Brian Martin, former civil servant at DCLG/MHCLG, continues evidence about government responses to the Lakanal House inquest, reviews of Approved Document B, resource constraints, and awareness of ACM cladding dangers.
00:00:27 yes mr millet no we're back to mr martin yeah mr chairman yes thank you very much mr martin to come in please
00:00:46 good afternoon mr martin hi sir welcome back are you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman mr martin good afternoon we are in the spring of 2013 and i want
00:00:57 we are in the spring of 2013 and i want now to move to your submission to the then minister don foster at clg 50461
00:01:05 and it's on the screen in front of you you can see it's dated the 11th of april 2013
00:01:10 2013 from you to don foster copies to the permanent secretary's office lachlan house inquest rule 43 recommendations regarding building regulations and if we go please to paragraph four
00:01:22 and if we go please to paragraph four under recommendation if we can scroll down to see it all thank you it says um that you agree to respond to the coroner's recommendations at annex a page three regarding building regulations as follows acknowledge that
00:01:34 regulations as follows acknowledge that the guidance in approved document b fire safety can be difficult for inexperienced people to apply commission a review of guidance given to members of competent person schemes to ensure that there is proper understanding of the
00:01:45 there is proper understanding of the scope of the schemes and where fire protection requirements affect window installations c set out the government's intentions to issue a revised approved document be in 2016-17 following a full review of the fire
00:01:57 following a full review of the fire safety aspects of building regulations this would use the department's new style guide for easy to read approved documents and take account of current research which is due to deliver in 2014 now looking at first b please for b
00:02:10 now looking at first b please for b um can we go to the top of page three of the submission paragraph 12 and you can see there it says this and given that most of the issues with building regulations related to the fencer scheme it would be advisable to
00:02:23 fencer scheme it would be advisable to raise the issue with fencer and other scheme providers for replacement windows to ensure that their members are fully aware of the scope of the schemes and the requirements applicable to their work this could be completed in a few months without the need for the
00:02:34 months without the need for the department to divert significant resources
00:02:36 resources and in fact it's right isn't it that the coroner
00:02:39 coroner had directed the jury at the inquest that there was no evidence that could lead the jury to conclude that reliance on fencer
00:02:46 on fencer the fenestration self-assessment scheme contributed to the deaths in any way that's right isn't it um i think you're correct i think the um
00:02:59 the issue that had arisen was that um the
00:03:06 the the panels that we were talking about yesterday um had been installed by a window installer and the window installer had self-certified compliance with building regulations
00:03:17 compliance with building regulations through um what was then the fencer scheme um and that's one of the mechanic one of the different administrative ways of demonstrating compliance um and they then
00:03:28 and they then as i recall they then followed a debate about whether those panels which weren't in themselves windows they weren't transparent whether they were covered by that scheme or not
00:03:39 or not and i think within the department we'd looked at this issue and there seemed to be someone i think at the time fencer acknowledged that
00:03:50 at the time fencer acknowledged that they didn't think those panels were covered by the scheme and we took the view that um a way of addressing the problem that had occurred would be to
00:04:02 would be to ensure that fencer and the other window scheme providers that that were in place at the time um
00:04:09 um had a
00:04:10 had a clearly defined scope so that window installers on those schemes knew whether or not they could self-certify that kind of panel and if the scheme allowed them to do so that they had the necessary um
00:04:22 to do so that they had the necessary um knowledge and expertise to be able to do that um correctly we've answered a different question i beg your pardon i think the answer to my question is yes isn't it
00:04:33 the question was do you recall you except that the coroner had directed the jury that there was no evidence to lead the jury to conclude that reliance on the fencer scheme contributed to the deaths
00:04:45 contributed to the deaths do you recall that i'm not sure if i recall those exact words um i i think as i said yesterday i think the general conclusion is that the
00:04:56 conclusion is that the those panels weren't the most significant factor in that fire as it was a very complex incident and it would be wrong
00:05:03 be wrong to
00:05:03 to um
00:05:05 um regard that incident as a cladding fire it wasn't um all right let me just let's just put this behind us let's go please to inq3015074
00:05:15 this is the inquest uh transcript and this is the coroner's summing up on day 44 20th of march 2013 after you've given your evidence and if we look at line 16
00:05:28 and if we look at line 16 uh well we need to go to page 77 please of that document if we go to that page line 16
00:05:33 line 16 you can see the coroner gives the following direction members of the jury you need not concern yourselves with questions regarding the fencer scheme as there is no evidence which could lead you to conclude the reliance on the fencer
00:05:44 conclude the reliance on the fencer scheme contributed to the deaths with which we are concerned i hope that both of those will be of help so i was simply getting you to confirm that that is correct
00:05:55 that that is correct and
00:05:55 and coincides with your recollection um yes yes now how and on what basis had you if we can then go back to the submission please where we were top of page 3 paragraph
00:06:07 where we were top of page 3 paragraph 12.
00:06:08 12. how had you in your submission here concluded that most of the issues with building regulations related to that competent person scheme
00:06:19 competent person scheme and there'd been a lot of discussion about that issue during the during the hearings and it's not correct is it to say that most of the issues with building regulations related to the fencer scheme that would be inconsistent
00:06:30 fencer scheme that would be inconsistent with the direction to the jury that i've just shown you wouldn't it i disagree why do you disagree because you're talking about the the the
00:06:40 the um
00:06:41 um the findings of the inquest not the proceedings of the inquest the point i'm making here is that this was a an important topic and there was clearly disagreement and misunderstanding on
00:06:52 disagreement and misunderstanding on that subject so it was an issue associated with building regulations that needed to be addressed let's go back to page two then please
00:07:03 page two then please and look at paragraphs four a and four c of your submissions so sorry page one i apologize page one and look at 4a and 4c
00:07:14 and look at 4a and 4c where you're summarizing for the minister
00:07:17 minister the
00:07:18 the recommendations which you had attached leaving aside the competent person scheme and looking at 4a and 4c can you just help us which of those
00:07:28 those recommendations deals in any way with the coroner's recommendation one that approved document be reviewed to ensure that it provides clear guidance on external fire spread
00:07:41 um i think that's anc uh where please it doesn't specifically um
00:07:48 um point to those particular recommendations um but in terms of improving the clarity of the guidance i think that's what a and anc are intended to address
00:07:59 anc are intended to address right um it's not there in terms as i think you accept did you explain separately to don foster that the coroner had three distinct recommendations in respect of the
00:08:11 recommendations in respect of the approved document um i can't remember exactly the detail of this submission but it included a copy of those recommendations and i expected him to give given the importance of this he probably would have read them why didn't you set out
00:08:23 have read them why didn't you set out for him
00:08:24 for him on the face of your recommendation that that the recommendation number one was that the approved document be reviewed to ensure that it provided clear guidance on external fire spread
00:08:36 clear guidance on external fire spread in
00:08:38 in particular um because he would have read them for himself so they didn't need to repeat them in the the the the thing with ministerial submissions as i think a few people have already told you is that we're expected to keep them very
00:08:49 that we're expected to keep them very short so if you're including a copy of the recommendations which you definitely would do for something like this you'd expect the minister to read it for himself
00:08:58 himself um
00:09:00 um you wouldn't want to repeat the text otherwise you're using up the limited space you've got to say the same thing twice why did it be better that he read it himself right
00:09:11 right why did you summarize the recommendations but omit
00:09:17 but omit reference to external fire spread the one particular thing that the coroner draw attention to specifically in recommendation one
00:09:26 i think i did that deliberately but why did you do it i think i just answered that question is is we gave advice to minister about what steps we thought was appropriate to take
00:09:37 steps we thought was appropriate to take and gave him a copy of the recommendations so they could familiarize himself with them was it your general experience as at april 13 that ministers read everything that was attached to your
00:09:48 everything that was attached to your submissions or would they go on what was in the submissions themselves in the main um that would vary from minister to minister something like this they would read all of it i would have thought what
00:09:59 read all of it i would have thought what was your experience of don foster's assiduousness came to my recollection is he was a very thorough minister
00:10:10 thorough minister did you explain to don foster that the coroner had made it clear that despite your evidence
00:10:17 both in her rule 43 letter and during the inquest itself the simplification of the language and a reshuffle of the layout of a proof document b was not going to be sufficient to address her concerns about the clarity of the
00:10:28 concerns about the clarity of the guidance on external fire spread did you explain that to don foster um
00:10:34 um i don't think so why not um again we need to be very concise with these things um and what we put here was
00:10:45 what we put here was what we thought was appropriate um and um and a copy of the recommendations was included so that he could consider them did it occur to you that without bringing
00:10:54 bringing that fact to his attention there was a clear risk that don foster would not have known that more might be required properly to to address the coroner's concerns about clarity
00:11:06 um we didn't think that at the time as i say this is a document that i wouldn't have written in isolation um and um
00:11:15 we all agreed and that this was the appropriate advice to give who did you agree that with um well it would have definitely um as you said i think mr harold was my
00:11:26 i think mr harold was my line manager then and mr ledson would have
00:11:31 have been heavily involved in this and it would have been cleared by directors and and above
00:11:35 and above now go to paragraph 10 uh what is said there is this given the confusion in court it's unsurprising that the coroner has criticized the clarity of the guidance in approved document b and has called for it to be made clearer
00:11:47 and has called for it to be made clearer the department has adopted a new style guide for approved documents which was used
00:11:51 used in the drafting of new approved documents
00:11:54 documents published in january now just looking at that
00:11:59 that you
00:12:00 you link the coroner's criticism of the clarity of the guidance on external fire spread directly don't you to the confusion in court why did you do that um
00:12:11 um well the reason that i'd given evidence in at the inquest is because there'd been a lot of confusion uh in relation to the application of approved document b
00:12:23 and if you look at paragraph nine just above that you
00:12:27 you you
00:12:28 you say
00:12:29 say unfortunately the expert witness appointed to advise the inquest gave confused and conflicting evidence on what was required by building regulations at the time this was to some extent due to the process of cross-examination and it became
00:12:40 cross-examination and it became necessary for me to give evidence to clarify the situation uh now just looking at that david walker do you remember was an racs chartered surveyor instructed by the coroner to
00:12:51 surveyor instructed by the coroner to advise at the inquest wasn't he yes yes can we agree that that he had got confused both during his written and his oral evidence about whether the external wall at lachnal was
00:13:03 whether the external wall at lachnal was required to be fire resisting that was the subject on which there was confusion that was the subject where there was the most disagreement yes yes um and um
00:13:15 and um his report was for the most part correct um and
00:13:19 um and the only issue that he'd not picked up on which was this issue about needing to look at more than one document to understand what was appropriate for a building of that type um
00:13:31 um and so it was that wasn't a fundamental misunderstanding it um however went under cross-examination um i i can't remember who the um the
00:13:43 i i can't remember who the um the council was at that time that raised it but
00:13:47 but he was taken he was in court he was taken through different aspects of the approved document saying is this true what does this say what does this say and they got to the end of that and said and therefore all the external walls
00:13:58 and therefore all the external walls 100 of the external walls need to be two hours fire resisting um and um
00:14:04 um and um i don't think there there were quite a lot of fire protection people in the room
00:14:08 room at the time they all knew that that was a nonsense conclusion but mr walker um accepted the argument that had been put to him i think under the pressure of cross-examination um which was
00:14:20 cross-examination um which was why i was asked to assist the inquest because
00:14:24 because it had become a distraction that it was an argument which had very little to do with the actual incident and was going to swallow out potentially quite a lot of time
00:14:33 of time it's right isn't it that any confusion on his part
00:14:38 during the course of cross-examination wouldn't
00:14:41 wouldn't or didn't explain the views he'd already expressed in his written report which i think you had told david crowder in a in a pre in a prior email you thought were wrong anyway in other words he'd already made the
00:14:52 in other words he'd already made the mistakes in or confusions in his um he made one mistake i think from recollection um and and that that was th this issue of um whether or not
00:15:02 a balcony escape route and you approach it differently depending on whether um you can escape in both directions or not so was it your position that actually there was no confusion at all about adb and it was all the fault of the process
00:15:14 and it was all the fault of the process rather than the fault of the document um
00:15:22 i wouldn't say it was one it was a mixture of the two things but i think the process had certainly created a problem
00:15:28 problem and that's why i was asked at quite short notice to assist the inquest to resolve the particular question that had arisen in paragraph 10 as you can see you
00:15:41 in paragraph 10 as you can see you refer to the style guide there yes in the second sentence after recording that the coroner had called for adb to be made clearer why do you why do you conflate or
00:15:54 why do you why do you conflate or identify the recommendation on clarity made by the coroner with the recommendation on language and format by referring to the style guide because the style guide is designed to
00:16:06 because the style guide is designed to make the documents easier to read and understand it's not designed to make them to to clarify matters of substance which are ambiguous or unclear yes it is
00:16:19 which are ambiguous or unclear yes it is that was your understanding was it it still is a style guide yes it's it's it it's it was an instruction as well as basic instructions to an
00:16:31 as well as basic instructions to an editor in terms of layout and so on um we used it as a to draft a produce a drafting guide so in future we'd approach the drafting of approved documents in a more consistent
00:16:43 approved documents in a more consistent way um to avoid the kind of ambiguities that
00:16:48 that the cropped up over the years right that but that's to be used in the drafting of new approved documents not as a guide to understanding the existing documents correct yeah yeah i see
00:17:00 correct yeah yeah i see and therefore a style guide wouldn't allow you for example to understand 12.7 in the way you had originally intended it as opposed to the way in which people in the industry might have been looking at i mean the point i'm making in in in
00:17:11 at i mean the point i'm making in in in this in this statement here is is is that our intention is to apply this new guide
00:17:16 guide to the approved documents as we revise them so that we improve the quality of them looking at paragraph 11 you say however a rewrite of approved document b would be a significant project and we would therefore recommend this be done as part
00:17:28 therefore recommend this be done as part of a fuller review if the department has not made any statements about when the next review would be carried out but with ministers agreement we've commissioned research intended to feed into a future edition this work is due to be completed in 2014
00:17:40 this work is due to be completed in 2014 and we would expect that a revised approved document could be published during
00:17:45 during now i think it's right isn't it that the coroner had not in fact recommended a rewrite of approved document had she
00:17:56 that's not as i read it well we we can see how you read it because we can see your recommendations on page one could you go back to that i think if you look at all three of her recommendations
00:18:08 look at all three of her recommendations in relation to approved document b i find it difficult to meet those recommendations without rewriting the whole document you could you could meet one of them by only rewriting one section
00:18:20 rewriting one section sorry my question was that the coroner herself had not recommended a rewrite i think the answer is yes isn't it
00:18:31 um i think so yes yes
00:18:35 and what she'd recommended was that the department review adb to ensure that it provided clear guidance in particular on external fire spread yes and we can go back to the yeah no i
00:18:47 yes and we can go back to the yeah no i i accept your point yes yes and that was a narrow focused and pretty specific recommendation wasn't it
00:18:56 yes so why have you chosen to read it as requiring a
00:19:08 rewrite i think because she would she some of the things that she was recommending approved dr b probably didn't um achieve right um so so we did
00:19:20 didn't um achieve right um so so we did look
00:19:21 look i'm not sure if we looked at it in that in that light but we definitely considered the approved document considered her recommendations and concluded that um
00:19:30 um to meet her objective you would need to rewrite some rule of the approved document did you have a discussion with don foster about that did you say for example well we could see what her narrow and specific
00:19:42 see what her narrow and specific recommendations are at bullet point one but actually this is going to require a much bigger exercise and we should tell her that i can't remember for certain whether we
00:19:54 i can't remember for certain whether we spoke to him i think we may have done but i can't remember nowhere in this document did you advise that your view was that the provisions of approved document be on external fire spread
00:20:04 spread had already been clarified by the changes made when the document was amended in 2006. do you
00:20:13 do you not directly no well an indirect leave i guess not no why's that um
00:20:21 um i can't say for certain um we
00:20:25 this is something we discussed um within the division and and and it was looked at
00:20:30 at up and down the line and and people thought it was an appropriate piece of advice i can see why um looking back back at it you might argue differently um
00:20:40 um at the time we thought it was good advice
00:20:43 advice why didn't you advise the minister anywhere in the submissions which of the red coroner's recommendations he may wish to accept or which those he might wish to reject
00:20:59 i think we took the view that that wasn't that wasn't the the best way to respond to the coroner's comments
00:21:09 i think as i said yesterday if um if it is considered appropriate that any government response to a coroner should include a direct yes or no accept or reject line then i think that needs
00:21:21 or reject line then i think that needs to be something that's included in um formal guidance which as far as i'm aware isn't well mr martin it's really a matter of common sense i mean don't you want to be advising your minister
00:21:32 minister whether or not on your advice he or she is accepting the recommendations or rejecting them or if something between the two identify what it is that
00:21:43 between the two identify what it is that they're going to do by way of response if not respond in full
00:21:51 um you can argue that i think at the time we did what i think i i i think it was an appropriate response at that time well the thing isn't isn't the problem here that it isn't
00:22:02 here that it isn't crystal clear yet you're advising the minister to
00:22:07 to weave between the recommendations and the response without making it crystal clear whether they're being accepted and rejected or adopted only in part
00:22:18 or adopted only in part it's mealy-mouthed i i'm not sure i'd say it was merely mouth i accept the fact that it doesn't clearly say one way or the other and none of the people that reviewed this which is probably best part of 10
00:22:29 this which is probably best part of 10 people i imagine um thought that that was an issue at the time let's move on in the month to may 2013. and i want to look at the ministerial
00:22:41 and i want to look at the ministerial submission to lord pickles as he now is um can we please go to clg four zeros two eight eight nine
00:22:51 and what i'm showing you here is the final collated submission sent to the secretary of state eric pickles uh from louise upton in the fire safety policy team on the 13th of may 2013. and uh you can see the title dclg's
00:23:04 and uh you can see the title dclg's response to the coroner's rule 43 recommendations and the recommendation at three is that you agree to respond as proposed at annex b
00:23:15 proposed at annex b and then if you move down to paragraph five at the foot of the screen ministers have agreed recommendations on handling the respective recommendations reflected in the proposed reply as follows
00:23:25 follows and you can see at the very very foot of the page page one annex f don foster submission on building regulation issues uh
00:23:33 uh you see that yes now if you go down to the bottom of page 3 at power 15 we can see that much of the text um
00:23:40 um from your 11th of april submission to don foster is set out of paragraph 15 at the bottom of page 3
00:23:48 of page 3 over onto um page four at paragraph 16 and 17.
