Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Wednesday 23rd March 2022 (1/2)
00:20:44 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing but today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr brian martin
00:20:51 martin so once i said good morning to mr millet good morning mr billet uh good morning mr chairman i'm going to ask him to ask the usher to bring mr martin back in
00:21:17 good morning mr martin good morning sir i hope you're well and that you're ready to carry on yes sir thank you
00:21:27 when you're ready just a minute yes mr chairman thank you good morning to you good morning members of the panel mr martin good morning to you now you'll recall last night we were examining together
00:21:37 together um the bre email from tony baker of the 25th of november 2013 in some detail and i'd like to go back to that email chain please and look at his response this is at clg one triple
00:21:49 his response this is at clg one triple zero five eight nine five please
00:21:55 and if we look at page one in that email run and look at the second page or second email on that chain
00:22:07 now then i think there may be a problem with the document
00:22:16 that's it there
00:22:19 there um mr martin can you see what should be an email from tony baker to you of the 3rd of december 2013 on the screen
00:22:29 yes yes you can thank you and it says this hi brian thanks for your response and sorry for the delay getting back to you it's an interesting issue and one that we
00:22:40 an interesting issue and one that we need to resolve one way or another euro class b s3d2 has the potential to propagate flame either as a surface coating or as a homogenous product and more so if both surfaces are exposed
00:22:53 and more so if both surfaces are exposed which in the case of systems with these boards can be the case as they invariably have a cavity between the board and the insulation the pii and dclg cladding projects used board systems looking at the data the
00:23:05 board systems looking at the data the systems appeared to have achieved a range of indicative b and c euro classes depending on the substrates and fixings etc
00:23:13 etc when these systems were tested to bs 8414 in the five tests none met the performance criteria in br135 this would suggest to me that clause 12.6 and hence diagram 40 is
00:23:26 that clause 12.6 and hence diagram 40 is appropriate for surface coatings in the context of a decorative render finish i.e a non-substantial component scenario burns off and doesn't propagate flame through the system with the remaining
00:23:37 through the system with the remaining system requiring limited combustible materials as 12.7 or the system to meet br 135 as 12.5 as you say thinking out
00:23:48 br 135 as 12.5 as you say thinking out loud we probably need to discuss in order to fully resolve would it be possible to arrange a meeting to discuss further thanks in regards tony now just looking at the first
00:24:00 now just looking at the first part of that email the middle paragraph the reference there to the pii and dclg cladding projects do you know what those were
00:24:09 were um
00:24:10 um i assume they're the ones following the garnet courtfinder right
00:24:14 right but you assume that but when he wrote to you did you understand what he meant um i don't remember reading this email at the time but i probably did um so i can't say for sure whether i
00:24:25 i can't say for sure whether i understood that at the time but it seems likely right well you did read it because you respond to it as we'll see shortly
00:24:31 shortly but just for the moment take it from me you read it at the time uh but you can't you can't recall the pii and dclg cladding product projects the reference to the five tests though would rather suggest wouldn't it would
00:24:43 would rather suggest wouldn't it would this be right that he is in fact referring to the five tests carried out uh in 2001 as part of cc 1925 at the bre yes yes
00:24:55 yes yes now looking at the paragraph that starts this would suggest to me that i've read to you um can we look at your statement please at page 39 paragraph 116.
00:25:08 at page 39 paragraph 116. and if we go to the foot of page 39
00:25:18 um you say
00:25:22 say this three lines up from the bottom of the page in relation to this exchange i would comment as follows whilst mr baker's assessment of the provisions of adb are correct as my response makes clear
00:25:34 as my response makes clear the intention of adb was not ultimately to restrict the materials if we turn the page that could be used but rather only to supplement the
00:25:45 but rather only to supplement the functional requirement with which compliance had to be achieved by providing a guide to common building situations as is the function of the approved documents now just going back to the email chain
00:25:56 now just going back to the email chain we were looking at a moment ago back to mr baker's response if we can
00:26:04 it's back at clg one triple zero five eight nine five there it is um can you tell us what part or parts of mr baker's assessment of the provisions of adb are as you put it correct
00:26:48 i think to some extent i'm referring to the the paragraph that starts this would suggest to me right um and indeed that that is the only part of this exchange in which tony baker makes
00:27:00 this exchange in which tony baker makes what might be called an assessment now so that's the assessment you say is correct
00:27:05 correct do you say that all parts of that paragraph are correct
00:27:25 i think in principle he's he's trying to he's picking up on the difference between the surface and the
00:27:33 the layers beneath the surface in this case he's talking about decorative render finish
00:27:41 yes are all parts of that paragraph correct
00:27:48 i think in the context of a rendered system i think it is yes
00:27:55 right
00:28:00 and what about in the context of a rain screen system
00:28:09 we go back to that problem it's very difficult to identify where surface starts and finishes right
00:28:15 right so
00:28:16 so in the context you've provided or that there is here is it right then that according to his assessment that you say is correct approved document b in sections or clauses 12.6 and 12.7
00:28:30 in sections or clauses 12.6 and 12.7 should be read as meaning that certain surface coatings on the external face of the external wall arrangement of a building over 18 meters need only meet the requirements of
00:28:41 need only meet the requirements of diagram 40.
00:28:45 yes i think that's the point i've been making all along is i think the the surface and the difficulty with surface is trying to define where it starts and finishes diagram 40 is the the key but if you've got materials
00:28:57 the key but if you've got materials below the surface then you need to consider
00:29:00 consider the materials of limited combustibility provisions in 12.6 or seven and how do you get that that which you have just told us from sections 12.6 or 12.7 of adb
00:29:16 paragraph 12.6 talks about surfaces and 12.7 talks about um other materials well it does talk about them but how do you get the distinction that you've just drawn which you take from mr baker's
00:29:27 drawn which you take from mr baker's paragraph there which you say is correct i'm not sure i understand the question it seems clear to me well let's let's to be fair to you let's let's look at 12.6 and 12.7 can we
00:29:38 let's look at 12.6 and 12.7 can we please have those up clg five zeroes two two four page ninety six
00:29:47 i'll show you both and then i'll ask the question again page ninety six bottom left hand corner
00:29:55 right 95 i think is where it starts external surfaces at the very bottom right hand corner 12.6 external surfaces of walls should meet and if we turn the
00:30:06 of walls should meet and if we turn the page to 96 the provisions in diagram 40. i don't think you need the rest and then the insulation materials straight products paragraph which i don't think i need to read to you yet again now
00:30:17 now looking at those two taken either together or in isolation how do you how do you extract uh the
00:30:26 uh the meaning that you say mr baker got right in the paragraph of the email i showed you
00:30:33 paragraph 12.6 talks about the surface of the wall and directs you to diagram 40.
00:30:38 40. um
00:30:40 um and so he's referring to that when he's talking about in the case of this the system is talking about the render that would be on the surface of the system um paragraph 12.7 is
00:30:53 directing the read the reader to consider those materials below the surface
00:31:03 where do you see the words below the surface in 12.7 i'm reading that into the the paragraph yeah that's my interpretation of it you're reading it you're reading words
00:31:15 you're reading it you're reading words in or meaning in are you um
00:31:20 um yes
00:31:21 yes so
00:31:23 so what you're telling us doesn't appear on the face of the language not in black and white no no
00:31:29 no now i'm staying on the version of a proof document uh with um here can we go back to your statement please
00:31:38 please uh page 39 paragraph 116 and
00:31:44 you say
00:31:48 there
00:31:53 that the
00:31:55 the uh
00:31:59 um it's right at the foot of the page but you say the intention of adb was not ultimately to restrict the materials turn the page to 40 that could be used but only to supplement
00:32:11 could be used but only to supplement rather only to supplement the functional requirement with which compliance had to be achieved by providing a guide to common building situations as is the function of the approved documents i want just to focus on the words
00:32:22 want just to focus on the words which straddle these two pages if we go back to 39 where you say the intention of adb was if we go back to 39 at the foot of the page you see
00:32:32 you see you say not ultimately to restrict the materials that could be used but what do you mean by the words the intention of adb was not ultimately to
00:32:43 intention of adb was not ultimately to restrict the materials that could be used
00:32:46 used what do you mean by that
00:32:52 i think the point i'm making that is it's not a prescriptive set of rules about what materials you can or can't use
00:32:58 use but would you accept that these are
00:33:02 these are restrictions um they affect the choice of materials you can or can't use but they don't list what you can i can't use
00:33:14 well let's just be clear about what you mean can we go back to 12.7 and i'm so sorry to jump around with you but let's do that um page 96 of clg five zeros two two four
00:33:25 two four you can see that there are two sentences in that provision the first
00:33:30 the first we've um repeated together endlessly in the last day or so i don't think we focused on the second sentence which says this this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall
00:33:41 not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now
00:33:48 now the words this restriction refer don't they and are supposed to refer and i would suggest you must have understood them to refer to the first sentence yes yes yes so the guidance itself calls
00:34:01 the guidance itself calls the first sentence in a building with a story 80 meters or more above ground level etc a restriction yes yeah i'll take your point and that's what it is isn't it it's intended to restrict
00:34:12 restrict the use of certain types or classes of materials
00:34:16 materials uh or products above 18 meters yes yes so when you say that adb was not intended to restrict the materials that could be used that was incorrect isn't it i think the point i'm making is it
00:34:28 it i think the point i'm making is it doesn't give you a list of what you can or can't use is what you really mean that
00:34:35 that the aim of adp was not to restrict particular materials or products as such this panel that insulation that board but to restrict their fire performance characteristics
00:34:48 characteristics yes i think that's the point i was trying to make i see let's then go to clg triple zero one nine four zero six
00:34:59 now um this is
00:35:02 is a communication much much later in time 16th of june 2017
00:35:08 2017 in the morning of that day and it is an email from you friday the 16th of june 2017. two days after the grenfell tower fire and it is to the office of melanie dawes
00:35:21 and it is to the office of melanie dawes and helen mcnamara and sally randall within the department copy to the grenfell tower team subject urgent expert advice so that's the topic
00:35:34 so that's the topic and if you go to the email itself it says proposition for rapid activation of a technical advisory group to be put to ministers asap grateful for confirmation that you are
00:35:46 grateful for confirmation that you are content with this and what i want to show you is what you attached to this email which is at clg3019407
00:35:58 now this is a document which we are going to come back to much later in your evidence
00:36:03 evidence but for the moment i just want to look at the first paragraph of it the title is official sensitive uh urgent expert advice grenfell tower and then underneath that it says the
00:36:14 then underneath that it says the secretary of state has made it clear he wants urgent expert advice on immediate steps that can be taken to reassure residents and advise landlords so that's the context now let's go to the proposal uh in uh
00:36:27 the proposal uh in uh bold which is about halfway down your screen
00:36:30 screen subject to advice from the expert group it says
00:36:34 it says and then in the second paragraph it says this we understand that this is a specific type of cladding material known as aluminium composite material acm there are several manufacturers of acm most supply two types one fire retardant
00:36:47 most supply two types one fire retardant one not
00:36:48 one not the use of the non-fire retardant panel as a cladding material for buildings over 18 meters six stories would be a contravention of building regulations guidance and is effectively banned and
00:37:01 guidance and is effectively banned and you put the word band there in quotation marks
00:37:06 how do you reconcile that statement that i've just read to you with what you say in your statement that the intention of adb was ultimately not to restrict materials that could be used
00:37:20 i think essentially we covered that in in the discussion we've just had is i'm i'm trying to summarize um the issues in a single line um in
00:37:32 um in an urgent situation um so rather than talking about the um the complexities of a functional requirement um the the nuances that are in the guidance
00:37:44 the the nuances that are in the guidance um
00:37:46 um it was this this was in in our in our view the department's position at that time was that we considered the guidance in the approved document would say you shouldn't be using polyethylene cord
00:37:58 shouldn't be using polyethylene cord panel in that situation um i think the term band was something that was being um used quite widely in the um
00:38:09 senior part of the department whether that was senior officials or ministers and so this was a very shorthand way of talking about that what this note is proposing is that we
00:38:22 what this note is proposing is that we gather a group of experts um to
00:38:27 to amongst other things to test that the advice that was officials was giving was was something that the ministers could rely on
00:38:35 rely on yes
00:38:37 yes listening to that answer and as you say the discussion we've just had
00:38:45 you accepted that what was restricted was effectively not products but fire performance characteristics does that tell us that the
00:38:54 the your strategy when crafting adb and when interpreting adb was not to
00:39:04 to single out specific products
00:39:09 for restriction or otherwise but to leave it to people to work out for themselves whether a particular product
00:39:17 product fell within the restriction relating to fire performance
00:39:23 yes that's what we were trying to do and the reason for that was that it was a basic policy your basic approach was never to identify a particular product or class of products which you
00:39:35 products which you here say are effectively banned
00:39:41 yes and that's that's that's the approach that we took to the drafting of approved documents yeah and you left it to the industry to the market to designers to building control officers to work out for themselves whether a
00:39:53 to work out for themselves whether a particular product did or didn't fall within the restriction yeah that's not the choice that i made that's the nature of the system yes well that's that you say that's the nature of
00:40:04 that's that you say that's the nature of the system that's the nature of the system as you understood it is that is that what you're telling us i suppose that's fair yet
00:40:15 but would you also accept that for that system to work safely and when i say safely
00:40:20 safely i mean in the context of fire safety you had to have a very considerable degree of trust and confidence in industry
00:40:31 and confidence in industry self-regulating the banning of products which were restricted by reference to their fire performance didn't you i think that goes to the root of um the
00:40:42 i think that goes to the root of um the difference of different approaches to regulation whether you go for a prescriptive approach to regulation or um
00:40:50 um you set objectives but that that is a a metaphysical answer what i want to know is and i'm putting to you is your views at the time was it your approach at the time
00:41:01 approach at the time that it that you in order for this to work you had to have you had to have very considerable trust in those working the system that they would self-ban
00:41:13 would self-ban they would know what to ban and wouldn't use it by reference to clearly identified fire reaction to fire performance characteristics
00:41:24 characteristics yes that's the principle that that when you get objective based regulation you're relying to some extent on those the regulated and taking responsibility and
00:41:35 and taking responsibility and understanding their responsibilities where did you derive that understanding of the regulatory system from
00:41:45 it's
00:41:48 i guess throughout all of my training in in in this area this is a that's a fundamental principle of the different approaches to regulation did anybody ever tell you that when regulating whatever you do you mustn't single out specific products or kind of products
00:42:00 specific products or kind of products for special treatment
00:42:11 probably but i can't imagine who that would have been it's it's it's a thing that we would have talked about regularly it's one of the challenges you have with this kind of kind of regulation let's go back to tony baker's email third of december
00:42:23 tony baker's email third of december 2014. clg one triple zero five eight nine five please uh and uh here is uh the last paragraph where i've read this to you before but he
00:42:32 he um he says he's thinking out loud we probably need to discuss in order to fully resolve would it be possible to arrange a meeting to discuss further now would you accept that it's cl it's plain from what he's saying there that
00:42:43 plain from what he's saying there that tony baker at least for his own part did not
00:42:47 not uh appear to be under the impression that you had confirmed the correctness of his assessment or that the matter had been resolved had it
00:42:56 had it he's asked for him to discuss further yeah and be quite the opposite would you accept that you were both circling uncertainly around a difficult point of interpretation of the approved document um yes that's the nature of that kind of
00:43:08 um yes that's the nature of that kind of guidance
00:43:09 guidance what you should both circle uncertainly around and difficulties in it the the professionals involved the person making the design decisions needs to think carefully about it well again this comes back to the point yesterday um the point
00:43:21 back to the point yesterday um the point of thinking carefully of course is deciding whether or not once you've followed the guidance you still end up with adequate resistance to fire spread for the purposes of b4 yes yes yes not
00:43:32 for the purposes of b4 yes yes yes not when you're working out what the guidance means surely
00:43:40 um as i it's a fundamental principle of a lot of modern safety legislation now where um
00:43:47 where um the
00:43:49 the legislation and the guidance supports it is not prescriptive and sets out objectives and directs the the person that has got the responsibility to make those decisions to try and help them
