a a kind of actual uh priority order, I think.

00:44:44 I think. I see. So, this wasn't the actual priority order. This was what? Some alternative priority order that you had internally that didn't reflect your actual priorities. I I don't understand

00:44:55 actual priorities. I I don't understand that answer.

00:44:59 It it's a document prepared for kind of discussion. We don't even I think at this stage it's right. This is during the election period, isn't it? Um so you send the email um

00:45:13 Um so you send the email um attaching it. Um so on 12th of May 2017, so I can't recall when the election was. Sorry, 17th of May 2017.

00:45:24 Sorry, 17th of May 2017. I can't recall when the election. It was on the 8th of June. Yeah. So, this is an early stage election planning document with an incoming government with an unknown

00:45:35 incoming government with an unknown manifesto. So, it's kind of early thinking. It's not a formulated policy position because we can't actually achieve that until we have a government, right?

00:45:45 right? So, I'm probably just rushing things down on paper, frankly, and I don't think it should be taken as a statement. It certainly can't be taken as a statement of the government's intent because there was no government in

00:45:56 because there was no government in No, I understand at that in place at time. I understand. Okay. I'm going to move on now to ask you some questions about the department's role in the interpretation of the guidance in approved document B and about your knowledge of matters

00:46:07 and about your knowledge of matters relating to the use of combustible materials in the external wall arrangements of high-rise buildings. And I want to start by looking at Brian Martin's witness statement at CLG 3019469.

00:46:20 And I want to look at page 38

00:46:26 and look at paragraph 113. Now, just over halfway down in that paragraph, in the middle of the line, there's a a sentence beginning here it

00:46:37 there's a a sentence beginning here it is. Do you have that? Yes. And he says um here it is important to recall that compliance with the functional requirements of the regulations is to be achieved by the

00:46:49 regulations is to be achieved by the person undertaking the construction the design team architect builder etc. and it is signed off by the relevant building control body. The department's role as set out above is a devolved one.

00:47:02 role as set out above is a devolved one. It sets the regulations and administers the approved documents. How the industry secures compliance with the functional requirements is a matter for the industry. as my comments in this email exchange were intended to explain. Now,

00:47:15 exchange were intended to explain. Now, does that accord with your own understanding of the department's role in relation to the building regulations and approved documents? Um, well,

00:47:25 Um, well, uh, the department's not devolved. It's um the role for of actually undertaking uh building control is fully devolved. Uh but uh yes um the department's role

00:47:37 Uh but uh yes um the department's role is in um establishing and providing oversight of the system um setting the regulations and uh drafting and publishing the approved documents in

00:47:48 publishing the approved documents in support of those regulations. Uh it has uh no role uh it's not in fact it has less than no role in some respects in the actual direct regulation of the market. All of those responsibilities

00:48:00 market. All of those responsibilities are fully devolved to building control bodies. Uh but responsibility for compliance rests with uh the persons undertaking uh the work. Um right. uh if you go back to the Hansard

00:48:13 right. uh if you go back to the Hansard for the 1984 building act, it is worth noting uh I believe that um it is very clear that the design of the whole system is intended to um deliver a

00:48:24 system is intended to um deliver a system with the minimum possible of government intervention in actually delivering compliance in the marketplace and that is the way it's structured. So that it's in that respect that uh you agree with the description as of the

00:48:36 agree with the description as of the department's role as being a devolved one. Yes. Well, no. It's I'm not sure that's quite right. Uh uh the powers and responsibilities are devolved to building control bodies and the persons

00:48:48 building control bodies and the persons undertaking building work. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now, do you agree that part of the division's role was to administer the approved documents as Mr. Martin describes it?

00:49:00 Martin describes it? Um we were there to um I'm not sure our minister maybe but our job was to uh um update the approved documents in line

00:49:12 um update the approved documents in line with government policy. Yes. Well, let me take you through a few um possible types of work that it involved. Did it involve giving some consideration to the likely readership

00:49:23 consideration to the likely readership of that document and making sure it was drafted in order to be suitable to that likely readership?

00:49:33 Well, you would want to do that. Yes, of course you would. I don't think those duties are set out anywhere um in in law. Um but of course we were

00:49:44 um in in law. Um but of course we were trying to do that you know uh across all of the approved documents at that time by uh simplification program we put in place which was um in my view uh very long overdue. Um there had been if I

00:49:58 long overdue. Um there had been if I might offer u some further information um a continued and persistent lack of will to invest in the quality of the approved documents over a very extended

00:50:09 approved documents over a very extended period. Um uh I think I said yesterday um we were getting to the point where the structure of the documents had become disjointed. Uh there are at least

00:50:20 become disjointed. Uh there are at least four different front ends with slightly different wording describing how compliance could be achieved and how the building control system worked. Um some of the approved documents hadn't had technical reviews by this stage for

00:50:32 technical reviews by this stage for getting on for 19 or 20 years. Yes, I'm going to stop you there. I I understand all of that. I'm just seeking to understand from you what you in the department understood your role was in

00:50:43 department understood your role was in relation to those approved documents in in practice in terms of what you were trying to achieve with them. Yes. So um I've asked you about giving some consideration to the likely readership and I think your answer means yes you

00:50:55 and I think your answer means yes you did have to give some consideration to who was likely to be reading it and understanding that guidance. Yes. Yes.

00:51:03 Yes. um writing those documents in a clear and understandable manner. Was that a priority of the department? As far as was possible? Yes. And I would note that again I had pushed over the

00:51:15 note that again I had pushed over the previous two years to uh bring that process of um moving approved documents into the new style guide and undertaking plain English edits hard at a time where

00:51:26 plain English edits hard at a time where there is no demand to do that from higher up in the department but purely as a matter of good practice. Okay. What about achieving a settled understanding within the department

00:51:37 understanding within the department about the actual scope, meaning and application of the provisions of the guidance being written? Did you understand that to be uh an important objective when you were looking at these approved documents?

00:51:49 approved documents? Could you ask the start of that question again please? Yes. Achieving a settled understanding within the department as to the actual scope, meaning and application of the provisions. Was that an objective to

00:52:01 provisions. Was that an objective to make sure you were all all on the same page as to what you thought that document meant and what the intention of it was? So there's uh no formal um

00:52:13 it was? So there's uh no formal um uh set of uh structural objectives in that respect but uh since 2015 I think I had been promoting uh a more formalized

00:52:24 had been promoting uh a more formalized end-to-end review process of the approved documents which would uh was intended to enable us to actually do precisely what you're saying which is to audit intent against the guidance. Yes. in a much more managed way. But we

00:52:36 Yes. in a much more managed way. But we were some years off getting there at this point. It was it was going to take a while to build the resource and and um actually go through a process of taking the existing this is something that

00:52:47 the existing this is something that should have been done again as a matter of course. We should have had a mapping of the documents against intent with research recorded in the background. We should have had these audit trails. But this takes this takes resource and that

00:52:59 this takes this takes resource and that resource was was um never provided or and the structure was never put in place frankly. So yes that is absolutely a desirable objective. It is an enormous

00:53:10 desirable objective. It is an enormous task requiring a great deal of resource to map consistently against every piece of statutory guidance and requirement within the regulation. What about a

00:53:22 within the regulation. What about a preparedness to clarify or explain the scope, meaning, and application of the guidance if and when alerted to a lack of clarity in relation to any specific section?

00:53:33 section? Uh I think we let me think about this for a moment.

00:53:43 So in terms of giving advice externally, my experience was that the protocol was that we would always simply refer to the guidance in the approved document. That

00:53:54 guidance in the approved document. That should be the basis of where you start with any imprincipal discussion and it would be an imprincipal discussion because we were not permitted to talk about specific cases uh in case they uh

00:54:06 about specific cases uh in case they uh compromised an appeal or determination process. So if the department gives a a formal view on an actual project, it can query uh legal pro program uh legal appeals and determinations processes. Um

00:54:22 so we

00:54:27 it's a it's an interesting question actually whether we had a formal obligation to sorry can you read the question again actually whether there was a preparedness to clarify or explain explain the scope meaning an application of the provisions

00:54:39 meaning an application of the provisions of the guidance if a a question was raised about it was there that preparedness within the department and if not why not the technical team took respons responses uh took uh queries, less,

00:54:50 responses uh took uh queries, less, emails, telephone calls um and uh they would do their best to um explain or provide clarity where people approached the department with those

00:55:02 approached the department with those questions. So there was both the willingness and the preparedness to do that but the resource to do it again was limited.

00:55:10 limited. Okay. Now you have explained already that there were some processes or mechanisms in place by which the department was able without the need for a formal review process to clarify the

00:55:21 a formal review process to clarify the guidance. And you explained yesterday that that could be for example in an FAQ, a frequently asked question response. Yes. Uh uh under certain conditions. Yes. Or perhaps a circular letter. Um you've

00:55:33 Or perhaps a circular letter. Um you've explained that was one option although I think you said you couldn't remember an instance of where that had been used. Yeah. more and and more importantly, I had um tried on two occasions uh when I

00:55:44 had um tried on two occasions uh when I was a policy lead to use um a circular letter as a way of uh disseminating clarification or um

00:55:56 um to address what I' I'd seen in terms of um some issues of uh persistent what I felt were persistent non-compliance with the intent of an approved document. Yes. and I had been told that

00:56:09 Yes. and I had been told that all that we could do in a circular letter would be simply to quote the existing guidance within the approved document. So there were my experience and and one of the reasons why if I had been if I would love it would have been

00:56:21 been if I would love it would have been fantastic if we had and I think we should have had a mechanism like the HSSE building bulletins or or updates where we could uh um highlight problems or issues and say and provide a

00:56:33 or issues and say and provide a commentary on on them to industry that would have been fantastic but we didn't have that we didn't have that outlet. Okay. Now, just sticking with FAQs for a moment. In terms of FAQs, who within the

00:56:46 moment. In terms of FAQs, who within the department's team would be responsible for deciding on matters to be included or explained by that means? It would be for policy leads to determine if they felt an FAQ was

00:56:58 determine if they felt an FAQ was needed. So, uh, in the case of fire safety, it would be for Brian Martin, yes, as the policy lead on fire safety to decide if he thought an FAQ was warranted and if necessary to draft that

00:57:09 warranted and if necessary to draft that FAQ and have it published. That would be the normal process or they may get someone to help with the drafting, but they're not usually particularly complex pieces of text.

00:57:20 particularly complex pieces of text. And he had the authority to do that, did he?

00:57:22 he? Um, he would need to clear it. Um, he would need there's a process. So um he would need to have any draft FAQ assessed by the legal department to ensure that it was a clarification and

00:57:34 ensure that it was a clarification and not a change to the guidance. Yeah.

00:57:36 Yeah. Um he would then need to get um sign off from I think Bob Ledom. Uh certainly there would be a senior civil service um sign off process. They would then go to

00:57:47 sign off process. They would then go to um special advisers's office for um approval uh before publication. Right. And just to be clear that wouldn't go for ministers. No. Effectively ministers have delegated their authority

00:57:59 ministers have delegated their authority to SPADS to clear those documents as far as I understand it. Yeah. Now let's have a look at the example of some of these. If we go to CLG1603

00:58:13 this is uh a document called approved document B frequently asked questions. And this one uh is happens to be from March 2016. We can see the date on the bottom right. Do you see that? Yes,

00:58:25 bottom right. Do you see that? Yes, sorry. Could could I just add one thing further? Uh, my experience in doing frequently asked questions was that we also needed evidence that these were issues that were being raised with the department, not something not just

00:58:36 department, not something not just something that we had Yes.

00:58:38 Yes. Yeah.