00:23:54 and 17. just have a look at that if we scroll now down to page four paragraph 16 and 17 you can see that what's gone in there is very similar to if not identical to what was in your 11th of april 2013
00:24:06 what was in your 11th of april 2013 submission to don foster yes yes thank you now there are some differences um and i just want to explore that first can you remember did you draft the final version of paragraph 15 to 17 for
00:24:18 version of paragraph 15 to 17 for inclusion
00:24:19 inclusion we can scroll back to page 3 footer page 3 look at paragraph 15. um i imagine they were subject to comment by a whole range of people in the department right well let's look at clg-50559
00:24:33 and there this is a draft of the ministerial submission from the department uh and you can see it's got track changes on it if we go to page 4 we can see the track changes of paragraph 15 to 17
00:24:44 paragraph 15 to 17 there they are in full building regulations in bold and then you can see the track changes there
00:24:50 there which
00:24:51 which have come into this document uh
00:24:54 uh did you insert those i honestly haven't got a clue it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the comments on the drafting came in in hard copy film it wasn't
00:25:05 came in in hard copy film it wasn't unusual for senior officials to and get a hard copy of a document and for them to write their comments on so it could have been anyone that then entered it into the into the draft right we have from the
00:25:16 into the draft right we have from the metadata the eighth of may as the date maybe that does all doesn't help you with your recollection i'm sorry i i haven't i've got a clue and i i would it wouldn't surprise me if i had half a
00:25:27 wouldn't surprise me if i had half a dozen bits of paper from different people and i was collating that together i don't know um the author of the track changes appears to be martin now um
00:25:36 now um that of course could be you would you almost certainly would have been me right
00:25:41 right and then let's then look at paragraph 17 together a full review of the approved document would require significant resources and have a disruptive effect on the construction industry
00:25:53 on the construction industry instead we propose to seek confirmation from fencer and other scheme providers for replacement windows to ensure that their members are fully aware of the scope of the schemes and the requirements applicable to their work
00:26:04 work now quite apart from the fact that the coroner had not recommended a full review of the document which we've been through already that second assertion there that a full review of
00:26:15 assertion there that a full review of the approved document would have quite a disruptive effect on the construction industry
00:26:20 industry had not appeared had it in your original submission to don foster of the 11th of april
00:26:30 um i think you're correct yes yes and we can compare the two but as a matter of documentary can you explain why that wording was added um
00:26:40 i'm not sure that i can it may well be that someone had suggested some extra text um certainly the government at that time
00:26:48 time was very focused on
00:26:53 because this was this was the the coalition government following the um financial crisis so ministers were very focused on avoiding um
00:27:04 focused on avoiding um anything that might impact on the economy in a negative way yes i mean that was i think that's an answer to my next question but confirm anyway was this extra text intended to ensure that the recommendation received a warm welcome in
00:27:15 welcome in in a deregulating department which was focusing on promoting house building and removing impediments for the construction industry more generally it could be i i honestly can't remember i i
00:27:26 could be i i honestly can't remember i i i doubt it was me that added that but it might have been um it's something we would have spoken about certainly that was um
00:27:35 was um one one of the when if you if you change so if you significantly change a piece of guidance without any intended direct effect there's still a cost to industry
00:27:47 there's still a cost to industry which would still have registered in the um
00:27:50 um in the government's 191 out regime and so that would have been a factor that we were thinking about at the time i can't remember the exact conversation about this particular text well you say cost is that what you mean by or was
00:28:01 cost is that what you mean by or was meant by a disruptive effect
00:28:05 um well the disruption would be the cost right what was the evidential basis on which you or others in the department considered that a review of approved document b would have the effect of disrupting the construction
00:28:17 effect of disrupting the construction industry um every review we've ever done i suppose um it was one of the things that we were required to do um whenever we made any changes whether they were substantive or not would be to consider
00:28:28 substantive or not would be to consider what the
00:28:29 what the transitional costs would be um
00:28:33 um failure to do that would have fallen foul of the procedures um that had been put in place to control regulation and under that government there was an organization called the
00:28:44 there was an organization called the regulatory policy committee that reviewed all of these this kind of analysis
00:28:48 analysis and they would definitely have rejected anything that didn't recognize that a new pan industry guidance document was on everybody's desks that meant lots of
00:28:59 on everybody's desks that meant lots of people would have to familiarize themselves with the changes but i think it's right as we've seen that your own initial submission to don foster
00:29:06 foster in april which was attached to this submission as appendix f was that any rewrite of the approved document quotes should be done as part of a
00:29:17 quotes should be done as part of a fuller review on quotes that's page 2 of the 11th of april 2013.
00:29:23 2013. so how are these two pieces of advice consistent on the one hand recommending a rewrite as part of a fuller review on the one hand and saying that a full review would have a disruptive effect to
00:29:34 review would have a disruptive effect to industry
00:29:36 industry and instead you're going to have a fencer exercise
00:29:42 um i think i'm not sure what the other changes are here it still refers to the fact that we plan to carry out a um a review of the approved document in the future and say i can't i can't remember who made what
00:29:54 i can't i can't remember who made what changes to this this draft um it might have been as a result of the conversations that we'd had with the junior minister well let me try it differently would a fuller review as you recommended to the junior minister have required
00:30:06 to the junior minister have required less resource uh than simply clarifying the guidance in relation to external fire spreading b4 as the coroner had specifically recommended and with the current current in in our view the coroner had
00:30:17 in in our view the coroner had recommended a review of the whole document
00:30:23 well would a fuller review have had a less disruptive effect on the construction industry than simply clarifying the guidance in relation to external fastback um i think you'd have ended up doing two pieces of work a year or so apart each with the same degree of
00:30:35 or so apart each with the same degree of disruption so that would have registered as
00:30:39 as um
00:30:40 um in terms of the one in one out procedure would have registered two ins um
00:30:48 you'd end up with a greater total cost to business why not just take the coroner's recommendations at face value word for word and do what she said
00:31:00 word for word and do what she said if you'd done that and not had a full reviews you've been recommending do you accept that that would have required
00:31:07 required less resource and had much less of a destructive effect on the construction industry are you suggesting that we could have looked at the approved document and not done anything to it just say what she said
00:31:23 i don't think any of us took the view that she was suggesting we should review it satisfies else it's okay and do nothing i think she felt that something needed doing
00:31:37 i'm sorry i'm not really
00:31:39 really finding that answer very satisfactory maybe i'm confused by your question well maybe i mean we've been through the first bullet point of the coroner's recommendation which specifically refers to external fire
00:31:50 specifically refers to external fire spread my question is if you had taken that bullet point at face value looking at the words on the page and done what she'd said do you accept or do not accept uh that that would have required
00:32:01 accept uh that that would have required less resource and had a a less destructive effect on industry i suppose if you've ignored the other two bullet points yes
00:32:14 now going back to the submission to the secretary of state at clg uh
00:32:20 uh clg402889 please page four paragraph 17.
00:32:25 you you don't go on as you did in your submission to don foster at nxf to recommend that the approved document be rewritten as part of a fuller review
00:32:37 fuller review what you say instead of paragraph 17 let's look at it um is
00:32:42 um is uh that instead you propose to seek confirmation from fencer and other scheme providers for replacement windows to ensure that their members are fully aware of the scope of the schemes and the requirements
00:32:53 the schemes and the requirements applicable to their work and you go on about that and then you go on at the end to say that you commissioned research intended to feed into a future edition of
00:33:04 to feed into a future edition of approved document b with the publication date of 2016-2017 do you accept that that advice taken alongside your earlier advice to don foster forming part of this advice
00:33:16 don foster forming part of this advice to the secretary of state was was contradictory was inconsistent internally and wholly unclear
00:33:36 i think the net result is the same i'm not sure if i follow
00:33:41 follow um
00:33:41 um the the point you're making well the point i'm making is that in the submission to don foster which forms annex f to the submission to the secretary of state you recommended that adb be rewritten as
00:33:52 you recommended that adb be rewritten as part of a fuller review but here in paragraph 17 we're seeing something much narrower and rather different do you accept that the advice being given to the secretary of state was contradictory internally inconsistent and thoroughly
00:34:04 internally inconsistent and thoroughly unclear
00:34:06 unclear no i don't think i do why is that i think it's quite clear
00:34:12 which is it is there going to be a fuller review by way of a rewrite or is there is there going to be a sensor scheme exercise plus research to feed into a future review
00:34:23 to feed into a future review or future edition which is it
00:34:29 well it says we propose to be work to to work with fencer and the other scheme providers to address the the question of the self-certification schemes and it says that we're
00:34:40 that we're we're planning to revise the approved document and we expect it to be completed in 2016-17 so it's consistent in terms of its outcome um i i can't remember why the text has
00:34:51 i i can't remember why the text has changed as i imagine lots of different people commented on it before it got to the secretary of state and that might be why it's different um but the outcome seems the same to me well i don't understand that
00:35:03 well i don't understand that in the first sentence you're saying that a full review would require significant resources and instead you propose to do something different what i'm simply putting to you is was that instead and what follows
00:35:15 was that instead and what follows instead of a full review inconsistent with the advice in nxf that there be a full review
00:35:37 i didn't read it like that at the time i i think i can see the point you're making um
00:35:41 making um i think again it's important to note that attached to this submission i'm pretty sure was the letter that the secretary of state was being asked to sign
00:35:49 sign um
00:35:51 um and again
00:35:52 and again the secretary of state wouldn't have signed that without reading it they probably would have asked several people to read it on his behalf as well so so i think the intent was clear
00:36:03 so so i think the intent was clear so i i
00:36:04 so i i i i'm sorry i think it in in in total i don't think that's particularly contradictory i can see your point is is a little different um i don't remember why that was at the time um
00:36:17 why that was at the time um sometimes too many people comment on these documents and they become unstable that might have been it i don't know okay a paragraph 17 as we can see from the very end you
00:36:28 as we can see from the very end you advise the secretary of state that the department has also commissioned research intended to feed into a future edition of approved document this work is due to do complete in 2015 and we expect a revised approved
00:36:39 in 2015 and we expect a revised approved document b could be published during 2016 and 17. is it in other words is this right you wanted the minute the secretary of state to understand that the department would be working towards a revised approved
00:36:52 be working towards a revised approved document b with or without the recommendations of the latin coroner
00:37:03 it might it might be its phrase this way because the the junior minister ads had agreed for us to carry out the review so we didn't need to seek the secretary of state's
00:37:13 state's permission to do so because the junior minister had already done it i honestly can't remember that might explain why it's drafted like this did you intend the minister to think that the proposal to
00:37:25 to do the um
00:37:26 do the um future edition of approved document b by 2016 2017 was a response to the coroner's recommendation or something that the department was going to do anyway
00:37:41 i can't remember i'm sorry the date
00:37:45 the date 2016-2017 we saw that in your 11th of april ministerial submission to john foster where did you get that from um
00:37:53 um that's
00:37:54 that's we looked at um so at that time we were working on another project and we and
00:38:02 and we didn't have capacity to start work on approved document b immediately um
00:38:10 um so we were expecting at that time that we would start work on approved document be as soon as the project we're working on was completed and
00:38:23 a project like that can run to best part of four years was it your was it your estimate
00:38:30 estimate 2016 2017 or were you given that by somebody else i think it's i think we jointly came up with that as being as as tying in with um the the research that we'd already commissioned um and how
00:38:42 we'd already commissioned um and how long it takes to do that kind of work right
00:38:45 right now um attached to this submission is the proposed draft of the coroner at annex b now we don't need to go to the draft um you could take it from me that the draft was cleared without amendment so we can therefore go to the final as
00:38:56 so we can therefore go to the final as sent version and that is at clg402788 please
00:39:02 and you can see that it was sent on the 20th of may 2013 to the coroner and i want to look with you at the paragraphs on the building regulations starting at page two
00:39:12 page two at the
00:39:13 at the penultimate paragraph and it says there finally in relation to building regulations i've noted your comment your concerns about the difficulties that some of those involved in the inquest had with the interpretation of approved document b
00:39:25 interpretation of approved document b i can assure you that my department is committed to a program of simplification however the design of fire protection in buildings is a complex subject and should remain to some extent in the realm of professionals i'm just pausing
00:39:36 realm of professionals i'm just pausing there that's your wording isn't it the realm of professionals we saw that um i i guess so as i say all of this would have been produced cumulatively and we would have come up
00:39:47 cumulatively and we would have come up with this text amongst ourselves well did you have a hand in drafting this yes you did
00:39:52 you did now a program of simplification you can see that in the third line there was not
00:39:57 was not what the coroner had recommended was it
00:40:03 um she wanted it to be understood by a wide range of different people it's pretty difficult to do that without simplifying it but as you knew i think lord pickles didn't and the coroner had specifically commented to you during the
00:40:14 specifically commented to you during the hearing that applying plain english principles or having one column on a page rather than two columns on the page would not resolve the difficulties you may recall we looked at the trend yes and and i think i've spoken several times there
00:40:26 think i've spoken several times there and said that's not all we were planning to do um that's not what the style guide was all about it was much more involved in that we put a lot of effort into trying
00:40:35 trying to improve the way that we produce our guidance to make it easier it's an incredibly difficult thing to do
00:40:43 right in the program of simplification did you understand that to be an acceptance of her
00:40:53 of her recommendation for clarification yes
00:41:00 yes going on with the secretary of state's response to the coroner on the final paragraph on page two please
00:41:07 please it says we've commissioned research which will feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations we expect this work to form the basis of a formal review leading to the publication of a new edition of the approved document in 2016-17
00:41:19 document in 2016-17 the revision would be drafted in accordance with a new style guide for approved documents aimed at ensuring the guidance is capable of being more easily understood and that the need to cross-reference is reduced in the meantime however i've
00:41:30 reduced in the meantime however i've commissioned my officials to review the current guidance issued by providers of competent person schemes for window installers the review is intended to ensure that members of those schemes are fully aware of the scope of these schemes and the fire safety measures
00:41:42 schemes and the fire safety measures which should be addressed and is i believe an appropriate response to the problems that came to light during the inquests i'm grateful for your recommendations and can assure you of my commitment to ensuring that the safety of residents in high-rise building
00:41:55 of residents in high-rise building continues to be a priority did you write those paragraphs i've just read to you
00:42:04 um
00:42:10 i would i would have been involved in the drafting of the penultimate one um i doubt i drafted the last one
00:42:20 now you say in your statement paragraph 29 we don't need to go to it that no issues were raised with the department's formal response to the rule 43 letter and i i think the coroner did reply but
00:42:31 and i i think the coroner did reply but not in relation to the building regulations issues right now
00:42:38 can we look back then at the department's opening submissions please to this module of the inquiry clg clg3036387
00:42:45 page 33 paragraph 95
00:42:56 page 32 paragraph 95 thank you and it says this at the top of the screen the department's response to the coroner's letter was drafted by officials and approved by and sent under cover of the secretary of state
00:43:08 secretary of state the department is of the view that its response to recommendation for was not well structured and is unclear and difficult to follow and read against the text of the recommendations do you agree with that
00:43:22 i suppose the point that it's saying when read against the text of the recommendations i think it doesn't say recommendation one except reject recommendation too except reject um and
00:43:34 if the coroner thought that was appropriate that the response was inadequate she could have said so in a reply as i say she did take um the time to reply to this letter
00:43:45 this letter um
00:43:46 um and
00:43:48 and at that time numerous officials and um the political leadership of the department had reviewed the letter and was happy that it was appropriate
00:44:00 was happy that it was appropriate um
00:44:01 um so that's that's an opinion of someone looking back at that letter many years later um
00:44:06 later um do i agree with that i think it's clear that what the department was planning to do um and if the coroner wanted the department to do something else she was more than able to say so
00:44:18 say so um if we go to page 34 please paragraph i'm sorry sorry sticking with the sticking with the same page paragraph 97 it says this the advice that was sent to ministers the secretary of state's subsequent response to the
00:44:30 of state's subsequent response to the coroner failed to articulate clearly that the work was not considered to be life to be safety critical or to explain how and why this view had been reached without this information the response to the coroner was ambiguous as to whether
00:44:42 the coroner was ambiguous as to whether the recommendation was accepted in full as safety critical and this may have been the reason why in turn the coroner did not challenge or seek to correct any misunderstanding in the department's response
00:44:55 is there any part of that that you disagree with um
00:45:05 i think it was clear enough to the coroner what the department was proposing to do um
00:45:14 i'd be surprised if the coroner didn't understand that um
00:45:20 let's say there was a clear timetable in there um so you could look at that and realize that this perhaps wasn't um that we weren't treating this as an urgent piece of work um and
00:45:35 i think the coroner would have understood that well it's right isn't it though that you did not consider the department did not consider the
00:45:46 the department did not consider the coroner's rec um recommended review of the provisions of adb on external fire spread
00:45:51 spread to ensure clarity to be safety critical
00:46:02 i think that's probably fair yes i think as i say we indicated in the letter that this was something that we agreed the approved document could be improved and that we had a program of work to do so um
00:46:14 um and set a clear timetable of when when we thought that would be done um and it was plain to anyone looking at that letter that it wasn't being treated urgently and would it be fair also to say that you yourself
00:46:26 you yourself did not consider that any such review needed to be carried out at all
00:46:31 at all as of the spring of 2013.