00:44:02 those decisions to try and help them consider the important facts
00:44:09 your response if we go to the top of the screen please comes the same day 3 48
00:44:20 uh i'm sorry 3 49 which is five minutes later i'm happy to have a chat probably not this side of xmas
00:44:31 and then you say this i think it's important to remember that we never expected the adb rules to result in a system that would always pass the br 135 criteria now first the use of the word rules
00:44:42 now first the use of the word rules there
00:44:44 there can you explain why you use that word uh it's just shorthand it's it's they're not rules well why did you say they were rules um because it's a it's a short informal email to to
00:44:56 email to to somebody at bre so i probably was being less cautious about the language i used than perhaps i would do with someone else yes that's fair enough but it also rather reveals that in fact you thought they they were
00:45:08 they they were well they were rules it is appropriate to call what is in adb rules rules of some kind no it doesn't clearly edged guidance
00:45:16 guidance no no right so that's uh so that's just an unfortunate use of an
00:45:22 use of an ill-chosen expression in a hurry is that yes i see all right um now um
00:45:29 um now um when you say uh
00:45:33 uh i think it's important to remember that we never expected the adb rules to result in a system that would always pass the br-135 criteria can you just help us
00:45:42 help us how
00:45:43 how would a system which wouldn't have passed the br 135 criteria nonetheless be put forward in the guidance as one which would satisfy the functional requirement in b4
00:45:54 requirement in b4 i think the point i'm making is if you set out two tests which is essentially what what we were trying to do in your proof document and and in br135 they work slightly differently some
00:46:06 they work slightly differently some things will pass both that most things i would have thought past both some would only pass one or the other so there was always the potential that um
00:46:15 um something that met the adb rules might not
00:46:19 not pass a br 135 test uh and vice versa so i think you are saying aren't you that failure to meet the br 135 criteria might nonetheless mean that a system could adequately resist a spread of fire
00:46:30 could adequately resist a spread of fire over its walls um i think the point i'm making is is that is that yeah is that the
00:46:36 the the criterion bl-135 and the bs-8414 test is is quite an onerous test it's difficult to pass my understanding of it was and still is that it's
00:46:46 that it's designed as a gateway test so somebody proposing to use um
00:46:54 more insulation that isn't non-combustible or isn't material in limited combustibility sorry um or something else some other construction component of the construction which
00:47:06 construction which if you were following the guidance in the approved document might not seem to comply
00:47:12 comply that test was designed to ensure that what you had was something quite robust so it was a was and still is quite an onerous test
00:47:23 was and still is quite an onerous test why is it
00:47:24 why is it well how did you find out that it was difficult to pass what was your experience that led to that conclusion um i'm not sure it's just an understanding i'd built up over time i
00:47:35 understanding i'd built up over time i think right uh dr colwell accepted when it was put to her and for our purposes it's dave 232 line uh page 159 lines 13 to 14
00:47:47 uh page 159 lines 13 to 14 that the
00:47:48 that the the guidance in adb uh never being expected to result in a system which would always pass b4 b8414
00:47:58 b4 b8414 was as she put it an extraordinary proposition i take it that you wouldn't agree with that
00:48:06 that she never said that to me at the time as far as i'm aware right
00:48:11 do you i mean cutting to the point here do you mean no more
00:48:15 more than you could satisfy the functional requirement by following the linear route for each element even though you might if you put all these elements together not pass a b or a bs8414 test to be our 135
00:48:28 pass a b or a bs8414 test to be our 135 criteria i think that's the point i'm making
00:48:33 and why were you making that point here given that the problem the problem that tony baker had presented to you was not a br 135 problem about full system tests but about the correct interpretation of
00:48:44 but about the correct interpretation of two apparently conflicting aspects of the linear route test what you call the adb rules
00:48:51 adb rules i think i mean i'm i don't particularly remember this exchange in detail or what i was thinking at the time so i can only look at the
00:49:00 at the um
00:49:01 um the emails and guess what i was thinking at that time um i think mr baker makes reference to the pii tests um so i think what i'm saying is
00:49:13 um so i think what i'm saying is um
00:49:14 um that the two aren't inextricably linked no need they're alternatives aren't they absolutely yes but he's not he's not asking you about the link between the two he's asking you
00:49:27 the link between the two he's asking you to help him understand the linear route and the apparent tension between 12.6 and 12.7
00:49:33 and 12.7 so my question really is why did you direct him to the fact that as you say adb might result in a system that would would not always pass the br135 criteria
00:49:45 would not always pass the br135 criteria i think because he's making reference to the pii and ex
00:49:50 ex research right okay then let's move on in time we go to the 30th of january 2014. um you see in the email there that you
00:50:03 um you see in the email there that you say that you're happy to have a chat probably not this side of christmas would it be fair to say that this was not a matter of urgent priority so far as you were concerned
00:50:14 i suppose that's fair um i was probably busy doing other things at the time and it would have been difficult to arrange a meeting that that kind of notice given that it was already the beginning of december right were you
00:50:25 beginning of december right were you doing other things at the time which had to do with fire safety
00:50:32 in 2013 yeah end of 2013.
00:50:40 i'm i'm not sure but that there were certainly lots going on at that time see just trying to work out your work priorities was adb which as you've told us rightly a number of times has all to do with life safety not your absolute
00:50:52 do with life safety not your absolute priority
00:50:55 priority no i didn't have the luxury of having of having an absolute priority that um we had
00:51:00 had that
00:51:01 that the way we the way the the team functioned is is we um
00:51:07 um i guess our top prior priorities in terms of handling workload would have been to focus on whichever projects we had um
00:51:15 had um that we were dealing with at the time um and possibly even above that would be um supporting ministers um although i i doubt there would have been any parliamentary activity at that time of year um
00:51:28 activity at that time of year um that may be true um but uh what i'm trying to get a feel for here is what else was on your plate so adb was on your plate because you're the adb man and always were from at least in 2008 but what else
00:51:41 were from at least in 2008 but what else were you working on um well i was the adb man i was the idj man i was the ade man um i was the adp man for much of that time as well um
00:51:55 man for much of that time as well um um
00:51:55 um he as well would have been a sound insulation yes sound j um his combustion appliances such chimneys and spoilers
00:52:06 yes yeah
00:52:11 and no doubt although some of them have health and safety aspects to them adb is all about life safety isn't it
00:52:21 as as is adj yes
00:52:26 did you have a system of prioritizing according to which approved document you were being asked about or dealing with or did you just deal with whatever came in and the order
00:52:37 deal with whatever came in and the order it came in
00:52:40 there was no system clearly if i thought something had an immediate public safety impact i would probably bring that further forward if i could did this question that mr baker
00:52:51 could did this question that mr baker had asked not have an immediate public safety impact um
00:53:01 this reflects a fairly routine um conversation that would have had on on a range of different subjects both to do with fire safety and other issues routine
00:53:09 routine routine
00:53:11 routine you had a query about the meaning effect of 12.6 12.7 and diagram 40 before november 2013.
00:53:27 sorry can you repeat that well had you before november 2013 been asked about what the secretary of state intended in 12.6 and 12.7 and diagram 40
00:53:39 in 12.6 and 12.7 and diagram 40 of the 2006 version of approved document b i think this is the first time this point had arisen yeah so it wasn't routine was it is the first time this point it has arisen it's routine to be asked lots of questions about lots of different
00:53:51 questions about lots of different aspects of all of the provisions of the building maybe but the question itself the topic isn't routine is it which is why i asked you um whether it was the first time given that it was the first time why didn't you make it a priority
00:54:04 um i think what he answered that for me this was this was a routine question like many others that we get on aspects of part b and some of the other aspects of building regulations right
00:54:19 now
00:54:22 you say in your statement uh and i'm not sure we need to look at it it's paragraph 116 of page 40. that after this exchange you say you received a meeting request uh from dr baker mr baker and dr colwell
00:54:35 uh from dr baker mr baker and dr colwell on the 17th of january to discuss 12.6 and 12.7 you don't recall the meeting and have no record of it now let's just look at clg one triple zero five nine five three
00:54:50 and in fact we can see here that um this is a a an invitation to a meeting at eland house that's at the department
00:55:01 the department uh on the 30th of january 2014 for one hour starting at 10 30 and
00:55:10 and it
00:55:11 it requires the attendees to be tony baker and sarah colwell and optionally stephen howard all from the bre
00:55:19 bre this it looks as if this invitation came from you
00:55:22 from you yes
00:55:24 yes it looks like it yeah it came from the department and so i can't imagine anyone else would have done it for me no and
00:55:31 and it says as a topic at the foot of the screen a discussion over the application of re-adb clause 12.6 and 12.7 does this help you remember anything about this meeting
00:55:43 no now tony baker in his statement number four to the inquiry confirmed that a meeting did take place on that date at eland house between you him and sarah colwell like you he can't
00:55:56 him and sarah colwell like you he can't remember anything about the substance of the meeting and that's what he says in paragraph 78 of his fourth statement at page 15. um
00:56:06 um sarah colwell tells us at day 233 page 160 lines 21-25 as follows and i'll i'll just recite to you what she says and if we need to look at the transcript mr martin
00:56:18 need to look at the transcript mr martin of course we can um she says that her understanding was that brian was looking to pick that up as the next resolution of the aed that was being discussed at the time that there was an
00:56:29 discussed at the time that there was an expectation that it would be moving to review
00:56:32 review and that and that would be picked up as one of the items in that that's what she said that's what she told us do you recall saying that to dr colwell
00:56:43 do you recall saying that to dr colwell i don't remember um but it's the end of 2014 um so i was expecting to start um a formal review of approved document b quite soon so that's a reasonable
00:56:55 quite soon so that's a reasonable um
00:56:56 um it seems likely that is what i said to her well it's the beginning of 2014 january oh sorry um
00:57:03 yeah i think i was still expecting to start a review of adb right um so we're working on the housing standards review at that time and i was expecting once that was complete um which it would have been um
00:57:16 complete um which it would have been um 12 months later i'd have been starting work on
00:57:20 work on a technical review of approved document b
00:57:23 b right now i better now show you what she does say at two points in in her uh in the transcript can we please have the transcript for 233 in a different place
00:57:32 place this is page 161 now and i want to show you page 161 of day 2 3 3 at line 13. and see if this trek is a recollection
00:57:48 she says this we basically explained to him that's you mr martin what was happening what we were being asked and that it was whilst we were able as i've said to discuss the a d with people it
00:57:59 said to discuss the a d with people it was not we weren't in a position to make a definitive interpretation of it because that was outside the role available to us but our understanding was as we set out and that if we were
00:58:10 was as we set out and that if we were wrong we needed to know that and then if you turn the next page please to page one six two go to line four uh
00:58:19 uh because there's a question at line two did mark did mr martin appear to be taking your concern seriously at this meeting
00:58:25 meeting answer line four answer yes he understood the point that was being made and had appeared to take on board that that was sort of the next steps and actions arising from that
00:58:37 actions arising from that do you remember saying that to dr colwell i i don't remember the meeting at all
00:58:43 at all you don't remember the meeting at all you don't remember this exchange that she's told the inquiry about no well do you remember it one way or the other or do you say i i do not remember the meeting right
00:58:56 do not remember the meeting right just to be clear you don't remember it at all so you're not in a position to tell us whether she's right or wrong in her recollection is that is that how we're to understand your evidence
00:59:08 your evidence um
00:59:09 um yeah i i couldn't challenge it because i can't remember what what said right now if she's right then
00:59:15 then do you accept that from that conversation alone
00:59:19 alone you were aware that concerns were being raised with the bre by third parties about the meaning of clause 12.7 of approved document b
00:59:34 what about concerns there were questions about the meaning
00:59:39 well concerns about its clarity and questions about its meaning
00:59:55 do you accept that if she's right in her recollection which you can't challenge you were aware that
01:00:02 concerns were being raised with the bre about the meaning of clause 12.7 or if you like questions i won't
01:00:10 i won't quibble with you about that
01:00:15 yeah clearly there are questions arising about that paragraph yes now she goes on to if we can go please two pages on in the transcript to page 164 line 25
01:00:28 the transcript to page 164 line 25 line 25 sarah colwell is asked this by uh leading council at that meeting did mr martin accept that the clause if we turn to page 165 was unclear
01:00:41 we turn to page 165 was unclear answer at line two he accepted that it could be better written yes now do you remember that exchange no
01:00:51 no and again you i think sitting there you can't from your recollection disagree or quarrel with dr colwell's recollection no but it it seems likely i
01:01:02 recollection no but it it seems likely i wasn't entirely happy with that paragraph i think in 2006 right but it was the best that we could do at the time within the constraints that applied to what we were doing yes thank you now i don't think we need to go back to it
01:01:19 but you say in your statement we looked at it yesterday paragraph 155 at page 54 that senior officials were aware of the concerns about cladding and insulation
01:01:31 concerns about cladding and insulation between 2009 and 2017 and you weren't able to help us with the period between 2009
01:01:37 2009 and 2013 because as you say this really only got picked up in 2013 and we've now looked at tony baker's email my question is after november 2013
01:01:50 after november 2013 december 2013 we've just seen the exchange of another meeting on the 30th of january 2013 2014. did you make any senior officials aware at this time
01:02:01 at this time of the discussions that you'd been having with the bre about the meaning and scope of 12.6 and 12.7 and diagram 40 of the approved document that why not
01:02:13 of the approved document that why not um
01:02:15 um this is a kind of conversation that any one of the lead officials would be having with any number of different
01:02:23 representatives across the industry so i i took it as a routine discussion about the application of one aspect of an approved document
01:02:34 now at this time of course this is early 2014 um anthony bird had left
01:02:42 had left the previous year and been replaced by richard harrell as your line manager yes yes
01:02:47 yes now
01:02:49 now richard harrell would have had much less knowledge about the circumstances in which 12.6 12.7 had come to be amended as we've seen back in
01:03:00 back in 2006 yes
01:03:02 2006 yes yes you'd have had to have relied entirely on you you and your recollection of that set of events wouldn't he yes because he wasn't involved himself yes
01:03:13 yes and now here we have for the first time it seems in some seven years queer is being raised about that exercise an exercise which you say yourself you were not entirely happy with
01:03:25 with why didn't you go to richard harrell and
01:03:28 and give him the full picture that you weren't happy with the way in which this had been originally dropped amended because of various circumstances you've explained to us now questions are arising it's adb and
01:03:40 now questions are arising it's adb and therefore a matter of life safety we need to consider what we do as a department why didn't you do that
01:03:51 um i said i think i just regarded this as as one of many discussions about an approved document that myself and my colleagues would have fairly regularly but i didn't see it as being something
01:04:02 but i didn't see it as being something that needed to be escalated
01:04:05 forgive me but given that it's about life safety and given that what people put on upon buildings above 18 meters as you must have known at the time might make the
01:04:16 have known at the time might make the difference between life and death why was it regarded as just another routine query in the same way as routine queries about all kinds of other things and other approved documents
01:04:27 and other approved documents um i think all those other things all carried the sim similar kind of weight it was the nature of the work we did that can't be right that's that's that's that's the view i took at the time um
01:04:39 took at the time um i think
01:04:40 i think i i think i underestimated the the problem
01:04:48 did anything crystallize in your own mind as a final view a clear view uh following the email exchange with tony baker or
01:04:56 baker or following the meeting on the 30th of january
01:05:00 january making allowances for the fact that you can't recall it
01:05:08 i think the fact that i can't recall it probably means i didn't think it was an unusual
01:05:12 unusual event i guess um let's move uh on a month into february 2014 and i wanted to show you now some correspondence forwarded to you in that month
01:05:23 you in that month about wintec clg one triple zero six zero one zero please
01:05:32 and if we look at this email run we can see on page two if we look at page two um at the bottom of the email cheat chain it starts with an email from chris macey of win tech
01:05:44 macey of win tech to paul de court of the 7th of february 2014
01:05:48 2014 who is paul de court um he's one of the other technical leads i i think we've got as far as discovering that he's a part l sustainability uh officer or official is that would
01:05:59 uh officer or official is that would that be right at this time i think at that time he was leading on part l yes right i could be could be wrong his job's changed over the years okay now did you know or do you know anything about chris macy
01:06:10 anything about chris macy no i didn't know chris macy you didn't know what about wintec did you know wintek
01:06:18 i'm not sure if it's an organization i'd come across at that time looking at the first paragraph of this email which he sends at 11 10 in the morning and these times i should say mr martin tend to matter um mr macy explains that
