Bob Ledsom, former Deputy Director at DCLG, gives evidence about the K15 BBA certificate issue in July 2014, the department's failure to investigate the extent of K15 usage in buildings, and admits to placing 'naive' trust in assurances from NHBC and BBA.
00:00:20 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:24 hearing today we're going to begin by picking up the evidence of mr bob ledson which we had to interrupt last week so i'm going to ask mr ledson to come back in
00:00:42 good morning mr ledson good morning thank you for coming back i'm sorry we've had to get you back to finish your evidence but yes
00:00:49 yes and i understand circumstantially yes thank you very much yes mr militarist morning mr chairman good morning to you members of the panel good morning to you mr ledson good morning good morning now it may seem a
00:01:00 morning good morning now it may seem a long time ago but last week when we finished i was asking you some questions about paragraph 220 of your witness statement can we please have that back up at clg three zeroes one nine four six
00:01:12 up at clg three zeroes one nine four six five page 57 and i'll just remind you because of the time that's elapsed since you were last sitting there of what we were on
00:01:24 were on and you were answering the question here in your statement about the awareness of the department of concerns about the testing of cladding products including acm panels and insulation materials and
00:01:35 acm panels and insulation materials and the reliability of the test results product information and what steps were taken and you say there
00:01:41 there uh i'm only aware of one specific case which was brought to our attention in july 2014
00:01:46 july 2014 of the potential misclassification of an insulation product leading to the issue of an incorrect certificate by the certification body and that was the bba
00:01:57 and that was the bba and in the last two sentences of that paragraph you say the bba informed us of the actions which they had taken as set out in the email exchanges i was informed by brian martin of the case at the time and agreed the actions he took
00:02:11 the time and agreed the actions he took now um that was about k-15 and you told us uh that you had discussed the bba's response to that that problem with brian brian martin and richard harrell and it
00:02:23 brian martin and richard harrell and it was your collective view that as you said you had to accept the assurance that you received and that was a day 242 page 219 line 18. now that's where we left off yes now
00:02:36 now that's where we left off yes now let's also look at what you were looking at i think by way of the bba certificates uh and that is uh all those are at clg
00:02:48 at clg eight 50687 and
00:02:50 and six eight eight let's have those up let's have them on the screen at the same same time clg five zero six eight seven and six
00:03:01 clg five zero six eight seven and six eight eight there they are and they were sent to you by email as we know on the 11th of july by brian martin as you can see the dates at the bottom on the right hand side 27th of october
00:03:14 on the right hand side 27th of october 2008 amended in april 2010 in the in the very small italics on the right-hand side of the foot of the grey box and on the left-hand side 17th of december
00:03:25 left-hand side 17th of december 2013
00:03:27 2013 second issue yes yeah now
00:03:31 now you told us that you would imagine you would have looked at them to understand what was being talked about that was page 207 of day 242 lines three to nine uh i'm coming to a question um
00:03:43 uh i'm coming to a question um mr harrell told us on day 244 yesterday at page 89 lines 14 to 50 that he recalls reviewing these certificates with you and mr martin at some stage
00:03:57 with you and mr martin at some stage now my first question is is that correct um
00:04:05 i i'm not sure obviously what mr harrell meant in terms of review i do not recall an in-depth interrogation
00:04:16 an in-depth interrogation of
00:04:17 of these certificates it may be that we did go into them in quite a degree of detail i do not recall that and certainly i'm not necessarily sure that all of that d i would have understood all of that detail
00:04:28 would have understood all of that detail at the time do you remember the upshot of the discussions a conclusion well i think the upshot of the discussion was to i don't know the timing of this in relation to the um email exchanges with
00:04:39 relation to the um email exchanges with which mr martin had with the bba 11th of july 2014
00:04:43 july 2014 which would have been uh sorry with that the email exchanges with yes within the nhbc
00:04:50 right so my understanding of the position or my recollection of the edition rather is that um we pursued this into two folders as
00:05:01 we pursued this into two folders as you'd have already identified a um to follow up with the nhbc about what they were doing and then secondly on the back of that information provided by the nhbc we
00:05:13 nhbc we got in touch with the or mr martin rather got in touch with the the bba to understand the bba's position on this certificate how familiar were you
00:05:25 certificate how familiar were you in the as a result of the discussion that you don't recall but might have had with richard harrell and brian martin with the technical defects in the 27th
00:05:38 with the technical defects in the 27th of october 2008 certificate um i would not say that i was familiar in particular with that with the detail of the of the deficiencies in the certificate
00:05:49 certificate now um let's go to the 11th of july clg 50686
00:06:03 you can see that the email at the bottom of the screen is from steve evans to brian martin copied to diane marshall and neil smith of the nhbc 11th of july
00:06:14 and neil smith of the nhbc 11th of july 2014 at 14 11 and at the top of the screen if we scroll back to that please also the 11th of july
00:06:23 of july at 15 49
00:06:26 at 15 49 uh brian martin essentially forwards this to you and richard harrell you see that yes uh and i'll come back to what he says in
00:06:37 uh and i'll come back to what he says in that covering email in a moment first looking at the email on the second part of the screen if we can just scroll up please or down