00:46:36 i'm sorry can you say that again yes is it fair to say that you yourself did not think
00:46:41 not think as at spring 2013 that any review needed to be carried out at all no that's not true
00:46:49 so what was it about external fire spread as an april 2013 you did think needed to be carried out no i considered the approved document b was due revision um i i think approved documents
00:47:00 um i i think approved documents certainly the more complex ones like approved document b need to be reviewed probably at least every five years yes that's a generic answer though my question is a bit more specific well it is now it wasn't when you first asked me
00:47:11 is now it wasn't when you first asked me all right you asked well the question you asked me was whether you think whether you think i i thought at that time of proof document b needed a review and i did
00:47:20 and i did no you're quite right and let me be more specific mr martin would it be fair to say that so far as the coroner's recommendations about a review of approved document beyond external fire spread are concerned your view as of spring 2013
00:47:33 your view as of spring 2013 was that no such review is required um as at that time we thought that the guidance was adequate yes yeah thank you now i'm going to ask you a few questions
00:47:44 now i'm going to ask you a few questions about the seven work streams report which we know were commissioned in 2012 which i think uh which was before the latino
00:47:53 latino inquest
00:47:54 inquest and which i think the department had in its hands by february 2015 and which were eventually published in 2019 february 2019.
00:48:05 in 2019 february 2019. that's what i want to ask you about okay all right
00:48:08 all right now can we agree three things can we agree first none of the seven work streams addressed external fire spread and the dangers posed by the use of combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters not directly but they did
00:48:19 18 meters not directly but they did address cavity barriers which is linked to external flight spread all right can we agree that none of the seven work streams address the clarity of the guidance on external fire spread that's correct yeah can we agree that
00:48:31 that's correct yeah can we agree that none of the seven work streams address the concerns in respect of unusual downwards
00:48:35 downwards external fire spread of the type seen at latin house i think that's correct too yes
00:48:42 yes did you appreciate when you read the seven work streams report reports
00:48:46 reports that they nonetheless highlighted a number of areas where adb was quite significantly out of date and which required prompt action by way of revision
00:49:00 i definitely knew that approved document b needed work it was well overdue by the time we'd got to that stage i mean for example can we agree that report seven on the means of escape for disabled people and we can look at it uh included
00:49:12 people and we can look at it uh included a survey which was highly critical of the adequacy of the means of escape for disabled people um i think you're correct yes yeah and i think you'd known since 2004
00:49:24 think you'd known since 2004 which was the time of the um [Music]
00:49:27 [Music] 2004-2005 consultation on adb that the means of escape provisions in adb was inadequate
00:49:41 sorry that's you're jumping backwards and forwards in time and i'm losing losing track of the question well i'm sorry we made quite into the 2006 edition included quite a lot of changes in relation to improving standards for
00:49:53 relation to improving standards for um means of escape for disabled people um
00:49:58 um it was
00:50:00 it was very much across the whole of government there's been a a it's a it's an area of policy that um i guess nearly every policy official in government is trying to wrangle with is that the population
00:50:12 to wrangle with is that the population is changing and demographics changing and that has an impact on a range of different issues so we're aware that was something that that could be improved on well let's see if we can approach this
00:50:23 well let's see if we can approach this slightly more structurally says to help you and let's start with the means of escape for disabled people as report seven as part of the seven work streams that's at clg406270
00:50:39 now if you go please to page well that's the first page which is prepared for you dated february 2015. yes yes and if we
00:50:48 and if we go i'm not going to take you to all of it but um
00:50:51 it but um but
00:50:52 but if we go to page 17 we can see the results of a survey there um and there there are the question nine responses
00:51:01 responses uh question nine is at the top it says within existing buildings where provided are the means of escape provisions for disabled people suitable and sufficient for the building population the majority response was no reflected in the
00:51:12 response was no reflected in the following comments and
00:51:15 and the first comment is about
00:51:20 retrofitting to allow access by disabled people so hotels schools colleges local authority buildings to name it a few and then the second bullet point no generally not for buildings where you
00:51:31 generally not for buildings where you would expect a higher than normal number of disabled persons to be present with one evacuation chair it will take about 30 minutes to get six disabled persons out of a typical medium high rise
00:51:41 rise i'm sorry medium rise office building developers and design and build contractors are only interested generally in doing the absolute minimum to secure building regulations approval and then maybes
00:51:53 and then maybes which are there and you can see the pie chart underneath that at figure 12.
00:51:59 so that's what came to you in 2015 but jumping back in time if i may to 2004 can we go then to clg three zeros one three zero six two
00:52:15 this is part of the looking forward reporting in 2004 july 2004 take the date from me if we go to page
00:52:26 if we go to page and you can see the heading looking forward to a new part b which i think we looked at
00:52:31 looked at earlier on in your evidence and if we go to page three in that document please under the heading means of escape for disabled people at the foot there you can see it says this it was clear from the comments made that the current guidance on this issue
00:52:43 that the current guidance on this issue was inadequate and is an issue that should be addressed one of the main difficulties concerns how people are assisted from refuges to a final exit this is generally regarded as a management procedure but there may be built-in solutions that could facilitate
00:52:55 built-in solutions that could facilitate this process and guidance was required the use of list was thought to be the ideal option however it was felt that the potential costs may be prohibitive
00:53:09 now in fact you i think got this document at the time we can see that from let's go to it clg-401526
00:53:26 and that's an email uh which attaches this document forwards look from peterfield to mike payne and if you go to the foot of the screen you can see that it goes to anthony bird
00:53:37 you can see that it goes to anthony bird and you among other people so can we take it that you saw this at the time back in 2004. yes it was involved in drafting its article yes so
00:53:47 so thank you so did the bre report in 2015 not highlight to you that adb needed to be amended to incorporate specific requirements for the evacuation of disabled people which
00:53:58 the evacuation of disabled people which perhaps the 2006 edition had not done yeah that's why we couldn't while we commissioned it
00:54:06 um so
00:54:09 the 2006 review um we
00:54:13 um we people suggested guidance should be improved and there was a range of additional measures put into approved document b um at that point um
00:54:23 um i recognized that this would be one of the questions that would arise in a future review of approved document b and i needed an evidence base so that when we were looking at that question i would
00:54:34 we were looking at that question i would be able to demonstrate why we needed to do more and that's why we've commissioned that piece of work
00:54:41 of work yes and
00:54:43 yes and did that report when you got it in february 2015 not bring home to you that that work was becoming urgent given that the inadequacy of means of escape for disabled people had been an issue
00:54:54 issue since 2004. it's been an issue since long before then it's so it's it's it's as i said before it's it's an incredibly difficult issue to address um but yes it was one
00:55:05 issue to address um but yes it was one of a range of things that we needed to do as
00:55:07 do as needed needed to address that that that will always be the case i imagine there'll always be things that you can do to improve things and it's a case of um
00:55:16 um at each time you review something like this um
00:55:19 this um you establish what's considered to be reasonable at that time and and what's reasonable changes over time right
00:55:34 you tell us in your statement i didn't even need to go to it that you also received some research in april 2016 from david crowder
00:55:42 crowder that you commissioned in november 2014 to address some concerns raised by the appg about the appropriate fire performance of cladding panels do you remember that
00:55:53 do you remember that oh this was the the question of fire resistance of um what often described as spandrel panels uh
00:56:01 uh well yes you cover it in your statement of paragraph 141. we can look at that and if you need to uh well thank you um let's do that then if you want to let's go to clg
00:56:11 go to clg 3019469 page 50 paragraph 141
00:56:17 let's go to that just so we're clear because i'm not sure i can answer your question
00:56:22 question uh
00:56:23 uh let's go to paragraph 141 and you can see there you say i received in april 2016 i received the results of some research i'd commissioned bre to undertake on the concerns regarding
00:56:35 to undertake on the concerns regarding fire spread over the external walls of multi-story buildings i commissioned this research in november 2014 to address the issues that have been raised previously by the appg in
00:56:46 been raised previously by the appg in their letter of fifth of august 2014 yes that's what you say there yes yes uh and you also go on to tell us at 142 i'll read it to you rather than trying to
00:56:57 trying to paraphrase it on the basis of this bre research i was satisfied that not only did the building regulations adequately cater for external fire spread but also that
00:57:08 for external fire spread but also that there was adequate guidance available in the public domain now dr crowder has told the inquiry in his evidence that the research was flawed
00:57:19 flawed and he said that in his third witness statement of paragraph 186 and the detailed reasons for that were explored and he gave oral evidence um
00:57:31 let me let me show you his statement first of all bre three zero four seven six six eight page forty seven paragraph 186
00:57:48 and you can see at the foot of the screen he says this i accept the work carried out for the external fast spread reports was flawed however either work i believe should be seen in the context of the extremely
00:57:59 seen in the context of the extremely limited resources in terms of budget time and people that were available to the team to complete it now first do you do you yourself accept that
00:58:08 that the work he carried out as he says here for the external fire spread reports was flawed
00:58:13 flawed um
00:58:15 um it was intended as a scoping study so it was a
00:58:18 was a it was a um a small exercise to just examine what the issues were um and
00:58:29 there was already some historic research on the same subject and so it was an opportunity to look at that again um
00:58:37 um and one and and what i'd hoped is it would be something that we could include in um one of a number of journal articles that um
00:58:48 um the
00:58:49 the when
00:58:50 when when we revised this contract um in a few years in advance at this time um i'd included a clause in that contract that the contractor would produce journal articles so that there would be
00:59:02 journal articles so that there would be an opportunity for to disseminate information more quickly and one of the problems we had is that the the investigation of real fires work fed into the work that we did but it
00:59:13 fed into the work that we did but it might be sometimes ten years before that got to the industry well that's too slow um and i
00:59:19 um and i and it's very difficult to for us to do something directly um because you'd need to go through the political approvals processes i'm sorry to interrupt you i can't answer it please to see if you can answer my
00:59:30 please to see if you can answer my question something you agree all right all i want to know is whether you agree with dr crowder that his own research was flawed as he says in his statement
00:59:39 statement not in the context of what he was intended to do you don't think it was flawed no
00:59:43 flawed no you see he told us in his oral evidence day 230
00:59:47 day 230 pages 148 to 220 and i'm going to paraphrase it for obvious reasons that this was a basic set of experiments using
00:59:54 using the homogeneous materials which were rushed through with extremely limited resources there were problems with the way the experiments were set up problems uh on the face of the report problems with the fact that the panels hadn't achieved
01:00:06 the fact that the panels hadn't achieved the classifications which were assumed and problems with the thermocouple measurements in the experiments that's a very potted version of quite a lot of his evidence which he's told us do you disagree with even the summary
01:00:17 even the summary i've given you no it's the nature of a scoping studies that you is that you carry out some experiments and learn not only about the results of the experiments but if you were to do a more
01:00:28 experiments but if you were to do a more detailed study what you'd need to take account of to design um an experimental program
01:00:35 program why do you where do you get the word scoping study from um that's that's the conversation i had with with with them this this was never intended to be a um a final answer to a question
01:00:47 to be a um a final answer to a question it was
01:00:48 it was um what i was trying to say is um what i wanted to do was bring into the public domain the historic research um on the subject
01:01:00 research um on the subject and also
01:01:01 and also just to show some more recent experiments that we've done that was what i was trying to do and with with that piece of work so i recognized that it wasn't a definitive study
01:01:11 study i didn't have any i didn't have the funding to do a definitive study um
01:01:16 um and but by getting that information in the public domain um
01:01:20 um it allowed people to discuss the facts that were available now dr crowder told us
01:01:29 told us in his evidence day 230 page 153 lines 112 to
01:01:34 112 to 15
01:01:36 15 and again at what page 186 that you and he had had conversations after the grenfell tower fire in which you both agreed that his work was flawed that's what he told us do you agree
01:01:55 well that particular piece of work was about fire resistance of spandrel so it wasn't partic it wasn't particularly relevant to grenfell
01:02:03 grenfell but sorry
01:02:05 but sorry do you agree that you and he had conversations after the grenfell tower fire in which you and he agreed that the work was flawed
01:02:14 flawed i don't remember those conversations that doesn't mean to say they didn't happen there was a particularly intense period of time he also told us that even at the time research was done
01:02:25 research was done he understood that you wouldn't have had much of an intention of relying on it that's day 230 page 154913 is he right about that i i think so yeah i wasn't planning to
01:02:36 i think so yeah i wasn't planning to make that wasn't what we'd use to make a fundamental policy decision um it was more about um it was an issue that had been raised um
01:02:47 it was an issue that had been raised um by um i think it was ronnie king had raised it
01:02:51 raised it via the all-party parliamentary group and as i understand it it was that had been suggested to him by sam webb um and what i wanted to do was to get a broader range of people in the fire safety
01:03:02 range of people in the fire safety community to discuss that issue but if as you now tell us this was never intended to be a final answer it was not a definitive study and as you just say this wasn't what
01:03:13 and as you just say this wasn't what you'd use to make a fundamental policy decision
01:03:17 decision can you explain why it was that you say as you do in your statement at para142 that it was on the basis of this research
01:03:25 research i was satisfied that not only did the building regulations adequately cater for external fire spread but also there was adequate guidance available in the public domain i think at that time i was thinking about the the question of the fire resistance of
01:03:37 the question of the fire resistance of of um
01:03:39 of um of those panels so we should we should re let's go back let's be absolutely clear then please can we go back to your statement of page 50.