00:58:38 Yeah. Yes. Now, if we look at the contents list for this on page three, we just get a a feel for the scope of the types of topics on which the

00:58:49 the types of topics on which the department was publishing FAQs. So you can see we've got fire doors, we've got dealing with fire precautions in self-catering holiday homes, fire suppression systems, etc. Do you see

00:59:01 suppression systems, etc. Do you see that?

00:59:01 that? I do.

00:59:02 I do. And then you've got um FAQs on B1, B3, B5 matters below that. Do you see that? I do.

00:59:12 And was there a formal process or criteria by which these topics were included or was it simply left to the policy lead? As you said, it would only

00:59:23 policy lead? As you said, it would only be if somebody had actually started querying or clarifying this, but but was there a more formal policy or procedure in place in relation to these FAQs? Uh, no. It was driven by the policy lead

00:59:35 Uh, no. It was driven by the policy lead primarily. In fact, I can't think who else would actually decide that that process needed to be started or followed. And if we can just look at some examples from within this document, if we go to

00:59:46 from within this document, if we go to page seven

00:59:51 and we look at the final um three paragraphs, we can see there's a well there's a heading there in bold. Should a fire alarm be provided throughout a block of flats? This is under requirement B1, means of warning and

01:00:03 requirement B1, means of warning and escape. And it says underneath that is the penultimate paragraph on the page. The guidance in B1 section one of the approved document fire alarm and fire detection systems is not intended to be

01:00:14 detection systems is not intended to be applied to the common parts of blocks of flats and does not include a provision to interconnect installations in separate flats. Do you see that? I do.

01:00:23 I do. So that's a um a good example of a a form of clarification that's been provided in this FAQ. Yes. Yeah. And let's look at another one on page eight.

01:00:36 page eight. In the middle of the page, we've got a a heading, why do we say one bed and not one person for care homes? And then beneath that, it says, paragraph 3.49 in volume two of ADB

01:00:49 paragraph 3.49 in volume two of ADB states, bedrooms should not contain more than one bed. This includes a double bed. This is for design without sprinklers relying on fire resisting construction to protect occupants that are remote from the seat of fire. And if

01:01:00 are remote from the seat of fire. And if you look at the very last paragraph under that heading, it then says it is not the intention of the approved document to separate couples who happen to live in a care home by insisting that they sleep in separate beds. Do you see

01:01:11 they sleep in separate beds. Do you see that?

01:01:11 that? I do.

01:01:12 I do. So there's a real really wide range of issues on which FAQs are issued pursuant to this guidance. Yes. Yes.

01:01:22 And having looked at that, can we agree that it's clear from this document that this was a means by which the intent of particular existing provisions in the approved document could be made clear.

01:01:35 Within the limits of um that I've described. Yes. Yes.

01:01:41 Yes. Now just moving on then to think about your role and Mr. Martin's role in more detail. Do you agree that it was part of your technical team's role in the years between the formal reviews of approved

01:01:53 between the formal reviews of approved document B to become or stay informed about changes to construction or design practices which would need to be taken into account when considering potential future changes to the document?

01:02:04 future changes to the document? Uh yes, the um technical team had an um informal engagement um mandate in those periods. Yes. Now you've described a number of

01:02:16 Yes. Now you've described a number of processes in your statement for for gathering information and we've actually looked at some of those already yesterday but um just one of those processes you mention uh is in relation

01:02:27 processes you mention uh is in relation to the investigation of real fires contract we just look at paragraph uh perhaps go back to your statement page 40 paragraph 158 of your statement

01:02:39 you say during this period the department also continued to fund and operate a research Arch contract with the building research establishment referred to as the investigation of real fires contract. This contract reported

01:02:50 fires contract. This contract reported periodically on the findings from investigation into real fires with a specific view to identifying any emerging problems which might indicate the need to change guidance in the approved documents relating to fire safety. This specifically included

01:03:02 safety. This specifically included consideration of building design construction practice and use of materials. Do you see that? I do. What was your own involvement with the investigation of real fires contract

01:03:13 the investigation of real fires contract with the BR? Um I don't recall having any direct involvement with that contract. So um I would always um work to support policy

01:03:25 would always um work to support policy leads and uh other officials in the division who are developing business cases or bidding plans for research. Uh but preparing the contract in terms of its scope would sit with um the policy

01:03:38 its scope would sit with um the policy lead um and so that was Mr. Martin. Yeah. And um uh the procurement process would be dealt with by whichever official in the

01:03:49 dealt with by whichever official in the division um headed up on um the actual um letting and procurement of of those contracts. Right. Were you ever made aware that from October 2012 onwards, the BR was

01:04:00 from October 2012 onwards, the BR was specifically procluded from making any policy recommendations, including recommendations for change in their investigation of real fires reports?

01:04:09 reports? Uh, no, I wasn't. I'm aware of it now. When was when did you first become aware of that?

01:04:15 of that? Uh, in the course of this inquiry. Right. When when I was questioning Mr. Crowder about that I or before that? I I can't remember where specifically. Now,

01:04:26 where specifically. Now, were you surprised to learn that the contractual requirements changed in October 2012 such that the B was specifically precluded from making policy recommendations, including

01:04:37 policy recommendations, including recommendations for change?

01:04:44 Um

01:04:50 I I wouldn't have seen that as necessarily abnormal uh in that um over time the department took a more

01:05:03 over time the department took a more precautionary approach to allowing those contractors that are employed to formulate policy options. uh before research had been evaluated by and seen

01:05:14 research had been evaluated by and seen by ministers. So I think this isn't about uh trying to inhibit um change or restricting their reporting. What it's saying is your focus should be on identifying the

01:05:26 focus should be on identifying the problems that we need to address and then we will as the department take forward uh the policy development to respond to the actual problems that you have identified.

01:05:38 have identified. So it's a focus on identifying issues that we would then formulate policy to address.

01:05:44 address. I see. So you didn't think it was odd that an organization like the BR with all its expertise was precluded from making recommendations for change in its

01:05:55 making recommendations for change in its reports on those projects. That would be a sub well the investigations of real contract was not a particularly large contract. um where issues are identified, you can

01:06:07 um where issues are identified, you can follow up and do further work and you can invite those recommendations once you've got the appropriate kind of sign offs and permissions to have those discussions. Uh so uh I certainly don't

01:06:18 discussions. Uh so uh I certainly don't think there's anything sinister about that. It's it's a matter of focusing the work of the contract on developing the evidence base rather than on developing policy proposals which which really uh

01:06:30 policy proposals which which really uh belong within um within the government. Right. And do you remember any concrete examples of what knowledge the division actually gained from that contract about building design, construction practice

01:06:42 building design, construction practice and use of materials in the time that you were head of technical policy? I I can't recall uh specifics. I do um recall

01:06:52 recall um

01:06:54 um the reports being delivered and and um effectively consumed or used by uh the division. Um

01:07:06 but no I I don't recall the spec I don't have a specific example to give you to that.

01:07:12 that. Now um if we look at paragraph 156 at page 40 of your witness statement now you say in combination these processes research industry engagement and code

01:07:24 research industry engagement and code design and public consultation helped to ensure that changes to the building regulations adequately reflected industry practice and that guidance was formulated to deliver the intended regulatory outcomes. Yes.

01:07:37 regulatory outcomes. Yes. Yes. Now, can we agree that in terms of the cladding of high-rise buildings or any matters relating to external fire spread, no changes were made between 2014 and 2017 while you were head of

01:07:49 2014 and 2017 while you were head of technical policy, still less any changes which reflected industry practice at the time?

01:07:56 time? Uh there were no changes to ADB made in that period. Yeah.

01:08:00 Yeah. now

01:08:03 now but can I you know the only way to make those changes was through the part B review process that's the only way that can happen and uh I think it's clear

01:08:17 can happen and uh I think it's clear that we were trying to progress that although we did not make the progress we wanted to

01:08:22 wanted to just looking at paragraph 145 of your statement on page 38

01:08:29 you tell us here that um information such as reports or briefings and correspondence received would have been referred to the fire safety policy lead in this case Brian Martin for

01:08:41 in this case Brian Martin for consideration or response and you say I've had sight of a number of pieces of correspondence with the AG but did not recall seeing these at the time though I was aware that there was ongoing arrangement engagement between the APG

01:08:53 arrangement engagement between the APG and ministers. Now, um, just to be clear, the fire safety policy lead that you're talking about and the fire specialist you describe elsewhere in your statement, that's one and the same person, Mr.

01:09:04 that's one and the same person, Mr. Martin. Yes, it is. Yeah.

01:09:06 is. Yeah. Now, putting aside the correspondence between the department and the AG in the period during which you were imposed as the technical policy lead, would the role of gathering that kind of

01:09:18 would the role of gathering that kind of information fall to anybody other than Brian Martin?

01:09:26 It may um have uh been delegated to um someone that Brian Martin line managed. They might have been tasked to um uh

01:09:37 They might have been tasked to um uh engage or uh identify do research so on and so forth. Um but it in that policy area the policy lead Mr. Martin would be um responsible.

01:09:49 um responsible. Right. Did you yourself gather and report back to the team on any information relating to fire safety?

01:10:00 Um, I don't recall doing so. I'm It may well be that there were things from time to time that I brought to the team's attention, but I I can't recall specifics. Right. Did you regard that as part of

01:10:11 Right. Did you regard that as part of your role or was that Mr. Martin's role in anyone he delegated to do that role? I mean, Mr. Martins, you know, as a as the part B policy lead, he would lead on all kind of industry and sector

01:10:23 all kind of industry and sector engagement as the other policy leads in their relevant sectors did. Yeah. Now, looking at paragraph 146 below that, you say this. You say issues raised would be

01:10:35 say this. You say issues raised would be logged or recorded by policy leads for further consideration and feedback would be provided on the outcomes from meetings and external engagement

01:10:46 meetings and external engagement including identify and identifying any specific areas of concern. So that was your understanding was it of how the system worked for gathering this information feeding it back recording it

01:10:58 information feeding it back recording it logging it. Yes, it is um very unsistic though it is not coordinated. It was um uh probably different policy leads um kept records

01:11:11 different policy leads um kept records of these issues in different ways. Um there um had never been a systemic way of actually processing or recording this information within the division. Um so

01:11:22 information within the division. Um so it was kind of quite siloed and it was heavily dependent on on the policy lead. Right. Well, it's not a qualified statement there in your in your witness statement. You say issues raised would be logged or recorded by policy leads.

01:11:35 be logged or recorded by policy leads. Are you saying that um some policy leads would log and record them but others wouldn't?

01:11:40 wouldn't? There was no sorry uh I apologize if if that uh suggests a formalized process. That was not the intention. Uh there was no uh there was no um kind of formalized

01:11:52 no uh there was no um kind of formalized process uh for uh managing that information. So, what caused you to say that in your in your witness statement?

01:12:02 Because my experience was that the policy leads uh did um keep records in some form or other of um the issues that they were looking at, but it's not formalized. So, I apologize if that's

01:12:14 formalized. So, I apologize if that's inaccurate. Right. So, just to be clear, there wasn't like a central um receptacle for this uh these records to be held. There wasn't a formal place on the system where they they were to be logged and

01:12:25 where they they were to be logged and recorded.

01:12:26 recorded. Uh no and uh again I would say um absolutely there should have been but uh that again takes more resource and it takes more capacity. So how would you and other members of

01:12:38 So how would you and other members of the technical team become aware of any such issues uh if they weren't formally logged and recorded?