00:06:48 if we can just scroll up please or down rather to see that email in full um just looking at it it starts um dear brian i hope you are well neil smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as i've been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc
00:07:01 been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc this is an issue that nhbc are aware of and have been in discussions with industry about it for some time that's the first paragraph do you remember whether you read this with care
00:07:13 remember whether you read this with care when brian martin forwarded it to you well i obviously read it to understand the issue that was um was being raised look at page two please the first
00:07:24 look at page two please the first paragraph on that page
00:07:28 where he says there is no reason to suspect the buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it
00:07:39 kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
00:07:45 out and then it goes on kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they are not able to do this we will begin the process of
00:07:56 do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca and the foreign rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing
00:08:08 parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions now it's that first sentence i'm interested in mr ledson which i read to you um
00:08:16 um did you understand from that that kingspan was claiming that k15 was suitable for use over 18 meters in a generic sense
00:08:27 meters in a generic sense despite the information in the same email that testing to date does not bear this out
00:08:35 so
00:08:38 given the first taking the first sentence with the second sentence i think that's probably an inference i would have drawn from reading that paragraph well it's it's certainly
00:08:49 paragraph well it's it's certainly well let me put it this way it's an inference you would have drawn i can see why you say that but was it an inference that you did draw i think it probably is yes yes and what was done but by the department to address that
00:09:01 but by the department to address that well um the first thing obviously was to ask to be kept informed of the
00:09:08 of the further testing which kingspan had undertaken to carry out with the with the nhbc or and then alert the nhbc to the results
00:09:20 and then alert the nhbc to the results and then secondly the uh we followed up or mr martin followed up with the with the bba right was
00:09:29 was um
00:09:30 um anything done to contact uh kingspan itself no
00:09:36 no why is that
00:09:39 i think at this stage we placed a reliance in the work that the uh that sorry
00:09:45 sorry at this stage i think think that we felt confident that the nhbc had got a grip on the issue
00:09:53 issue and that they would be following up vigorously with kingspan and therefore we probably felt that uh when with hindsight this possibly was a you know something we we we should
00:10:05 a you know something we we we should have done we didn't feel the need to contact kingspan direct did you carry out all calls to have carried out any checks or queries on the product literature that kingspan was
00:10:17 the product literature that kingspan was using
00:10:18 using not of the product literature no why is that um
00:10:24 um well i think that we would have expected king span to have been acting responsibly and to have um ensured that any product literature that it was producing with
00:10:36 literature that it was producing with regard to this product properly reflected
00:10:39 reflected uh the results of the the tests which had been undertaken and which made very clear the limits of application for um which would be which would have been associated with that
00:10:51 been associated with that well you'd seen the bba certificates which did not do that did they well the bba certificate um may not have done that
00:11:00 done that but i would have expected kingspan as a responsible manufacturer to have uh appreciated that and made sure that it's um any product literature properly reflected
00:11:12 reflected the um
00:11:13 the um the the bba certificate um
00:11:16 um why did you assume or think that kingspan would act as a
00:11:22 as a responsible manufacturer in light of uh one the content of the bba certificate upon which it had been trading since october 2008 as you by this stage knew
00:11:33 this stage knew and secondly by reference to the fact that it was claiming the use of suitability of k-15 generically as you inferred over 18 meters
00:11:46 well i would have liked to have thought that an organization as big as kingspan would act responsibly in this matter and perhaps that um
00:11:59 and perhaps that um perhaps frankly that was naive and i would accept that
00:12:03 that um
00:12:08 yeah does that naivety explain why you and nobody in your department took any steps to contact trading standards or the advertising standards authority well i think that we would have thought um
00:12:20 i think that we would have thought um whether
00:12:21 whether um
00:12:22 um trading standards or the advertising um sorry
00:12:26 sorry advertising authority would have been the right authorities in this regard i think
00:12:31 think um
00:12:32 um our first focus would have been on on building control um and um personally i would have taken some comfort in what it said in the last sentence of
00:12:43 in what it said in the last sentence of that
00:12:45 that paragraph which refers to the fact that um the nhbc had already informed the bca our
00:12:53 our private sector approved inspectors more widely and and the labc and the fire and rescue service about the issue
00:13:02 the issue now i fully accept that we did not pursue that directly we did not make direct contact with those organizations and again in hindsight that is something
00:13:14 and again in hindsight that is something that i can see that we should have done even if only to double check that um what the nhbc had told the labc etc was in line with our
00:13:25 the labc etc was in line with our understanding of of the issue and and that was a um that was an omission did you understand from this email that a bba certificate in fact the one we've