01:04:02 uh and you you quote from the findings there yes there is a clear demonstrable need to ensure that buildings are designed and constructed so that fire spread
01:04:13 and constructed so that fire spread across the external surface and within and within the external facade is inhibited
01:04:18 inhibited as required by the building regulations there is adequate guidance available in the public domain to allow this to be achieved and then you say on the basis of this bre research i was satisfied
01:04:29 of this bre research i was satisfied that not only did the building regulations adequately cater for external fire spread but also that there was adequate guidance available in the public domain i put my questions again on the basis of the
01:04:40 questions again on the basis of the evidence you've given just now about that research that it was a scoping study not intended to provide an answer and not a definitive study
01:04:50 can you explain why it was that you were satisfied based on that research that not only the building regulations adequately catered for external fire spread but there was adequate guidance
01:05:01 spread but there was adequate guidance available
01:05:02 available in the public domain i think from memory the journal article was covered more than just the question of fire resistance i think that's the point i'm making here i don't think i've made it very clearly and i'm sorry right
01:05:14 right let's move on to a different well before i do can we agree then to put a line under this that you shouldn't have taken any comfort at all from the piece of work that had been done
01:05:25 piece of work that had been done and certainly not as the basis for understanding that there was satisfactory guidance in approved document be on external fire spread um
01:05:34 this was a 2016. so i was i was well aware that we needed to do work on a proof document being was trying to get it done so um i think that i think that
01:05:45 i think that i think that the point i've probably made quite badly here is is that this question of the fire resistance was something that i was having
01:05:52 having part of this exercise brought this historic research which was quite difficult to find it back into um sort of circulation if you like um and i
01:06:03 sort of circulation if you like um and i was
01:06:04 was i was happy that it wasn't something that we need needed to look at again but by putting it in that journal article it provided the opportunity for other people to challenge that mr martin we don't see any reference in paragraphs
01:06:15 don't see any reference in paragraphs 141 or 142 to
01:06:18 to fire resistance as opposed to uh
01:06:23 uh anything else yeah i i accept that i i think um i've not made that clear in my statement why do you say it now why do you say that this is really about fire
01:06:34 say that this is really about fire resistance and not about external fire spread as it says in at least three places but it's
01:06:43 but it's the question of fire resistance for those panels related to external fire spread
01:06:48 spread it's a different facet of external fire spread
01:06:52 spread let's turn to a different topic then let's go to clg3018930
01:07:05 now this is an email chain i'm sorry sorry actual wait till it comes up
01:07:10 comes up clg three zeros one eight nine three zero yes thank you this is an email chain between mr harrell and you from may 2016
01:07:18 may 2016 and if we look at the first email in the chain
01:07:21 chain at the bottom of page one it's from richard harrell on the
01:07:25 on the 25th of may at 10 40 in the morning to you and over the top of page two it says this
01:07:31 this and you can look at the you can see that from the first few lines of the email that he's suggesting to you that you might like to take on some infractions or epbd work and then he says i i would support you
01:07:43 and then he says i i would support you on this as i can understand why the editorial work on part b turns you off how long have you been looking at adb 11 years we could export the bulk of editorial work to a technical director through ribae and we should have some
01:07:55 through ribae and we should have some money in the piggy bank from part r if you wanted to free up some time to do this it's good to do new things to avoid getting stale and the carbon budget stroke eppd stuff can be quite interesting let me know
01:08:06 interesting let me know as an aside well let me i'll come to that in a moment um uh richard had you told richard harrell that the editorial work on part b turned you off
01:08:19 i think we i'd probably add what you might describe as grumpy conversations with richard at this time
01:08:31 because the division had been unable to get clearance to
01:08:36 to carry out any um or to go out into the public domain with any project work
01:08:43 work um
01:08:45 um richard had decided that what we could do as a team is amongst ourselves carry out editorial work on all of the approved documents which is quite big everybody had um
01:08:56 everybody had um maybe four approved documents that that they were responsible for i had something in that order um
01:09:03 um and um he wanted us to go through them apply the the new style guide and and produce a draft i was frustrated by that because in my
01:09:16 i was frustrated by that because in my view it's very difficult to produce a document that suits its readership if you're not allowed to speak to its readership um and that's i guess that's where the i don't think i was alone in that i
01:09:28 i don't think i was alone in that i think we're all very frustrated at that time that we we couldn't um publicly talk about the work we were doing um
01:09:37 doing um and
01:09:38 and i was concerned that i would go through the exercise of doing a lot of editorial work on the approved document um
01:09:45 um and then we'd show that to our stakeholders who would all say no this is no good we think this is worse and so
01:09:52 and so i was unhappy about doing what i saw as um
01:09:56 um work that might not um bring any real benefit
01:10:00 benefit well he asks you the question how long have you been looking at adb 11 years
01:10:06 so wasn't this really more about you becoming fed up with the familiar rather than the frustrations of the editorial exercise itself
01:10:17 itself probably a mixture of the two and i'd been working on ab a long time um unfortunately there was no one else in the team that had any background in fire protection um the one person that we had had in the
01:10:29 the one person that we had had in the team had
01:10:30 team had left um not least because um there was no chance of him getting a pay rise basically um and he he just had a young family
01:10:41 he just had a young family and
01:10:42 and he could earn considerably more working as a building building inspector than he could working in the policy team that wrote the building regulations so you can see why he left um so there wasn't really anyone else to
01:10:53 um so there wasn't really anyone else to look at adb at the time now looking at the last paragraph of richard harrell's email he says this as an aside i've never quite understood what needed to be sorted out in adb as a result of latino house was it primarily
01:11:06 result of latino house was it primarily application of requirements to retrofit work or guidance on the surface spread of flame or perhaps a bit of both can you explain why richard harrell was so uncertain
01:11:17 so uncertain about
01:11:18 about that so out of touch with the coroner's recommendations three years on
01:11:24 years on after she'd made them and and three years
01:11:28 years minus
01:11:29 minus two months after the secretary of state's promise uh i mean this is this is an informal email between colleagues i i i he was he was aware of the the recommendations he probably couldn't remember at that time
01:11:40 probably couldn't remember at that time exactly what they said i imagine um he'd been um
01:11:46 so what was the date of this email just trying to place at the time the 25th of may 2016. yeah it'd been under an enormous amount of pressure at that time he was very frustrated like the rest of us about the fact that there'd been no
01:11:57 us about the fact that there'd been no progress and it was making him ill well he says i've never quite understood not i've forgotten can you explain why at least according to him
01:12:07 to him when you saw this uh you you thought he'd never understood what needed to be sorted out in adb um i think it's a bad choice of words on his part you i mean i i think you asked him this question i
01:12:18 i i think you asked him this question i can't remember what his answer was if we go to your response uh on page one please second email down the next day um you say hi richard it's more like 16
01:12:29 um you say hi richard it's more like 16 years but i'm not counting i'm procrastinating because i'm not able to do the job the way i want to i suspect i need to lock myself away for a week and jfdi
01:12:39 jfdi i'm getting a bit stale in quotes i think it might be a form of midlife crisis i'm something is this it but adb is almost like my third child i would gladly i've handed the job to
01:12:50 would gladly i've handed the job to steve k but that wasn't to be now uh
01:12:56 now uh and then you go on to say there's a limit to what our ibae can do but i think they could help a lot what did you mean by i'm procrastinating because i'm not able to do the job the way i want to that's the point i was just making is that
01:13:07 point i was just making is that richard wanted us to redraft the document but not
01:13:12 but not we weren't able to do that in the public domain and i saw that as very counterproductive and jfdi does that mean just do it yes in what way were you getting a bit stale
01:13:25 in what way were you getting a bit stale um i think i was acknowledging the fact that i'd been working on part b for a really long time and
01:13:31 and i remember when mr kelly was in the team he had the enthusiasm that i think i had when i first joined the team and i thought
01:13:38 thought um
01:13:41 and he was a very capable um person and i thought he would be a good person to take over the mantle of adb and and bring some fresh eyes to it right
01:13:51 right and why was adb almost like your third child um because i've been working on it for such a long time did you feel like you might have been in the job for too long um i think at that time i was looking
01:14:02 um i think at that time i was looking for another job yeah i was fed up right was this an acknowledgement on your part in reality that you'd become too close to adb and were incapable of thinking about it objectively
01:14:16 i think there was an element of that yes i think i did i had done that job probably too long um and um a set of fresh eyes
01:14:27 um a set of fresh eyes um and the enthusiasm that that brings might might have helped but as it was um the environment we were working in was not likely to attract anybody with any enthusiasm anyway
01:14:38 enthusiasm anyway what did richard harrell do to help you resolve the difficulties that you have expressed to him here i don't think he did in the end i jfdi did i got on and um
01:14:50 i got on and um um
01:14:51 um i think the next thing i did following this
01:14:54 this conversation was um draft a set of instructions to um uh
01:15:02 uh the editors at ribae to um to restructure the approved document for us and then i took that as the working draft which i did some work on myself afterwards richard harrell told us in
01:15:13 afterwards richard harrell told us in his oral evidence that there was some tension as he put it between him and you at this time largely because of him putting pressure on you in relation to the adb simplification work that's what he told us day 243 page
01:15:26 work that's what he told us day 243 page 84. yeah i think that's what i was just describing i think i think i i i mean uh um
01:15:33 right i mean we're still friendly um i regard richard as a friend now but
01:15:39 but i think i was getting grumpy with him and he was probably getting grumpy with me because of the environment we were working
01:15:44 working what about between you and bob ledson was there similar tension
01:15:51 um i think there was frustration across the whole division about the situation that we're in at that point um again i i've got a greatest deal of respect for mr edson did you
01:16:03 did you were you taking short periods of leave at short notice at this time
01:16:12 i can't i don't know um yeah i imagine you're asking me that for a reason i don't know well yes
01:16:18 well yes were you dissatisfied with the department to the point of wanting to leave um it was certainly something i was considering at the time um
01:16:31 if i wasn't going to be able to do the work that i was there to do and perhaps it was time to go and find something else to do so it was that was something that i was thinking about yes he told us did mr harold that he'd he'd
01:16:42 he told us did mr harold that he'd he'd written his email to you in a deliberately broad way to try to engage you in a broader a broader discussion about whether there were technical changes that were needed to adb following the latino recommendations
01:16:54 following the latino recommendations were you aware at the time that that is what he was seeking to do
01:17:00 no
01:17:03 [Applause] mr chairman we've got another topic but i won't finish it in a within an appropriate time before the break and i'm conscious that this is probably likely to be a slightly longer
01:17:14 probably likely to be a slightly longer afternoon than we were used to so this would be an appropriate moment yes well i think it would take a break we'll take a break at that point mr martin yes sir uh we'll come back please
01:17:25 martin yes sir uh we'll come back please at 25 to four and in the meantime when you're out of the room please don't talk about it for evidence or anything relating to it to anyone yes sir all right thank you very much
01:17:41 thank you very much for submitting it 25 to 40.