01:06:31 tend to matter um mr macy explains that he's had some observations to make about part b
01:06:34 part b and mr de court uh suggests uh
01:06:40 uh and i'm just i'll run through up to the next email that you'd be interested in your comments and i think we need to go for that
01:06:47 for that uh to
01:06:51 uh
01:06:56 well look at the look scan down the email i think
01:07:03 okay
01:07:11 and if you look at the uh second paragraph uh he uh says there and i'm i'm being a little cagey about it because it's a long email but he says
01:07:22 it because it's a long email but he says um when considering buildings with a story higher than 18 metres from ground level part b of the building regulations specifically prohibits the use of insulation products and filler materials in building facades that are not of limited combustibility unless the
01:07:34 limited combustibility unless the construction can demonstrate compliance by other means including full-scale fire testing to bs8414 the reasoning for behind this is to prevent the spread of flame and to limit the fire load of components integrated into the facade
01:07:46 into the facade and then he talks about the expense and uh and time consumption of the tests and then in the next paragraph the masonry cavity exception
01:07:57 masonry cavity exception and
01:07:58 and then says
01:08:02 unfortunately if part b is strictly applied and fire testing is not carried out it prohibits the use of foamed insulation such as phenolic or other organic materials which have much higher thermal resistance lambda values
01:08:14 thermal resistance lambda values than that of mineral will this specifically means that the thickness of mineral wool insulation required to achieve a specific performance is much greater than that of an organic base material
01:08:24 material and then he um over the page after something about that
01:08:32 says this i believe that in the second paragraph i believe
01:08:36 believe there are circumstances where organic insulation materials can safely be used and the whole issue of the limited combustibility needs to be reconsidered limited combustibility means that insulation should not add to the fire
01:08:48 insulation should not add to the fire load all class naught materials are unable to sustain combustion but are not of limited combustibility i should paint point out that there are a number of major developers facade contractors and insulation manufacturers
01:09:00 contractors and insulation manufacturers that are in my opinion blatantly ignoring the requirements of part b and obtaining an unfair commercial advantage as a result of this my point in writing is that part b will become a really difficult requirement to comply with
01:09:12 difficult requirement to comply with sensible thickness of wall constructions in the future and in my opinion is contradictory to the interest of the nation and energy conservation i'd like to expand on this issue and would welcome the opportunity to meet if
01:09:23 welcome the opportunity to meet if possible
01:09:26 you see that yes uh now just a number of questions first he's right isn't he um when he is is interpreting the insulation obligations
01:09:37 interpreting the insulation obligations or restrictions under 12.7 yes yes
01:09:44 now he
01:09:46 he finishes by saying he'd welcome the opportunity to meet i mean do you remember seeing this email as the first question
01:09:53 question i'm sorry i don't you don't um if we go up the chain in the next email to page two middle of the page paul the court forwards this onto you and richard harrell on the 10th of february brian richard do
01:10:05 on the 10th of february brian richard do we want to meet with this chap paul moving up the chain we can see your response at the bottom of page one going to the top of page two sent about 20 minutes later on the same
01:10:16 sent about 20 minutes later on the same day 9 14 on the 10th of february uh and at the foot of page one you can see
01:10:22 see we better look at that foot of page one
01:10:27 from you to pull the court richard harrell building regulations and there's the time 914 over the to the top of page two
01:10:34 two that we can say no either to his face or in an email if adl has made it impossible to clad a building safely then we probs ought to look into it don't think that has happened yet
01:10:45 don't think that has happened yet we're talking a really big and expensive research project lots of big far tests etc you won't get much change out of a mill
01:10:52 mill b
01:10:54 b now how in the 19 minutes between receiving the email from paul to court at
01:11:00 at 8 55
01:11:01 8 55 and
01:11:02 and the time of your response had you decided
01:11:05 decided that your answer to the request for a meeting would be no
01:11:10 say i don't remember the email on what basis had you made that decision do you know
01:11:18 no i don't know why we wouldn't have met with him i i can't think of a reason was this
01:11:23 this not a matter of interest or importance for you
01:11:27 for you um i don't know whether i'm saying no to obviously it's a shorthand email again i'm probably working remotely or doing something else at the time it might be that i'm saying
01:11:39 it might be that i'm saying uh it seems to be arguing that we ought to um
01:11:43 to um make it easier to use combustible insulation materials insulation materials aren't materials of limited combustibility um that seems to be the the point he's arguing for i think
01:11:56 and it might be that's what i'm saying no too
01:12:00 no too the point i'm making here is um i'd certainly discussed with mr cult decor in the past the question of um
01:12:11 um the
01:12:12 the the problem that mr macy's picking up here
01:12:16 here is that um as he rightly says the the foamed plastic insulation materials are much better insulators than the
01:12:25 than the the rock fibre insulation materials and i think we'd endeavored in the setting out the minimum standards for external walls
01:12:36 the minimum standards for external walls in terms of their thermal performance that we wouldn't be in a position where we were forcing designers to only use a combustible insulation so we were tempering the energy efficiency
01:12:47 tempering the energy efficiency requirements to ensure that designers weren't forced into using a combustible material
01:12:53 material now if you look at the second sentence of your response if adl has made it impossible to clad a building safely then we probs ought to look into it don't think that has happened yet
01:13:04 happened yet um
01:13:04 um just to be clear for others perhaps if not for you approved document l is concerned with the conservation of fuel and power isn't it yes
01:13:13 it yes including the use of thermal insulation on the facades of buildings yes yeah amongst other things yeah yeah and in general uh it's it's the use of combustible insulation being much thinner whether
01:13:25 insulation being much thinner whether it's p-i-r-p-u-r or phenolic was far preferred by architects because you had to use less of it and could get much more usable space a bigger footprint for your building yes that's the point i was
01:13:36 your building yes that's the point i was just making is is they are better insulators like significantly yeah um
01:13:41 um now um mr macy told you in the email as i've shown you that the guidance in approved document l was causing practical difficult difficulties in clatting buildings when balanced against the fire safety guidance in approved
01:13:53 the fire safety guidance in approved document b yes that's that's the basic tension he's bringing to your attention that's the point he's that's one of the points he's making yes yes uh
01:14:04 uh and is that why you say if adl has made it impossible to clad a building safely then we probs ought to look into it yeah i think there would have been an issue if if um the provisions of part
01:14:15 issue if if um the provisions of part hell had been such that it would was no longer practicable to use a rock fiber insulation um
01:14:23 um then
01:14:24 then um
01:14:25 um like it's the building regulations that is imposing the need to use um
01:14:32 um a foamed insulation and so we would need to do some work to come up with a way of allowing people to build buildings otherwise you'd be in a situation where you couldn't use rock
01:14:44 situation where you couldn't use rock fiber because it was no longer practicable and part b was not allowing you to use the foamed insulation you need to find a solution to that but at that time as it says there i didn't think approved
01:14:56 says there i didn't think approved document l um
01:15:00 did force people to use combustible insulation is that what you mean by i don't think that has happened yet yes and and i know um my colleagues are working on energy efficiency that was one of the
01:15:11 energy efficiency that was one of the factors they took into account is that they needed they didn't want to be a situation where they were forcing people away from rock fibre right and the last sentence tends would be i'd
01:15:22 and the last sentence tends would be i'd be right in thinking to suggest that you were not in favor of a research project because of its scale and expense um i think it would have been difficult to justify and so whenever we're
01:15:34 to justify and so whenever we're commissioning a piece of research we need to develop a business case setting out why the government should be doing this rather than the industry certainly one of the key questions that comes up is is this something that industry should be funding or is this something
01:15:46 should be funding or is this something the government should be funding i think the point i'm making there is if
01:15:50 if the government was causing the problem then
01:15:54 then it would seem reasonable for the it would be easier to justify spending public money on finding the solution if it's the industry choosing to use foamed insulation because it makes their lives
01:16:06 insulation because it makes their lives easier
01:16:07 easier which was generally the case then we already had the solution with bs8414 and br-135
01:16:14 br-135 now if we look up the email chain you can see that richard harrell responds to you and pull the court
01:16:20 the court if we look up page one a bit further
01:16:25 and says in the middle of your screen let's discuss a bit later on in the day and there's a exchange after that tomorrow day after day did you go on to discuss this problem
01:16:37 did you go on to discuss this problem with richard harrell probably i don't remember it now it seems to be you not mr harold who decides that there will be no meeting with mr macy there certainly isn't a meeting with mr macy do you know who made the decision
01:16:50 macy do you know who made the decision no
01:16:51 no did you even respond to chris macy we don't have a record of it i don't know i would have thought someone would have responded
01:17:02 did you after this exchange carry out or cause to have carried out any review of the relevant parts of approved document b and l side by side
01:17:14 document b and l side by side to ascertain whether there was any potential conflict between the provisions um
01:17:19 um i'm pretty sure that's what we would have talked about if we did talk about this and and i i know that the part l team had been very conscious and to avoid
01:17:30 and to avoid the kind of conflict you're talking about um which is the point i was making if the if the um thermal requirements were such that rock fiber was no longer a viable option
01:17:41 rock fiber was no longer a viable option there comes a point where it's so thick that um
01:17:45 that um the form of the normal construction won't work anymore the insulation is too thick and and you sort of um it becomes un unviable
01:17:55 unviable so
01:17:57 so they were conscious not to set a standard such that you couldn't use um a rock fiber yes but did you sorry my question again did you carry out or how or caused to have carried out a review
01:18:08 or caused to have carried out a review um i don't think we needed to because that that was that was the view of my colleagues that were working on part l did you ask mr macy i mean we don't have a record that you did but my question really is why didn't you ask
01:18:19 my question really is why didn't you ask mr macy to provide further information in relation to the organizations that he had reported were as he puts it blatantly ignoring the requirements of part b
01:18:29 part b um no i mean it's not unusual for for name calling amongst people that contact us um and
01:18:36 us um and that we wouldn't routinely follow that kind of thing up so
01:18:42 so let's just go back to page three please in his paragraph where he says i should point out
01:18:48 point out he says there are a major a number of major developers facade contractors and insulation manufacturers that are in my opinion
01:18:55 opinion blatantly ignoring the requirements of part b and obtaining an unfair commercial advantage as a result of this so it was your policy was it just to ignore
01:19:03 ignore remarks like that on the basis that it was just name calling by one part of the industry against another and nothing to do with government um it wasn't my policy
01:19:14 um it wasn't my policy it was the nature of the way that we worked that we didn't have the the resources or any authority to carry out any kind of investigation like that well why did it require any resources
01:19:25 why did it require any resources other than for you after your day off to go back to chris macy and ask him what he means
01:19:32 he means who are the developers for side contractors and insulations and what are they doing when he alleges that they are ignoring the requirements of part b that's not a an onerous task for you to do
01:19:45 task for you to do is it you're quite used to writing short emails
01:19:48 emails that could be a short email
01:19:55 um i guess it didn't occur to me at the time
01:19:57 time and is that because in fact
01:20:00 in fact you had already discounted this as just name calling
01:20:06 i think the difficulty we'd have is that the judgment about whether a building complies or not rests with the designer and the building control body so the fact and so this cropped up pretty regularly where
01:20:19 somebody would say designer x or building y in their view didn't comply with the regulations but if the designer of that building and the building control body had signed it off there was no
01:20:32 had signed it off there was no that that was that was their decision they had they had the um the locus to make that decision and we had no authority to to question that so
01:20:41 that so this kind of thing people often race this kind of thing and
01:20:47 and we didn't have a mechanism to to do anything about that
01:20:55 it was really for the building control bodies to make make those decisions a lot of the time when you ask somebody to name names they would tell they would wouldn't be willing to do that so you could never be sure whether they were being entirely honest with you
01:21:08 were being entirely honest with you and now you say in your statement we say we saw it yesterday paragraph 155 and i quote we can look at it if you like but it's it's very short where i was able to you say i i tried to assist the industry
01:21:19 you say i i tried to assist the industry during the period in question which was 2009 to 2017. now that readiness to assist the industry do you accept is nowhere evident in this email exchange
01:21:33 not in this one no no in truth it's you brushed off a carefully considered well-drafted concern by an industry participant on a matter material to life safety because to be colloquial it was
01:21:46 safety because to be colloquial it was all too much like hard work and expense for you to investigate
01:21:53 that's because we didn't have any authority or power to investigate that wasn't really we didn't see that as as our as our role well do you accept looking at it now that this is very far from a serious
01:22:04 that this is very far from a serious reaction or response from a serious-minded safety conscious and humble public servant
01:22:13 oh my response your reaction and your response um well i mean
01:22:18 i mean that's an internal email amongst colleagues that wouldn't have been the reply there that's the point i i can't answer that something we talked about i'm surprised
01:22:29 talked about i'm surprised i'd be surprised if he didn't get a reply perhaps it was lost i don't know
01:22:34 let's turn to july 2014
01:22:39 july 2014 and
01:22:41 in july 2014 or the second of that month there was a meeting of the cwct fire group but there's some run-up to that which i want to go through with you if i may
01:22:50 may can we please go to clg3031072
01:22:58 and if we start at the first email in the chain just our under halfway down page one here is an email from brenda aptid at bath university
01:23:10 at bath university uh
01:23:12 uh who is a cwct person to you of the 24th of april 2014. you see that yes at 15 20
01:23:23 and it's addressed to you at the department dear mr martin you see that yes and
01:23:29 yes and she writes to you attaching her to her email a copy of the cwct guidance on fire performance of rain screens technical note 73
01:23:40 screens technical note 73 yes yes
01:23:43 yes yes uh just pausing there mr martin and for everybody else we do have some external industrial noise which i'm told will be temporary so if it's disturbing you i'm sorry about that it's fine right now she writes
01:23:55 writes having attached the guidance
01:23:57 guidance we have had numerous inquiries in recent months regarding fire and facades issues that have been raised include and here is a long list of bullet points and the first bullet point is this use of combustible insulation in facades
01:24:10 combustible insulation in facades particularly rain screens this is causing problems due to the greater thickness of insulation that is required if limited combustibility materials have to be used now just pausing there that's exactly
01:24:22 now just pausing there that's exactly the same point and problem that chris macy of windtech had drawn to your attention uh earlier in the year isn't it in february
01:24:34 in february um it's a it's a it's a it was a a
01:24:38 a well-known issue that um the
01:24:41 the the best insulators weren't materials of limited combustibility and if you go to the fourth bullet point down
01:24:50 down performance of composite panels such as acms you see that yes and if we go to the top of page two
01:25:00 she says this
01:25:04 we would like to invite you to our initial meeting a half day meeting in central london we would be grateful if you could let us know if you would like to be involved by monday 12 may and we can then go ahead and arrange a
01:25:15 we can then go ahead and arrange a meeting
01:25:17 meeting yes
01:25:18 yes yes and um if you then um go to the response to that at the top email on page one of 1527
01:25:28 you say so this is some uh seven minutes later you say hi brenda i'd be happy to help where i can you might also wish to contact neil butterworth at arab and sarah colwell at bre both copied in they both have an
01:25:41 bre both copied in they both have an interest in this subject and i think they've been looking into some of these these issues quite recently just concentrating on sarah colwell what led you to say that she had an interest in the subject
01:25:54 and she was the lead person at bre that that dealt with um the the
01:26:02 the reason the the research relating to be at the development of bs8414 um she was the
01:26:09 was the bre's kind of expert on fire spreading cladding systems so that would the point i'm making had you previously before the 24th of april discussed any of the matters listed in
01:26:20 discussed any of the matters listed in brenda aptid's email with sarah caldwell
01:26:25 um
01:26:29 i'm guessing i'm referring to the the email that i got from a colleague and their subsequent discussions right you say i think they have been looking
01:26:40 you say i think they have been looking into some of these issues quite recently which of the subjects listed in brenda aptiv's email let's scroll down to to lower down page one so you see them did you think sarah colwill had
01:26:51 them did you think sarah colwill had been as you put it looking into recently i i can't remember what i had in my mind at the time well just try and remind yourself by looking at the bullet points i've looked i i don't remember
01:27:02 i've looked i i don't remember right
01:27:07 now sarah colwell told us in her or oral evidence to the inquiry that she thought that was a reference to the meeting that you and she and tony baker had had at eland house on the 30th of january 2014.