00:13:36 a bba certificate in fact the one we've looked at asserting that kingspan's k-15 was suitable for use above 18 meters generically they've been in circulation uh for
00:13:45 uh for well since 2008. well
00:13:48 well i mean clearly that is that is what the certificate says did you understand from that that nhbc had apparently relied on the terms of that certificate and had been accepting k-15
00:14:00 certificate and had been accepting k-15 generically for use at height for many years
00:14:05 i'm not sure how far the signaling some significance of that point registered with me um i had been i
00:14:13 i i would guess trying to recall my thought processes at this point in time or rather what i think my thought processes would have been that um clearly
00:14:25 would have been that um clearly there was an issue which the nhbc had recognized and it was acting responsibly in response to that um and that they had a grip on
00:14:37 um and that they had a grip on the issue
00:14:38 the issue um though i fully recognize obviously that um you know there is five plus six years worth of history there
00:14:47 there but i think
00:14:52 i suppose at this point in time i didn't i did not have an appreciation of
00:14:58 of the um
00:15:00 the um the number of buildings that could have been covered by by this and that is clearly a question which it was remiss not to ask into in terms of to get a more detailed response from
00:15:11 response from either the nhbc or the bba or indeed if you thought to contact kingspan kingspan
00:15:18 was the first sentence of this paragraph here not of a red flag to you that the nhbc
00:15:29 was
00:15:31 either going too soft on kingspan or or or not understanding the regulatory regime
00:15:40 no i don't think it was um i don't think it would have raised a red flag with me um i possibly placed too much um on the words of that email in terms
00:15:53 um on the words of that email in terms of a level of assurance or comfort which
00:15:57 which as i said two minutes ago perhaps was um
00:16:01 um optimistic indeed possibly naive of me to have done that um so
00:16:09 um so i think reading this
00:16:12 this is that yes there has been a problem with the certificate um but we think that with a with further testing and therefore which would ensure that um although the
00:16:24 which would ensure that um although the original certificate was too wide in its application that would not be
00:16:28 be a problem because the testing would uh bear that out as per what is said in the second clause of this um this email of this paragraph of this email yeah so i'm really interested in the the first
00:16:40 i'm really interested in the the first sentence
00:16:41 sentence which we can read yes and one can interpolate did it not strike you as absurd when you read it
00:16:49 read it no it did not strike me as absurd it didn't strike you as absurd for an hbc to say that there's no reason to suspect that buildings built with k-15 are at
00:17:00 that buildings built with k-15 are at risk even though there's no testing which had been done to show that they were not at risk well there's a there's a cause and effect there um i mean the testing had not been carried out clearly no that's a
00:17:12 carried out clearly no that's a statement of of fact but it was quite possible that the testing would indeed have revealed that um the certificate um as issued would have been suitable
00:17:24 as issued would have been suitable for um for those other wall systems which at the time were not covered by the specific bsa414 test indeed referenced in the in in the certificate so
00:17:35 in in the certificate so um i don't regard it as a third an hbc would be you know a responsible building control body
00:17:44 body and i would expect them to on a matter like this
00:17:47 like this uh in response to a query from the department to be very careful and clear and accurate in what they told us would you not think it irresponsible of
00:17:59 would you not think it irresponsible of a building control officer to pass
00:18:03 to pass the use of a material above 18 meters on the basis that it hadn't been tested yet for reaction to fire but would be in the future that would be an act of the greatest irresponsibility surely mr lenson well i think what uh i mean the
00:18:16 lenson well i think what uh i mean the building in terms of building control offices they would have had the evidence of the certificate in front of them and they would have had to have worked from that that evidence in terms of individual building control officers so
00:18:27 individual building control officers so i don't think this is a question of individual building control officers being irresponsible in this matter um
00:18:35 um i think that there are legitimate questions
00:18:39 questions as to
00:18:41 how far i mean we and maybe the nhbc also were accepting at this point of what kingspan were telling them telling them and then us through through
00:18:53 telling them and then us through through the nhbc
00:18:54 the nhbc and as i said with hindsight perhaps we should have and in effect done more inquiries off our own batch rather than relying on third-party
00:19:05 third-party um communications so the reason i suggest this would be or should have been a red flag to you was that the the lack of testing carried out to date which didn't support the absence of risk
00:19:16 which didn't support the absence of risk was the very reason to suspect that buildings built with king's span k-15 might be at risk that's the point but that didn't strike you at the time um well it didn't strike me in those terms
00:19:28 well it didn't strike me in those terms and um
00:19:32 can we um go
00:19:37 back a page please to page one uh
00:19:44 and you can see in the second paragraph there of the email in the last sentence that there's a reference to the labc we understand the labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material
00:19:56 registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters did you seek to obtain a copy of the labc certificate i personally did not why is that um
00:20:07 um well firstly um that would have been something which um um i would have asked mr martin to investigate with the labc did you did you ask them i can't recall so i would not say that i did