01:36:46 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
01:36:59 right mr martin yes sir carry on thank you very much yes mr thank you mr chairman uh mr martin can i just revisit one question uh which we were looking at earlier
01:37:08 earlier about the
01:37:09 about the response to the coroner's recommendations and that was the promise of the review of the of adb by 2016-17
01:37:16 2016-17 and you told us that that time frame had been discussed collectively within the department what did you mean or what did you think was meant by 2016-17
01:37:28 i think what i meant was sometime during 2016 and 2017 i i can't be certain exactly what that's my recollection of what i remember
01:37:39 remember it wasn't aimed at the financial year which i know some people seem to think it was
01:37:44 it was um
01:37:45 um i'm not sure why we would have done that and the the common commencement dates would be the obvious link but i don't think a project like that's quite difficult to be precise about until you've
01:37:56 be precise about until you've established the terms of reference
01:38:00 right you say you know some people seem to think it was that includes of course melanie dawes the permanent secretary of the department and i think also bob ledson apparently so yes was it your
01:38:12 apparently so yes was it your understanding that actually 2016-17 meant at the outside the 31st of december 2017. uh i guess conceivably as i say it was
01:38:24 as i say it was um
01:38:25 um as i recall we felt it was important to indicate a an approximate time frame um in the response to the coroner um and
01:38:38 in the response to the coroner um and given that the the scale of the project would depend on the terms of reference um which might well change um we gave her um
01:38:48 um a gen generalized date without nailing it down too much but given an indication of the amount of time we thought it would take right does that tell us that in your head 2016-17 was essentially a two-year
01:39:02 2016-17 was essentially a two-year landing spot it could be january 2016 it could be december 2017. i think that's what was in my head i know you've asked other people that and they had different ideas um and i
01:39:13 and they had different ideas um and i think that would have manifested itself right when we started proper right so i think we could take it from your evidence that from your perspective there was no shared understanding about what the time frame for the delivery
01:39:25 what the time frame for the delivery of the
01:39:26 of the adb review actually was apparently so um i didn't realize that at the time um a different topic appg and i think you will recall very generally
01:39:38 i think you will recall very generally that the appg the all parliamentary party fire safety and rescue group raised concerns about fire safety and approved document b a number of times between 2014 and 2017. yes yes
01:39:50 between 2014 and 2017. yes yes and i think you would also agree just in general terms that they regularly pressed for updates on adb review and advocated the greater use of sprinklers including retrofitting of spring clubs absolutely yes and also
01:40:02 of spring clubs absolutely yes and also concerns about the use of combustible materials and the lack of adequate guidance as they saw it on external fire spread yes um to some i think their focus on external fire spread was the issue that we were talking about earlier
01:40:14 issue that we were talking about earlier the question of fire resistance um but they had a general concern about modern methods of construction and the um
01:40:23 um increased use of combustible materials within the construction of a wide range of different buildings now we know that between february 2014 and april 2017 the appg sent
01:40:34 appg sent at our count 16 or so letters to the department uh not all of those were responded to um do you agree that not one of those responses replied in any substantive and
01:40:46 responses replied in any substantive and detailed way to the appg's detailed and carefully articulated concerns about modern methods of construction uh uh the approved document uh and the
01:40:58 uh uh the approved document uh and the risk of a major tragedy occurring um i i understand the point you're making um the the challenge that
01:41:06 that i i would have drafted many of those replies probably not all of them um and the problem we would have had is that because we weren't we hadn't carried out an
01:41:17 we weren't we hadn't carried out an exercise
01:41:18 exercise to review the approved document and to look at the policy questions they were raising the government didn't have a policy position on them other than to say we will look at them when we do the
01:41:30 say we will look at them when we do the review
01:41:31 review um and unfortunately for the reasons which i think the inquiry's only too well aware that dragged on far too long but
01:41:40 but i couldn't say to the minister say we will do this or we won't do that because the government hadn't made a decision on those points you said the government i think the government's
01:41:51 government's i guess it would have been governments yes now let's go to clg 402824 this is november 2014 email run picking it up at page two please middle of the page email from
01:42:02 please middle of the page email from anthony moore 10th november 2014 to you you see that and he says there uh
01:42:14 uh brian do you have an oven ready background and line to take on why what on why we don't want a piecemeal approach to adb because i think it's something that might possibly be raised with the minister and if we go back to um page one please
01:42:26 and if we go back to um page one please third email down in the chain you can see that you respond and you say you explain uh the commitment to the um to the review of adb after lachenal and explain that the research has been
01:42:37 and explain that the research has been commissioned to feed into the future review of the building regulations and then in the last paragraph on that page you say this since then stephen williams has had an exchange of correspondence with the all party group basically
01:42:48 with the all party group basically ronnie king got them to write these aren't open letters of course over the page the explanation as to why we won't do this one bit at a time is in the
01:42:59 do this one bit at a time is in the first letter from sw dr tiff
01:43:03 dr tiff and going up the chain if we can please back to page one uh
01:43:09 uh maude replies on the 10th of november of 6 16 32 thanks brian it is ronnie who is on about this and then we see your response at the top of the page same day six minutes later
01:43:21 minutes later um four minutes later yes he's very annoying basically we will not be changing the ad as and when ronnie asks we'll do it when we're ready every time we change the ad there's a transitional cost to industry so we don't want to do
01:43:33 cost to industry so we don't want to do too many piecemeal changes he's miffed that we made some deregulatory changes in 2013 so why can't we do a quick change to the a.d now and require sprinklers wherever they can go ronnie will not listen to reason so i just
01:43:44 will not listen to reason so i just ignore him why was he very annoying ronnie king it's the nature of well so mr king's a passionate campaigner for fire safety um and was involved both in
01:43:57 fire safety um and was involved both in the fire sector federation um and was the secretary for the all party parliamentary group um
01:44:06 um all party groups are groups of backbenchers um whose function is to um
01:44:13 um press the government on the issue that that particular group's interested in so their function is to be annoying um that their function is to harass the government and press the government to
01:44:24 government and press the government to to do things that they think should be done um so arguably that's kind of the point of them was he annoying because he was pressing you to do things that you didn't think should be done
01:44:35 didn't think should be done um no i think when was this dated 2014 um
01:44:42 no i wanted to review a proof document b but obviously that's not something that we would have been able to directly say to him
01:44:51 but he was pressing the department to
01:44:55 to change the building regulations immediately and
01:45:01 and that wasn't something we were going to be able to do but is the truth that he was advocating for fire safety standards which you had decided were over the top and are necessary
01:45:12 um he advocated some standards which would not have met with the government's regulatory policy is that what made him annoying
01:45:20 annoying um
01:45:28 not so much that was advocating those things i think as the point here as i say mr king's uh a passionate advocate for fire safety um and
01:45:37 and i think during the period that i've been working um in the department i think he's the appg with mr king have met practically every minister i observed in in that time
01:45:49 in that time um
01:45:50 um and and um had a tendency to argue in a way which probably put ministers off the subject um and
01:46:00 and i i used to find that frustrating wasn't it important though for you to engage with stakeholders who might be advocating for significant improvements in fire safety particularly
01:46:12 improvements in fire safety particularly in residential buildings
01:46:16 um yes and we did well why did you think it was annoying then if he was doing exactly that because the way he did it was annoying um it doesn't mean to say we didn't
01:46:27 um it doesn't mean to say we didn't engage with him why was it acceptable just to ignore him um this is an informal email between colleagues um we didn't ignore him and most of the time he was writing letters on behalf of the all-party parliamentary
01:46:39 on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group so
01:46:40 group so those were letters that would be replied to by a minister do you agree looking back on it now that the concerns of the appg
01:46:47 appg were met by you and certainly by the department where you weren't writing the letters with unjustified hostility and derision no you don't accept that
01:46:59 no you don't accept that you don't accept that at all so is it your view that you entertained the apbg's concerns fully candidly and with full attention to the detail
01:47:10 and with full attention to the detail that they were insofar as was possible given the constraints that we worked within yes as i say i think a minister met met with you every minister i served and
01:47:21 met with you every minister i served and and the ministers came i think over that period i think we were lucky to have a minister that lasted a year um and each one of them met with the all-party parliamentary group um and invariably
01:47:33 um and invariably um they would exchange pleasantries and then hand over to mr king who would directly speak to the minister so um i think he probably spoke to ministers more often than i did
01:47:44 spoke to ministers more often than i did do you remember going to an appg lunch with sir david amis and the minister james wharton at the house of lords on the 26th of november 2015. yes i i think that the
01:47:56 november 2015. yes i i think that the appg often um invited a new minister um to attend a lunch i think it was a way of getting it it's a tactic for getting into a minister's diary usually the only
01:48:07 into a minister's diary usually the only slot that's free is the lunch break i think um and so they would um they would invite the minister to lunch and then lobby him on on issues that they were they were concerned about
01:48:18 they were they were concerned about you say lobby him let's see what happens with this one you remember it clg one triple zero eight zero six six now this is a note of this meeting
01:48:30 uh yeah uh and there it is uh have you ever seen this note before
01:48:38 um i wrote a note of this meeting i don't know if this is the one i wrote oh right that's helpful um have a look at it and let's see if you can help us to see whether it was you who was the author um it refers to the lunch meeting 26 november 2015 it identifies those
01:48:50 26 november 2015 it identifies those present you can see sir david amos mp chairman of the appg uh invited james walton mp to an informal lunch with some members of the group and brian robinson chairman of the fire sector federation the meeting took
01:49:02 fire sector federation the meeting took place on thursday 26 november 2015 between 12 pm to 1 pm in the barrie room house of lords and you can see who was in attendance so david amis mp and a series of other
01:49:13 so david amis mp and a series of other mps
01:49:15 mps uh
01:49:15 uh ronnie king obe uh and a number of others and you and sarah morgan from the dclg does that help you i remember the meeting you remember the meeting yes
01:49:27 meeting you remember the meeting yes and then it starts david amos mp chairman of the all party group introduced the group and flagged that they had not been able to persuade previous ministers that a review of a troop approved document b was urgent
01:49:38 troop approved document b was urgent uh brian robinson then um sets his concerns out and then
01:49:44 and then after some contributions from others at the meeting down we can see that the minister um said in the previous ultimate paragraph at the bottom james wharton mp said um he did not want to do work
01:49:58 said um he did not want to do work uh
01:50:00 uh so sorry he did not want to do work with the building regulations and hoped to sorry he did want to do work with the building regulations and he'd hoped to set out his plans early in the new year he welcomed comments from the all party
01:50:11 he welcomed comments from the all party group and the federation however he was clear that the principal objective for any work would be simplification and the reduction of red tape he raised a concern that a debate on a significant change in scope for part b
01:50:24 significant change in scope for part b beyond life safety could significantly delay progress and should be raised as a separate issue now did that option prioritizing the review on life safety issues
01:50:35 issues get picked up as an option
01:50:40 with the department
01:50:50 so part b
01:50:52 part b is restricted to life safety um i think
01:50:58 one of the one of the issues that we did pick up in the discussion document actually was was whether it should go beyond life safety to property protection particularly in domestic buildings
01:51:07 buildings so i guess we didn't pick up on that as as
01:51:11 as a way of accelerating things i think in practice it wouldn't have made a lot of difference did you say anything at this meeting um
01:51:21 um i don't think i did i think i did write this note by the way i'm pretty sure i recognize it um
01:51:28 the way these things normally work is having um
01:51:31 having um as you provide some advice to the minister about the general background to the the issues they raised um and you sit quietly unless the minister asks you to explain something right um and i'm pretty sure
01:51:43 and i'm pretty sure i'm pretty sure i sat there and said nothing um throughout that throughout that meeting i i distinctly remember um uh james walton raising the simplification issue
01:51:54 simplification issue he was a fairly new new in the job i think at that stage um and i imagine that's probably something that had been brought to his attention by either the secretary of state or um
01:52:05 by either the secretary of state or um or the prime minister now you say you didn't say anything does that tell us that you didn't mention the fact that there was widespread ignorance about the use of combustible insulation
01:52:16 about the use of combustible insulation in the industry above 18 meters which meant that there were potentially many blocks out there with ins combustible insulation on them um in a meeting like this an official keeps quiet unless he's asked to say
01:52:27 keeps quiet unless he's asked to say something even on a matter of widespread risk to life safety yes so protocol before lives um i wouldn't have thought about it that way um but
01:52:38 thought about it that way um but um the the protocol is is that um this is a meeting between um the all-party party group which is mostly mps um there are a couple there's
01:52:50 mostly mps um there are a couple there's and there's at least one lobbyist in the in the group as well um and um and and the minister and they
01:53:00 they that conversation pans out um and then it's up for the minister if he wants any further briefing after the meeting well why not raise it with the minister quietly separately um i think he left straight away to do
01:53:12 um i think he left straight away to do something i mean um
01:53:15 um we don't get that much airtime with ministers i'm a junior official um so it's not as if i have the opportunity for regular conversations with ministers does that explain why you didn't mention also the fact that there were parts of
01:53:26 also the fact that there were parts of adb
01:53:27 adb dealing with the fire safety of cladding panels and insulation which were regarded by much of the industry as unclear and in need of clarification i could have sat there for a couple of hours talking about the different things
01:53:38 hours talking about the different things that that that needed to be improved i imagine um but that wouldn't have been acceptable and the minister would have shot straight off to the next meeting all the people had flagged the presence of acm with a combustible core and asked
01:53:50 of acm with a combustible core and asked whether the awesomely powerful fire that had occurred in the u.s same answer that's not something i would have had the opportunity to do well i'm going to get to the end of my question i beg your pardon and then you can answer that's how this works
01:54:02 how this works does that also explain that people had flagged the presence of aluminium composite material with combustible core as present and asked whether the awesome power of these fires in the uae could
01:54:14 power of these fires in the uae could happen here
01:54:18 that that was something you knew just does what you told us explain why you didn't mention that to the minister yeah um
01:54:25 um all i wanted to do at that stage um was get moving on the next review so that i could address a wide range of different issues which had origin arisen at that point um
01:54:34 point um but that's not a conversation you have in that kind of environment
01:54:44 i'm now going to turn to
01:54:47 to some questions about the period immediately following the fire now the first question is when did you first come to realize that grenfell tower had been clad in aluminium composite material panels with a
01:54:58 composite material panels with a polyethylene core
01:55:01 i think that information was became clear quite early um within within a day or so i think i'm not sure how um
01:55:10 how um but it seemed to be accepted piece of information now during the course of your evidence you've told us a number of times mr martin that you underestimated the scale and hazard
01:55:22 and hazard of the issues which had been raised with you about the use of acm pe products on high-rise buildings in the uk yes when did you first come to the realization that you had underestimated the scale of hazard
01:55:34 the scale of hazard presented by those products
01:55:41 probably around the time of that fire i think um i i remember being horrified by it
01:55:52 can we then look at nhb 401457
01:55:59 this is an email
01:56:04 from you to diane marshall of the nhbc on the 16th of june 2017 at 14 36 in the afternoon
01:56:12 afternoon so this is um a day and a half after the fire uh ford rebuttal of times article importance high and you say this apologies in advance for asking but i've
01:56:24 apologies in advance for asking but i've been asked to prepare a rebuttal of the assertion the pe called aluminium composite panels comply with the guidance in adb i have also been asked if an independent expert would be willing to say this or something similar in public can you
01:56:36 something similar in public can you consider the attached and let me know please
01:56:39 please now let's look at the attachment it's at nhb nhb401458
01:56:43 and it reads as follows in the times and it says the times asserts that cladding on the grenfell tower was formed using a composite aluminium panel
01:56:54 formed using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core it claims that such panels conform to uk standards but are prohibited in other countries we cannot comment on what has or has not been used on grenfell tower but we would dispute the assertion that a
01:57:05 dispute the assertion that a polyethylene core panel is acceptable for use under current building regulations requirement b4 of the building regulations 2010 provides that quote the external walls of the building shall
01:57:16 external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another close quotes paragraph 12.5
01:57:27 the guidance that approved document b that supports this requirement says that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread it goes on to provide detailed advice that quotes in a building with a
01:57:38 advice that quotes in a building with a story over 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of
01:57:49 external wall construction should be of limited combustibility paragraph 12.7 unmodified polyethylene would not meet the definition of of limited combustibility so a composite panel formed with a
01:58:00 so a composite panel formed with a polyester core would not be considered to comply with this guidance as such it should not be used as a cladding material on buildings over 18 meters in height
01:58:10 height now before we look at the detail of that text i'd like to look together with you at diane marshall's response to you which is a little bit later that same afternoon can we please get back to
01:58:21 afternoon can we please get back to nhb401459
01:58:25 and look at the top of that document uh
01:58:31 uh she says hi brian thanks for the email whilst i fully agree with the content of your suggested text i believe it may be seen to be more independent by engaging with the bca as the broader body
01:58:42 with the bca as the broader body representing all bcbs the current chairman is martin conlon who has already been involved in in some media coverage so i would imagine be happy to support you
01:58:53 happy to support you his email address is and then it's provided
01:58:57 provided now
01:58:57 now having received that rejection from diane marshall can we then go to clg three zeros three six four zero eight
01:59:07 and her email comes to you at 15 uh 38
01:59:11 38 sorry 28 15 28 and if you look at the last email on the first page here at 1632 say four minutes later you write
01:59:22 at 1632 say four minutes later you write to your former colleagues debbie smith david crowder and sarah colwell in identical terms do you see that yes yes
01:59:31 yes now let's look back at the text at uh
01:59:35 at uh nhb401458 which i've just read aloud to you
01:59:39 you there it is again and who drafted that um i guess i did you did i believe so yes now the content of
01:59:49 of that draft rebuttal is in line isn't it with the text of your earlier note to melanie dorsey's office sent on that morning 16th of june 2017
02:00:00 morning 16th of june 2017 which we looked at where you effectively explained that the use of non-fire retardant acn panels would be in contravention of building regulation guidance and is effectively banned
02:00:11 banned do you remember we looked at that document and we can look at it again if you'd like to be clear but i'm just sure i'm putting to you that the content of this article that you drafted was consistent with what you told me stores that morning yes
02:00:22 what you told me stores that morning yes yes
02:00:24 yes now if we look at the final paragraph in your draft rebuttal here you say uh or rather you refer to unmodified polyethylene um why do you do that
02:00:35 um why do you do that why do you refer to unmodified polyethylene
02:00:44 um i'm using that to describe um a polyethylene the an acm core that has no mineral content in it and so it's just
02:00:55 mineral content in it and so it's just polythene it hasn't got any fire retardant in it right
02:00:59 right was it your view at the time that a polyethylene core modified with mineral content necessarily be a material of limiting combustibility
02:01:12 i think at that time i probably didn't know and i i think i was talking specifically about
02:01:20 i'm not sure why we were talking about unmodified polyethylene at that time um it might be that that's what had been um asserted right um i i
02:01:31 right um i i might need to look at the times article to see what they they said i'm not sure that's necessary though did you have any knowledge
02:01:38 knowledge about what quantity of mineral content was required in a polyethylene core to permit it to be classified as of limited combustibility
02:01:51 classified as of limited combustibility no not at that time
02:01:54 right why was it possible after the deaths of 71 people on the night to to state so definitively that such products were not acceptable for use over 18 meters when you'd been
02:02:06 for use over 18 meters when you'd been asked that repeatedly for a number of years and had never given any plain and unequivocal view to that effect i think that is the answer that i'd given in the past not phrased in in those
02:02:19 not phrased in in those um
02:02:21 um that's that's the point that come up
02:02:24 come up repeatedly um i wasn't saying anything new
02:02:27 new well the closest you'd ever come and you'll recall this from our questions and answers before but the closest you'd ever come to an unequivocal view was that the polyethylene core of such products could reasonably be be
02:02:38 products could reasonably be be considered to be filler material which is what you told nick jenkins in february 2016.