01:12:45 recorded? It was for the policy lead to raise issues that they felt need to be escalated. Does that mean in reality that it was for the policy leader, Brian Martin, simply to mention them verbally

01:12:57 Martin, simply to mention them verbally to you as and when it occurred to him? Uh, it might start with a conversation, but it would more normally I I think it would probably be a piece of correspondence where something wanted to be formally raised.

01:13:09 be formally raised. I see. So, an an email, just an ad hoc email.

01:13:13 email. Yes, it the the the industry uh my observation would be the we were uh undertaking industry engagement

01:13:24 uh undertaking industry engagement on the same basis that the department had been undertaking industry engagement for 20 or 30 years. Um it was um an

01:13:35 for 20 or 30 years. Um it was um an archaic uh model in many respects but it was the lightest touch possible model in terms of resource to remain engaged with the sector uh or sectors uh

01:13:49 engaged with the sector uh or sectors uh when a formal approved document process wasn't um in motion if you like. Are you really saying that it wouldn't have been possible for resource reasons to have had some kind of written log whereby um

01:14:02 had some kind of written log whereby um the policy leads could write up notes uh based on important interactions they might have had with industry where it was flagging potential issues or changes

01:14:13 was flagging potential issues or changes that you might need to make to approve document B or the the regulations. Uh I'm not saying it was impossible. Um I'm saying that even in times where the

01:14:24 I'm saying that even in times where the division had significantly greater resource that sort of process wasn't put into place and for the majority of the period that I was technical head of technical policy we were uh at a a

01:14:37 technical policy we were uh at a a pretty much all-time low in terms of capacity with policy leads spread over um uh more and more parts of the regulations um and with less and less

01:14:48 regulations um and with less and less policy support to enable them to do the jobs that they already had. So, um yes, I would very much have liked to have a whole series of processes in place, but

01:15:00 whole series of processes in place, but there was no resource to uh put kind of um those those no there was you know to put those logs into place and then keep them up to date

01:15:11 into place and then keep them up to date and actually make them useful does take resource.

01:15:14 resource. Right? If we look at Mr. Martin's witness statement on this point. So CLG 301 9469

01:15:21 301 9469 at page 55.

01:15:26 And if we look at page one, paragraph 157.

01:15:31 157. He tells us this. Um there was no specific mechanism to monitor changes in building design, construction practice, and use of materials. As I've stated above, it was

01:15:42 materials. As I've stated above, it was not the function of the building regulations division to review or approve innovative construction products or methods of construction. The approved documents provide guidance on common building practices and

01:15:53 on common building practices and building designers and building control bodies are expected to use the approved documents as a benchmark. Where innovative products and methods of construction are adopted, there's an expectation that they will use skill and judgment in order to ensure that the

01:16:04 judgment in order to ensure that the functional requirements of the regulations are met. So I I I think you would now agree with the first sentence of that paragraph where he says there was no specific mechanism to monitor

01:16:15 was no specific mechanism to monitor changes in building design, construction practice and use of materials. Yes, I think that's what I've Yes, what I've said is consistent with that. I think now in terms of what he says in the next sentence, he says as I've stated above,

01:16:27 sentence, he says as I've stated above, it was not the function of the building regulations division to review or approve innovative construction products. Now um I think we can agree that it wasn't your role to approve innovative construction products or

01:16:39 innovative construction products or methods of construction but surely it was your role to keep such methods under review. Yes. Uh I would say not formally. Um my

01:16:52 Uh I would say not formally. Um my understanding of the technical function was that it was a relatively benign function. It is not a market surveillance function in any shape or form.

01:17:03 form. Um it uh was intended to enable the department to engage with industry to obtain information and to uh remain in touch with technical communities

01:17:14 touch with technical communities certainly in its kind of earliest iterations. Uh but it was not intended and and never intended I would suggest to undertake any form of uh market surveillance. Um

01:17:26 surveillance. Um well he's not using the word market surveillance there. He's saying it was not the function of the building regulations division to review innovative construction products or methods of construction. How on earth

01:17:37 methods of construction. How on earth could you ensure that the approved documents were fit for purpose if it wasn't any part of your role and put market surveillance to one side to be reviewing

01:17:48 reviewing innovative construction products and methods of construction?

01:17:55 the basis of the functional system uh and I think uh sorry the basis of the functional system is that the high level objectives um enable the marketplace to operate

01:18:07 um enable the marketplace to operate without

01:18:09 without um in accordance with those requirements without that kind of review or monitoring going on. So the whole system is predicated on uh people undertaking

01:18:20 is predicated on uh people undertaking building work um making um positive efforts to comply with the legal requirements the functional requirements. So if this is dysfunctional then it is a sign of um

01:18:33 dysfunctional then it is a sign of um broad systemic dysfunction because uh the um

01:18:40 the um again uh the capacity needed to actively review

01:18:46 review um uh the uh number of products and systems and innovate the level of innovation in the market um is would be would be enormous. Um uh this is a 130

01:18:59 would be enormous. Um uh this is a 130 billion pound a year industry. Um the range of products and technologies is enormous. Um it it's absolutely uh it was

01:19:10 it it's absolutely uh it was inconceivable that we would be um kind of formally able to get under the skin of what these innovative um technologies or um new products were were doing. It's it's it's um a it's completely outside

01:19:23 it's it's um a it's completely outside our but also uh it's unachievable. Now we would try to stay in touch with changes uh but again it's a very light touch form of engagement. Sure. But at least in broad terms you

01:19:35 Sure. But at least in broad terms you your technical policy leads needed to have a feel for particular new construction products that were becoming commonly used. Of course, if they were

01:19:46 commonly used. Of course, if they were in rare use, you might not expect that. But commonly used innovative construction products or new methods of construction which were becoming popular, which your the building control

01:19:57 popular, which your the building control offices using this guidance would be coming across. Surely in broad terms, it was the role of the department to ensure that it was on top of that.

01:20:17 I I don't know how to answer that because there is such a disconnect between the functionality that we had and being able to do that role properly.

01:20:29 and being able to do that role properly. So I almost I can't I can't almost make the jump between where we were um in terms of the capacity and and the structure that we had and uh a role that

01:20:41 structure that we had and uh a role that did that effectively. Right. I mean, are you saying that you didn't think that the department had the ability or capacity to be issuing practical guidance relevant to the

01:20:53 practical guidance relevant to the functional requirements of the building regulations? No, because it simply couldn't keep up with the way the industry was moving. Um actually I think you know

01:21:05 you know in

01:21:07 in hindsight

01:21:09 hindsight uh I think that innovation had out accelerated the system as a whole. I think the system had become um outmoded. The problem was, if I might

01:21:23 um outmoded. The problem was, if I might offer an opinion, that the lack of uh insight, market surveillance, key performance indicators, um, however you may wish to put it, the

01:21:35 um, however you may wish to put it, the lack of evidence base as to whether the system performing was uh, almost kind of hardwired into the system um, in that we didn't have direct market insight um, to

01:21:48 didn't have direct market insight um, to know what was going on. we were always as I said reliant on disclosure in some form. Uh so I I think that the point that the system was uh becoming obsolete

01:21:59 that the system was uh becoming obsolete is is probably absolutely right. Okay, Mr. Chairman, is that a good moment for the morning break? Yes. Um thank you Mr. Harold. We'll have a break at that point. Um

01:22:10 a break at that point. Um we'll come back please at 20 to 12 and again please don't discuss your evidence with anyone while you're out of the room.

01:22:25 Thank you, Mr. Grange. 20 to 12, please. Thank you.

01:39:44 would you ask Mr. Harold to come back in, please?

01:39:57 All right, Mr. How are you, ready to carry on?

01:39:59 carry on? Yes, thank you, sir. If you need a break, you will tell me, won't you? Yes, absolutely, sir. Of course. Right. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now, um just carrying on with the same theme in terms of what

01:40:10 with the same theme in terms of what information your department had. Um you mentioned in your witness statement a particular matter raised with you in relation to Kingpan K15 call firm insulation in July 2014 which we will

01:40:21 insulation in July 2014 which we will come on to. But just putting that aside for a moment, that correspondence, um, and also setting aside the matters raised by the AG,

01:40:32 raised by the AG, um, if we go back to your witness statement at page 38, paragraph 146, you talk about, um, issues were logged or recorded and we've gone through that

01:40:43 or recorded and we've gone through that and feedback would be provided uh, and from meetings and external engagement including identifying any specific areas of concern. turn. Now, do

01:40:54 specific areas of concern. turn. Now, do you recall any other issues that Mr. Martin raised with you between 2014 and 2017 which you would um categorize as specific areas of concern based on his

01:41:07 specific areas of concern based on his interaction with industry?

01:41:19 There would have been a number of areas I'm sure I I can't formulate a list but clearly we already had research that was ongoing that was driven by industry engagement into a number of areas of

01:41:31 engagement into a number of areas of concern. Um uh I think I I can't remember um the um items that were um on the uh schedule

01:41:42 items that were um on the uh schedule that was prepared as a kind of um uh record of the key issues that we thought were apparent. Um uh but uh I'm sorry I can't think of

01:41:53 uh but uh I'm sorry I can't think of specifics. No, understood. Well, let me be more specific. Were you aware at any time before the Grenell Tower fire of any problem with the guidance in paragraphs 12.6 or 12.7 of the approved document?

01:42:06 12.6 or 12.7 of the approved document? I I don't recall that being raised with me.

01:42:11 me. Right. Were you aware at any time before the Granful Tower fire of any debate or difference of interpretation in relation to the scope or meaning of the guidance in relation to external

01:42:23 the guidance in relation to external walls?

01:42:30 Uh, not in a in a I I don't recall that being raised in a in a formal way. Right. What about in an informal way? Well, uh,

01:42:42 Well, uh, no, I I I don't recall it being raised in a way that I would recognize as uh

01:42:50 um, No, I'm sorry. I don't recall. Did you detect before the Grenell Tower fire any uncertainty on the part of Mr. Martin in relation to the scope or meaning of the guidance contained in

01:43:03 meaning of the guidance contained in section 12 of the approved document?

01:43:12 I don't know. I don't know. I don't um Did you detect any uncertainty on his part about the meaning of the word filler material in paragraph 12.7 of the

01:43:24 filler material in paragraph 12.7 of the approved document? Uh no, I don't believe so. Can we take it that you are well away well aware now that there had been for some years before the fire at Grenell

01:43:35 some years before the fire at Grenell Tower an active debate on those topics? I am aware. Yes. When did you first become aware that that specific debate had been going on during the period in

01:43:46 had been going on during the period in which you were imposed? Uh it would be after the fire. After the fire at Grand I believe so. Yeah. Right. And from whom did you come to

01:43:58 Right. And from whom did you come to learn about that? I I honestly can't recall. I think at um there was a great deal of uh debate clearly in the media as well as debate within the department on these issues.

01:44:10 within the department on these issues. So I I can't specifically recall. Did Mr. Martin tell you after the fire that there had been a a a debate going on for some time about a potential lack of clarity around

01:44:24 of clarity around uh section 12 of the approved document dealing with external walls? Uh I I really do not recall. Um, no. I I I'm sorry. I don't recall. You don't recall?

01:44:35 You don't recall? No.

01:44:36 No. So, you don't recall asking Mr. Martin or any other member of your team to give you details of what uh had been going on in terms of um discussions over section

01:44:47 in terms of um discussions over section 12 of the approved document after the fire.

01:44:51 fire. Uh I I don't recall doing that if I did. No.

01:44:55 No. Let's look at Mr. Martin's witness statement again. It's at CLG301 9469.

01:45:01 9469. And I want to look at page 54 [Applause] at paragraph 155.