00:20:19 not say that i did the second point is that i would have noted from the material we've just looked at
00:20:25 looked at that
00:20:26 that the nhbc
00:20:28 the nhbc via the bca would have been in touch with labc and therefore i would have presumed again um didn't check this and that was a on a mission
00:20:38 mission and again maybe can be accused of being too optimistic or naive about this would have expected labc to respond in terms of checking what their
00:20:49 in terms of checking what their registered details said and whether it was whether what it said was appropriate to the particular circumstances and the particular test results
00:21:06 let's go to the top of the uh email chain please we can see brian martin's email that i showed you briefly earlier this morning in which he forwards steve evans's email
00:21:17 in which he forwards steve evans's email to him
00:21:18 to him to you and he says this richard bob see below it would appear that a number of tall apartment buildings have been insulated using combustible insulation materials when perhaps they shouldn't have been
00:21:29 perhaps they shouldn't have been this appears to be due to a quotes error on quotes in a bba certificate for this type of insulation nhbc are aware and are working with the manufacturer to see if this is a problem or not
00:21:40 if this is a problem or not if it is a problem some blocks may need to have their cladding replaced brackets possibly a lot of them close brackets i've asked nhbc to keep us informed
00:21:51 i've asked nhbc to keep us informed now in light of what you can see there brian martin's warning that they were quotes possibly a lot of them did you take steps
00:22:02 did you take steps to establish whether there were any such blocks and if so how many um no
00:22:10 um no um i did not why not at this stage i think um i was thinking we needed to discover more about what was going on or what had gone on um and therefore that at this stage the
00:22:22 um and therefore that at this stage the best course of action would have been was to
00:22:25 was to continue the dialogue with the nhbc and also to contact the uh the bba so
00:22:36 not investigating the presence of k-15 across the built environment no not investigating with um the labc how many
00:22:47 how many uh
00:22:48 uh high-rise buildings with k-15 had been signed off since 2008 and no not investigating that very fact with the nhbc itself who of course had as you as we've heard
00:23:00 who of course had as you as we've heard a very large share of the ai approved inspector market if one can call it that no i would have expected um that information if um you know to have come from the
00:23:11 if um you know to have come from the nhbc but i accept um
00:23:15 um uh from the email correspondence that i've seen that we didn't ask that explicit question of them right um you can see that they there's a contingency written in or conditionality
00:23:28 contingency written in or conditionality written into brian martin's email at what stage and on the basis of what specifically did you satisfy yourself that despite all you had learned there were no blocks which would need to have their cladding replaced
00:23:41 their cladding replaced um well i think that
00:23:45 in some later correspondence as i was uh i had understood that um the problems or the misapplication of the bba certificate had been
00:23:57 of the bba certificate had been notified
00:23:59 notified to
00:23:59 to um
00:24:01 um to the manufacturer and that's our action was being taken in terms of then informing um
00:24:08 um or looking at whether this was a real problem for for some buildings but the only way it would it would not be a real problem isn't this correct
00:24:20 isn't this correct it is that if every single cladding system underwent a system test under bsa414 parts one or two and satisfied the br 135
00:24:31 and satisfied the br 135 well abs absolutely yes i accept that um the only way to have got certainty would have been to done to have done something similar
00:24:39 similar um to
00:24:41 um to the action which the department took post-greenville in terms of the build building safety program which of course would have a muslim is a massive undertaking and riley so um
00:24:52 um well the question i really have is why wasn't that done on your learning from mr martin that there was at least a risk that in the built environment there were
00:25:03 the built environment there were possibly a lot of blocks that might need to have their cladding replaced um well
00:25:08 well i mean looking at this with hindsight i
00:25:12 i would accept that we should have thought about what potential scenarios could have been and what we could have done um in response to those and that
00:25:24 um in response to those and that we took and i took too much on trust
00:25:28 trust what was being the information that was being fed back to us from the bba and the nhbc now whether we could have done something similar to the building
00:25:39 done something similar to the building safety program at that point in time um with all that that would have entailed
00:25:46 entailed i don't know but at the very least i would accept that we should have given um serious and proper consideration to that option and that was um no doubt you would ask me about escalation and that
00:25:58 would ask me about escalation and that we should have escalated uh that to um higher up the office for a consideration higher up the office yes how high well i mean certainly to my director and it may well given
00:26:12 my director and it may well given if we were suggesting something like a building safety program which would involve major expenditure major resource allocation
00:26:22 potentially even something like the sort of you know the short-term testing program that we the department put in place immediately post-grantful to ascertain whether um you know what systems
00:26:33 systems what actually was on in the systems um that that probably would have needed to have gone higher up the department and certainly would have required ministerial um sign off now the answers you've just given me to the
00:26:44 the answers you've just given me to the last few questions which i'm grateful are hindsight questions yes what did you not know