02:02:45 yes so
02:02:47 so why were you able to be quite so definitive in your response to the public in this way that you were intending somebody should say if not you but hadn't been equivocal
02:02:59 but hadn't been equivocal i hadn't been unequivocal like that in response to nick jenkins um probably because that's probably what the press office would would have wanted me to to do i i there may have been some iterations of
02:03:10 i there may have been some iterations of this but i've been bouncing it with the working with the press office why did you consider it necessary to provide diane marshall and then
02:03:18 and then after she'd said no doctors smith crowder and colwell with a with a pre-prepared script rather than simply asking them to express their own independent views as independent fire
02:03:29 independent views as independent fire safety or industry experts um as i as as i recall somebody senior in the press office um instructed me to draft a rebuttal
02:03:40 um instructed me to draft a rebuttal and at the same time i was told to find an expert that would support the department's position um i think at the time i i had doubts that anyone would be willing to do that
02:03:52 that anyone would be willing to do that not necessarily because they disagreed but just because um
02:03:57 um immediately after an incident um like that people will be very cautious about getting involved in any um public domain statements um
02:04:07 um so
02:04:08 so um i
02:04:10 um i i did it i was told and sent a draft form of words to um a range of people that i thought would would do what i'd been asked to do it
02:04:22 would do what i'd been asked to do it didn't surprise me that in the end i don't think any of them actually agreed to say something publicly although several of them accepted that agreed with the points it was in the night
02:04:33 night you say
02:04:34 you say in that last answer that somebody senior in the press office instructed me to draft a rebuttal so did the instruction to draft this text here not come from your line manager richard harrell
02:04:45 manager richard harrell or bob let bob ledson it might have done but it would have come from the press office
02:04:49 office and and i i have a
02:04:52 have a recollection that this was a really intense period um and um
02:05:04 certainly the idea of of getting an expert to support the department would be something that came from the press office i'm sure of it right did you query that either in your own mind or with the press office to say well
02:05:15 press office to say well we're the government whatever we say is the government's position we don't need an independent expert to support it um
02:05:23 um press handling strategies what press officers do um but my question is did you challenge it
02:05:30 it as something i think i might well have told them that i'd be surprised if anyone's willing to make a public statement about anything so quickly after the fire um my experience is that the the people
02:05:41 my experience is that the the people that do make state technical statements immediately after incidents like this tend not to be the most reliable expert
02:05:50 if the position was as crystal clear from adb as this this text says or
02:05:58 says or um
02:05:59 um indicates why not just let nhbc or bre express their own views in their own way i guess this is quicker and
02:06:09 and as i say that press handling is a strategy is something that the press office and special advisers and ministers are more interested in so
02:06:20 so you get told to do something like that you get on and do it so i'm junior official that's what you do did you consider it appropriate to approach these organizations with a finished pre-prepared script to be presented as if it were the independent
02:06:32 presented as if it were the independent view of an independent expert in support of the government's interpretation of the guidance after the fire it's not something i'd ever asked been asked to do before i understand it's not that unusual
02:06:43 unusual but did you consider it appropriate
02:06:50 i thought it was a bit odd but i didn't think it was inappropriate right so you thought it was a bit odd diane marshall told us that she considered it to be a bit unusual
02:07:00 unusual uh and dr smith considered it to be inappropriate i i think you're this is fair you're somewhere perhaps between the two i guess so yes i've i've spent a lot of time working
02:07:12 i've i've spent a lot of time working with press officers in the press so perhaps i'm more used to that kind of um that kind of stuff i mean did you go along with this as far as you could because you knew the fragility of the position the government
02:07:24 fragility of the position the government was in
02:07:28 oh i don't think i was thinking about that at the time i i think i didn't know which way was up i think those few days after the fire so far as you could tell from the press office or the department more generally
02:07:39 office or the department more generally was the department seeking to bolster a retrospective recasting of the narrative with apparently independent support
02:07:48 i don't think so i i remember quite shortly
02:07:52 shortly after all of this um that
02:07:57 that i'm not sure which it might have been the permanent secretary or some somebody quite senior in the department commissioned um legal advice
02:08:08 legal advice to
02:08:09 to satisfy themselves that the position that i set out here was one that the department was happy to continue with so
02:08:17 so they didn't accept my word as as as being all necessarily correct they checked it with um they saw council's opinion i think going back to the emails please at clg
02:08:29 going back to the emails please at clg 303036408
02:08:32 303036408 [Music]
02:08:34 [Music] and we can see that um debbie smith responds to you within the same minute uh and and uh
02:08:43 uh she says hi brian just spoken to david it's my understanding that this is no longer live if this is wrong and all you need to discuss please let me know
02:08:54 discuss please let me know and then
02:08:55 and then if you go um please uh to the second email of the chain uh up please um you say to her two minutes later hi debbie i still need
02:09:07 two minutes later hi debbie i still need an expert but it can't be an employee of bre that's the approach i agreed with the met police see you in the morning why could it not be an employee of the bre
02:09:22 i'm i i think
02:09:24 i think bearing in mind it says a discussion with the met police i think by then the met may have already um appointed bre as advisers to the investigation
02:09:35 advisers to the investigation and so they probably wouldn't have wanted bre to get involved in any public um
02:09:43 um comment
02:09:44 comment right
02:09:45 right and we can see at the top of the screen brian can i call you or you call me i'm on the eurostar so maybe patchy coverage did you actually speak to debbie smith at that time in advance of the meeting
02:09:56 at that time in advance of the meeting of experts to take place the next day i honestly haven't got a clue i might have done probably not
02:10:06 let's then go to clg403356
02:10:13 now this is a a chain of emails internally between you and various officials at the department uh on
02:10:20 uh on the morning of the 16th of june so earlier the same day and if we look at the third email down in the chain we can see an email from you
02:10:28 you on the 16th of june 2017 at 11 47 to
02:10:34 to office of melanie dawes helen mcnamara sally randall copy to the grenfell tower team and shane coulson urgent expert advice and you say i've been asked for a draft cast list for the urgent meeting
02:10:45 draft cast list for the urgent meeting of experts most have confirmed availability currently as follows and then you go on to list the cast members you've got debbie smith colin todd professor bisbee sir ken knight roy
02:10:56 professor bisbee sir ken knight roy wilsher dan daly dr crowder and others uh or officials from the home office in dclg yes yes i think i missed out martin he did i'm afraid um did you select
02:11:07 he did i'm afraid um did you select those names
02:11:14 i certainly suggested some of them probably most of them but not i don't think all of them right do you know whose names you didn't select i
02:11:26 select i i can't remember um
02:11:30 is it right to the best of your recollection the the purpose of gathering that group was to provide
02:11:37 provide immediate advice to government on various aspects of this tragedy and particular on steps to be taken in terms of safety checks on other buildings yes
02:11:49 buildings yes a meeting of that group took place didn't it on the next day saturday the 17th of june yes and it happened at martian street i think didn't it that's correct yes can we go to clg four zero five two
02:12:01 yes can we go to clg four zero five two four seven this this is uh
02:12:07 um this is a document a briefing note setting out information for the minister alok sharma mp as the chair
02:12:17 chair he was by then the secretary of state wasn't he
02:12:20 wasn't he for dclg
02:12:22 for dclg no he's minister of state minister of state
02:12:26 and if you look at the first page you can see there is debbie smith and her bio and if you go to page three we can see that you were to attend
02:12:37 that you were to attend along with bob ledson and louise upton yes yes and if we go to page four we can see the purpose of the meeting and it says we've called together the group of fire safety experts to
02:12:49 the group of fire safety experts to advise us on advice for local authorities and housing associations on how to identify risks in similar high-rise buildings risks which have been refurbished with cladding and the process for assessing those risks and taking necessary action to provide
02:13:01 taking necessary action to provide reassurance for tenants does that align with your understanding of the purpose of the meeting
02:13:12 yes i think so yes if you go to page if we go lower down page four you can see that it says handling we suggest that you open the meeting by thanking them for their help and outlining the government's expectations
02:13:24 outlining the government's expectations and plans for helping provide tenants of similar buildings with reassurance about the safety of those buildings suggested opening remarks at nxa then invite brian martin dclg buildings regulation fire
02:13:35 martin dclg buildings regulation fire safety expert to lead the discussion uh
02:13:43 why was it you did you understand at the time who was singled out as the fire safety expert among all these people to lead the discussion
02:13:58 um well i was the dcog there wasn't anybody else at dclg that worked on fire safety um and
02:14:06 i was just opening the discussion i'm gonna
02:14:10 i'm gonna lead i think you're reading too much into that word i think i think i just set out
02:14:16 set out what we were trying to do and i mean those people aren't sort of people you can tell what to say um that they're quite capable of expressing their own opinions um yes i'm not i'm this isn't
02:14:27 opinions um yes i'm not i'm this isn't about um
02:14:28 about um i'm sorry i don't understand what you mean by but you're remarking on lead the discussions i don't understand um well i'm asking you what you understood by your role as leader of the
02:14:39 by your role as leader of the discussions um to set out what the department was hoping to achieve by the meeting um and um
02:14:48 seek the advice of the people that attended
02:14:52 attended did you lead the discussion in that way
02:14:59 i certainly started the discussion um as i say that none of these people are sort of retiring you know and quiet types they all had plenty to say let's go to page five
02:15:11 let's go to page five where we can see some further details set out for the minister in a speaking note
02:15:18 and uh under the second heading purpose of the meeting you can start at the fourth bullet point down
02:15:26 down which says we are asking for your advice on how local authorities and housing associations can identify risks in similar high-rise buildings which have
02:15:37 similar high-rise buildings which have been refurbished with clatting and the process for assessing those risks and taking necessary action please provide your frank advice to me and my officials you really need to know
02:15:49 and my officials you really need to know what you think we should be doing clearly as we go forward we will need to be very careful about saying or doing anything which could cut across the investigation but at this point we need your frank advice
02:16:02 your frank advice was it clear to you during this meeting that the minister was asking for your full and frank advice as well as that of the others and the minister never said any of this in the end
02:16:16 as i recall um i think he was um he was called away to a cobra meeting and i think he came into the room thanked everybody for coming um
02:16:27 um and and left without really saying any of this
02:16:30 of this right see did you not see this note
02:16:35 this note at the time yeah so a note like this is is so um
02:16:41 this was organized very short notice and
02:16:45 and minister's private office would have asked for a standard briefing a standard briefing includes things the minister might wish to say whether the minister says it says it or not is a matter for the minister um and my recollection of
02:16:56 the minister um and my recollection of this meeting is that um he was there for maybe two minutes um before he was and
02:17:04 and he
02:17:05 he essentially popped in to thank everybody for coming and then shot off to a meeting and with cobra actually let me see if i can get it in a slightly different way did you draft this this note
02:17:17 uh i don't think i did no
02:17:20 so there are two parts to it so the technical expert group next steps with all the photographs and biogs in it and then the handling brief do you know who drafted
02:17:31 do you know who drafted those two documents if they are indeed separate
02:17:35 separate um
02:17:37 um we dragged a few people in from other parts of the team to to organize this um
02:17:51 might have been mr led to my i honestly don't know whether the minister said it or not was it not your understanding at least that the minister was relying upon everybody there including you
02:18:03 there including you to give him full and frank advice
02:18:08 i suppose yes yes now if we go to the very bottom of page five we can see that it says invite brian martin to say a little more about some of our initial thoughts on this and leads the discussion
02:18:20 discussion and if we go to the next page page six please in the top paragraph under um possible questions it says this do you think this is an isolated incident or something peculiar to this building
02:18:31 to this building recognize the need to be very careful about speculation and comment given that there is a criminal investigation underway
02:18:38 underway do you remember whether there was any discussion on that topic
02:18:50 um
02:18:56 i think so do you remember what advice or answers were given to the question is this an isolated incident or something peculiar to this building
02:19:13 i can't remember in detail now did you or to your recollection anybody else including perhaps dr smith tell the minister that the department had
02:19:24 department had carried out a full-scale test on a cladding system incorporating acm panels some 16 years previously and therefore had a very good idea of how such panels were likely to perform in a fire
02:19:41 um well the minister wasn't there but um no that didn't come up in conversation as i recall can we just clarify something you you've told us that the minister
02:19:50 minister attended for about two minutes and then disappeared yes and that's not criticism of him sorry i'm not suggesting it was what i'd like to understand is who chaired the meeting
02:20:09 um i'm not sure if we had a formal chair arguably it might have been mesa it wasn't that formal a gathering right and do you know who
02:20:20 a gathering right and do you know who at the meeting had a copy of this briefing document
02:20:35 i would have had access to it i'm not sure if i had it in my hand at the time sir and mr ledson and others from the uh they might have done um i imagine mr litten might have had it in his hand
02:20:46 litten might have had it in his hand actually i i can't remember for certain sir and would i be right in assuming that um those who are not officials in other words the
02:20:57 words the various
02:20:58 various persons attending whom we see with their pictures did not have a coffee um that would be correct sir yes right thank you very much yes now you say the minister attended for
02:21:09 now you say the minister attended for about two minutes and then had to rush off to
02:21:12 off to a cobra meeting what happened after that did the meeting break up
02:21:16 break up or did you all carry on oh no
02:21:20 oh no so that
02:21:21 so that that
02:21:23 that we discussed a range of things whether
02:21:34 so i think there was a discussion about the different types of acm that was available
02:21:41 available and
02:21:45 the question arose about how do you differentiate between those and so the key question we were trying to address at that time was what can we say to building owners so that they can
02:21:56 building owners so that they can identify if they've got similar material on their building and
02:22:03 and the challenge there was is that they were
02:22:06 were at that time we understood to be three types of acm um
02:22:10 um and it was difficult to tell which type it was just by looking at it so
02:22:15 so um
02:22:16 um i think it was um professor bisbee and dr smith that um agreed to see if they could come up with
02:22:27 agreed to see if they could come up with a
02:22:27 a um
02:22:28 um a useful way of identifying the type of acm um
02:22:32 acm um that was on a building um
02:22:37 and there was a and and i think having having been through that exercise um there was a discussion then about okay so what should a building owner do if they find that they have got the
02:22:48 if they find that they have got the similar
02:22:50 similar cladding
02:22:51 cladding on their building what's an appropriate response to that and i think again several of the people in the group sat down and and came up with
02:23:02 down and and came up with draft advice to building owners along those lines was there any discussion at the meeting whether or not the minister was there that as a result of acm
02:23:14 acm with pe called panels to achieve class naught those panels would have been perfectly compliant with the guidance in approved document b at the very least until the
02:23:26 document b at the very least until the publication of the 2006 edition in april 2007. no that's not the the the
02:23:33 the the the the main focus of this debate was how do we find buildings um with this type of material on them and what advice do we give to building owners if they find they've got it that's it was all
02:23:44 find they've got it that's it was all about what to do now there was very little retrospective discussion well the question you see the reason i'm i'm asking you this is because in the speaking note one of the things that it was thought that
02:23:56 was thought that would be of interest to the minister was whether this was an isolated incident or not
02:24:01 not as you can see from the possible questions on your screen do i take it that that question simply wasn't investigated at this meeting
02:24:12 investigated at this meeting i suppose the point was we needed to find out and and the way to be sure would be to um ask building owners to check that what's on their buildings and um provide a
02:24:25 on their buildings and um provide a means for identifying it mr martin you knew the answer to this question though didn't you you've been given it uh by nick jenkins in the february of the previous year 2016.