01:45:12 He says this. He says there were certainly concerns raised about the testing of cladding products including ACM panels and insulation materials

01:45:23 ACM panels and insulation materials during the period 2009 to the 14th of June 2017 and I was aware as were senior officials within the department of the issues regarding the testing of such

01:45:35 issues regarding the testing of such products.

01:45:37 products. And then he goes on, however, within the context of the system of building regulations in England, it was my view that relevant industry bodies were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance and ensure that the functional

01:45:48 guidance and ensure that the functional requirements of the regulations, particular requirement B4, were being met where I was able to, I tried to assist the industry during the period in question, drawing on my knowledge from both my time in the department and at

01:45:59 both my time in the department and at BRE previously. Now again, aside from the Kingspan K15 matter, were you as a senior official within the department and Mr. Martin's line manager aware of concerns raised

01:46:13 line manager aware of concerns raised about the testing of cladding products, including ACM panels and insulation materials in that period? Uh the only issue that I recall being aware of was the K15 issue that came to

01:46:25 aware of was the K15 issue that came to our attention. Right. because he's specific about saying these were concerns raised about the testing of cladding products. Um do you remember any such disc issues

01:46:37 Um do you remember any such disc issues being discussed with him? No. Um I'm afraid I don't recall. In the period um between June 2011 and

01:46:48 In the period um between June 2011 and June 2017, were you aware of ACM panels and/or ACM products with a polyethylene core as a product for use in the external cladding systems of buildings?

01:46:59 external cladding systems of buildings? Did you have an awareness of that product?

01:47:02 product? Um

01:47:05 Um I think I would have been aware of it from the um previous fires um overseas. Yes. And what did you know about those products? ACM with a PE core. What did

01:47:17 products? ACM with a PE core. What did you know about them? Um,

01:47:21 Um, not um a great deal, I'm afraid. Um, I understood that they were a rainscreen cladding panel um uh aluminium with a um plastic or polyethylene combustible

01:47:33 plastic or polyethylene combustible core.

01:47:34 core. Right. Did you um ever speak to anybody about those panels and how they were comprised, what their fire properties were? Do you remember having any discussions about that? Uh I don't believe I did. No.

01:47:48 Uh I don't believe I did. No. Were you made aware at any time during your time as as technical policy lead that the department had undertaken a full-scale test at the B on a system incorporating ACMP panels in July 2001,

01:48:02 incorporating ACMP panels in July 2001, long before your time as part of a project to review the guidance in BR135? Uh, no I was not. When were you first made aware that there had been testing of an ACMP panel

01:48:14 there had been testing of an ACMP panel in 2001 at the B? again it would be when that information came to light I think through this inquiry right so nobody uh drew your attention to that in the department prior to the

01:48:26 to that in the department prior to the inquiry revealing that information uh no and again um

01:48:33 um the

01:48:36 the logging and recording of outputs from research contracts was uh non-sistatic yes were you made aware or did you at

01:48:47 yes were you made aware or did you at any time hear any discussions relating to any concerns about the use of ACM panels with a PE or otherwise combustible core in the external wall arrangements of buildings over 18 m in

01:48:59 arrangements of buildings over 18 m in height in this country? As far as I can recall, no

01:49:07 sorry I I don't believe so. What was your understanding in the period before the Grimful fire about whether or not ACM products with a PE

01:49:18 whether or not ACM products with a PE core could be used in the external wall arrangements of buildings over 18 m? My understanding was that there were types of ACM um that could have the

01:49:31 types of ACM um that could have the right classification to be used but um uh the limits on use of combustible materials um should preclude their use.

01:49:43 materials um should preclude their use. Right. Just take that in stages. When you said my understanding was that there were types of ACM that could have the right classification to be used. What do you mean by that? I believe that there was a there were there are various

01:49:54 was a there were there are various different types of core materials for ACM panels. I think actually I probably became only aware of that after the fire. Um to be fair if I'm um being

01:50:06 fire. Um to be fair if I'm um being Yeah, I think that's probably likely. Um right.

01:50:13 Did you have an understanding about whether such products with a PE core could be used at height in compliance with the building regulations and the guidance in ADB? Uh, no. I thought that the guidance in

01:50:26 Uh, no. I thought that the guidance in ADB precluded their use. Right. Is that because of the work you say you did after the Dubai cladding fire was brought to your attention?

01:50:37 fire was brought to your attention? Um, certainly part of that discussion. Yeah.

01:50:40 Yeah. Right. We'll come on to that. Did you have any understanding um during the time when you were head of technical about the dangers presented by

01:50:51 technical about the dangers presented by ACMP PE products when used in external cladding systems of high-rise buildings? um

01:50:59 um only in terms of the um very um visible uh effects on fires that were happening um to my knowledge I think in Australia and Dubai prim primarily.

01:51:12 and Dubai prim primarily. Did you know that ACMP PE products were um readily available on the market in the UK for use as cladding panels?

01:51:24 Um I I don't recall um because they're only in the you know only limited um in certain locations um it would be

01:51:38 um in certain locations um it would be um yes it wouldn't there's not an um an absolute ban on their use but it would not have um occurred to me I wouldn't have thought about that I don't think at any stage. Right. And are you saying that you had

01:51:49 Right. And are you saying that you had absolutely no awareness that that type of cladding panel ACMP was being used on tall buildings, many tall buildings before the Grenful Tower fire?

01:52:00 before the Grenful Tower fire? Uh I absolutely I I absolutely did not know that that was the case. Right now I want to look now at a series

01:52:11 Right now I want to look now at a series of emails between Mr. Martin and Tony Baker of the B in November 2013. If we can go to CLG1305895.

01:52:23 Um, now we may not go through the whole of this chain, but I want to see some of it uh set some of it in context for you. If we start at the bottom of the chain on page two first,

01:52:35 on page two first, we can see there's an email from Tony Baker to Brian Martin. Did you know who Tony Baker was uh when you were head of technical policy?

01:52:42 policy? No.

01:52:43 No. No. Uh, what about Sarah Cowwell? Had you heard of Sarah Cowwell? Um I imagined that I'd seen her name on reports, but I had not met her, I don't believe, and I did not do not know her.

01:52:56 believe, and I did not do not know her. Right. So we can see that Mr. um Baker on the 25th of November 2013 says to Mr. Martin, copying in Sarah Cole and Steven Howard at the BR, "Hi Brian, I hope

01:53:07 Howard at the BR, "Hi Brian, I hope you're keeping well. I hope you can help with the following. We are seeking seeing an increasing number of inquiries in which we're being asked for our opinion/ interpretation of diagram 40

01:53:18 opinion/ interpretation of diagram 40 and ADB B4 clauses 12.6 and 7 in relation to the buildup of systems using board finishes and we would like to reach a general understand I think means

01:53:29 reach a general understand I think means understanding so we can respond to all parties in the same way. Do you see that? And then he lists uh a number of um bullet points. Um the first one is

01:53:40 um bullet points. Um the first one is systems with board type outer layers. The boards are typically 15 to 20 mm thick and achieve a class B S3D2. Clause 12.6 guidance references diagram

01:53:52 Clause 12.6 guidance references diagram 40 in relation to the classification of the finish which would make acceptable over 18 meters as being BS3D2. But 12.7 talks about insulation or filler materials which make up the wall

01:54:04 filler materials which make up the wall being limited combustibility. As the minimum maximum surface finish is not defined, a debate has opened up within the industry as to whether or not the boards can be called the finish or

01:54:15 the boards can be called the finish or the filler. And then he goes over based on our experience from the original PII program. I think that's partners in industry program. We would suggest that

01:54:26 industry program. We would suggest that the or a definition of the surface finish thickness and filler would assist in clarifying this point and would therefore be grateful for your thoughts. Now, have you seen that correspondence

01:54:37 Now, have you seen that correspondence previously?

01:54:41 Um, I have, but only um as part of the evidence uh to this inquiry. Right. So, um you didn't ever see it um at the time you were head of technical

01:54:52 at the time you were head of technical policy. I think this is a 2013 email, so I wasn't I wasn't head of technical policy.

01:55:00 policy. No, I I I appreciate that. Oh, sorry. But no. Okay. Yes. No. No, I didn't. When I was head of technical policy, I don't believe so. And um were you ever made aware when you were head of technical policy or or or

01:55:12 were head of technical policy or or or indeed before that the BR was saying they'd been receiving inquiries about the definition of the word filler in paragraph 12.7? I don't believe so. No.

01:55:24 I don't believe so. No. Did Mr. Martin ever mention that the BRE themselves had raised a question mark over the interpretation of paragraph 12.7

01:55:34 12.7 uh in relation to these materials? I don't recall him doing so. No.

01:55:43 And were you aware that the term filler material in paragraph 12.7 was not defined?

01:55:53 Did you ever have to think about that? Um,

01:55:57 Um, it didn't. Um, I

01:56:01 I I don't recall thinking about it being defined or not to be honest.

01:56:09 Now, if we go back to the email and go to the top of page two, I want to look at Mr. Martin's response, which is sent just over half an hour later at 15:47 on

01:56:20 just over half an hour later at 15:47 on the 25th of November. He writes, "Hi, Tony. I see where you are coming from. The problem we have with class B is that you can have a thin surface that gives you the performance and back it with

01:56:31 you the performance and back it with something less desirable. So, there's no such thing as a class B material." The word filler was introduced because of a particular incident where a polymeric foam was used to keep an aluminium panel stiff. The foam was not used for thermal

01:56:43 stiff. The foam was not used for thermal reasons, so it wasn't insulation. Um, and then in parenthesis, he says it's still burned. Of course, three exclamation marks. Sarah will remember the details, I'm sure. I'm thinking out

01:56:54 the details, I'm sure. I'm thinking out loud here, but I think a homogeneous class B board will be fine. Effectively, a class B material. Mark, but a lamination of board with something else should revert to the limited

01:57:05 should revert to the limited combustibility criteria. Does this make sense? Don't quote me on this yet. What do you think? Now, putting aside the technical detail of the question that Brian Martin's

01:57:17 of the question that Brian Martin's considering, were you aware at any time after this point that the meaning and scope of the term filler material uh were matters which Mr. Martin still

01:57:28 were matters which Mr. Martin still appeared to be undecided about [Applause] uh uh I don't believe I was aware of that.

01:57:37 that. Now we're aware from the evidence of other witnesses that following this exchange a meeting was arranged between Brian Martin uh Dr. Cowwell and Tony Baker of the BR which took place on the

01:57:49 Baker of the BR which took place on the 30th of January 20144 at Ellend House. Now, you took over as head of technical policy in January 2014, so you'd have just been getting familiar with that

01:58:01 just been getting familiar with that role.

01:58:01 role. Yeah.

01:58:02 Yeah. Do you um remember being aware of a meeting between Mr. Martin and the B at around that time? I I may have been aware that he was having a meeting with the BR, but I don't recall.

01:58:13 don't recall. Yeah. That And you don't recall him feeding back to you on what was discussed at that meeting?

01:58:18 meeting? Uh, no.

01:58:21 Uh, no. Would

01:58:27 you expect to be fed back to um by a policy lead like Mr. Martin if an organization like the B had raised concerns with him about the clarity of

01:58:38 concerns with him about the clarity of the guidance in one of the approved documents?