00:26:54 not know on the 11th of july 2014 that you now know well i didn't know the extent of the problem
00:27:01 problem um
00:27:03 um sorry i did not know the extent of the problem in terms of the number of buildings which potentially had been uh where the certificate had been used erroneously
00:27:14 certificate had been used erroneously um
00:27:16 um frankly i probably did not know at this point in time the
00:27:21 the the details of how the system uh worked i.e how information was derived from an individual bs 8414
00:27:32 individual bs 8414 test
00:27:34 test how
00:27:36 how results from those tests could or could not
00:27:39 not be extrapolated and used in other situations which no doubt we may want to come and talk about and i certainly was clearly unaware of
00:27:52 and i certainly was clearly unaware of some of the background to the way in which this certificate had been
00:27:59 or the test on which this certificate had been based the way in which the results of those of those tests had been expressed in the language used in the certificates particularly the 2008
00:28:10 certificates particularly the 2008 certificate can we go briefly please to clg 3014889
00:28:23 this is an email from brian martin to you and richard harrell on the 15th of june 2017 at 1703. that's the day after the fire at grenfell tower yes and brian martin uh sends you the same email chain
00:28:35 martin uh sends you the same email chain that we've just been looking at from the 11th of july 2014 yes and says this is connected with the bba issue what was the context of that email um
00:28:47 um quite apart from the fire obviously but well i think at this point in time we all collectively and i in particular was trying to pull together strands of information
00:28:58 information about events which might bear on what had happened at grenville and in particular and the wider implications so i see this as any probably a request
00:29:11 i see this as any probably a request which i presume i made verbally to um to mr martin or mr harrell and then to mr martin for a reminder of
00:29:21 of this particular issue because i am i'm guessing i can't recall but i'm guessing
00:29:26 guessing this is this it's something there's something in my back of my mind we've come across something
00:29:32 something please remind me so i i see it purely in those those terms now um
00:29:40 now um it was mr harold's evidence at day 244 page 1 3 4 9 13 that there was a separate policy team in the division uh your division that had oversight of the building control systems yes you
00:29:52 the building control systems yes you also said you managed that team is that correct it is correct it is correct what team was it what was the team okay so it was a small team and the responsibility of that team
00:30:04 and the responsibility of that team was um yes oversight of the building control system but in terms of the policy and regulatory framework i mean as you'll be aware um there are a lot of procedural requirements in the building
00:30:16 procedural requirements in the building regulations and the approved inspectors regulations and indeed there are the charging regulations as well so that team's responsibility was to look after those aspects
00:30:28 look after those aspects of the building regulations i.e the procedural elements of the regulations and also the competent persons schemes arrangements and who was on that team
00:30:40 and who was on that team gosh so
00:30:42 gosh so um there were two grade sevens um anthea nicholson i think you've come across emails from her before she dealt with the competent person's scheme ian drummond who dealt with the building
00:30:55 ian drummond who dealt with the building regulations procedural arrangements and approved inspectors they were supported by from memory one seo and one heo probably on a sort of
00:31:06 seo and one heo probably on a sort of flexible basis working across the two
00:31:09 the two and there may have been some administrative support as well at this time going back to july 2014 and on your receipt of the email did you
00:31:20 email did you did you notify the policy team uh that there may be the problems uh with building control as a matter of policy building control accepting the use of k15 at height generically without a supporting test
00:31:32 a supporting test no not at this time can i just maybe just provide a little bit of context in terms of our relationship with building control bodies our sorry the
00:31:43 building control bodies our sorry the department's relationship with building control bodies um i mean it will not have escaped your attention that the building act provides very few powers if any other than a default power for the
00:31:54 any other than a default power for the secretary of state to take action in respect of local authorities the building act clearly places the responsibility for enforcing the building act and the building regulations onto local authorities there
00:32:06 regulations onto local authorities there are no powers in the secretary of state in the in the building act as it's currently
00:32:12 currently for for example the secretary of state directs local government on this matter there is no there are no powers even for the secretary of state to demand information from local authorities on this matter
00:32:25 from local authorities on this matter the only power for the secretary of state is a in effect um default power to take over a failing sorry it's not even take over a failing building control department it would be
00:32:36 building control department it would be to intervene in a very specific case where the relevant building control body was in dereliction of its duties in relation to that case so um
00:32:47 um our legal powers to do anything were very limited um we were working at this point um in under the coalition government under a general policy
00:32:59 government under a general policy which slightly i'm simply flying and may be caricaturing which is that central government should get out of local governments here and let local government get on with it the localism
00:33:10 the localism policy
00:33:11 policy so
00:33:12 so there was a very limited ability for us to certainly sort of intervene with building control bodies if there were