01:27:19 eland house on the 30th of january 2014. that's transcript day two three three page one six line lines 22 to 25 and page 70 lines one two eight uh and she assumed that that's why you said what you said there
01:27:30 said what you said there now
01:27:31 now that's her evidence um do you agree it seems likely right now let's go back to your statement then please page 41 paragraph 119
01:27:44 and there you say
01:27:48 the meeting proposed by ms zapton in her email of 24th of april 2014 took place at arabs office arabs london office on second july 2014 i attended on behalf of the department along with a
01:27:59 the department along with a cross-section of the industry including academics building research bodies and cladding manufacturers i was only able to attend for part of the meeting which is why the minutes page four of five
01:28:10 is why the minutes page four of five refer to dr sarah colwell agreeing to raise the issue of a posting an faq on acm cladding on the planning portal with me
01:28:20 me now i just want to try to establish if i can which part of the meeting you did attend
01:28:25 attend and first before i look at some documents do you remember
01:28:30 i i have a recollection of the meeting um
01:28:34 um i i think i attended the beginning but had to leave early right all right now let's um let's just go then to kin403887
01:28:52 and we don't need to go through this whole email run if we go to your email on page two
01:28:58 two dated the first of july 2014 of 1529 [Music]
01:29:03 [Music] you say this and it's addressed to the attendees in fact at the cwc meeting at least many of them um all i've been summoned to meet with
01:29:14 um all i've been summoned to meet with the building regs minister for a meeting due to finish at 3 p.m i'm happy to hop foot over to fitzroy street immediately afterwards assuming it runs to time and you guys are still there sorry talking
01:29:25 you guys are still there sorry talking to politicians is an occupational hazard brian
01:29:28 brian now it looks from that as if at this point and this is the previous day in the afternoon you are going to be late for the meeting which was due to start at two rather than arriving at two and having
01:29:39 rather than arriving at two and having to leave early do you agree yes that's what that says yeah yes did things change yeah ministers direct diaries change at very short notice and um as an official
01:29:52 very short notice and um as an official if you're
01:29:53 if you're required to um speak to a minister then you go right
01:30:00 right i see
01:30:02 i see so just looking at that are you sure that you were there for
01:30:07 for uh
01:30:09 uh for the second half for the for the first half or first part and not the second part or vice versa for the first half what makes you sure in your recollection that that's the case um it's more a case of when you look at
01:30:21 um it's more a case of when you look at the the minute um the only logical outcome is that that's the
01:30:27 the that's what happened um i can't handle nate's heart so i remember everything again looking at the minutes i don't remember some of the stuff that was talked about in the latter half of the meeting right
01:30:38 meeting right now um you say in your statement in any event that you received a copy of the minutes of that meeting that's paragraph 119 yes at page 41. do you remember when you received those minutes no did you
01:30:50 you received those minutes no did you read them in full when you received them
01:30:54 i expect sir yes but you don't remember how long after the second of july that you did say no now let's go to the minute clg three zeroes one nine nine three six please
01:31:11 no uh one nine that's my fault clg3019336
01:31:23 and here are the minutes held on wednesday 2nd july 2014 at arap arab 2pm and you can see the list of days present in the chair was david metcalf of cwct
01:31:34 metcalf of cwct and we have others in the list including sarah colwell allen keeler from cwct barbara lane you
01:31:43 you iva meredith chris mort nyle rowan uh and stuart taylor from wintec with apologies from dave among other mick green and dave white from the nhbc
01:31:55 mick green and dave white from the nhbc and um if you look at background it says this cwct receives inquiries about fire performance of facades and a number of issues have been raised recently this meeting has been convened to explore
01:32:06 meeting has been convened to explore some of these issues and determine what action cwct should take to assist the industry
01:32:12 industry and presumably you were there at that part of the meeting and you understood what the purpose of the meeting was at least
01:32:16 least yes yes
01:32:19 yes yes now if we go then please to page three and look at the final heading on that page you can see the heading is this at the foot of your screen use of acm on high-rise buildings you see that and it says this acm refers to aluminium
01:32:32 and it says this acm refers to aluminium composite material the normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeters thick separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick this material
01:32:44 five millimeters thick this material generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class naught or class bf1d naught there are versions available with a mineral core which can achieve a2 s1d naught there are also similar
01:32:57 s1d naught there are also similar materials available with other with other metals such as copper used for the facing now just pausing there and thinking about the date on which you read these minutes
01:33:08 you read these minutes you were already aware i think of the existence of acm panels of the type described here namely those with the polyethylene core
01:33:17 i think i was aware they existed yes yes what did you understand to be meant in the first line of the section of the minutes by the words the normal material
01:33:28 minutes by the words the normal material in relation to acm with the polyethylene core as described
01:33:42 um i don't think it gave it a great deal of consideration at the time i'm not sure if i understand the question look
01:33:50 look the question is looking at the words the normal material consists of what did you understand by the word normal normal where normal when normal to whom
01:34:01 to whom what did you understand by that
01:34:06 um i'd have read it in in isolation like that i think the point they're making is there
01:34:11 there there are different versions of acm available with with different reaction to fire
01:34:15 to fire behaviors yeah and the normal material being untreated polyethylene 100 polyethylene yeah i mean i mean what normal in that context could mean
01:34:27 normal in that context could mean different things i guess but the the point i'm taking from that paragraph is that there are a number of different versions available certainly david metcalf's evidence was that normal meant basically standard the standard material
01:34:38 basically standard the standard material was the two skins of aluminium separated by a polyethylene core i suppose yeah did it occur to you that that might mean that acm with a 100 percent profiling polyethylene core was being used on
01:34:49 polyethylene core was being used on high-rise buildings on a regular basis in the united kingdom no
01:34:53 no why not that's not what it says well it isn't what it says but is it not did you not understand did you not understand the expression of the normal material consists of as being
01:35:06 the normal material consists of as being an indication of that fact no where did you think that it was normal in the world to have that product namely two skins of aluminium separated by a
01:35:17 two skins of aluminium separated by a 100 polyethylene core i don't remember thinking about that at the time um but
01:35:24 but it doesn't say that they're being used on high-rise buildings
01:35:34 did you make any inquiries of anyone who was present at the meeting about what that paragraph was referring to what it was about no it's a paragraph that explains that
01:35:45 no it's a paragraph that explains that there are there are a number of different sorts of acm available available
01:35:49 available in the uk
01:35:53 i guess so yes yes i mean there'd be no point the cwc meeting and discussing uh the use of acm on high-rise buildings as the title suggests only in use
01:36:04 the title suggests only in use in remote corners of the globe which didn't matter to the cwct would it
01:36:10 would it yeah so they're obviously talking about what's available in the uk yes and you understood that at the time i would suggest i guess sir yes [Music]
01:36:20 [Music] was it not a matter of concern to you given
01:36:26 or to learn that there were in use in the uk acm panels with a 100 polyethylene core on high-rise buildings
01:36:37 on high-rise buildings doesn't say that so there wasn't a concern to me at the time but it doesn't say so in
01:36:41 say so in big red letters but the title is you see use of acm on high-rise buildings so you would have realized that this was about the use of acm on high-rise buildings yes
01:36:54 i think reading that paragraph in isolation i i don't see i wouldn't have jumped i don't think i would have jumped to that conclusion well what well what would you have understood by the title or the heading use of acm on
01:37:07 the title or the heading use of acm on hiring i think i would have read all of the paragraphs under the heading not just the first one all right well let's do that i've read you the title i've read the first paragraph i'll read you the next
01:37:18 first paragraph i'll read you the next 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 spread and if we turn the page you can see that
01:37:29 and if we turn the page you can see that there is
01:37:31 there is a set of references in the in italics to
01:37:36 to some academic articles yes yes did you read those i don't remember
01:37:44 would it have been your custom to read days we've referred to them in a meeting minute like this um if i've had the time i would have tried to
01:37:56 why wouldn't you have made the time this is only so much time in the day and then it goes on it was stated that clause point 12.7 of
01:38:08 it was stated that clause point 12.7 of adb is limited is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters as they're not classed as limited combustibility this is not clear from the wording of the current clause the current clause is
01:38:19 the current clause the current clause is preceded by a heading insulation material stroke products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this
01:38:30 include the polyethylene core but this is not clear it was suggested the 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
01:38:41 each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin the question how would this affect other materials used for rain screen panels eg high pressure laminates
01:38:52 high pressure laminates and then there's something under breather membranes i'm going to go on for a bit
01:38:55 for a bit it was suggested that 12.7 of adb has a wider application and applies to all materials other than those specifically excluded i.e gaskets and sealants now i've read on to the end there
01:39:08 now i've read on to the end there um because you say in your evidence just now that you would have read it all in its entirety coming back to it and come back to my question
01:39:15 question and
01:39:17 and this
01:39:18 this surely would have alerted you to the fact
01:39:21 fact that there were in circulation in the united kingdom acm panels with a polyethylene core in use above 18 meters and the concern was whether that was adequately addressed by the approved document
01:39:35 that's what this is telling the reader is it not
01:39:42 i don't think it directly says that i think
01:39:49 i think i read that and saw that
01:39:53 they picked up on the intent of paragraph 12.7 um and um
01:40:01 felt that we that it would be helpful to get some better guidance out there so people understood that i'm really seeking to get your understanding and recollection of
01:40:11 of whether this meeting minute signaled to you
01:40:16 you that there were in circulation buildings above 18 meters clad with polyethylene called acm not at that time no it didn't how could it not have done
01:40:46 don't think that was the way i was thinking at the time i didn't i didn't pick up on that at the time why did you think this was a topic of discussion at all in central london in july 2014
01:40:59 at all in central london in july 2014 if
01:41:00 if there were not any acm 100 polyethylene core panels being used in cladding systems above 18 meters in this country
01:41:11 i i just saw this as a debate over the the different provisions that existed at the time and um
01:41:20 i saw i saw this as a record that the the people at the meeting after i'd left had picked up on
01:41:29 what we'd intended them to but why did you think that there was a debate over the different provisions unless there was some real world practical need for that debate in london
01:41:40 in london in 2014
01:41:42 in 2014 i think at that time i saw this as just one of many debates about the the different aspects of building regulations this wasn't just an exam question being debated idly between academics um for the fun of it did you
01:41:55 academics um for the fun of it did you did it not occur to you that this was being debated because of the presence of this this product all these materials on high-rise buildings in this country did that really not occur to you
01:42:06 did that really not occur to you i don't think it did at the time um i i think
01:42:11 i probably didn't pay that much attention to this i
01:42:17 i i think i may have spoken to dr colwell afterwards and asked her if there was something i needed to do i'm not 100 sure that happened but i think i
01:42:26 think i did mr chairman is that a convenient moment
01:42:33 yes if that's a convenient point for you mr millet i mean you haven't quite finished presumably this no i haven't no that's why i think it's convenient now there's a fair way to go on this topic i'm afraid but it's a convenient moment
01:42:44 i'm afraid but it's a convenient moment for the witness i think and for the transcriber and the clock and for you all right well i'm quite happy to be guided by you you're probably right so we'll mr martin will take a break at that point but we'll resume please at 20 to
01:42:57 point but we'll resume please at 20 to 12. and as before i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it when you're out of the room please all right yes sir thank you
01:43:07 thank you would you go to the ocean then please
01:43:16 thank you very much 20-12 please
02:01:43 yes mr millet well when you're ready perhaps you'd ask the usher to invite mr martin back into the room yes can we have mr martin back please thank you
02:02:06 all right mr martin ready to carry on yes sir