02:24:36 previous year 2016. and indeed you would have known this because
02:24:39 because it was only in 2007 to your way of thinking that the introduction of the word fiddler in 12.7 put an end to the use of
02:24:46 use of uh combustible called panels um well i think mr jenkins said that all the material he supplied was fire fire retardant um and they alleged that other building
02:24:57 and they alleged that other building buildings might have um um
02:25:01 um the polyethylene called acm um but it answered the question how many of those there were i didn't know well let me try it slightly differently we can argue till the cows come home
02:25:12 we can argue till the cows come home about what mr jenkins actually said did you tell anybody present or did you take any steps to get the minister to know that uh
02:25:23 that uh there was a matter of grave concern at least in some sectors of the industry caused by the widespread use of acm panels with a polyethylene core in the uk
02:25:35 in the uk um i didn't mention the discussions we'd had about
02:25:39 had about interpretation in the approved document at this meeting as i recall but why not given that that would have answered the question is this an isolated incident
02:25:50 we're working on the basis that probably that
02:25:53 that if there's one building there are probably others so i i think we took it as read that there probably are others and we should find them um as i say we we were focused on trying to find other buildings with a similar cladding
02:26:06 buildings with a similar cladding systems um and what advice we could give to building owners to ensure that people in their buildings were safe yes i understand that but there's the question here which somebody thought fit to put in as a potential question
02:26:18 potential question to to have answered did you when you saw this document think of taking steps in all canada to tell this group and through some route the minister
02:26:29 minister that the grenfell problem was unlikely to be an isolated incident because you had been aware a year earlier by nick jenkins of muri of the fact of historical and ongoing widespread supply
02:26:41 historical and ongoing widespread supply and use of acm pe for high-rise residential buildings in the uk i didn't raise it at this meeting though why is that um i didn't think it was helpful well it may not have been why wouldn't it have been
02:26:53 not have been why wouldn't it have been helpful
02:26:57 um the net result was the same we need to work out what to tell building owners to make to know what to do next
02:27:06 let's go to uh the minutes of a meeting on the 17th of june i'm sorry to interrupt you yet again can you just help me with one other aspect of this meeting the um speaking
02:27:17 aspect of this meeting the um speaking notes of son obviously assumed that the minister
02:27:19 minister would be there and would ask these sort of questions and obtain advice from the people
02:27:24 people at the meeting now in his absence who if anyone
02:27:28 anyone was seeking advice on behalf of the department or on behalf of the minister from those present
02:27:39 it would have been either myself or mr led them okay i i wish i could remember the detail so i'm sorry all right i see that mr o'connor was there at least he's said to have been there was he a senior official he's a director
02:27:50 was he a senior official he's a director so yeah um i think he attended did he attend the whole meeting i i can't i i i won't want to say that i i now you mention it i think he was there but i don't know whether he was
02:28:01 there but i don't know whether he was there for the whole meeting sir yeah and as as you understand it who
02:28:07 who other than perhaps yourself or mr ledson we're collecting the advice um
02:28:16 um i guess it was just as official so yes all right thank you very much yes can we now go to clp3016581
02:28:29 this is the minute of a meeting of the 17th of june saturday at noon in the ministerial conference room in martian street with alex sharma in the chair present as minister of state
02:28:41 minister of state also present debbie smith colin todd luke bisbee ken knight martin ship roy wilshire nick coombe and dclg officials um
02:28:53 let's go to the um minutes please at page one final paragraph summary this is under the summary of discussion the last bullet point from the available
02:29:05 the last bullet point from the available information it was understood that a pe called aluminium composite material acm cladding system had been used on grenfell tower while the exact reasons for the speed of spread of fire have yet to be determined it was it was agreed
02:29:16 to be determined it was it was agreed that additional tests should be undertaken with regard to this type of cladding
02:29:21 cladding um
02:29:22 um did you during that discussion or at any other time during this meeting tell the minister or anyone present that you and the others or some others present from the bre including debbie smith might
02:29:33 the bre including debbie smith might have a very good idea as to the exact reasons for the speed of spread of fire namely the result of the 2001 testing i don't think there was any um
02:29:44 we were working on the basis it was probably the cladding um but i think the way i i don't remember who drafted this this this note um
02:29:55 i think it was clear that from from the pictures and that we'd all seen that the cladding had been um an obvious factor in the fire
02:30:07 an obvious factor in the fire um
02:30:08 um and i think it's phrased in that way just because you can't be absolutely certain until an investigation is complete exactly what happened but did my question again did you or anybody else from the bre tell those
02:30:20 anybody else from the bre tell those present that you and the bre might have a very good idea as to the exact reasons for the speed of the spread of the fire namely what you'd learned from the 2001
02:30:31 namely what you'd learned from the 2001 tests um
02:30:42 i certainly understood that the way that acm
02:30:46 acm the the mechanism by which acm ignites um
02:30:50 um i think we may have discussed that
02:30:55 did you tell the minister that you or others within the department were aware of and that you had been remarking on the awesome power of major fires involving external fire spread through
02:31:07 involving external fire spread through acm pe products internationally since 2012. i i think um certainly
02:31:16 certainly the the fact that acm had been involved in fires in other countries was something that we talked about you did did you tell the minister that you'd been assuring others within the department that your view whilst there
02:31:28 department that your view whilst there were no guarantees was that such a fire should not happen in the uk on the basis of
02:31:33 of the content of approved document b why not
02:31:37 why not um
02:31:39 um that wasn't necessary at the time and all we were focused on was about what we could do to address the problem that was in front of us did you tell the minister or anybody else at the meeting that the only specific and targeted guidance in
02:31:51 specific and targeted guidance in approved document b which would serve to prevent
02:31:55 prevent the use of acm polyethylene cord panels on high-rise buildings in this country was the words filler material etc in 12.7 as i say that was something that was discussed um
02:32:07 um at some point quite early on in in the department's response to this um
02:32:15 um disaster
02:32:16 disaster um
02:32:17 um and
02:32:19 and the department asked for council's opinion
02:32:22 opinion to check against the the view that we'd taken did you tell those present that the meaning of the word filler material etc had been the subject of heated debate and a difference of
02:32:34 heated debate and a difference of interpretation for a number of years um i'm not sure it was heated debate i think right disgusted debate and difference in interpretation for a number of years
02:32:47 i don't think i did at the time why is that
02:32:49 that um it didn't seem important at the time right did you tell the minister or those president that that particular language had been introduced into the approved document by you in late 2006
02:33:01 in late 2006 without any consultation at the last minute and under the radar so to speak
02:33:10 no um i don't think that would have been helpful well no but it might have been relevant
02:33:17 relevant so can you explain perhaps why you didn't think it fit to draw attention of those to of that fact of those present
02:33:27 i think at that time i was focused on was was the immediate response
02:33:35 and does that ex answer also apply to why as it appears you didn't tell the minister or those present that you had forgotten as you told us to issue a clarification on behalf of the department as to the meaning and the
02:33:47 department as to the meaning and the scope of that language having learnt in july 2014 that it wasn't clear at least to some sections of the industry um
02:34:02 no i i i i as i say
02:34:05 as i say at this at this point in time um we were focused on what can we do uh in in
02:34:11 uh in in immediately um which was um
02:34:15 um an enormous task and it it transpired and did you told any of those present that you had undertaken in your own words in march 2016 to change that very wording
02:34:28 to change that very wording and you you'd undertake and say at a meeting of industry expert which uh at which you were present having reached a consensus that it was poorly written open to interpretation and misleading i think the questions of
02:34:40 and misleading i think the questions of of um what had i hadn't happened with a proof document b was something that was raised very early um and
02:34:51 as i recall um
02:34:56 there was some some officials were tasked with the job of looking back over um what we had or hadn't said and done um
02:35:05 um did you tell anybody at the meeting that the lack of clarity in 12.7 of approved document b was a problem that you had indicated to industry professionals in march 2016
02:35:17 industry professionals in march 2016 would be solved in the next edition of adb
02:35:19 adb but which had been delayed no i just that wouldn't have been helpful and this there was
02:35:24 there was this was a difficult enough task as it was
02:35:31 so do you disagree with my question that the matters i've just put to you were
02:35:38 were were matters which would have been relevant and important for those at the meeting to know not at this meeting no at this meeting the question was
02:35:49 the question was what do we do about this material are there other buildings how do we ensure that no one else is at the same risk
02:35:56 risk was one of the reasons or the reason why you mentioned none of the matters that i've just put to you that you realized in the darkest possible terms that the catastrophic series of errors that you had made were on your watch
02:36:08 were on your watch solely yours and you didn't want to own up to them no is there any other explanation um because we were focused on the immediate response
02:36:24 and you knew very well that this wasn't a one-off
02:36:27 a one-off didn't you i was concerned there might be more i i
02:36:33 i was surprised how many there were when we eventually found out how many buildings were involved um i
02:36:42 i still
02:36:42 still find that
02:36:44 find that hard to understand why not tell there is present at least that that you were concerned there might be more
02:36:51 be more this meeting was about an immediate response and that's what we were focused on
02:36:56 on very well let's go next to uh rbk3015952 not mr chairman i'm sorry before i go on i do know the time it's 25 too i probably got another 20 minutes or so left of main questions
02:37:08 minutes or so left of main questions which will take us to about five o'clock um and then then we'll have the usual yes i just want to make sure that everyone in the room up with that i'm keeping well i was going to i was going
02:37:19 keeping well i was going to i was going to find a moment to ask you that um mr martin you've heard what mr millett said
02:37:26 said if we're going to finish your evidence this afternoon and i'm sure you'd like us to
02:37:30 us to um it will mean sitting longer than usual possibly well almost certainly beyond
02:37:36 beyond five o'clock is that going to be all right as far as you're concerned and if we do that would you like to have a short break now
02:37:45 um clearly i i i want to stay and finish my evidence sir uh and and i am tired but um well we can we can take
02:37:56 take five minutes or so can we just take five minutes please sir yeah and i was also going to ask the shorthand writer who is probably thinking what you're saying it's been a long afternoon and her fingers are tired so
02:38:07 fingers are tired so mr millet i think we'll do that right i know it's going to prolong things but i think it's in everyone's interest that we don't press on too hard and too long for everyone um so we'll we'll rise now and come back
02:38:20 um so we'll we'll rise now and come back at course to five please it's only five minutes but i think it'll be worth taking yes sir yes and uh same as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room yes sir yes can i also just
02:38:31 the room yes sir yes can i also just make a plea if those outsiders inquiry are going to send follow-up questions in that they do they make the most of the break as well please yes because we can't i can't entertain them if they come in a minute before
02:38:43 come in a minute before i get back up to my feet that's a very fair point um transcriber is five is going to be enough for you that's what that's what we'll say close to five yes sir
02:38:54 to five yes sir [Music]
02:39:00 [Applause] thank you mr millet close to five
02:46:06 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
02:46:18 all right mr martin i'm sorry it was a short break but i hope it's been helpful no i'm grateful sir thank you ready to carry on yes sir thank you yes mr chairman thank you can we please go to rbk3014952
02:46:32 this is the letter dated 22nd of june 2017 sent by melanie dawes the permanent secretary to all local authority and housing association chief executives uh can we take it that you're familiar
02:46:44 uh can we take it that you're familiar with this letter um
02:46:47 um yes yes who was responsible for the technical input into it
02:46:57 probably may
02:47:00 can we look at annex a please page two and in the first paragraph it says this if it is determined that the insulation within an aluminium composite material
02:47:11 within an aluminium composite material acm and there's a footnote one is unlikely to be compliant with the requirements of the current building regulations guidance it is essential that you immediately underlined in bold implement the following interim
02:47:22 implement the following interim mitigating measures to ensure the safety of residents pending replacement of the cladding
02:47:29 and the measures are then listed and then if you look at the footnote at the bottom of page two it reads as follows for the avoidance of doubt the core brackets filler within an aluminium
02:47:41 brackets filler within an aluminium composite material acm is an insulation material stroke product insulation product and or filler material as referred to in paragraph 12.7 insulation materials stroked products in section 12
02:47:53 materials stroked products in section 12 construction of external walls of approved document b fire safety volume 2 buildings other than dwelling houses brackets the important point to note is the paragraph 12.7 does not just apply
02:48:06 the paragraph 12.7 does not just apply to thermal oscillation within the wall construction but applies to any element of the cladding system including therefore the core of the acm now do you remember who wrote that
02:48:18 now do you remember who wrote that footnote
02:48:20 footnote um as i recalled i i'm sorry i'm now looking at this document i think this is the document which was drafted um
02:48:31 they were about f it was it was a subset of the group that had met on the saturday um and we talked about all of these issues um
02:48:42 so so this this is a sort of composite document drafted by several people right now let's see if we can explore that a little further can we go to clg three zeros one eight nine seven three please
02:48:53 zeros one eight nine seven three please foot of page two email run uh on the 20th of june 2017. so two days before
02:49:00 before the
02:49:00 the letter was eventually sent uh and if you look at page two at the bottom there's an email um it says all sorry about the delay we had a bit of version control issue however however i
02:49:11 version control issue however however i have now incorporated the amendments including the input from nfcc as to what the frs's are expected to do beyond being informed we're not required to include advice on insulation in this document martin that's i think martin
02:49:23 document martin that's i think martin ship you raised a question about the link to part b so that it's explicit i'm content with colleen's common understanding of the terms of the body of the text however if you feel there's merit of a footnote can you add it also
02:49:34 merit of a footnote can you add it also i know that debbie's developing tests so if you can agree on behalf of bre it would be really good if you could confirm you agree your agreement with this final draft as a matter of urgency thanks very much ken knight
02:49:46 thanks very much ken knight now martin there i think is not in ship yes
02:49:50 yes i would think so yes if we go up to the next email in the chain a little further up page two we can see here is an email sent by martin ship a little bit later that morning and he writes to you colin todd and ken
02:50:01 and he writes to you colin todd and ken knight
02:50:02 knight and others and he says ken here with a proposed foot with proposed footnote i've tried to keep it as simple as possible
02:50:09 possible guards martin and the footnote is drafted by ship is let's look at it hom3045123
02:50:26 and if we go to page three
02:50:31 at the bottom in red there is the footnote
02:50:34 footnote and it ends as you can see with the words other than dwelling houses it doesn't have the words in brackets referring to all elements of the external wall buildup as we see in
02:50:45 the external wall buildup as we see in the final version i just want you to note that now then if we then go back to the email run please
02:50:54 please at
02:50:55 at clg3018718973
02:50:59 page one footer page one here comes cst todd back to martin ken sorry back to martian ship and ken knight ken
02:51:10 knight ken and his copy to you martin's footnote is great to the extent that i think we could hammer it home even further as people are confusing the insulation within the wall and the core within the ace within the acm
02:51:23 ace within the acm over the page please to that end i've added a sentence to martin's footnote and discussed it with martin who is happy hope this helps as always shout if you need any more best wishes colin
02:51:34 colin can we agree on what i'm showing you that the full for the footnote to this letter was crafted by martin shipp and colin todd colin told adding
02:51:46 and colin todd colin told adding the last sentence in the brackets apparently so i i don't remember the detail at the time no okay and then if you look at the next email up in the chain of page one set by ken knight at 1502 only to you
02:52:01 he says brian spoke to colin on this he says there is an air of denial with that part b applies to the cladding and dclg have just got it wrong it is of course not colin's view he thinks therefore
02:52:12 not colin's view he thinks therefore that this is a good opportunity to hammer it home by expanding the footnote and if you look at the response above that
02:52:19 that you say to ken knight thanks ken you see that
02:52:23 that yes
02:52:24 yes now let's get back to the footnote that we've just looked at
02:52:31 that was at hom three zeros four five one two three end of page so i'm so sorry
02:52:37 sorry bad reference um rbk three zeros five
02:52:45 rbk3015952 page two foot of page two there's the footnote let's look at it again and and particularly looking at the last sentence in the brackets there
02:52:59 looking at that is it do you accept that far from hammering home anything which had been previously known this was the very first time that the department had confirmed in any formal manner
02:53:10 formal manner that the words filler material etc were to apply to the core of a composite panel
02:53:20 in a formal sense i think that's probably true yes so this footnote was doing what you heard what had been called out for
02:53:31 what had been called out for on the 2nd of july 2014 at the cwct meeting
02:53:35 meeting and
02:53:36 and which you had undertaken to do at the 17th of march 2016 cwct meeting but had not done um and
02:53:46 um and i honestly believe the building control alliance guidance note had done that job as has become evidently hadn't my question was directed to you though
02:53:57 my question was directed to you though do you accept that this footnote was doing what you had been called out as requiring to do in july 2014 had undertaken to do in march 2016
02:54:08 2014 had undertaken to do in march 2016 but had not yet done that's true yes thank you now let's look at that final sentence where it says i'll read it again the important point to note is that paragraph 12.7 does not just apply to
02:54:19 paragraph 12.7 does not just apply to thermal insulation within the wall construction but applies to any element of the cladding system including therefore the core of acm
02:54:30 core of acm that's not right is it
02:54:36 uh it's it's not the interpretation that i had
02:54:40 i had um
02:54:42 come to um it it's more in line i guess with the building control alliance guidance note um i i must have missed that at the time yes how come
02:54:56 how did i miss it um
02:54:58 um i was probably really tired at that point i think what's lunchtime why were you tired and i hadn't gone home right
02:55:10 just to be clear you've given evidence the 12.7 in the 2006 version of adb did not and was never intended to apply
02:55:21 did not and was never intended to apply to any element of the cladding system including
02:55:26 including the external facings
02:55:32 that's right isn't it
02:55:38 i'm sorry i'm not sure if i agree with that what you just said um
02:55:44 this is the difference between the surface and and below the surface which was the whole discussion about filler and yes
02:55:50 and yes you're saying that wasn't the intention yes you told us when you gave evidence about the amendment that you made to adb in 2006 that the intention was to capture the core
02:56:01 capture the core of the acm have a composition yes but not the surface yes sorry it sounded like you're saying something different there i apologize all right
02:56:12 so do you know how this false representation of the government's position about the intention behind 12.7 came to be included in this footnote given that it
02:56:23 included in this footnote given that it does not reflect the content of the actual guidance as intended by you at the time
02:56:28 the time um it's a mistake on my part i must have missed it
02:56:33 missed it are you sure this wasn't a planned deliberate and underhanded attempt by you and those around you to rewrite history in the light of the 71 deaths at grenfell in order to protect the
02:56:44 grenfell in order to protect the government's position after the event
02:56:49 you're sure about that yes let's then turn to the final event um on the tuesday after the grenfell tower fire that is to say the 20th of june 2017 this very day
02:57:02 june 2017 this very day do you remember attending a meeting with melanie dawes the then permanent secretary
02:57:07 secretary yes
02:57:08 yes do you remember that the purpose of the meeting was for you to explain to her the relevant guidance in approved document b said that she understood it um yes
02:57:19 um yes do you remember what you told melanie dawes
02:57:22 dawes um not word for word no did you go through the text at 12.7 with her i think i did yes did you explain it to her yes
02:57:32 her yes do you remember what your explanation of that wording was um it would have been along the lines of um the the same answer i've given you in in this inquiry inquiry
02:57:43 it was melanie dawson's evidence to the inquiry when she gave it on day 259 at page two five page one five three lines eighteen to twenty one that during the meeting you acknowledged that
02:57:55 the meeting you acknowledged that because it referred to insulation it might not be clear that it also applied to other materials is her recollection correct on that um i can't remember
02:58:07 did you tell melanie dawes as you've told us in this inquiry that you weren't entirely happy with the text of 12.7 when it went in or when the changes went in in the
02:58:19 or when the changes went in in the latter part of 2006.