01:58:46 So

01:58:51 if he thought it was of concern, yes. But a great deal of the industry engagement that went on at a technical level would involve debate about these

01:59:05 level would involve debate about these types of issue. So it wouldn't be a matter of course if someone raised a question because questions about what the approved documents may u meant were numerous. I I

01:59:18 documents may u meant were numerous. I I don't know if you audited the department's files how many emails or um letters you would find asking for clarification or providing clarification but there'd be a great many. Yes. But this sorry to interrupt but

01:59:30 Yes. But this sorry to interrupt but this isn't a an email or a random letter or email is it? This is the BR having a meeting with Mr. Martin. It would appear about a lack of clarity and some pretty

01:59:42 about a lack of clarity and some pretty important clauses in approved document B. Now, would you have expected Mr. Martin to have mentioned that to you at some point? If he believed it was a matter of concern and that he that action further

01:59:54 concern and that he that action further action was needed, then yes. Right. So, only if he thought it was a concern.

02:00:03 I that's the way um the team worked and had always worked certainly that's the way it worked when I was a grade seven.

02:00:13 So does that mean quite a lot of responsibility rested on the shoulders of Mr. Martin to be feeding back to you areas which were potentially of concern? Uh that's um the way that uh the

02:00:26 Uh that's um the way that uh the division worked pretty much for the entire time that I was there including as a grade seven. Yeah. Were you aware that the BRE had an important role advising the department on fire safety? Were you generally aware

02:00:37 on fire safety? Were you generally aware of that?

02:00:38 of that? I knew that we worked um quite often and closely with BR. Um clearly we had the investigation of real fires contract with BR um which was a formal reporting line for any such concerns of course. Um

02:00:52 line for any such concerns of course. Um uh but yes of course I was aware that we worked with BR um quite extensively. Yes.

02:00:58 Yes. Now um moving forward with the chronology, we know that on the 2nd of July 2014, Mr. Martin attended a meeting of the CWCT fire group. That meeting had been

02:01:09 CWCT fire group. That meeting had been arranged in order for a cross-section of industry, fire safety experts, manufacturers, and academics and others to discuss various issues on which the CWCT had been re receiving inquiries,

02:01:22 CWCT had been re receiving inquiries, including the use of composite panels such as ACM and the use of combustible insulation materials. Now, were you made aware at the time that that meeting with

02:01:33 aware at the time that that meeting with that CWCT group was taking place? Um, I don't recall. you don't recall. I I should say that um throughout 2014 and early 2015 I was

02:01:46 um throughout 2014 and early 2015 I was almost entirely uh absorbed in uh delivering the housing standards review process um which was very intensive um process and between 2014 and March 2016

02:02:01 process and between 2014 and March 2016 I was still carrying uh 50 or 60% of my previous grade 7 workload as we tried to recruit So there was an enormous amount of stretch during those periods. I I I fully understand that. But you

02:02:13 I I I fully understand that. But you were coll-located with Mr. Martin at this time. Yes. You shared an office. Yes.

02:02:18 Yes. Um but you weren't aware that he met with the CWCT at this time. I I may have been aware that he had gone to a meeting with the CWCT. It's much less likely that um I would have um u

02:02:33 less likely that um I would have um u been aware of the subject of the meeting. I might know he was going to a meeting but um I I don't recall. Right. In general, were you normally aware when he was undergoing uh meetings

02:02:45 aware when he was undergoing uh meetings with industry bodies such as the BR or an industry body like the CWCT like a trade organization? Um

02:02:56 Um I c I didn't know is probably u the best answer. uh I didn't seek to monitor um the engagement that policy leads were uh undertaking um and I would say that that

02:03:10 undertaking um and I would say that that had been the case uh when I was a grade seven policy lead as well that that level of engagement was largely self-directed. Yeah. Now let's go to the minutes of that meeting. They're at CLG3019336.

02:03:27 These are the minutes of the meeting with the attendance list there on Wednesday the 2nd of July 2014. Do you recall ever seeing these minutes um

02:03:40 recall ever seeing these minutes um prior to the Grenell Tower fire? Uh no.

02:03:46 Have you seen these minutes in the course of preparing your witness statement?

02:03:51 I am not sure whether I've seen them in preparing my witness statement, but I am aware of them. Right, let's um I'm not going to go through all of it, but I want to look at two particular sections. If we look at

02:04:03 two particular sections. If we look at the final heading on page three of these minutes,

02:04:07 minutes, which is use of ACM on high-rise buildings, we can see it says ACM refers to aluminium composite material. The normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeter

02:04:20 aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeter thick separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick. This material generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class N or class B S1D N. There are versions

02:04:31 class B S1D N. There are versions available with a mineral core which can achieve A2 S1D N. There are also similar materials available with other metals such as copper used for the facing. And then it says at the bottom, there have

02:04:42 then it says at the bottom, there have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world, including the Middle East and France, where ACM materials have been used for the cladding with the ACM responsible for external fire

02:04:53 ACM responsible for external fire spread.

02:04:55 spread. Now, were you made aware of these discussions by Mr. Martin at any time about ACM with a PE core, which versions

02:05:06 about ACM with a PE core, which versions were available and there being major fires in the Middle East and France where ACM had been used in the cladding? Uh, I don't recall being made aware no.

02:05:18 Um, in July 2014, were you aware that there had been major fires in various parts of the world involving external fire spread and ACMP panels?

02:05:31 and ACMP panels? At that time, no. I I think the first fire that came to my attention was later that year in Melbourne or Australia for sure.

02:05:40 sure. Yes. In November 2014, the Lacrosse fire, you mean? Um, what about the fire at the Memos Tower in Rubé in France in May 2012? Do you remember ever being aware of that?

02:05:51 you remember ever being aware of that? No, I was not. What about the external cladding fires which took place in the UAE in 2012 and 2013 which were widely reported? So those are the Albaka Tower, the Ala

02:06:03 those are the Albaka Tower, the Ala tower that's January 2012, April 2012. Uh there's another one in October 2012, the Tamwheel Tower in November 2012, the Alhafi Tower in April 2013. Do you ever

02:06:16 Alhafi Tower in April 2013. Do you ever remember discussing with Mr. Martin or anyone else in the department those 2012 2013 cladding fires? Um I don't recall I don't recall doing

02:06:27 Um I don't recall I don't recall doing so.

02:06:29 so. And when you say that you think you might have become aware a little later um it would have to be after the November 2014 of the Lacrosse building fire. How did you become aware of that?

02:06:40 fire. How did you become aware of that? I think it was um simply through um normal broadcast media reporting. Right.

02:06:50 now and and do you remember ever discussing that fire with Mr. Martin that the crossfire? Um I I don't recall. No. Right.

02:07:01 Right. Do you remember thinking I perhaps ought to um discuss this with someone to check that we've got this covered in the UK?

02:07:18 Actually, I think that my recollection is wrong. I may not have been aware of the Australian fire, right? Because I the first time that I sought to seek further information was in the February 15.

02:07:29 February 15. Right. Okay. Now, if we go back to the minutes and we look uh over the page on page four, still under this heading, and I want to pick up it in the second

02:07:40 I want to pick up it in the second paragraph down, it says, "It was stated that clause 12.7 of ADB is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called ACM in buildings over 18 meters as they are not classed as limited combustibility.

02:07:51 combustibility. This is not clear from the wording of the current clause. The current clause is preceded by a heading insulation materials/products which implies that it only applies to insulation. The wording

02:08:04 only applies to insulation. The wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the pos polyethylene core but this is not clear. And then below that it was suggested that clarification

02:08:16 it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an FAQ. Approved documents can be downloaded from the planning portal. The page for each approved document also has an FAQ section related to that approved document. Sarah Cowwell agreed to raise

02:08:28 document. Sarah Cowwell agreed to raise this with Brian Martin. Now, were you made aware by Mr. Martin following this meeting that members of the CWCT fire group uh had reached a

02:08:39 the CWCT fire group uh had reached a consensus that the guidance in paragraph 12.7 was not clear? No.

02:08:46 No. Were you ever made aware by Mr. Martin that it was not clearly understood by at least some in industry that the paragraph was apparently intended to prohibit the use of PE called ACM in

02:08:59 prohibit the use of PE called ACM in buildings over 18 meters. Sorry, could you repeat that question, please?

02:09:03 please? Yes. Were you ever made aware by Mr. Martin that it was not clearly understood by at least some in industry that the paragraph 12.7 was apparently intended to prohibit the use of PE

02:09:14 intended to prohibit the use of PE called ACM in buildings over 18 m. I I don't recall being made aware. No.

02:09:26 Do you consider that you should have been made aware of this these discussions and the lack of clarity in paragraph 12.7 of the approved document as understood by those actually using

02:09:37 as understood by those actually using the document?

02:09:41 I um yes, I would like that to have been raised.

02:09:47 raised. Yes, this was important feedback, wasn't it, that Mr. Martin when he read these minutes, as we assume he did, uh would have received from industry about their

02:09:59 have received from industry about their understanding. Yes. Um yes it is. Uh one, um

02:10:08 um one thing I would note is that

02:10:15 and I I'm not trying to split hairs, but but

02:10:23 uh there's often debate in industry engagement meetings about wording an approved document.

02:10:33 But what didn't happen was for people to actually disclose whether they knew that there was non-compliant work as a result of that happening. Uh so people would often try to well

02:10:48 Uh so people would often try to well sorry look I'm not trying to um change this but uh what what I'm saying essentially is is you know um if the people in the industry knew that ACM was

02:10:59 people in the industry knew that ACM was being used which may well sit behind some of this why did they not disclose that at the time other than simply talking about the clarity of the approved document um because that makes

02:11:11 approved document um because that makes a a big difference because um identifying ways to improve clarity of the guidance is a normal part of this engagement process and I'm not downplaying the risk in any way in this

02:11:22 downplaying the risk in any way in this instance. Uh and because of the way that the approved documents were so central to and so closely controlled in terms of

02:11:33 to and so closely controlled in terms of um actual guidance that was issued. It meant that there was uh across the parts a a normal process of accumulating changes until uh

02:11:45 process of accumulating changes until uh a review process happened. Right. But let's take this in stages. It doesn't say that that product is not being used in the UK does it? No.

02:11:55 No. And these are all industry experts in this jurisdiction sitting down discussing this. Yes. Yes. And we saw there was reference to the normal material in one of the paragraphs before. Can we agree that any

02:12:08 paragraphs before. Can we agree that any reasonable reader of these minutes might at least suspect that ACMP might well be being used in the UK? You certainly wouldn't assume from this that it wasn't

02:12:19 wouldn't assume from this that it wasn't being used, would you? No. Um I I'm not trying to downplay that at all.

02:12:26 at all. No. And this was very important feedback because not only are they saying this guidance here is unclear, but it's being linked to some very significant fires

02:12:38 linked to some very significant fires internationally. Yes. Yes.

02:12:40 Yes. So we've got concrete evidence that that product is dangerous at height based on real life cladding fires and that the clauses dealing intended to prohibit it

02:12:52 clauses dealing intended to prohibit it are being said by industry to be not clear. Yes. Uh, yes, that's that's the case.

02:12:57 case. Wasn't that vitally important information that Mr. Martin ought to have made you aware of straight away? I would want it to have been escalated.

02:13:08 I would want it to have been escalated. Yes.

02:13:08 Yes. Yes. Can you help us to understand how it came about that you were not informed about this? Uh, I do not know.

02:13:20 Had you been made aware of this, for example, if you'd seen a copy of these minutes or been updated uh by Mr. Martin uh about uh these minutes and what had

02:13:33 uh about uh these minutes and what had occurred at the meeting, would you have considered this to be a significant issue requiring escalation either to more senior officials or ministerial level?

02:13:48 there would have been a very serious discussion about the need for that. Yes. Yes.

02:13:57 And and what do you think um had you been made aware of this confusion and you understood the import and possible consequences of this ambiguity, what practical steps would you have taken, do

02:14:08 practical steps would you have taken, do you think?