02:02:09 yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller thank you mr chairman mr martin um in the light of what you've told us just before the break can we take it that after this meeting and after you've read the minutes
02:02:20 the minutes you didn't make contact with cwct or anybody else at the meeting to ask them whether they had any knowledge of the presence of acm pe rainscreen products being used to cloud high-rise buildings
02:02:31 being used to cloud high-rise buildings in the united kingdom
02:02:36 my recollection is is that i i i think i contacted dr caldwell i can't remember immediate i don't think it was immediately after the meeting but at some point afterwards um right and asked if there was something i needed to
02:02:47 asked if there was something i needed to be
02:02:48 be doing
02:02:51 doing right um
02:02:52 right um just can you give us a bit more about that conversation when was it do you think probably within a a few weeks i imagine of the of the meeting and i would i asked her
02:03:03 asked her if i needed to do something and i think she
02:03:06 she said to me that she was dealing with it dealing with what um i think i'm referring to the reference to an faq okay we'll come back we'll come back to that and explore that in a little bit of detail but in relation to the question
02:03:18 relation to the question presence of acmpe called rainscreen in the uk on high-rise buildings can we take it that you didn't follow up on that with anybody present at the meeting no i've often wondered over the
02:03:29 meeting no i've often wondered over the last four years if i'd been at the second half of that meeting um alongside dr colwell whether i'd have realized the seriousness of that risk at
02:03:41 realized the seriousness of that risk at the time i don't think i did and can we take it also that you didn't bring
02:03:46 bring what that minute told you about acm on high-rise buildings too mr harrell's attention you didn't escalate it with i him
02:03:55 i him saying i don't think i recognized just how serious it was at the time now can we look please at what david metcalfe of the cwct says as i've shown you he was chair of
02:04:06 says as i've shown you he was chair of the meeting on the 2nd of july cwct
02:04:11 cwct40115 please this is his statement can we go in that please to page 9 paragraph 32
02:04:31 right thank you um and he says here and this is in the context of the meeting i believe that at the time i was aware that combustible acm cladding was being used on high-rise
02:04:42 cladding was being used on high-rise residential buildings this understanding would have come from general discussions with industry colleagues but i did not recall any specifics i did not know how widespread their use was i did not know if mhclg were aware of their use
02:04:55 if mhclg were aware of their use do you accept that it would not have been a difficult matter for you to find out about the presence or otherwise of acm with a pe cord cladding on on buildings above 18 meters from industry
02:05:06 buildings above 18 meters from industry participants at the time to say i think if i'd been in the room in the second half of that meeting um perhaps that would have come across more clearly
02:05:18 uh as i said i think yesterday the day before um
02:05:24 whilst i was aware of acm fires in other countries i didn't fully appreciate um the extent of the hazard um
02:05:35 the extent of the hazard um because i hadn't hadn't been in the in the the i didn't see the the fire tests first hand and uh as i i wonder if if i'd been in
02:05:46 and uh as i i wonder if if i'd been in the room with everybody there especially dr colwell whether i'd realised that this was more serious than
02:05:56 just another routine question about how we can improve standards of compliance which is how i saw it at the time how could you have seen the section headed acm on high-rise buildings
02:06:07 acm on high-rise buildings and everything i've read to you is just another routine question about improving standards
02:06:14 standards um i think because it it it looked like so many other things that i'd been dealing with how
02:06:22 how come you didn't take from a simple reading of this minute the fact that there was or at least the considerable risk that there was a population of
02:06:33 risk that there was a population of high-rise buildings in the uk with acm with a pe core on them um
02:06:45 so in in in general um i guess we recognized that with as with any other regulatory system there would be um
02:06:57 you wouldn't get 100 compliance um and
02:07:02 and the kind of work we did with trade bodies was to try and um improve matters wherever we could um and i i saw it in those terms not not
02:07:13 um and i i saw it in those terms not not in terms of the the hazard that it was
02:07:19 can we look at what alan keeler tells us he was a cwct
02:07:26 officer uh or at least member and he was also as i've shown you at this meeting could we look at
02:07:32 look at cwct40119 please page six
02:07:36 six paragraph 23
02:07:43 alan keeler's name has cropped up already in our evidence together you'll recall he wrote a letter in 2002 i think about the uh
02:07:53 uh 2001 i'm sorry about about harmonization you'll remember that uh but uh here he is again and here's his statement and he says at paragraph 23 there is a question about the use of acm with a combustible core on high-rise
02:08:05 acm with a combustible core on high-rise buildings i was aware that this material was being used on high-rise buildings this was based on conversations with people in the industry and also drawings provided in relation to inquiries to
02:08:16 provided in relation to inquiries to cwct
02:08:17 cwct by 2014 i was concerned about the use of such materials due to reports of fires in other countries which is why the issue was raised at the meeting now looking at the first part of that
02:08:29 now looking at the first part of that paragraph there in order to find out whether or not there was the presence of a population of high-rise cloud acn pe called buildings in this country
02:08:40 buildings in this country all you had to do was have a conversation with alan keeler yes
02:08:48 yes if i thought that was um something i needed to do i would have done it um but as i say i didn't i didn't pick up on um how serious um a risk this was um
02:09:00 how serious um a risk this was um and
02:09:04 i i just saw it as as it sounds awful i just saw it as um a routine debate over how we could improve standards of compliance which was which was quite normal
02:09:15 was which was quite normal i mean do you cutting to the point i mean do you accept that you had the means to knowledge
02:09:21 knowledge you had the means to knowledge the acm of the combustible core within use on high-rise buildings in this country even if you didn't take advantage of that means yes i think that's fair
02:09:38 did you not at this time think back to what you knew of the cc 1924 tests carried out in 2001 and reported to the department anthony
02:09:49 and reported to the department anthony bird in
02:09:50 bird in september 2002 and the performance of the acm panels in
02:09:56 panels in that test
02:10:01 as i explained when you asked me about those tests is um i wasn't aware of the severity of the the outcome of that test i think if i had been um i i probably would have taken this
02:10:12 um i i probably would have taken this more seriously
02:10:20 did you not think though on what little you did know about that test you being shown the piece of the acm by sarah colwill in your office and having an interesting conversation about it to link back to sarah colwell and
02:10:32 link back to sarah colwell and ask her
02:10:33 ask her about acm and its performance and whether or not she was aware that it was in
02:10:38 in common use in the uk and what should be done about it as i say i think i spoke to her after the meeting um and
02:10:45 um and um
02:10:53 it's i i'm not i'm not blaming the people at the meeting but i'm surprised given that there were um a group of people there that knew more about the cladding industry than me and
02:11:04 about the cladding industry than me and were
02:11:04 were more expert in in in vice and fire engineering and fire science
02:11:10 science um
02:11:13 um a sense of urgency didn't emerge uh and as i say i wonder if i'd been there in the afternoon perhaps i would have um in the second part of the meeting i would have realized that we were dealing
02:11:25 would have realized that we were dealing with something much more severe than than i had did you consider in 2014 or indeed any other time that the use of composite metal panels with a polyethylene core in
02:11:37 metal panels with a polyethylene core in the facade of a residential high-rise building would present anything other than a grave risk to the lives of the occupants in the event of a fire
02:11:46 um
02:11:49 i didn't recognize the gravity of it and sarah colwell was asked that question and her answer at day 233 patient 197 at 10 to 19 was that she said i would have been very
02:12:01 she said i would have been very concerned
02:12:02 concerned with the use of acm on the outside of a building
02:12:06 building that was her thinking debbie smith's thinking was that acm of the pe corps was
02:12:13 was and had been say since the early naughties that it should never ever be used above 18 meters were you not aware of the views of acm of the pe core
02:12:25 acm of the pe core espoused by dr smith or dr caldwell um not in terms of that the severity of it
02:12:32 it um
02:12:34 um as so i think discussions i'd already had previously i'd said i didn't think it met the requirements of the regulations but i didn't
02:12:45 didn't i
02:12:46 i didn't recognize just how how bad it was right
02:12:50 right did you not absorb that view
02:12:53 that view about acm with the pe core either from dr colwell or dr debbie smith during the nine years you were at the bre half a day half the week no
02:13:06 can we take it that you never caused or carried
02:13:09 carried carried out or calls to be carried out any checks or any inquiries of any kind about the use of acm pe core panels on high-rise buildings in the uk at this time or how widespread that practice was
02:13:21 time or how widespread that practice was that's right i didn't
02:13:24 did it occur to you when you read these minutes
02:13:26 minutes that if
02:13:27 that if as is set out though as i've shown you the guidance in 12.6 and 12.7 was not being clearly understood by the cladding industry
02:13:37 industry then at least some parts of that industry may be considering that acm panels achieving class naught or class b were acceptable for use over 18 meters even if highly combustible
02:13:49 even if highly combustible i think this is i just saw this as an opportunity to improve the standards of compliance which was something that we were always working to achieve you
02:14:00 we were always working to achieve you saw this as an opportunity to improve the standards of compliance so what did you do having really worked with cwc wct were proposing to um
02:14:14 you know they were they were the body that that represented the the cladding industry and that the cladding industry turned to for guidance
02:14:23 so by
02:14:25 by ensuring that they understood the intent of the regulations um that would filter down to the to the contractors and the membership of cwct by seeing this as an opportunity to
02:14:36 cwct by seeing this as an opportunity to improve the standards of compliance do you mean an opportunity to make adb
02:14:43 adb clear
02:14:44 clear in the respect in which you now knew it was seen as unclear
02:14:53 to some extent i think yes
02:14:57 so what did you do um
02:15:03 well i looked at those minutes sort of saw that um they'd identified the issue and that they were um i think they were looking to it it was recognized in the minutes what
02:15:15 it was recognized in the minutes what the provisions should be uh or how the provisions were intended to be applied so they
02:15:22 they um they knew that they would be able to disseminate to that to their membership um and
02:15:29 um and i think i saw that there was a proposal for an faq um that um i think
02:15:36 i think the decision was um i think it was going to be raised with me so i assume someone would present me with a draft so i that that was
02:15:43 was i i saw that as um as a positive thing at the time so what did you do um so i think i spoke to dr carwell
02:15:54 and
02:15:57 waited to see if they came up with a draft
02:16:12 now going back to if we can to the minute
02:16:16 minute page four
02:16:21 on this point
02:16:25 uh it's i'm so sorry clg three zeros one nine three three six yes thank you you can see the underneath the italicized section
02:16:37 section 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
02:16:48 combustibility this is not clear from the wording of the current clause the current clause is preceded by a heading insulation materials straight products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to
02:17:00 the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this is not clear it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an faq
02:17:11 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
02:17:19 document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin now
02:17:24 now we've looked at that twice this is the only part of the discussion recording
02:17:29 recording the uh
02:17:31 the uh the use of acm which you deal with in your statement can we please go to that first this is at your statement to page 42
02:17:39 42 paragraph
02:17:40 paragraph 119 c
02:17:45 and you can't see that it's c but it is
02:17:49 but it is and
02:17:50 and it's after the quotation from the minute and you say this i was not in the meeting for this part of the discussion but i note that another attendee had correctly interpreted and explained the relevance of the word filler in
02:18:02 relevance of the word filler in paragraph 12.7 of adb i do not recall being contacted by dr colwell in relation to posting an faq on the planning portal now dealing there first with the first
02:18:14 now dealing there first with the first part of that why do you say that it is of note that another attendee had correctly interpreted and explained the relevance of the word filler
02:18:25 why is that of note
02:18:29 um well that's that's the what we've just been discussing is is that section where
02:18:33 where uh in in the minutes it's saying that the intention is that um polyethylene chord panel wouldn't be acceptable and that um
02:18:42 that um the core of the panel could be regarded as being a filler yeah i see now then going to the to the final sentence of this uh section if we can go back to the minute clg three zeros one nine three three six page four just
02:18:55 nine three three six page four just above the heading breather membranes and i've read this to you before it says how would this affect other materials used for rain screen panels eg high pressure laminate now
02:19:06 laminate now there it is again isn't it it's the same or or similar question that tony baker had asked you some seven months earlier in november 2013.