02:58:24 i'm not sure i don't think i did why didn't you um
02:58:30 there was a fixed amount of time uh and um
02:58:35 um i did my best to explain things as as best i could um
02:58:43 i just i i can't be sure exactly the words i used did you tell her that the particular wording had been introduced into approved document b in 2006 without any external scrutiny without
02:58:55 any external scrutiny without consultation without a definition of filler material at the last minute and under the radar um no i wouldn't have said that and i'm not sure that's entirely fair that the
02:59:07 not sure that's entirely fair that the text was drafted to some extent in response to a consultation and documents changing after a consultation is not unusual
02:59:15 unusual did you tell her that you didn't go back out to industry to ask them whether the word filler material was understood in the same way that you had intended it to be understood no no but
02:59:28 did you tell her as you uh as i think you told us that the change which was the substantive one had not been publicized in the normal way for fear at least in part that the
02:59:39 way for fear at least in part that the department would be subjected to judicial review for introducing it without proper scrutiny
02:59:47 no because i don't think that that wasn't
02:59:50 wasn't my view
02:59:51 my view then or
02:59:54 now you give her any of the background to the to how this language had come into 12.7
03:00:03 into 12.7 and the problem that it was introduced to address
03:00:09 i don't think i did was that um it was a fixed amount of time available um it's the first time i'd ever spoken to a permanent secretary yes i can making allowances
03:00:20 yes i can making allowances for that
03:00:22 for that did you not think it appropriate to give her just a little bit of your personal recollections about the background to 12.7 given given the importance that it had now assumed in the deaths of 71 people in a single
03:00:33 in the deaths of 71 people in a single incident
03:00:34 incident i briefed you as best i could at the time
03:00:37 time and i'd appreciate there may have been things that i could have said that i didn't
03:00:45 she recalls as she told us that you did mention that you had been asked to clarify the meaning of the scope of 12.7 do you remember telling her that i don't remember it at all no
03:00:57 remember it at all no do you remember telling her that you had
03:01:00 had forgotten to do so
03:01:06 well i don't think that that's that's that's true um
03:01:10 um when you told us it was he told you so you'd forgotten to clarify it after the 2000 after the second year of 2014. now the clarifica after 2014 there was the building control alliance guidance note and after 2016 i'd agreed that i'd
03:01:24 and after 2016 i'd agreed that i'd planned to amend approved document b and at that time i thought i was about to
03:01:29 did you tell her that you had been involved in a project including large-scale testing in 2001 at the bre involving acm with a polyethylene core panel which showed
03:01:41 polyethylene core panel which showed that such panels caused a raging inferno during an external wall fire um i wasn't aware of the details of the results of that test i just had a general understanding of the outcome
03:01:53 general understanding of the outcome did you tell her that in 1999 a parliamentary select committee had recommended a change to the relevant guidance such that all external war materials should be entirely non-combustible or be proven through full-scale testing not to pose
03:02:05 full-scale testing not to pose an unacceptable level of risk in terms of fire spread i doubt it right that's that's
03:02:10 that's that was
03:02:12 that was i could i could have talked through the entire history of the building regulations i suppose but i don't think that there'd have been time um i'd explained to her the provisions that were in place at the time right so you didn't think therefore to
03:02:23 right so you didn't think therefore to tell her that the recommendation made by the select committee had been rejected by government the government of the day in i may have done i don't remember doing so though
03:02:34 did you tell her that there had been long-standing concerns about the adequacy of the national classifications including class naught
03:02:41 naught as a measure of fire performance no i i i i
03:02:44 i i i i keep asking you que i'm sorry carry on did you tell her that you'd received the number of warnings about cutting fires abroad including in the uae in which acm of the pe panel had caused rapid
03:02:56 acm of the pe panel had caused rapid external fire i imagine i would have mentioned that there'd been similar problems in other countries
03:03:04 did you tell her that you'd been asked by your seniors in the department about those fires and whether those fights could happen here and without giving guarantees said that they should not in reliance on
03:03:15 reliance on approved document b i doubt it did you tell that you've been involved in
03:03:20 in meetings and exchanges in the four years between 2013 and 2017 during which industry figures including the bre
03:03:29 the bre nhbc
03:03:30 nhbc cwct
03:03:32 cwct and others had explained that the guidance in adb was not clear open to interpretation and misleading
03:03:43 and misleading particularly on the subject of whether it covered or didn't cover the combustible core of a panel such as an acm panel uh i doubt that i did what is that
03:03:54 uh i doubt that i did what is that um there wouldn't have been time
03:04:00 and presumably the same answer would applied would it to the question whether you told her that in early 2016 you've been told by a reputable or apparently reputable
03:04:12 reputable or apparently reputable cladding consultant that acmp panels were on many high-rise buildings in the uk their use was increasing and so far as he saw it the current situation was of grave concern
03:04:23 situation was of grave concern didn't tell her that either no
03:04:26 or that you'd underestimated the severity of the hazard as you'd come to realize
03:04:34 no that's probably something the realization probably came after that i imagine
03:04:42 and you didn't tell her i don't think that you'd undertaken in march 2016 to
03:04:48 to change the very guidance 12.7 which was relevant to the use of these panels which had been identified to you as poorly worded open to misinterpretation and misleading didn't tell her that
03:04:59 and misleading didn't tell her that either
03:05:01 either i'm sorry i thought you think you'd already asked me that question and and she said that i'd told her i'd been asked to clarify it
03:05:10 but i i honestly can't remember what i said so maybe yes maybe no right
03:05:17 nor did you tell her that in july 2016 only
03:05:21 only 11 months before you had lent your tacit support to nhbc's guidance document to its building control officers which expressly permitted the use of acm with the pe core if it was class b in other
03:05:32 the pe core if it was class b in other words not of limited combustibility on buildings above 18 meters no i wouldn't have mentioned that um because i i was under the impression that they were panels that had an appropriate fire
03:05:44 panels that had an appropriate fire performance to get a br 135 classification now i've provided i'm afraid rather a long list of questions of matters that i'm asking you whether you drew to her attention are you able to agree that all of those
03:05:56 are you able to agree that all of those matters that i've asked you about would have been highly pertinent and a fundamental and obvious importance for many doors to know at the time
03:06:10 i'm not sure they were at the time um i'm sure other people will think differently but at that time i i was asked to brief her on what the building regulations said and how they were
03:06:21 regulations said and how they were intended to work and that's and i did that to the best of my ability now the catalogue of things that i've just put together and asked you about can you help us understand why it was
03:06:32 can you help us understand why it was and and if i'm wrong tell me that you said nothing about these matters not simply at this meeting but at any other time
03:06:48 um well these are issues that i've discussed at various points with other people in the department
03:06:58 so is are you saying that everything i've just asked you about whether you told what what you told me any doors are matters well known to bob ledson or richard harrell
03:07:10 or richard harrell um
03:07:12 at various points over the last four years yes i would have thought so various points in piecemeal form perhaps but as a catalogue i haven't sat down and listed a catalogue knife
03:07:24 catalogue knife when you put them all together do you accept that they reveal a catalogue of failures errors and emissions on your part mr martin
03:07:34 mr martin i think to some extent yes
03:07:38 mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions yes sorry it's taken longer i had anticipated and i'm grateful to mr martin for his patience yes we'll have
03:07:49 martin for his patience yes we'll have to have a short break at this point we we will mr martin you you may be aware of this but um when council gets the end of his questions we have to have a short break yes sir um partly to let him check that he's not
03:08:01 partly to let him check that he's not left anything out that you may think that's unlikely and partly because other people are following the proceedings from other places and they may need to uh suggest questions that perhaps we should put to you so we'll
03:08:13 should put to you so we'll we'll break now we'll come back at 20 past five
03:08:16 past five at that point we'll see if there are any more questions that we need to ask you yes sir all right so would you go to the usher then please
03:08:32 mr millet i'm working on the basis of 10 minutes or to be long enough given the fact that we've had an earlier break i've had one or two through well i've been asking questions in the usual way well if it turns out that you need a bit
03:08:44 well if it turns out that you need a bit longer you can ask the i should let us know yes thank you you
03:20:17 would you ask mr martin to come back in please
03:20:29 thank you
03:20:32 all right mr martin we'll see if there's any more questions for you yes sir thank you very much yes mr chairman there are no further questions i've considered the questions we have been asked with great care and on balance decided um that
03:20:43 care and on balance decided um that we've covered a lot of ground and we've had to cut our cloth correctly and so there are no further questions i have four um mr martin other than one and it's this
03:20:54 mr martin other than one and it's this mr martin it's a question that we reserved for particular witnesses in this inquiry and i'm quite sure that you know what it is but looking back on your time going back to 1999 the bre and
03:21:05 your time going back to 1999 the bre and looking back on the seven and a half days of evidence that we've covered together
03:21:10 together is there anything that you would have done differently um yes sir um
03:21:17 i find it difficult to express how sorry i am
03:21:20 i am and for what's happened to the people at grenfell tower [Music]
03:21:25 [Music] um
03:21:30 over the last few months i've been looking through the evidence um and the documents
03:21:35 documents and when you line them up in the way that we've done over the last seven days um
03:21:41 um it became clear to me that there were a number of occasions where
03:21:48 where i could have um
03:21:53 um potentially prevented this happening
03:22:01 [Music]
03:22:04 i think i'd become
03:22:08 over time i'd become entrenched in a position where i was focused on what i could do to improve the approved document
03:22:21 and
03:22:23 didn't realize just how big the problem was and
03:22:34 i think there were times when perhaps i would have done um i think of the meeting in 2014 with uh the cwct
03:22:44 the cwct if i'd been there in the second part of the meeting um
03:22:50 with uh dr coldwell there i think between the two of us perhaps we would have realized um
03:22:58 um how severe the risk really was um
03:23:09 and i think if i'd have realized that i would have escalated the issue and perhaps we could have um
03:23:19 done something to prevent um what happened to the people of grenfell tower
03:23:31 what we will say is that
03:23:37 the approach the government the successive governments had to regulation had had an impact on the way we worked the resources that we had available
03:23:49 the resources that we had available and perhaps a mindset that we'd adopted as a team and myself in particular
03:23:56 um and i think as a result of that i ended up being the single point of failure in the department um
03:24:07 um and i think that's why when i missed that point um
03:24:15 that's that's why i think we failed to stop this happening
03:24:20 happening so that's something i'm bitterly sorry
03:24:24 thank you sir thank you very much mr martin thank you very much for that answer and for the entirety of your evidence on behalf of the inquiry
03:24:35 your evidence on behalf of the inquiry we are extremely grateful to you for coming here and giving your assistance to us so thank you very much thank you mr martin we're not going to let you go without saying a profound thank you for all the time and the evidence that
03:24:47 all the time and the evidence that you've given us you've given evidence for longer than any other witness and i think we've all we all understand how difficult that's been for you at many points during the
03:24:58 been for you at many points during the seven and a half days you've been in the witness box i think all three of us would like you to know how helpful it's been to have heard your evidence and we're very grateful to you for giving up so much
03:25:10 grateful to you for giving up so much time to
03:25:11 time to to come and talk to us so thank you very much indeed and now you're free to go thank you sir
03:25:29 thank you mr millet um well that's certainly it for today yes and tomorrow we have another witness we do we have um lord wharton of yarm
03:25:40 we do we have um lord wharton of yarm tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock can i just say to the panel and to the transcriber and to ollie who operates the documents that i'm extremely grateful to all of you for sitting late on this occasion and finishing mr martin's evidence i know
03:25:52 finishing mr martin's evidence i know it's been a long day yes well i'd certainly like to endorse your your thanks because uh we do trespass on the goodwill of those who keep us running
03:26:01 running um on all as in all respects so thank you all very much indeed 10 o'clock tomorrow then please thank you
03:26:19 you