02:14:21 uh we had again the same limited number of options that we've discussed previously really in terms of uh issuing an FAQ um looking at an urgent amendment

02:14:32 an FAQ um looking at an urgent amendment to the approved document um which would still potentially unless you could agree an exemption which I don't think we ever managed to um avoid some of the process um uh potentially um

02:14:45 some of the process um uh potentially um I'm not sure legally whether you could mod you can't modify guidance by issuing a circular letter. Um uh but those would be the kind of three mechanisms that were most readily available.

02:14:57 were most readily available. Right. Did you ever hear any discussion about the possibility of drafting or publishing an FAQ? I I don't recall that being raised in

02:15:08 I I don't recall that being raised in the at any time. No. Right. Would there have been any particular difficulty or anything precluding the department from publishing an FAQ on this subject?

02:15:20 um if it was was a change in the guidance then yes but I'm sure we

02:15:32 I think we'd have had to take legal advice in all honesty um because we were very much limited to performance standards rather than looking at

02:15:43 standards rather than looking at specific material products but I think we should have been able to do that. Yes. I mean here we can see from the minutes it says it was stated that clause 12.7 is intended to prohibit the

02:15:54 clause 12.7 is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called ACM. So it would appear that that was being said to have been the intent of the clause. It's just that that's not being clearly understood by industry. Yes. Yes. But I think the wording in 12.7 is

02:16:07 Yes. But I think the wording in 12.7 is also intended to capture a whole range of other combustible filler materials at the same time rather than listing all the various different materials that

02:16:19 the various different materials that might be um combustible. Sure. But couldn't the FAQ simply have said clause 12.7 applies to the core of a composite panel?

02:16:31 a composite panel? Um it could have done. Yes, I'm sure that would have been a very simple thing to do, wouldn't it? Yeah.

02:16:41 Now, I think we can agree that no action was taken to clarify in any formal way. There was no circular, there was no FAQ. Um,

02:16:53 was the decision not to do so, not to take any action at all, one which should have rested with Mr. Martin alone and not bought to you or should that decision I whether or not to uh take

02:17:06 decision I whether or not to uh take some further action uh have been escalated by him. If Mr. Martin thought that there was a risk that needed to be addressed then I would think he should have have

02:17:18 would think he should have have escalated it. I see. Yeah. Now if we go back to your witness statement now CLG301 9487

02:17:36 um at page 17 paragraph uh 56 we can see uh you say this you say on the 11th of July 2014 I was sent an

02:17:48 the 11th of July 2014 I was sent an email chain by Brian Martin which concerned the fact that a number of pool apartment buildings had been insulated using combustible insulation materials. The emails referred specifically to

02:17:59 The emails referred specifically to confusion about the acceptable use of and certification of Kingspan Koulam K15 raincreen board in buildings over 18 meters in height. The emails said that the National House Building Council were

02:18:10 the National House Building Council were aware and were working with Kingspan to ascertain if there was a problem. At this time, BS8414 testing was a valid route to compliance where combustible insulation was used. My recollection is

02:18:22 insulation was used. My recollection is that Brian Martin followed up on NHBC's actions relating to compliance and to obtain reassurance they were acting as we would expect a responsible building control body. Throughout my time in the

02:18:34 control body. Throughout my time in the department, legal Throughout my time in the department, legal advice to officials was that they should not discuss case-pecific issues of compliance outside of the formal appeal and determinations process as

02:18:46 and determinations process as responsibility for compliance rested with the inspecting building control body. It was not unusual for officials to have informal discussions with external bodies where in principle concerns about compliance had been

02:18:57 concerns about compliance had been flagged to the department. and I recall having similar discussions on other issues such as accessibility and glazing safety. In other words, conversations about compliance were a normal part of the division's day-to-day business. It

02:19:09 the division's day-to-day business. It was, however, unusual to be involved directly in discussions about a building control body's views on compliance of specific projects given the devolved nature of the building control system.

02:19:20 nature of the building control system. Now, let's turn to the emails you're referring to. uh first with the NHBC which are at CLG50686.

02:19:33 Now we can see from the top email in the chain

02:19:36 chain um sent to you and Mr. Ledum by Mr. Martin on the 11th of July 2014 um that he says see below. Uh and what

02:19:47 um that he says see below. Uh and what he's done is he's forwarded a short chain of emails to you. Now, can we take it from the paragraph of the witness statement which we just read uh that you did re read the emails in this chain at

02:19:58 did re read the emails in this chain at the time?

02:19:59 the time? Um I did. Yes. And what about the attachments attached to this email? We can see there are some attachments included the BBA certificates for Kingspan K15. Do you remember reading those?

02:20:10 remember reading those? Um

02:20:12 Um I do remember reviewing those um I think at a meeting with um Brian and Bob at a slightly later date. Right. And and when was that later date that you remember

02:20:23 was that later date that you remember reading them? I I can't remember specifically. It was it was shortly after. Now, if we go to page two, about halfway down,

02:20:31 down, there's an email sent by Mr. Martin to Neil Smith at the NHBC on the 2nd of July 2014. And that reads, "Hi Neil, I've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently.

02:20:44 fire safety and facades recently. Allegedly, several buildings have been erected where PI insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height. Apparently, people are under the impression that PIR is a

02:20:57 under the impression that PIR is a material of limited combustibility, which it isn't. Again, allegedly, many of these buildings are blocks of flats. I've no idea how true these allegations are, but they come from relatively

02:21:08 are, but they come from relatively reliable sources. The purpose of my email is a friendly warning. You might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this. Happy to discuss

02:21:19 are on top of this. Happy to discuss regards, Brian. Now, before we go to the NHBC's response, had you discussed these allegations with Mr. Martin before he sent this message? I did you know that he was communicating with NHBC over

02:21:32 he was communicating with NHBC over this?

02:21:32 this? Uh, no. The first time I was aware of this email chain was when it was copied to me. Would it have been normal um to CC um Bob Ledom or you into it at the

02:21:43 CC um Bob Ledom or you into it at the time? Would you have expected that? Um no, not necessarily. Um

02:21:53 Um I think probably Mr. Martin is trying to ascertain the facts before he um takes it further. Right. So when this friendly warning email was forwarded to you on the 11th

02:22:04 email was forwarded to you on the 11th of July 2014, as we saw from the first page, was that the first time you'd heard of this? Yes, it was. Yeah. Did you know who the relatively reliable sources were from whom this information

02:22:16 sources were from whom this information had come to Mr. Martin? Um

02:22:21 Um I

02:22:23 I normally if if Mr. Martin had raised the issue before contacting NHBC. Uh that would be um a question that would be primary in your mind. But given

02:22:35 would be primary in your mind. But given the subsequent disclosure from NHBC, the source of the allegation um was less important, but I I'd assumed I think that it was the C CWCT.

02:22:46 that it was the C CWCT. You assumed it was CWCT. I see. Um did you ever ask Mr. Martin precisely? um who the reliable sources were from whom

02:22:57 who the reliable sources were from whom this information came. No. And for the reason I've just said that the the the that was superseded by the nature of the disclosure from NHBC. Right. Did you understand why this

02:23:09 Right. Did you understand why this friendly warning email was sent in particular to the NHBC and why not other building control organizations such as the LABC? Uh

02:23:21 Uh I think I understood that this was because the information provided was specific to NHBC. Certainly that was my recollection

02:23:32 recollection i.e. i.e. the disclosure the who um whoever informed Mr. Martin. I mean my recollection of of this is Paul um in in in many details. Um but in my

02:23:47 um in in in many details. Um but in my mind I my recollection was that the allegation had been made that it was NHBC's inspectors that had been um someone had identified that they were

02:23:58 someone had identified that they were using the PIR therefore it was specific to NHBC in the first instance right

02:24:03 right but I can't I can't you can't really that okay

02:24:07 that okay um

02:24:11 did you understand at the time that this was a serious safety issue? that Mr. Martin was raising? Uh, yes. It was a potentially serious safety issue. Did you or Mr. Ledome escalate it to any

02:24:23 Did you or Mr. Ledome escalate it to any more senior officials within the department? No, we did not. And why not?

02:24:32 Further um correspondents followed this and there were follow-up discussions I believe

02:24:39 believe um around whether this should be taken further. Um the issue was whether um the systems could achieve compliance as far as I can

02:24:51 could achieve compliance as far as I can recall. So it was entirely possible that these systems were uh u able to comply with the requirements of B4 if the

02:25:03 with the requirements of B4 if the appropriate testing was undertaken. So there was an issue um about coming to terms with um the outcome of that testing procedure that NHBC proposed. Um

02:25:16 testing procedure that NHBC proposed. Um it's entirely um the responsibility of NHBC to um make a decision about compliance. So there is an issue about this being uh fully devolved. But my

02:25:27 this being uh fully devolved. But my recollection is that um uh we uh ultimately came to the view that that the right actions were being taken to uh manage that risk and uh we needed to

02:25:41 manage that risk and uh we needed to wait for the results of the testing to understand if there was uh um any need to take matters further. Right. I think yesterday you told us you didn't know much about BS8414 testing or

02:25:53 didn't know much about BS8414 testing or BR135.

02:25:55 BR135. Does that mean that at this time when this was brought to your attention and I know you've only been in post for about seven months here, you did in fact know about large scale testing as a route to compliance. I knew BS8414

02:26:07 I knew BS8414 was a very um well my understanding at the time was that BS8414 was a very robust large scale test but I didn't understand the details of its mechanics or the criteria against it which it was

02:26:20 or the criteria against it which it was assessed.

02:26:20 assessed. Right. I see. Um, let's look at NHBC's response, which is the second email down on page one

02:26:32 here on the 11th of July 2014, Steve Evans responds to Mr. Martin copying in others and he says um in the second paragraph picking up there, the issue is

02:26:43 paragraph picking up there, the issue is in respect of the use of Kingspan cool them K15 rainc screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height. The confusion has arisen from Kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use

02:26:54 that their product is acceptable for use in buildings over 18 meters. However, the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible. However, since 27th of October 2008, the product held a BBA

02:27:06 October 2008, the product held a BBA certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with approved document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 subject to advice being should be sought from the

02:27:17 advice being should be sought from the certificate holder if the building exceeds 18 meters in height. It was on this basis that NHBC building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of K15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including

02:27:29 over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats. We understand that LABC have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters.

02:27:39 meters. Then it goes on in January of this year we made we were made aware of a revised BBA certificate for K15 issued on the 17th of December 2013 also attached the

02:27:50 17th of December 2013 also attached the new certificate removed the passage which indicated it was acceptable for use in accordance with approved document B volume 2 par 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire but

02:28:01 the development stages of a fire but that it has only been tested and therefore is only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls. Then he goes on, "As we had a number of projects under construction and in

02:28:13 projects under construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing K15, NHBC approached Kingspan and made them aware of our concerns. As a result of this dialogue, Kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using

02:28:25 undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with BS8414 part one. The results from these tests are expected by the end of this month and NHBC are meeting with Kingspan at the end at the beginning of August at

02:28:36 the end at the beginning of August at which time Kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in an alternative construction types other than that specified in the current BBA certificate. Then over the

02:28:48 current BBA certificate. Then over the page, there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with Kingspan K15 are at risk at this time. It's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this

02:28:59 carried out to date does not bear this out. Kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 mters. If they are not able to do this, we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is

02:29:11 informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 mters as well as informing other stakeholders such as BCA and the Fire and Rescue Service, although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions.