00:33:23 there were problems with um with the way in which building control bodies
00:33:28 bodies were conducting their business obviously um
00:33:31 um this was a big issue um
00:33:36 we did look at whether we could do things in the discussion document process as part of our looking at the building control system
00:33:45 system um but we were limited there because any significant changes would require changes to the primary legislation which were not available an option not available to us
00:33:55 to us so i appreciate that's been a bit of a digression but um i did not inform mr drummond whose side it would have been on because i'm not at all sure that mr drummond could have
00:34:06 drummond could have done anything all we could have done and i accept that we did not do that and that was an omission we've been to inform building control bodies
00:34:18 building control bodies of
00:34:19 of the problem with this particular certificate um and um you know make sure that they're in their their building control officers were aware of so said problems
00:34:32 so said problems uh
00:34:33 uh i think that would have been a legitimate thing for us to do to make use of for example a circular letter we've discussed previously um we did not do that i regret that i think again
00:34:44 i think again um
00:34:45 um probably i personally maybe we collectively placed too much
00:34:53 comfort or assurance on the fact that as per the email exchanges the nhbc had been in touch with for example labc by the bca and therefore the labc was
00:35:05 by the bca and therefore the labc was responding but i absolutely accept if you ask me why didn't someone phone up the labc yes it would have been a simple straightforward thing to have done um we didn't do that i can't find a
00:35:17 um we didn't do that i can't find a reason for that and i'm i i regret that that was on a mission and i was party to that omission i mean is there just in that last part of that answer is it the case that the department
00:35:31 is it the case that the department really relied on bodies like the nhbc or the labc or the bca to to do its work in making sure that building control officers
00:35:43 building control officers were alive to a particular problem well i don't know who you mean by it's in that context because as i said the department's position was quite limited but i accept the point that we did
00:35:54 but i accept the point that we did rely heavily on the labc the nhbc the bca other approved inspectors siccare for example to be doing um a good robust job
00:36:06 to be doing um a good robust job in ensuring that um collectively and building control was on top of issues like this because this isn't an issue which is private
00:36:17 this isn't an issue which is private sector or public sector specific that they were on top of this issue that appropriate guidance was being issued that
00:36:27 that they were ensuring that the constituent bodies i individual local authority building control departments or individual approved inspectors were properly
00:36:37 properly ensuring that their individual building control officers were aware and able to and responding appropriately we
00:36:46 we we discussed devolved the devolve system i think when i gave evidence last week we were operating in that devolved system
00:36:55 system personally we felt our hands were pretty tied
00:36:59 tied in how we could deal with building control bodies
00:37:05 could we have pushed the boundaries further
00:37:08 further i think the answer to that must be yes why didn't we push the boundaries further
00:37:14 further i think it was just the mindset frankly that we were we were in which um um was was was was not as challenging perhaps as it could and indeed
00:37:26 perhaps as it could and indeed should have been on some occasions would it be fair to describe it as complacency no i would not refer to it as complacency what i would say is that we
00:37:37 what i would say is that we we placed a reliance on a system operating in the way the system was meant to
00:37:42 meant to operate
00:37:43 operate as set out and enshrined in the parent legislation and
00:37:49 and um
00:37:50 um i mean clearly i mean you know we only only have to read the first page of dame judith hackett's report to realize that that um assumption was was badly
00:38:01 um assumption was was badly misplaced
00:38:03 misplaced and and i i regret that we we you know we it took that report to really uncover that and provide the impetus for the very important
00:38:14 very important reforms which are currently going through the house can we then go back to the minutes of the cwct fire group meeting of the 2nd of july 2014. those are at clg 3019336
00:38:27 of july 2014. those are at clg 3019336 and i'd like to go to page 3 with you please and there's a heading there combustibility of insulation you see that yes
00:38:37 yes and it says this limited combustibility insulation should be used above 18 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of adb flaws 12.7 but other materials
00:38:48 flaws 12.7 but other materials principally foil faced phenolic foam are often used in rain screen walls there is a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility in other cases building
00:39:00 combustibility in other cases building control officers are permitting the use of class naught materials making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility insulation higher standards of thermal insulation
00:39:12 higher standards of thermal insulation are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation and in some cases this can only be achieved within the designated wall zone by use of combustible insulation architects are unaware of the problem
00:39:24 architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material
00:39:32 material now that discussion there is not about the misclassification of a particular product as a one-off error of by the bba is it no no it's about an industry-wide confusion between class naught on the
00:39:44 confusion between class naught on the one hand and limited combustibility on the other isn't it well it's a discussion yeah yes yes were you aware of that confusion or any discussions about it before the 2nd of july 2014.