02:19:16 yes yes now in july 2014 had you been present at the meeting when that question was posed
02:19:27 oh the question about whether it would apply to high-pressure laminate yeah um no
02:19:32 no it seems to be all at the point where they were talking about um acm etc
02:19:38 acm etc had you been present at that point in the meeting what would your answer have been
02:19:47 i think i would have given a similar i mean
02:19:49 mean i think it's but what i think when i i do remember saying and i'm pretty sure it was at this at this meeting is i said to the group that they shouldn't regard me as knowing everything about
02:20:00 me as knowing everything about everything um sometimes people in industry assume that the official in the department is a the font of all knowledge when in fact they were more expert on all of these
02:20:11 they were more expert on all of these issues than i was so i could only talk to them about the intent the regulations and the and the way they're intended to be applied um and so it needed to be a feel like a collaboration between us to try and
02:20:23 a collaboration between us to try and find that the best way through um
02:20:27 um and um i think what i would have proposed in response to that would be the same thing that i said to mr baker which is that i felt that
02:20:37 that homogenous high-pressure laminate um
02:20:41 um i think class b would have been inappropriate classification
02:20:49 you say in that last answer i could only talk to them about the intent of the regulations and the way they are intended to be applied
02:21:01 they are intended to be applied that's all people expect from you
02:21:06 and therefore do you accept that if that will if that is what you understood them to expect from you that they were entitled to expect a clear answer about the intent of the
02:21:18 a clear answer about the intent of the regulations and the way they are intended to be applied yes that's what i mean and and somebody's recorded in the minute that intent
02:21:34 is that a yes that you understood that when people came to you with a question about adb they were looking for a clear answer which indicated unambiguously and unequivocally
02:21:46 unambiguously and unequivocally the secretary of state's intent behind the language used um but that would have been in in terms of its objective because there are too many different i i i what
02:21:58 different i i i what not empowered to do at that time is to give people a an interpretation beyond what my understanding of the intention and what the words actually said but you
02:22:09 and what the words actually said but you drafted these provisions surely you were able to tell them what you meant when you did so
02:22:17 yes which is the the point that's in the minute right okay
02:22:26 so materials such as high pressure laminate rain screen panels were were they subject to the limiting combustibility recommendations in 12.7 um i think generally high pressure laminate and
02:22:39 generally high pressure laminate and my my reading of of the provisions which links back to what i'd said to mr baker i guess it must have been nearly 12 months before was that a high pressure laminate is essentially a homogeneous
02:22:51 laminate is essentially a homogeneous material so it's a sheet of ones one material so
02:22:58 so i would have read that as being a surface so so class b would seem appropriate but where you've got fillers or layers or whatever you want
02:23:09 fillers or layers or whatever you want to call them underneath then you'll revert back to the material a limited combustibility what for all of it or just for the core and well high pressure laminate doesn't have a core that's the point but when you refer to a composite
02:23:20 composite fillers or layers underneath then i i would
02:23:24 would refer to the core refer to the core so does that mean just taking a slight diversion for the moment coming back to where we were yesterday afternoon and the baker question where you've got a composite panel you have to do two tests
02:23:35 composite panel you have to do two tests one to test the surface to make sure it's class naught or class b and test the core to make sure that that's class a1 or a2 yes
02:23:45 right and presumably would this be right the the certifying body bba or um labc or
02:23:53 labc or or another certification body would presumably then spell out the results of both tests when certifying a a panel a composite panel is that that presumably must be what you
02:24:04 is that that presumably must be what you would have expected um yes
02:24:07 um yes did you ever see ever a bba or labc certificate that stated the results of both tests for a composite rain screen panel um i don't think i'd seen any
02:24:18 um i don't think i'd seen any certification for rain screen panels well i think that's correct we know you did see one for the um for kingsman k-15 in
02:24:29 kingsman k-15 in uh in 2014 and we'll see that later in your evidence that's an insulation but then that's that's a later stage to this meeting i see i see all right so you never even saw bba certificates
02:24:40 so you never even saw bba certificates or how it was that the certification bodies were presenting rain screen panels to the buyers no
02:24:46 no you never looked
02:24:49 no i mean you'd need an army of people to do what you're suggesting i should be doing
02:24:54 doing well um
02:24:57 well um take it from me that the bba certificate for
02:25:02 for uh rayna bond pe55 did not state that it had undergone two tests one in relation to the surface for the purposes of diagram 40 and one in relation to the core for the purposes
02:25:14 in relation to the core for the purposes of 12.7
02:25:19 you'll have to take your word for that i don't know well no i'm asking you to take my word for that can you explain how that is so if in fact your understanding of what you had written was that a composite panel
02:25:31 written was that a composite panel should undergo two tests one for the purposes of diagram 40 and one for the purposes of the core and the 12.7 no i've never looked at their certificate so it's not something i would have
02:25:42 would have been involved with
02:25:46 now is it the case that the correct interpretation to use your word in july 2014 that you had in mind when you read when you read this minute was that the word filler
02:25:57 word filler or filler material extended to the combustible core of an acm panel such as polyethylene yes
02:26:04 yes and the core of such a product was subject to the limited combustibility criteria yes yes yes so it wouldn't be sufficient then for an acm panel with a pe core to meet the
02:26:16 acm panel with a pe core to meet the requirements for class naught or euro class b as set out in paragraph 12.6 or diagram 40. that's right right so is it the case that your thinking at
02:26:27 so is it the case that your thinking at the time was that you considered that the word filler in 12.7 had the effect of prohibiting the use of acm with the pe core on high-rise buildings yes
02:26:38 yes and would it follow from that that
02:26:41 that unless
02:26:42 unless that's prohibited and less used in a system which had been tested to be s8414 unclassified to br 135 yes oh i suppose assessed by a fire engineer as part of a holistic risk
02:26:54 engineer as part of a holistic risk assessment i guess so yes
02:27:02 uh and is that why if paragraph 12.7 had been interpreted correctly according to you all along then after the first of april 2007
02:27:14 then after the first of april 2007 which was the date of the publication of the 2006 amendments to adb non-fire retardant panels using your expression would have been again using your expression later
02:27:25 again using your expression later effectively banned for use on high-rise residential buildings yes
02:27:31 yes and by non-fire retardant i take it you mean 100 percent or even possibly um
02:27:39 a lower proportion of pure pe core panels yeah that's that's how you as you extend that yes now at the date of this meeting was it your understanding that 12.7 of adb was
02:27:52 your understanding that 12.7 of adb was intended to cover only the insulation and the core of a composite panel or all elements of the external wall build up including the external facings
02:28:03 build up including the external facings i asked you this yesterday and your answer was no but was was it still now at this date it's still the same answer still the same answer now let's go back then or down rather in the document and you can see a heading
02:28:17 the document and you can see a heading breather membranes yes yes and under breather membranes uh it says it was suggested the 12 point clause 12.7 of adb has a wider
02:28:28 clause 12.7 of adb has a wider application and applies to all materials other than those specifically excluded ie gaskets and sealants now when you read the minute
02:28:39 now when you read the minute did you note the suggestion here that 12.7 might apply to all materials except those expressly excluded
02:28:49 i would have read it at the time i don't remember
02:28:51 remember what did you understand by the suggestion but i can't remember thinking about it at the time could you not clearly see from it that some people at the meeting clearly took
02:29:02 some people at the meeting clearly took the view
02:29:03 the view that
02:29:04 that about the breadth of 12.7 that was clearly different from yours namely that it extended to everything except except gaskets and sealants in other words did extend to the external facings
02:29:30 um it doesn't refer to external facings here it refers to all materials other than they specifically excluded i.e gaskets and sealants
02:29:41 so that would include the external yeah i don't think i picked up on that at the time didn't pick up on that i mean had you picked up on it you would have realized wouldn't you that this note was telling you not only that the ambit of filler materials etc was
02:29:54 ambit of filler materials etc was unclear what it was what it denoted was unclear but also there was a big question mark about the the scope of 12.7 and on one reading it included everything in the external world build
02:30:06 everything in the external world build up other than gaskets and sealants yes
02:30:10 yes yeah i see your point i think i would have looked at this and saw that it was mostly talking about breather membranes and
02:30:17 and i think they were something i wasn't particularly familiar with and it was a technology that um
02:30:27 um become more common in that type of construction right
02:30:36 now can we go back to your statement please
02:30:38 please uh page 41 paragraph 119a
02:30:44 and you say this in relation to the minutes of the cwct fire group on that date i would highlight the following from those minutes and if you look down
02:30:55 and if you look down to a you see this under point three cw's current cwct guidance cwct standard part 6 sets out the requirements for fire performance of facades this is a further example of the industry
02:31:07 further example of the industry producing its own guidance to assist compliance with the regulations
02:31:12 now in july 2014 had you read the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes part 6 which deals with fire performance published in 2008
02:31:24 i don't think i was familiar with it in advance of this meeting would you well then let's let's look at it were you familiar with it at all after this meeting i'm not sure i think it was circulated
02:31:36 i'm not sure i think it was circulated so i think i would have read it yes i think it was circulated in fact by by brenda acted wasn't it yes yeah so let's look at it cwct
02:31:47 cwct five zeros four six please
02:31:57 now that's there's the first page and um
02:32:02 and um do you remember when you first read that i couldn't say when i read it first time right
02:32:16 did you read it after the 2014 meeting uh um
02:32:21 uh um i would have thought so but i'm not sure right
02:32:30 you're citing it i think is an example of industry guidance which assisted compliance yes yes this is typical of um most trade bodies produce documents to
02:32:43 most trade bodies produce documents to assist their their membership in um a consistent approach to particular problems and that included compliance with the regulations yes and in order to assist with compliance would you accept
02:32:54 assist with compliance would you accept that the guidance would necessarily have to be accurate
02:32:59 you'd hope so yes yes
02:33:03 but you hadn't read it before 2014 so you wouldn't have known whether it was accurate in the years between 2008 and 2014. now there are there are dozens if not hundreds of documents like this for
02:33:15 not hundreds of documents like this for different sectors and um i wouldn't have been able to read all of them but you say you read it after july 2014 but you can't remember how long afterwards yes i believe so did
02:33:26 how long afterwards yes i believe so did it strike you did you realize when you did read it that nowhere within that guidance is there any statement which makes it clear whether the core of a composite panel must be of limited combustibility
02:33:43 not sure if i picked up on that at that time but the fact that it was acknowledged in the meeting i i think i assumed that that was something they would take on board right when you prepared your statement did you read it
02:33:55 prepared your statement did you read it you've referred to it as an example of something which assisted with compliance when you prepared your statement did you read this document um i don't think i did
02:34:04 did really well in which case how could you say that it was an example of something which assisted compliance if you hadn't read it
02:34:10 read it um maybe i did i i wrote that four years ago um
02:34:17 ago um i probably did read i've definitely read it at some point over the last four years right but if as we can agree i think that nowhere within it is there any statement which makes it clear that the core of a composite panel needs to
02:34:28 the core of a composite panel needs to be of limited combustibility it is not a very good example is it of a an industry document that assists compliance
02:34:38 i think i'll give you an example of the type of thing that the trade bodies produce and having discussed that with them that's the sort of thing that you'd hope that they'd um they'd pick up on in later editions now take it from me that the cwtc standard
02:34:50 take it from me that the cwtc standard was published about 18 months after approved document b
02:34:55 b 2006 was published in april 2007 um
02:35:01 um and taking it from me also that at page four it says that it was written under the guidance of the cwct technical committee
02:35:08 committee let's go to page four of this document
02:35:13 we can see who is on the list there a number of people including alan keeler from cwct ditto steven ledbetter you see that yes
02:35:23 that yes it's a long list of people from the bre arab the nbs the cwct itself and manufacturers and other industry organizations with additional advice given by others
02:35:35 with additional advice given by others uh
02:35:38 pilkington bureau hapold arab chilton fire
02:35:41 fire and epic yes yes an epic is engineered panels in construction which is a trade association representing the insulated panel industry i mean you would agree i think that this is a pretty heavyweight group of people
02:35:52 is a pretty heavyweight group of people who might be expected to know enough about cladding and that it's fire performance to be able to provide accurate and detailed guidance to members yes
02:36:03 guidance to members yes yes yes
02:36:07 now take it from me please the word filler or phrase filler materials
02:36:13 materials does not appear in this document at all nor is there anything in it which tells the readers that there is any that material other than insulation should be of limited
02:36:24 than insulation should be of limited combustibility take that from me and
02:36:28 and can you explain that
02:36:32 no would that not tend to suggest that your intention in putting the words filler material with the exceptions for gaskets and
02:36:43 with the exceptions for gaskets and sedans and similar etc into 12.7 had been wholly misunderstood by the industry the cladding industry
02:36:56 i think i understand that now
02:37:00 the only reason you didn't understand it then was because you hadn't read the document yes yes but as i said there are dozens if not hundreds of documents like this i could i wouldn't have been able to read all of them no no but i mean
02:37:12 to read all of them no no but i mean given the circumstances in which 12.7 came to be amended post-consultation and the fact that you told us i think at least twice yesterday you were unhappy with it were you not
02:37:24 you were unhappy with it were you not interested in following up later to see what industry made of it see whether they'd understood your intention
02:37:31 intention or whether they'd missed the point
02:37:36 it was hindsight i wish i had but not at the time i didn't think of it with hindsight you wish you had yes but of course
02:37:45 of course but what what what is it that you didn't know at the time that you now know that that makes you say it that with hindsight
02:37:51 hindsight um
02:37:56 there are a lot of buildings that that have materials on them that we were trying to discourage people from using in fact this document does rather the opposite if we go please to page 15
02:38:08 opposite if we go please to page 15 let's look at 6.6.2
02:38:13 it's under the heading materials and uh under 6.6.2
02:38:21 and i don't think i need 6.6.1 but note it it said it refers to materials in rain screen cavities uh but if you look at 6.6.2 insulation materials it says insulation
02:38:33 materials it says insulation in walls of buildings with a story more than 18 meters above ground level should be of limited combustibility you see that yes
02:38:42 yes to the extent that it suggests that the requirement of limited combustibility was limited to insulation products that was inconsistent wasn't it with your correct interpretations you put it of the meaning of the word filler in 12.7
02:38:54 the meaning of the word filler in 12.7 of adb yes yes and also inconsistent with the suggestion made at the second of july meeting that it applied to the whole of the wool build-up except gaskets sealants and similar under the breather membrane
02:39:05 and similar under the breather membrane heading we saw
02:39:11 yes they to some extent pick it up in the preceding paragraph but not to the extent i would have wanted them to and if we turn to page 13 and paragraph 6. 4.2
02:39:22 4.2 just look at that that's about surface spread of flame and you can see that there's a reference there to 476 part six and seven and class b this is basically diagram 40 writ large isn't it yes yes
02:39:36 writ large isn't it yes yes and and then page 15 paragraph 6.6.2
02:39:42 which deals with insulation materials as we've seen and then over onto 16 6.6.3 which deals with composite components
02:39:53 you see that when one or when one of the cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together the elements as a whole must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance
02:40:05 fire performance similarly it must be demonstrated that the composite will remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated from the building or framework nothing there at all
02:40:17 nothing there at all uh to say that the core of the composite must be of limited combustibility
02:40:26 no no
02:40:30 this document is in all dual and purposes really the opposite of what you say you've been trying to achieve by inserting the word filler into 12.7 of approved document b isn't it
02:40:44 um yes to some extent i think it is when did you first realize that the cwc guidance
02:40:50 guidance excellent as it had been since april 2007 well sorry excellent since 2008 did not reflect your 2006 intentions so
02:41:02 did not reflect your 2006 intentions so far as what filament
02:41:05 i'm not sure but it would have been after 2014 or 2015 i think right do you accept that the meaning you apparently intended for 12.7 filler materials etc cannot have been
02:41:17 filler materials etc cannot have been clear to the eminent and reputable authors of this standard
02:41:26 and if it was they didn't reflect it in this guidance now well there's no reason why they wouldn't have reflected it in the guidance if they'd if they'd got the point
02:41:34 point yes
02:41:38 and therefore certainly not clear to any readers of this guidance yes yes yes are you aware that this document was specifically drafted
02:41:50 was specifically drafted during the course of 2006 and and the beginning of 2007 to take account of the amendments to the approved document that you had been that you had made you government had made
02:42:02 government had made um no um it
02:42:06 it's a shame that they
02:42:10 didn't contact us when they were doing it
02:42:12 it i don't believe they did you say it's their fault for not asking you about it that's not what i'm saying i'm just saying it's it's a shame that didn't happen are you aware that the cwc ran
02:42:23 are you aware that the cwc ran two-day courses based on the content of this guidance between 2006 and 2010. i am now that's the sort of thing that trade bodies do um so but i i didn't i
02:42:34 trade bodies do um so but i i didn't i wouldn't have known about them at the time are you aware that this document remained valid and in circulation right up until the grenfell tower fire and indeed was referred to expressly in the employer's requirements
02:42:45 employer's requirements for the grenfell tower project itself yes i i was surprised that um cwct hadn't taken account of the 2014 meeting where were you first
02:42:56 2014 meeting where were you first surprised
02:42:57 surprised probably after the grenfell tower if i
02:43:01 had you read this document i think you must accept that it would have been obvious to you that none of the members of cwct's technical committee that long and eminent list all those giving additional advice
02:43:13 all those giving additional advice appear to have picked up what you say was the intended meaning of the word filler in paragraph 12.7 yes i i'm
02:43:21 yes i i'm i've certainly spoken to people that did seem to have picked it up um it's clear from the
02:43:27 from the meeting meeting in 2014 that people had recognized that i think the evidence from some of the engineers at when wintec is that they recognised the intent
02:43:37 intent now are you aware or were you aware at the time that
02:43:42 that in march 2011 the cwct issued technical note 73 on the subject of fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens
02:43:54 i wasn't aware of it at the time right
02:43:57 right can we go to your statement please page 40 power
02:44:02 118. uh you refer here to the email we looked at before from brenda acted of the 24th of april 2014 and the document she attaches which was technical note 73