02:29:24 discussions. So, um, there we have that. Now, did you read this with care when it came to you? Do you remember doing that? I believe I did. Yes. You say in your, uh, witness statement,

02:29:35 You say in your, uh, witness statement, this is paragraph 56 on page 17, that this was followed up by Mr. Martin. You say, "My recollection is that Brian Martin followed up on NHBC's actions um, in order to obtain reassurance that

02:29:47 um, in order to obtain reassurance that they were acting as they we would expect of a responsible building control body." Yes.

02:29:52 Yes. Yes. Now, what else was done when you were alerted to these uh matters? I believe that there was a follow-up with the BBA as well. Um

02:30:05 with the BBA as well. Um who had issued the certificate. If we look at page two again and

02:30:16 the paragraph that we read, if we go back to

02:30:21 back to sorry, page one again,

02:30:27 and we can see from Mr. Evans's email that Kingspan were claiming that their product was suitable for use over 18 meters in a generic sense. Yes.

02:30:40 meters in a generic sense. Yes. Uh yes.

02:30:42 Uh yes. Despite the information in the same email that testing to date does not bear this out. Yes. Yes.

02:30:48 Yes. What was done by the department to address that?

02:30:54 We did not. Um,

02:31:02 did you contact or did anyone else on the team contact Kingpan about that claim?

02:31:08 claim? No, we didn't. Did you carry out or cause to have carried out any checks or queries made within the industry about the product literature for Kingspan or the way in which they were marketing their K15

02:31:21 which they were marketing their K15 product for use at height? No, we did not. Did you contact or instruct your team to contact trading standards so that that authority could investigate the claims being made by Kingspan?

02:31:33 being made by Kingspan? No. Did you contact the advertising standards in uh authority for the same reason?

02:31:40 reason? No.

02:31:41 No. Why didn't you take any of those steps? Um,

02:31:59 I think this problem

02:32:04 problem found us um unequipped to deal with it to be honest. Um, I don't I know that at this point in

02:32:15 Um, I don't I know that at this point in time

02:32:17 time and this it's it's not an excuse, but I know that I was um heavily engaged on getting the consultation out for

02:32:30 getting the consultation out for uh no sorry um I was heavily involved in the housing standards review work which was taxing but um I just I think that we were

02:32:46 in the wrong posture. We were in um in terms of the way that we were working.

02:32:55 working. Um

02:32:56 Um what do you mean by posture? Do you mean you had the wrong mindset um about matters like this when they were raised with you? I mean that our

02:33:07 I mean that our role in the sector had always been very constrained and so when something arrived where we've got to in a way is

02:33:20 arrived where we've got to in a way is that we have gone from being a function that is not meant to be involved in any sort of direct market intervention to one that's ended up in a position of

02:33:31 one that's ended up in a position of informal

02:33:33 informal enforcement. You know, I'm looking back at this now, but isn't there a I'm sorry. Let him finish. Yes. Go on. We've ended up in a position where we're we're under, you know, in effectively

02:33:44 we're under, you know, in effectively starting to take informal enforcement and I just I think we tried to take the right actions. I remember when we um agreed a watching brief to

02:33:57 when we um agreed a watching brief to find uh see the test results that come back that I genuinely felt that we were absolutely at or beyond the edge of our legal capacity to act.

02:34:10 legal capacity to act. Um

02:34:12 Um so I felt we had done we were doing as much as we could genuinely and in fact I was worried about the implications of overstepping that remmit.

02:34:24 overstepping that remmit. Um but I think that we were just um you know we were we genuinely trying to do the right thing.

02:34:35 uh this was an area that the department was never happy with us getting involved on other cases. So there was a sense um that we might be kind of beyond the edge

02:34:46 that we might be kind of beyond the edge of what we were allowed to do certainly in my mind. Um but I just think we were um just totally unequipped um to have the right tools and um

02:35:00 um to have the right tools and um approach to uh deal with this in a different way. Right. But isn't there quite a big difference between taking direct action yourself or enforcement action and um notifying other important

02:35:13 action and um notifying other important organizations that you were aware of this given the potential life safety uh implications of having a combustible insulation material being used at height?

02:35:37 Uh look I I this is clearly a moment of great a period you know an issue on which I have great regrets. I

02:35:48 I did not um have any experience of that kind of activity and this is a weak excuse but um I had no training to act

02:36:01 excuse but um I had no training to act as a regulator. I had no experience acting as a regulator. Um and what I understood we could or should do was very limited. Um I've become certainly

02:36:12 very limited. Um I've become certainly personally I I think and many perhaps others in the division had um a very constrained mindset about what it was that we could do. Um so at the time as I

02:36:25 that we could do. Um so at the time as I said we felt we had gone as far as we could and we had adequate reassurances with a back stop that if the testing results indicated problems then we could

02:36:39 results indicated problems then we could um revert to uh looking at what further might be done um uh but I do think um we had you know we were focused on the compliance issue

02:36:51 compliance issue is it or isn't it compliant and that's a determiner of whether more needs to be done but I accept everything that you've said.

02:37:02 said. Did you beyond the the circle of you, Mr. Ledum and Mr. Martin, did you actually take any further advice about whether or not there was more you could do? For example, did you actually take legal advice? I don't I'm not interested

02:37:14 legal advice? I don't I'm not interested in the content of it, but did did you in fact take any or seek any? Uh, no, we did not as far as I can recall. Did you take any advice um about what you should do from anybody outside

02:37:25 what you should do from anybody outside the three of you? Uh no.

02:37:29 Uh no. And and and you said in your answer a moment ago that the department was not happy with you getting involved in other cases.

02:37:37 cases. What other cases are you referring to which um led you to think that you needed to be so circumspect? I I can't remember the contexts. I mean there are a couple of issues I I tried to

02:37:49 to uh raise um as a grade seven but um there were definitely instances where um issues of compliance had come to the department's attention and been

02:38:00 department's attention and been escalated and the advice had always been it's a fully devolved system that rests with the building control body. So there was um precedent. I I even think there

02:38:12 was um precedent. I I even think there might have been a judicial review case at some stage in the past that had um resulted from the department being coming involved in a compliance decision but I I can't remember the detail but um

02:38:25 but I I can't remember the detail but um there was certainly a kind of history of um the department saying it's devolved that is their responsibility um and I think that informed this decision to a

02:38:36 think that informed this decision to a degree certainly um to the point where it you know you would want to know whether there was the result results of the the test outcome

02:38:48 result results of the the test outcome before you might go further right

02:38:53 right now. Um what contact was made with the BBA so far as you were aware? What did you understand about what had happened with the BBA? Um

02:39:06 my recollection of this is is poor. I apologize for that. Um I understand that um Mr. Martin followed up with BBA and I think there was a meeting where we um

02:39:17 think there was a meeting where we um and again I can't remember the dates um uh where uh that information was also discussed before we went to a watching brief on this

02:39:29 brief on this um uh but I can't um I I don't recall the details of that correspondence from memory. Yes. I mean the inquiry seen that correspondence you and Mr. Ledson

02:39:40 correspondence you and Mr. Ledson weren't copied into that. Um it was between Mr. Martin and um Mr. Alburn. Um Mr. Alburn explained it as an unfortunate and rare oversight. He said a review of other certificates has not

02:39:52 a review of other certificates has not confirmed. It's been produced elsewhere. And he said the mistake was basically caused by human error. Do you remember anybody asking or or discussing whether or not steps ought to be taken uh to

02:40:05 or not steps ought to be taken uh to satisfy the department that similar assertions had not appeared in other BBA certificates for other combustible products?

02:40:13 products? Um no I don't recall that but as I say my recollection of this is is um

02:40:21 um is very poor. Do you remember discussing with Mr. Martin or Mr. Led Mr. Martin um contacting UKCASS or the possibility that you could contact UKCAST as the

02:40:32 that you could contact UKCAST as the proper accreditation authority to ensure that UKCASS was aware of these problems or errors in the BBA certificate. Uh I don't recall I have a suspicion

02:40:43 Uh I don't recall I have a suspicion that it was considered or discussed but I actually don't recall. So in effect um is this fair? You were extremely busy with other matters at the

02:40:54 extremely busy with other matters at the time and it was left to Mr. Martin to follow up with the BBA and decide how far to pursue that. So I mean that is uh that is yeah essentially I mean we

02:41:09 uh that is yeah essentially I mean we we because of uh our role being purposefully so distant from the market. The watching

02:41:20 distant from the market. The watching brief was not commonly agreed, but it was it was the normal way that we dealt with issues that were of concern but were outside our direct uh control. So,

02:41:35 were outside our direct uh control. So, um delegating it to Mr. Martin to keep a watching brief and then escalate again if there was further cons concern was normal.

02:41:43 normal. Right.

02:41:45 Right. Um did you understand from Mr. Evans's email that a BBA certificate asserting that Kingspan's K15 combustible product was suitable for use over 18 meters in a

02:41:56 was suitable for use over 18 meters in a generic sense had been in circulation since 2008. Do you remember picking that up in that second paragraph? Um, it's it's there in black and white, so I must have been aware of it. And I I

02:42:08 so I must have been aware of it. And I I I

02:42:10 I I don't see I don't recognize myself in this period frankly. Um uh and I think if circumstances had been

02:42:21 uh and I think if circumstances had been different

02:42:23 different might have thought about it in a broader sense but um yeah I think it was difficult to at the time um yeah I don't recall the thought

02:42:35 um yeah I don't recall the thought process that I went through but I'm

02:42:40 uh

02:42:44 as I said you know Whatever I was thinking at the time, I do recall believing that we were going as far as we could, but I think that may be as much to do with a lack of experience in the other options or

02:42:57 experience in the other options or approaches that could have been taken. Yeah. So, you don't recall any discussion within within your group, Mr. Ledson, Mr. Martin, about the fact that the NHBC had apparently relied on the

02:43:08 the NHBC had apparently relied on the terms of that certificate for many years.

02:43:12 years. I can't we we discussed I know that we had follow-up meeting or or or more to discuss this but I don't recall the discussions that we had I'm afraid. Did it occur to you that other building control organizations might have done

02:43:24 control organizations might have done the same i.e. rely on that BBA certificate which had been in circulation for so long?

02:43:31 long? Um yes, but the engagement that NHBC was having with the building control alliance was seen as the way of engaging the sector as a whole.

02:43:42 the sector as a whole. And who who told you that that that was a satisfactory way of ensuring other building control bodies were aware? Whose whose opinion was that? I yeah as I say I don't

02:43:56 I yeah as I say I don't I I think it was a well I don't recall the debates that we had or the discussions that we had right

02:44:01 right but I looking at it now that would be a normal dissemination route to reach out to um both sectors of the building control world right did you read the section of Mr. to Evans's email which informed you um that

02:44:14 Evans's email which informed you um that the LABC had also published a certificate asserting that K15 was suitable over 18 m. It's at the end of that second paragraph. We understand LABC have also issued a registered

02:44:26 LABC have also issued a registered detail um approving the material for use over 18 m. Uh it's there in front of me so I would have read it. Yes. Do you know whether anyone obtained a copy of that certificate?

02:44:37 copy of that certificate? I do not. Do you know whether you instructed any member of your team to contact LABC about that certificate? Uh uh no I do not. Did anyone immediately take steps to begin to ascertain how many buildings

02:44:49 begin to ascertain how many buildings might be affected and to identify them? Uh no.

02:44:54 Uh no. Now if we look at Mr. Martin's email to you at the top of the chain if we go back to that top of page one. So, uh, he says, "Richard Bob, see

02:45:05 So, uh, he says, "Richard Bob, see below. It would appear that a number of tall apartment buildings have been insulated using combustible insulation materials when perhaps they shouldn't have been. This appears to be due to an

02:45:16 have been. This appears to be due to an error in a BBA certificate for this type of insulation. NHBC are aware and are working with the manufacturer to see if it's a problem or not. If it is a problem, some blocks may

02:45:27 not. If it is a problem, some blocks may need to have their cladding replaced." And then in brackets he says possibly a lot of them. Closed brackets. I've asked NHBC to keep us informed.