00:39:57 um well i was not aware of that confusion um it's the second of july this than the date of this meeting yes yes and i was not aware of that and i didn't see these
00:40:08 not aware of that and i didn't see these minutes i hadn't seen these minutes at the time either now brian martin was at the meeting or at least part of the meeting uh
00:40:18 uh and he says he received a copy of the minute
00:40:21 minute right where would that minute be filed well i would have expected mr martin to have filed it on the relevant files relating to his area of work part b right would you have had access to file b
00:40:33 have had access to file b um in theory yes sorry i'll rephrase that the um there was a divisional filing system so on the basis that information um was filed correctly then yes i would have had
00:40:44 correctly then yes i would have had access to it as any anybody else in the division would have had access to it right and
00:40:49 right and [Music]
00:40:51 [Music] would you routinely as part of your the way you worked have looked at the minute no i wouldn't i would have only looked at if if it had been specifically drawn
00:41:03 at if if it had been specifically drawn to my attention so can we take it that brian martin did not draw the minute to your attention not that i can recall now at any stage ever
00:41:12 ever well not until um after the grenfell fire right so i take it from that answer not during the discussions during july in the context of
00:41:23 during july in the context of brian martin's own um
00:41:26 um discussions with nhbc about k-15 not that i recall right
00:41:31 right do you accept looking at the minute now that if you had seen it or have been told about the discussions on the page there that it might have become apparent to you that there was a wider problem um
00:41:41 um well i would have liked to have thought that yes i would have wanted to understand exactly what this um was about um
00:41:49 um and what exactly the issues were with regard to the um statement about the confusion of class zero with uh with limited combustibility and and i would have liked to have thought that
00:42:00 thought that i might want that would then have i would have asked for
00:42:04 asked for uh or looked in more detail at what um adb clause 12 7 says and sought to understand what the intention of that clause in the context of the rest of adb um section 12
00:42:17 context of the rest of adb um section 12 was and whether um it was delivering that intention or or not
00:42:23 or not right given the way you you and brian martin worked at the time would you have expected him to have told you at least an outline about what this paragraph these two paragraphs are saying certainly the first that there's a degree of ignorance
00:42:35 first that there's a degree of ignorance in the industry um
00:42:39 um what i would have thought if mr martin felt that this was a real problem that either directly or through mr harrell he would have he would have told me right
00:42:49 let me see
00:42:55 now in paragraph 220 of your statement you say that um this was followed up by brian martin do you know what the final outcome was um
00:43:06 um the final outcome was i think there was some exchanges with the bba which i think
00:43:12 think provided
00:43:13 provided from recollection um
00:43:16 um provided me with some comfort that the bba also were on top of this issue that it was a one-off issue it had been dealt with and that they were taking they had been taking
00:43:27 were taking they had been taking appropriate action to inform those who needed
00:43:29 needed to be informed did you form that conclusion as a result only of your own study of what the bba john alban was saying about what had been done it being
00:43:41 about what had been done it being attributable to human error or did you form that conclusion as a result of what brian martin told you um well
00:43:51 um well i think i was copied in i certainly saw at about the time or surely thereafter the emails or the email exchanges that mr martin had
00:44:02 mr martin had with mr album without um knowing exactly what their email said i don't know whether i could have drawn that conclusion from what mr alvin had said or um from talking with mr
00:44:14 had said or um from talking with mr martin i think it probably would have been a combination of the two realistically now um were you aware that steve evans nhbc had updated brian martin on the 15th of august 2014
00:44:26 15th of august 2014 and i summarized to tell him that kingspan had carried out two further tests and that the full results of those tests would be available within the next two months um
00:44:37 um i think i was probably aware of follow-up i don't know you can help me as to whether i was copied in on any email correspondence at that time which would have enabled me to read what progress
00:44:49 to read what progress had happened i think i think not but let's just check with you clg 3019253 please uh which is the 15th of august 2014 emails
00:45:00 2014 emails um you can see that there is an email from steve evans to brian martin off that date it's not copy to you no um but were you aware of the email or the content of it further meeting with
00:45:11 content of it further meeting with kingspan
00:45:12 kingspan two further tests carried out at bre um
00:45:16 um promised to engage arab i i cannot recall um i cannot recall being shown or told this email told about this email
00:45:27 email now that i'm looking at it i would have been surprised if mr martin hadn't um mentioned this that he'd had further follow up with the nhbc and in broad terms what was happening right
00:45:40 terms what was happening right looking at the third paragraph there you can see that steve evans sends brian martin a copy of the bca guidance note that's technical guidance note 18 on the use of combustible cladding materials yes um do you remember
00:45:53 yes um do you remember seeing that technical guidance note 18 at the time i can't recall that right let's then move on to um december of that year clg one three zero six eight eight nine
00:46:05 eight nine these are minutes from a bca technical liaison group meeting of the 8th of december 2014 and you can see steve evans was in the chair
00:46:16 chair um
00:46:17 um have you seen these minutes before
00:46:21 before i don't believe i have right so you didn't see them at the time i certainly didn't see them at the time we know that they were sent to richard harrell on the 15th of april 2015 with the agenda for the next meeting of that group
00:46:33 the next meeting of that group let me just show you that clg one triple zero six eight eight four
00:46:41 and it's the top email on the yeah on the screen steve evans to all the members and you can see richard harrell is in there as the penultimate um