02:44:14 technical note 73 i think i may have put to you that she sent to you the earlier standard if i did i correct that it was technical mate 73 to be fair to you um is it right that you hadn't seen that document technical note 73 before
02:44:28 that document technical note 73 before april 2014 that's right do you know why that was
02:44:35 um i would have only seen if somebody brought it to my attention right but it wasn't at your job to keep abreast of the main industry developments and guidance notes about the meaning and application of the approved documents
02:44:46 application of the approved documents and so far as one person's able to do that given the range of tasks that we had had upon us you can't watch the entire construction industry
02:44:57 well isn't wasn't there a system i think some people might think it wasn't difficult to set up a system whereby you would maintain a library of the principal guidance documents which gave industry guidance about the
02:45:09 which gave industry guidance about the guidance
02:45:11 guidance guidance about the statutory guidance under the building regulations well there was there wasn't a system um i can see why that might be desirable um
02:45:24 i'm not quite sure how we would have constructed that to make that happen well i'm not going to stand here and design a library system for you but it would you accept that it can't have been terribly difficult for you or somebody
02:45:36 terribly difficult for you or somebody in your department mr kelly for example um to to identify all the main bodies in the construction industry and just ask them to provide you by email with their
02:45:47 them to provide you by email with their current
02:45:48 current guidance about the approved documents that way you would understand what it is that the members of those organizations understood about your guidance
02:46:00 understood about your guidance and you could keep tabs on it do you accept that i accept that would be desirable i'm not sure if we'd have had the time to be able to do all of that was did it ever cross your mind that that's something
02:46:11 cross your mind that that's something you ought to do
02:46:14 i don't think so no how come
02:46:21 our focus was on delivering whatever the next project was that would and and um and whatever ministers were asking us to do but but your government for this purpose were you as the british
02:46:33 purpose were you as the british government not interested in what was happening out there on the building sites out there in architects offices out there in building control every day
02:46:43 every day or was it just your job to run projects as and when they came do they do the amendments to adb and as it were fire and forget i think that's essentially to some
02:46:55 i think that's essentially to some extent the way that the division functioned is we produced the guidance but the responsibility for ensuring for for managing that was was with the industry and the building control bodies
02:47:06 industry and the building control bodies mr martin the responsibility for ensuring
02:47:08 ensuring that architects designers building control officers and other operating operatives in this industry understood what you were getting at in your drafting fell squarely on your shoulders
02:47:21 that's not the way that it was that's not not the way the division worked and that's
02:47:28 having absolute responsibility to ensure that every architect in the country understood the building regulations i don't think it's something you could impose on any one individual certainly not the small team that we had
02:47:47 do you know whether any other official within your team had read technical note 73
02:47:55 i doubt it did you read technical note 73 when you received it from brenda aptid
02:48:04 i i don't know for sure i mean she sent it to you by way of an attachment that you would have understood from that presumably that she expected you to read it otherwise she wouldn't have sent it to you is that fair
02:48:22 i suppose she was allowing me to or bring it to my attention so that i might read it
02:48:30 yeah uh and um you can't remember whether you did it or you didn't is that right um no i'm guessing in april 2014 that i was in the middle of
02:48:41 was in the middle of introducing entirely new set of regulations covering domestic securities that's probably what was at the forefront of my mind i imagine right
02:48:49 right let's um let's look at it cwct 5019
02:48:55 5019 now um i should just tell you that a lot of this document is directed towards the use of fire stops and cavity barriers the main
02:49:04 the main section for our purposes is page six left-hand column if we go to that please you'll see a heading a use of combustible material yes
02:49:15 yes yes see that and if we go to the second paragraph under the heading you can see it says this uh i just want to take you through it it says this to satisfy the recommendations in adb insulation and filler materials
02:49:28 in adb insulation and filler materials in walls of a building with a floor more than 18 metres above ground level are required to be of limited combustibility this requirement does not apply to sealants and gaskets and there is an exception for insulation in the cavity
02:49:40 exception for insulation in the cavity of masonry walls similar requirements apply in scotland and northern ireland the scottish handbook also requires every part of an external wall not more than one metre from a boundary to be
02:49:51 than one metre from a boundary to be constructed of non-combustible products you see that yes now there's no explanation here either in this passage i've just read to you or take this from me elsewhere in
02:50:02 you or take this from me elsewhere in the document of the meaning or scope of the word filler and no indication that the word filler was intended to capture the core of a composite clad
02:50:13 composite clad cladding panel
02:50:17 did you notice that at any time
02:50:23 i don't remember
02:50:27 and there's no indication at all that the hole will build up except gasket sealants and similar and perhaps if you like accepting frames uh
02:50:37 uh was to be of limited combustibility again did you notice that i i don't remember what i thought at the time
02:50:54 right
02:50:59 so you didn't notice any difference between the english and the scottish approaches
02:51:08 um i knew that there were differences between the english and scottish provisions the definition of non-combustibles different in scotland or it was at the time i think now let's look at the final paragraph on the left hand side
02:51:20 the left hand side uh we need to scroll down to that please and you'll see a heading alternative approaches and it says this for range screen walls adb allows fire testing in accordance with bs8414 to be used
02:51:31 accordance with bs8414 to be used instead of providing cavity barriers and non-combustible insulation as described above
02:51:39 is that correct
02:51:44 um
02:51:58 i think it could could be the quest i mean cavity barriers is is a and i'm not sure i'd have phrased it that way um but certainly for uh some of the rendered systems they were able to pass
02:52:10 rendered systems they were able to pass br 8 bs8414 without cavity barriers um
02:52:17 but i i i can't imagine i i don't think there's a rain screen system that would have passed the test so it's probably a moot point yes exactly it's about rain screen rules as you rightly pointed out but it is testing to bs 8414 in the context of
02:52:31 is testing to bs 8414 in the context of a rain screen system an alternative to the provision of cavity barriers um i don't think that's the way the approved documents phrased i'm pretty sure you'd never passed a bs8414 test without them no
02:52:42 no i think we're agreeing i think i think i'm putting to you is that it's plainly wrong isn't it yes yes and uh the reference there to non-combustible insulation would you also agree is not in line with the guidance in 12.7
02:52:57 yes it should say materials are limited combustibility yes nor any indication here that
02:53:03 here that there's any consideration that needs to be given to the combustibility or otherwise of any part of the external wall other than the insulation and on your view that would also be wrong yes
02:53:14 yes i think it's just flagging up that bs8414
02:53:17 bs8414 provides an alternative route and it's not done that particularly well now alan keyler of the cwct has told us in his statement and we don't need to go to it
02:53:28 to it it's paragraph um well
02:53:32 um well it's actually an unparagraphed statement it's page three second paragraph lines five to seven but he says this i was responsible for drafting this document that's technical note 73 the draft was then reviewed by the cwct
02:53:44 draft was then reviewed by the cwct technical group and selected fire experts prior to publication in 2011. now do you ex accept that if you had read this document in or near the date of its publication
02:53:55 in or near the date of its publication in march 2011 it would have become clear to you that the cwct
02:54:00 the cwct and their experts advising them on the content of this document do not appear to have understood what you say was the intended meaning of the word filler in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b i
02:54:11 paragraph 12.7 of approved document b i would hope i would have done yes and do you accept that it would have been important for you to know that that know that the cwc got this wrong at least to your way of thinking i think so yes yes are you aware that this
02:54:23 think so yes yes are you aware that this document remained current and in circulation until april 2017. i i'm aware now yes
02:54:36 so you hadn't read the 2008 standard until
02:54:41 until i think after the fire of grenfell and you hadn't i think read the cwct march technical note 73 unless you did at the time when brenda raptor sent it to you until after the fire have i got that
02:54:53 until after the fire have i got that right i think so yes right so
02:54:56 so can you just help me what was the first industry guidance about approved document b and particularly external wall construction
02:55:08 that you read between 2008 and the 14th of june 2017 which assisted on compliance with those requirements of b4
02:55:22 i'm not convinced i read any of it um up until that point
02:55:32 now i i think it is right there isn't it that you did see a copy of bca's technical guidance note 18 in 2014 yes
02:55:44 in 2014 yes and just to be precise you received a copy of
02:55:47 copy of that document by email from steve evans of the nhbc on the 15th of august 2014. and we can we we're going to come to it but just as a time marker for you
02:55:58 but just as a time marker for you do you remember that you accept that so
02:56:03 so allowing for that i think it's right isn't it that in the period from 2008 to 2014
02:56:08 2014 you you hadn't read any industry guidance at all bearing on um fire performance of rain screen cladding right now i think i would have only come to it if somebody
02:56:19 would have only come to it if somebody brought it to my attention and asked me to comment on it but i've shown you the cwct
02:56:25 cwct guidance notes but you haven't you didn't read those and
02:56:30 and and you can't think of any others i think as you sit there no no
02:56:42 just going back then to help me in your statement of paragraph 155 at page 54.
02:56:55 you say
02:56:58 in the middle of the paragraph and you're dealing there with the period 2009
02:57:03 2009 to the 14th of june 2017
02:57:07 however within the context of the system of building regulations in england it was my view that relevant industry bodies were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance and ensure that the functional requirements of the regulations
02:57:19 requirements of the regulations particularly requirement b4 were met
02:57:25 what is the guidance that you read as a result of which you formed the view that relevant industry bodies were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance
02:57:35 guidance as i say um i think the period i'm referring to in this paragraph is in response to the period that was in the question that the inquiry set to me i think um
02:57:45 um and what i'm saying what i'm referring to there is we'd had a discussion with an industry body the cwct and i thought they were acting on that so
02:57:56 so when
02:57:57 when how are we to read this you say it was my view that relevant industry bodies were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance what was that view based on um
02:58:08 um the discussions that i'd had and what i felt was happening well discussions that you'd had and what you felt was happening which guidance which industry bodies did you think
02:58:19 which industry bodies did you think we're taking i think what i'm referring to here is probably specifically the bca guidance which i was familiar with and i think i understood that the cwct was
02:58:31 understood that the cwct was taking
02:58:32 taking the comments that had been made at that meeting on board i see um so in fact we should read that sentence as is it was this right help me with it
02:58:43 as is it was this right help me with it we should read that as saying that it was my view that the bca were taking appropriate steps to produce guidance as they did
02:58:50 they did from june 2014 because that's all i think you can refer to
02:58:56 to and and i thought that cwct were taking on board the comments that had been made at the meeting
02:59:05 right we'll we will come back to that in due course in any event
02:59:21 now you may not be able to help me with this but let me see if i can i can find out uh i've shown you in your statement where you said this is page 42.
02:59:32 where you said this is page 42. uh perhaps we should go to page 42 of your statement and you referred there to the fact that another attendee at the second of july cwc five group meeting had correctly interpreted the word
02:59:43 had correctly interpreted the word filler
02:59:44 filler do you know who it was who came up with that correct interpretation no have you had any stage taken any steps to find out who that was
02:59:54 no why is that
02:59:59 um i had no reason to i don't think were you not interested to know who it was who shared your view of the meaning of filler
03:00:07 filler someone had actually got it right
03:00:11 no i i think i saw it as a as
03:00:17 that had been acknowledged
03:00:20 right now
03:00:22 now from
03:00:23 from those at the meeting david metcalf told the inquiry in his statement and i'll just give you the the reference paragraph 36 page 10 when he confirmed it on day 228 page 90 1-18
03:00:36 he confirmed it on day 228 page 90 1-18 that he believed that the announcement that clause 12.7 of adb was intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters his evidence is that that was said by
03:00:48 his evidence is that that was said by sarah colwell are you able to confirm that no you said i don't know who it was you don't know who it was
03:00:58 and the others also confirmed that stuart taylor says he's wintec and he recalls that you confirmed that to be the case
03:01:09 confirmed that to be the case is it is it correct that you confirmed that sarah colwell's interpretation of 12.7 was correct i wasn't there you weren't there
03:01:22 so you think that mr taylor's recollection on that is defective it must be yes but it must be of your right in your recollection yes yes i see
03:01:36 do you think that even though you weren't there that mr taylor mr metcalf and mr hepworth might be right that it was sarah colwell who'll tell who told the others there that 12.7 was intended to prohibit the use of
03:01:47 to prohibit the use of polyethylene cored acm over 18 meters i've got no reason to think it wasn't dr carwell right
03:01:55 indeed i think it's right that there was nobody there but sarah colwill who had been involved in any way with formulating the wording of paragraph 12.7
03:02:05 12.7 yes it seems likely it was done sam greenwood was a bre person at the time
03:02:11 yes it seems likely it was dr karma yes was there anybody else at the meeting with whom you had been in recent discussion about the interpretation of 12.7
03:02:23 interpretation of 12.7 other than bre people i don't think so
03:02:30 did it not concern you when you read the minute that the meaning and scope of 12.7 even needed to be explained by an attendee perhaps sarah colwell to a group of
03:02:42 perhaps sarah colwell to a group of other professionals more than seven years after publication of the guidance
03:02:50 i think i saw it as being a record that i i it wasn't clear that it was only one person that thought that from the minute i think
03:02:58 i think did it not occur to you that the correct interpretation that you say was given by annette nd might have come as a wholly new interpretation to others at the meeting
03:03:11 that's not the impression i got from the minutes i don't think
03:03:15 did it occur to you that others at the meeting might simply have disagreed and gone about their business as before with their own interpretations in place and you would hope they'd have recorded that and raised that if that was an
03:03:27 that and raised that if that was an issue uh
03:03:28 issue uh well they might have done but they might have continued as business as usual until the government provided clarity no why wouldn't you
03:03:40 way i saw it at the time was that um i i saw that as being that the the meeting had accepted that that was the case and and that
03:03:49 and that the attendees would take account of that
03:03:54 now we i think you've confirmed that you read the paragraph of the minutes of the meeting which recalled i think in two places this is not clear in relation to the correct interpretation of 12.7 of
03:04:06 correct interpretation of 12.7 of atp now your witness statement is silent on
03:04:10 on that aspect of the minutes can you explain why why that is
03:04:16 um but why i didn't include it in my statement or yes um i didn't think it was necessary um
03:04:26 why did i i can i can see the point that the the people at the meeting are making is there isn't a list of of products that say that that do i don't comply i think we just already discussed that point
03:04:39 already discussed that point had you at any stage after 2005 or perhaps 2006 after publication considered that the heading of 12.7
03:04:50 considered that the heading of 12.7 insulation materials stroke products might lead readers to think that the paragraph was dealing with insulation materials or insulation products and not external cladding panels
03:05:01 cladding panels which are of course addressed in 12.6 i think the first time i'd heard i had seen somebody refer to it in that way was probably the minutes of this
03:05:12 way was probably the minutes of this meeting
03:05:16 i mean it's an obvious way of reading 12.7 isn't it
03:05:24 i don't think i gave it a great deal of thought after publication of the approved document until this meeting right and at this meeting after you read the minutes of this
03:05:36 after you read the minutes of this meeting
03:05:37 meeting was it then not obvious to you that those people who read 12.7 had thought it was all about insulation and not understood and it was about external cladding panels i don't think
03:05:48 external cladding panels i don't think it was all of uh doesn't say it was all of them but i was something i wasn't happy about was it not a matter of immediate and serious concern to you that there appears to be at least as recorded in these minutes a general
03:05:59 recorded in these minutes a general consensus among attendees that the interpretation and relevance of the word filler in 12.7 was unclear
03:06:08 i think at that time um
03:06:10 um i saw this as as one of many um discussions about um understanding of the guidance i didn't see it as being um
03:06:22 um as critical as perhaps i should have done right so the answer to my question is no you didn't see this as a matter of immediate and serious concern did it occur to you when you read the minutes that
03:06:33 minutes that if you analyze it in fact 12.7 could have three different interpretations i'll give them to you one only the insulation had to be of limited combustibility two
03:06:44 two the core of a composite panel also had to be of limited combustibility or three the whole of the external wool buildup save in relation to gasket sealants and similar had to be of
03:06:56 sealants and similar had to be of limited combustibility did that occur to you
03:07:03 i don't think it did at the time and why is that
03:07:06 is that again is it because you just didn't give it the thought it deserved probably as i say at this point i i was working on a couple of other projects so
03:07:17 working on a couple of other projects so i wouldn't have been able to give the full attention to it right you see the list of attendees on page one i read to you well i think you would have to accept experienced fire safety
03:07:29 fire safety and or cladding professionals yes yes i mean that's why they were there yes yes and you saw from brenda aptid's 24th of april email and the list of topics
03:07:40 email and the list of topics what the meeting was for yes yes yes and now these
03:07:48 individuals all fall into what you might call the realm of professionals which is how you described um
03:07:58 um the relevant readers of adb in your response or the department's response to the rule 43 letter following the latin house inquest yes yes yes can you
03:08:09 can you help us understand why you weren't concerned enough by the fact that these professionals had not as it seems understood the intended meaning
03:08:20 intended meaning or as you put it the correct meaning of filler or filler materials to take any action at this time
03:08:30 i think the minutes show that um at least one attendee and i i assumed it was probably more i don't know um had had got the intention and that's what they were talking about was was how
03:08:42 what they were talking about was was how best to um apply it when he read the minutes did you at any time contact any of the attendees from the 2nd of july meeting even sarah colwell to find out
03:08:54 how and
03:08:55 and why the general consensus had been reached that the guidance was not clear
03:09:03 i'm 100 sure i think i spoke to dr colwell afterwards
03:09:10 and in that conversation did you make any effort to find out why this body of professionals had misunderstood 12.7 to date
03:09:24 no
03:09:27 so let's look let's look together at what some of the attendees say in their evidence to the inquiry about what they understood and the understanding of industry more generally and let's take this shortly um
03:09:38 generally and let's take this shortly um let's start with uh
03:09:40 uh stuart taylor um
03:09:46 he says that he wasn't surprised by what he just what you described as the correct interpretation but that's because he'd spoken to sarah colwell in 2007 and what she told him at that time
03:09:58 2007 and what she told him at that time that's in his his witness statement to paragraph 127 page 56
03:10:04 page 56 but i just want to show you others first david metcalf day 228 page 91.