02:45:38 NHBC to keep us informed. Now that's a pretty clear warning, wasn't it? That there were possibly a lot of such blocks. Can you explain why thereafter nobody took any steps to establish whether there were such blocks? And if so, how

02:45:50 there were such blocks? And if so, how many?

02:45:54 Again, I think the

02:46:00 the issue of understanding whether the systems could achieve compliance was or not was the trigger for thinking further on those issues. Um

02:46:16 uh so if if we had been aware that the systems weren't actually meeting um or satisfying um the the the um u

02:46:28 the the the um u uh compliance requirements, then that would have been a trigger for um looking at this again. But I recognize um I mean we would not have had we no

02:46:40 we would not have had we no we would have had to escalate that to get resources to undertake that form of exercise. Um I think and um I wish we had quite frankly and looking at this now um can we agree

02:46:53 and looking at this now um can we agree that the the response of the department to this was wholly unsatisfactory

02:47:02 in in hindsight? Absolutely. We got it wrong. Yeah.

02:47:09 Yeah. Now, if we go briefly to an email CLG3014889,

02:47:21 we can see here that on the day after the Grenfield Tower fire, on the 15th of June, 2017, Mr. Martin sends to you and Mr. ledom the same email chain we've just been

02:47:32 the same email chain we've just been discussing from July 2014 and he says this is connected with the BBA issue

02:47:38 BBA issue Brian do you see that yes

02:47:40 yes what was the context of this email why did he send this email to you then I don't recall you had a discussion with Mr. Martin on

02:47:51 you had a discussion with Mr. Martin on or around the 15th of June 2017 about the information you had received about the widespread use of combustible insulation on high-rise buildings 3 years earlier. Did you have that discussion with him?

02:48:07 Um, right. So,

02:48:13 sorry. Um I I I I don't recall um you can't recall. No, I mean this was a um I I can't

02:48:25 No, I mean this was a um I I can't describe um quite what was happening at this point in time. Um and um yeah, it was it was a mastrom.

02:48:36 um yeah, it was it was a mastrom. Yes. Just looking back at your witness statement to the paragraph we looked at at the beginning of this section of your the questions, if we go to uh paragraph 56 again on page 17,

02:48:48 56 again on page 17, um

02:48:50 um you say right at the end of that paragraph, it was however unusual to be involved directly in discussions about a building controls body's views on compliance of specific projects given the devolved nature of the building

02:49:01 the devolved nature of the building control system. Can we agree that this was not seeking advice about a particular project or a specific project?

02:49:11 project? No.

02:49:14 No. Normally compliance discussions were entirely theoretical. There was no indication of

02:49:23 of um

02:49:25 um how do I phrase? Can I pause for a moment just to think about this?

02:49:40 As I said, my feeling at that time was that we were becoming involved in informal enforcement. we were getting we were beyond where we would normally

02:49:53 where we would normally um act because it there were clearly this wasn't a theoretical discussion about what compliance meant. It was a discussion about whether some real buildings complied and that was um

02:50:08 buildings complied and that was um not normal. Well, it it wasn't um a discussion about whether a real building complied, was it? I said buildings. Ah, sorry I didn't hear that. But it was

02:50:19 Ah, sorry I didn't hear that. But it was a discussion about the widespread approval and marketing of a product on potentially many tall buildings. Can we agree that

02:50:30 agree that uh it is clear now that that was the case?

02:50:33 case? Yeah. Now let's go back to the minutes of the CWCT fire group meeting that we looked at before on the 2nd of July. This is CLG 3019336.

02:50:44 And I want to look this time at a different section of the minutes on page three. There's a heading combustibility of insulation in the middle of that

02:50:55 of insulation in the middle of that page.

02:50:56 page. And it says underneath that heading, limited combustibility insulation should be used above 80 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of ADB clause 12.7. But other materials,

02:51:07 clause 12.7. But other materials, principally foil-faced phenolic foam, are often used in raincreen walls. There is a degree of ignorance with within with some people confusing class Nort limited combustibility. In other cases,

02:51:18 limited combustibility. In other cases, building control officers are permitting the use of class materials, making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility insulation. And then it goes on, higher standards of

02:51:30 And then it goes on, higher standards of thermal insulation are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation. And in some cases, this can only be achieved within the designated wall zone by use of a combustible insulation. Architects are

02:51:41 combustible insulation. Architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material. Do you see that? I do.

02:51:52 I do. Now, that discussion is also not about a specific project. It's about an industrywide confusion between class N and limited combustibility in the context of insulation materials. Yes,

02:52:03 context of insulation materials. Yes, it is. Were you made aware of that confusion

02:52:09 confusion um at any time before the Grenell Tower fire?

02:52:17 I I I don't recall. Uh if I was, it would have been in a context where I didn't understand the connotations.

02:52:28 understand the connotations. Do you remember any discussions with Mr. Martin after the CWCT meeting about a confusion in industry over the requirements for insulation materials in

02:52:40 requirements for insulation materials in external walls. Uh no, I don't recall any such conversation.

02:52:50 If Mr. Martin received a copy of these minutes, would should those have been filed somewhere within the department for for others to see? I mean what what ought to happen to minutes like this in

02:53:01 ought to happen to minutes like this in terms of the department's recordkeeping? Um there's a legal requirement on the civil service to keep all important documents but um and the division had you know file

02:53:15 um and the division had you know file servers and so on and so forth. But as with so much else that we were doing things were um not formalized or structured. Um so there was no um

02:53:29 structured. Um so there was no um uh no standardized kind of filing system or index. Um we had tried to put one in place in the division I think in 2010. Uh but it was not it was overly complex

02:53:41 Uh but it was not it was overly complex and wasn't utilized properly. I'm sorry. This this is again I think you know the structures and the systems and the

02:53:53 the structures and the systems and the resources uh were just inadequate. Yeah. Do you accept that if you'd seen this minute or been informed about these discussions, it might have become uh clear to you that there was in fact a

02:54:06 clear to you that there was in fact a wider problem not just confined to K15 but a much broader problem in the industry and also amongst building control professionals.

02:54:17 It sorry that yes I think if you pull all this information together now of course it's very clear that there is a problem of that nature. Well, you don't

02:54:28 problem of that nature. Well, you don't have to pull it together, do you? It's there on the face of the page if you read these minutes. They're pretty clear, aren't they? Uh, yes, they are. Do you consider that you should have

02:54:39 Do you consider that you should have been informed about this matter, this confusion, this confusion about insulation between class N and limited combustibility, about building control officers permitting the use of materials

02:54:51 officers permitting the use of materials and not enforcing the limited combustibility requirement? Do you consider that you should have been informed about that in July 2014 or shortly thereafter?

02:55:03 Uh I would have wanted to be escalated. Yes.

02:55:12 Now you've told us in paragraph 56 of your witness statement that um Mr. Martin followed up with the NHBC. Um, what did he tell you about uh what

02:55:23 Um, what did he tell you about uh what had happened when he followed up again with the NHBC? Were you given a formal report back from him?

02:55:30 him? Uh, no, I don't believe so.

02:55:36 So, did you simply assume that if Mr. Martin didn't get back to you, the issue had been resolved? Uh, that was the way that the work watching brief tended to work.

02:55:47 watching brief tended to work. It's um

02:55:49 It's um Yeah.

02:55:51 Yeah. Were you made aware that Steve Evans of the NHBC had updated Mr. Martin on the 15th of August 2014 in summary to say that Kingspan had carried out two further tests and the full results of

02:56:02 further tests and the full results of those would be available within the next two months? Um I don't recall. Um but as this period went on, uh my recollection in general gets worse.

02:56:13 gets worse. Right.

02:56:15 Right. If we go to some minutes now of a meeting. If we go to CLG1306889,

02:56:22 these are minutes of a BCA technical liaison group meeting held later that year in December 2014. Um, did you ever get to see minutes of

02:56:33 Um, did you ever get to see minutes of of meetings like this? Um, I Oh. Uh

02:56:41 so I think that um minutes were circulated to me or I've received emails from BCA um about some

02:56:54 received emails from BCA um about some of their work. Yes. Now, in fact, we can see if we look at an email CLG1306884

02:57:02 that an email, these minutes were in fact sent to you in April 2015 together with an agenda for the next meeting.

02:57:12 meeting. It's got um dear all papers for tomorrow's meeting and you're copied in on that. You're you're one of the recipients of that email. Do you see that? Yes. And that u you can take it from me

02:57:23 Yes. And that u you can take it from me included the minutes of this meeting and the agenda for the next meeting. Um

02:57:30 what did you do when you if we go back to the minutes? Did you read these minutes when they were sent to you or only if someone drew your attention to something within them? Um I

02:57:43 Um I Bob Ledson and I discussed um on a number of occasions whether we should have formal engagement with BCA uh but we didn't uh we didn't have the resources to do it um and

02:57:57 resources to do it um and uh we never um decided to engage. So these were sent to me with um and I would perhaps um have a look at the broad scope of

02:58:09 um have a look at the broad scope of them, but I did not have the time to consume all of the information. It was a it was a capacity issue. It was something that um was um so I frequently not read the papers that were sent

02:58:20 not read the papers that were sent through. They're often quite lengthy. Yeah. If we just look at page four of these minutes and item 12, 12.0 ignore. On page four, we can see that the notes of uh read or

02:58:32 we can see that the notes of uh read or the minutes read, "Use of combustible materials in cladding systems to buildings over 18 meters. See, that's Steve Evans outlined the work carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type

02:58:45 solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters." And then it's got se Steve Evans and BT Barry Turner to discuss further outside of the meeting confirmation of any

02:58:57 of the meeting confirmation of any actions to be fed back to the group. Do you see that? Yes, I do. Now, would you agree that just reading these notes and taking them at face value, it appears to indicate that the

02:59:09 value, it appears to indicate that the BCA were working with Steve Evans of the NHBC centrally involved not to limit but to allow the use of polyurethane type insulation materials to be used on

02:59:20 insulation materials to be used on buildings over 18 mters.

02:59:25 Well, um

02:59:29 um there was a legitimate route to compliance at that time as far as we were concerned. So, working to establish which systems would comply with that would not seem unusual.

02:59:41 would not seem unusual. Are you talking about the BS8414 uh route to compliance, the large scale testing?

02:59:48 testing? Well, that's what I assume would be behind the work to establish whether that was acceptable. Yes. But were you aware at the time that that couldn't confer any form of generic

03:00:00 that couldn't confer any form of generic acceptability of use of the product and could only ever tell you that that specific system tested uh met the BR135 criteria?

03:00:11 uh met the BR135 criteria? Yes, I understood it was system specific.

03:00:13 specific. Yes. So, did you understand that if you've got many buildings with this insulation on, unless all those buildings are absolutely identical, you would have to have quite a number of

03:00:24 would have to have quite a number of 8414 tests. Do you agree? Did that occur to you at the time?

03:00:29 the time? It didn't occur to me at the time, though.

03:00:35 Mr. Chairman, I think that is Well, sorry I've gone two minutes over, but if we could stop there for lunch, that's a good moment. We should, Mr. Harold. I'm going to stop there now so we can all have some lunch. We'll resume at 2:00, please. And no

03:00:47 We'll resume at 2:00, please. And no discussing your evidence over the break, please.

03:00:49 please. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you very much.

03:01:02 Thank you very much. 2:00, please. Okay.