03:10:17 and at line nine question so day two two eight page ninety one line nine
03:10:26 line nine uh and
03:10:27 uh and i'm examining him and at line nine i ask as follows we've seen what you said in your statement at some length but what was your reaction to sarah colwell's suggested interpretation of
03:10:38 colwell's suggested interpretation of clause 12.7 at the meeting answer it was very different to the view that cwct had question right did anybody at the meeting agree with her interpretation or expression of the intention answer i
03:10:50 expression of the intention answer i don't recall anybody agreeing with it question right did you remember how others reacted to what she was saying in that respect answer i think there was an element of surprise i think the cwct view and that
03:11:02 surprise i think the cwct view and that had been formed by our reading of the guidance and also discussions with industry colleagues was that 12.7 didn't apply to the cladding so to be told that the intention of that clause was to include everything i think was a
03:11:13 include everything i think was a surprise for most people so just looking at that it seems that mr metcalf thought that filler whatever it might be did not include the core of an acm panel
03:11:23 acm panel now did is that a surprise to you to learn that that was him
03:11:29 yes
03:11:33 let's look and see what simon hepworth says now he was a designer in architectural metal work and the and cladding he was also there it's this is at
03:11:45 lmd701 please and if we go to page two in his statement to the inquiry he tells us what his understanding of 12.7 of approved document b had been
03:11:57 12.7 of approved document b had been if you look at 2 2 b on
03:12:03 page one
03:12:07 he says i'm so sorry it's page one he says i understood that paragraph the paragraph uh to mean that insulation materials should be of limited combustibility when
03:12:18 should be of limited combustibility when used behind cladding on buildings over 18 meters high then c i had not understood the term filler material d i would assume that the term would apply to a material used to fill small
03:12:29 apply to a material used to fill small voids such as those down the sides of glazing units however the most appropriate material for this and this is the rationale i've always used is to use loose fill into insulation as such i've always described such instances as
03:12:41 i've always described such instances as insulation not filler materials experience and professional judgment has led me to this understanding so here's another industry participants who didn't share your your view again is
03:12:52 who didn't share your your view again is that a surprise to you
03:12:56 um well the impression you're giving is that is that nearly everyone in the room disagreed with her that's not what i saw that's not the what i saw from the minutes no one contacted me after the meeting either
03:13:13 and another one was nile rowan afp702
03:13:18 afp702 this is his with the statement page four paragraph b
03:13:28 and uh he tells us what he thought there about 12.7 if you look at b he says that the insulation product in my and in my view that would not be the cladding because most cladding is
03:13:39 the cladding because most cladding is not insulating needs to be of limited combustibility and that the text in brackets allows certain items to be excluded from this requirement because their contribution to a fire would be limited
03:13:49 limited and if you go to c down to e let's look at c what was your understanding of the meaning of the word filler at this stage it would have been either as a proprietary or other fillers used to fix
03:14:00 proprietary or other fillers used to fix small holes or imperfections poly filler or as a non-or limited combustibility material ingredient to include in a composite material eg glass reinforced polyester to improve the reaction to fire performance and or make the overall
03:14:13 fire performance and or make the overall composite product cheaper it would not be as the core of an acm or other material in my testing career with yarsley and with warrington x-over i tested many composite materials including faced insulation boards and
03:14:24 including faced insulation boards and decorative bonded boards such as those comprising high pressure laminate bonded to flame retardant particle board chipboard and no time would the core ever be referred to as filler in fact this is still my view and the use of the
03:14:35 this is still my view and the use of the word filler to donate the core of a composite material appears to be a dl-uhc
03:14:41 dl-uhc construct
03:14:42 construct now i've shown you a little bit of the the um
03:14:45 the um the uh
03:14:47 the uh the views out there in industry in that evidence were you aware as a second of july 2014 that there were those in the industry like niall rowan here who thought that filler definitely did not
03:14:58 thought that filler definitely did not encompass the core of an acm panel no
03:15:02 no how come you weren't aware um i
03:15:07 um i i saw the minutes of that meeting saw that the issue was discussed and that didn't it didn't record the kind of conflict that these statements seem to show do you accept that
03:15:19 accept that mr rohn is correct that in fact the use of the word filler to denote the core of a composite panel was a government construct
03:15:35 i think we discussed how we we got to got to that term yeah partly it was because it was a term that had been used in in a consultation response
03:15:45 response so is your evidence that you are completely unaware before the 2nd of july 2014 or perhaps on the receipt of the minutes of that meeting
03:15:53 meeting of the lack of clarity at best in the minds of at least a cross-section of industry
03:16:00 yes i wasn't aware of the of that
03:16:03 of that and and can you explain why you were ignorant of that
03:16:10 um
03:16:14 on the few occasions where the where the issue had been raised i discussed it with people or in this case somebody else had picked it up in a meeting and um
03:16:25 picked it up in a meeting and um um i didn't get the kind of response that people have written in their statements here well who did you discuss it with on the few occasions you did
03:16:36 on the few occasions you did um
03:16:38 up until this point in time it would have been the conversation i'd had with bre and then and then the minutes to this meeting
03:16:46 is the position that you simply didn't ask or bother about it or was the position that you knew about this or had an inkling of it but didn't like the idea that there were these discordant voices and chose to
03:16:57 these discordant voices and chose to ignore them
03:17:01 i didn't choose to ignore it just wasn't something that um
03:17:07 the various things i was working on at the time this wasn't something that was at the forefront of my mind i think people might find that difficult to believe not just with hindsight but given the nature of the risks involved
03:17:19 given the nature of the risks involved demonstrated by the uae fires at the time
03:17:23 time can you explain um
03:17:29 not entirely no i i think that i i can only say
03:17:32 only say at the time um
03:17:39 i i thought the guidance directed people in in a in a reasonable way or as well as we could at the time it wasn't as good as i'd hoped it would be um
03:17:50 um but
03:17:51 but it wasn't a question that arose a lot in in my
03:17:55 in my normal work and and i was focused on other things at the time
03:18:00 time now let's
03:18:03 now let's look at another section of the statement provided by stuart taylor of wintec that's at win702
03:18:12 if we look please at page 81
03:18:20 paragraph 197 he says this and he's talking here in this section of his statement about a view expressed by david metcalfe in an email to him on the 7th of july a few days after the cwct
03:18:33 7th of july a few days after the cwct fire group meeting about the meaning of the word filler which needed to be clarified and he says this i agreed with david metcalf that this was an important matter that did need clarification asap
03:18:44 matter that did need clarification asap this was because approved document b is a guidance document if the guidance within adb2 2007 was being interpreted in a way which in which it was not intended to be then by definition the guidance was poor
03:18:56 guidance was poor do you agree with that
03:19:02 i suppose conceptually yes yeah now going on he goes on to say um uh in terms of facade design clause 12.7 was probably the most important
03:19:13 12.7 was probably the most important clause in adb2 2007. if clause 12.7 was not being correctly interpreted then this significantly increased the risk that the building regulation b4 was not being complied with
03:19:24 with do you have any reason to disagree with that
03:19:35 no
03:19:41 he then goes on at 198. since it was clause 12.7 that was causing an issue and clause 12.7 is part of the guidance of adb-2
03:19:49 of adb-2 2007 then in my opinion it was those who were responsible for approved document b who should have clarified its meaning now you can see i think that it was 12.7
03:20:00 now you can see i think that it was 12.7 which was causing an issue as he put it at the meeting yes yes and you could have seen that and you did see that from the minutes i think as you accept yes
03:20:12 accept yes yes do you disagree with what mr taylor says about those who were responsible for approved document being the same people who should therefore have clarified his meaning
03:20:24 i can see why he would say that um and i wherever i could i did try to do that
03:20:36 do you accept that it's at the very least likely that had these matters the lack of clarity in the language the ambiguity the open-endedness the fact that the word filler was not one
03:20:47 that the word filler was not one recognized in the facades industry at least in the way you intended it and the potential for conflict between the guidance in 12.7 and 12.6 would have been flagged up and potentially resolved
03:20:59 been flagged up and potentially resolved before the publication of the guidance if the amendments to 12.7 had been consulted on in the normal way back in 2005.
03:21:09 i think if we had that opportunity i think
03:21:13 i think that would have been better yes but even if you had genuinely believed before the 2nd of july 2014 that paragraph 12.6 and 12.7 gave clear guidance
03:21:23 guidance do you accept that it was crystal clear to you after you read the minutes that at least some parts of the industry did not understand it the same way did not understand the interpretation of 12.6 and 12.7 that you
03:21:35 interpretation of 12.6 and 12.7 that you say was intended yes yes
03:21:42 now even if you believe that the correct interpretation had been explained at this meeting did it occur to you at any time that a far wider group than this group of 16 ought to have had the matter
03:21:53 group of 16 ought to have had the matter explained to them in clear and unambiguous terms industry as a whole i think was relying on the fact that they were
03:22:01 they were industry representatives and that that was the sort of information they'd pass on to their membership did it strike you at the time that there was an obvious danger that others outside this group might not
03:22:12 that others outside this group might not know that government had ever intended to prohibit the use of this particular external cladding material on high-rise buildings by use of the word filler
03:22:23 of the word filler in a paragraph headed insulation materials stroke products i don't i don't think i saw it in those terms but i i saw this as being it was a good thing that the industry was looking at the issue and and we were
03:22:35 was looking at the issue and and we were talking about improving understanding of it what consideration did you give to alerting others outside this particular group to the intended meaning you claim for paragraph 12.7 once you realize that it wasn't shared by this group
03:22:49 i think i saw that there was a proposal to draft an faq and thought that might be a good way of doing dealing with it right did you have any internal discussions with your line managers uh richard harrell or bob ledson after you read the minutes
03:23:05 not after read the minutes no why not um
03:23:09 um as i say i i i saw this as as one of a number of debates about the meaning of certain different aspects of the building regulations um and
03:23:21 and there was there was a way forward with it so um
03:23:25 it so um i didn't see the need to escalate it well we'll come to the way forward with it after the lunch break but before we do just one or two more questions if
03:23:36 we do just one or two more questions if i may do the department at any stage before the fire at grenfell tower clarify in any official or public way the correct scope meaning
03:23:47 way the correct scope meaning interpretation or application of the word filler in 12.7 in terms of a publication from the department yeah no why is that
03:23:58 department yeah no why is that um
03:23:59 um i think
03:24:00 i think after time i i felt the building control alliance guide was was a an effective solution to the issue
03:24:11 so you thought that the publication of bca technical guidance note 18 was enough did you i think at the time i did yes
03:24:24 right mr chairman is that a convenient moment
03:24:34 sorry mr millet i'd lost my unmute button for a moment um yes i let you run on a bit so i thought you wanted to finish that particular section of your questions so
03:24:45 section of your questions so thank you
03:24:46 thank you yes but i think you obviously must stop now yes and i'm not sure that the clock on my computer is entirely synchronized with the clocks in the hearing room but i have to vote
03:24:58 have to vote so i'm going to say we'll break now and resume at five past two please that would give us precisely one hour according to the clock in the hearing room
03:25:05 room even better all right thank you no mr martian
03:25:09 martian uh we're gonna break now we'll resume please at five past two and as before i have got anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it uh while you're out of
03:25:20 relating to it uh while you're out of the room all right yes sir thank you very much would you give me the option please
03:25:33 good thank you all very much five past two then please
03:25:52 you