00:46:49 um recipient yes uh papers for tomorrow's meeting
00:46:54 meeting and uh you can see that um that's going to happen on the 16th
00:46:59 16th yes uh and the papers are sent one of the papers was the minutes of the previous meeting the 8th of december 2014. so it looks as if those minutes would have come into the department my
00:47:10 have come into the department my question for you is would those minutes have been circulated or filed in some way within the department um i would have anticipated that they would have been filed i don't think that they would have
00:47:21 i don't think that they would have necessarily been circulated let's go to clg one triple zero six eight eight nine then and the minutes themselves that we looked at a moment ago uh there is the date eighth december
00:47:34 uh there is the date eighth december 2014 and the attendees and the required column and comments and progress you see that yes but if we go please to page four item 12 point naught you can see there it says use of combustible materials in cladding
00:47:47 combustible materials in cladding systems to buildings over 18 meters se that's steve evans nhbc outlined the work carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to to allowing policy to allowing polyurethane
00:47:59 allowing policy to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters sebt to discuss further outside of the meeting
00:48:08 meeting confirmation of any actions to be fed back to the group bt is barry turner yeah of labc um and st essie is steve evans would you agree that those notes would tend to indicate in clear terms that the bca
00:48:20 indicate in clear terms that the bca were working with steve evans of nhbc not to limit but to permit to allow the use of polyurethane type insulation materials to be used over 18 meters
00:48:33 to be used over 18 meters i would certainly accept that that is um an inference to be drawn from that second um second sentence i think the only
00:48:41 only comment i would make is that i think as um
00:48:47 as was mentioned in one of the earlier exchanges um
00:48:53 the energy efficiency requirements that were coming through in part l and um an update to cartel had recently been coming to come into force were
00:49:07 the polyurethane type insulation was a type of insulation which might be needed to be used to ensure that the partel requirements are met so yes allowing it absolutely says
00:49:20 met so yes allowing it absolutely says allowing rather than limiting and it doesn't say properly controlled which perhaps it should have done but
00:49:28 but i think that that might have been without i'm speculating that might have been about might have been why um this discussion was was held um but i absolutely accept
00:49:41 was was held um but i absolutely accept that there's no reference in that
00:49:45 in that indeed in the whole of the write-up of that agenda item
00:49:49 item to the need to ensure that where it was used it was properly controlled eeg via br135 criteria and bs8414 tests my question is is
00:50:02 and bs8414 tests my question is is we can read the document yes mr leslie my question is were you wholly unaware that
00:50:08 that nhbc
00:50:11 nhbc and labc together on the bca
00:50:16 were looking for solutions to permit the use of polyurethane type insulation above 18 meters um
00:50:26 um this is a general activity i i yeah i absolutely accept and um if you just forgive me i will just slightly hesitate because i have been trying to rack my brains as to when i first
00:50:38 to rack my brains as to when i first became aware of bca guidance note 18. i was not aware of it at this point in time so i clearly at this point in time that these discussions were happening in the bca and these conclusions were being
00:50:50 the bca and these conclusions were being drawn by the bca i was not aware of them and i'm pretty sure that i didn't see or hadn't
00:50:58 hadn't if i had seen it hadn't registered with me the um draft of the vc8 no bca guidance note 18
00:51:06 note 18 version zero so my question to myself and i've really thought long and hard about this is was i aware of this at any subsequent point in time
00:51:17 point in time before the grenfell fire
00:51:21 fire and i think the only honest conclusion i can reach is that i was not
00:51:26 now can we then go to clg 3019267
00:51:31 this takes us into the spring of 2015 it's an email from steve evans of nhbc
00:51:38 of nhbc to brian martin second of april 2015 as you can see copy to others within the nhbc
00:51:44 nhbc subject update on combustible materials in the envelope of buildings over 18 meters and there's an attachment guidance to builders and he
00:51:54 and he says
00:51:56 says i beheld brian i hope that you are well i'm conscious that we have not provided an update
00:52:01 an update on our progress with the manufacturers of combustible insulation materials that are marketed as being suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters for some time and i must apologize for this but this has been an extremely complicated
00:52:13 this has been an extremely complicated process in ensuring that the information we provide to our builders is correct and allows them as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible did you see this at the time i don't
00:52:24 did you see this at the time i don't recall seeing it at the time well you were made aware of the fact at the time that nhbc were not only still working on this matter as of april 2015 but apparently finding it as he puts it an extremely complicated process um not
00:52:36 extremely complicated process um not that i can recall so brian martin didn't tell you that not that i can recall did brian martin tell you at all the nhbc uh were um allowing builders as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as
00:52:49 flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible
00:52:54 i don't recall that him he told me that let's go look at his response to this email that's at nhb401057
00:53:09 and if we look at the top of the email chain
00:53:12 chain nhb
00:53:14 nhb 401057 yes thank you um we can see that brian martin writes back to steve evans on the 7th of april and responds and he says this thanks for this steve
00:53:26 and he says this thanks for this steve if there are common solutions that people are using for the quotes engineered unquote approach i'd be interested to hear about them it might be that we could adopt them in future
00:53:37 be that we could adopt them in future editions of a.d there does seem to have been some confusion in the market whether some polymer insulation materials are combustible or not i guess i shouldn't be that surprised exclamation mark
00:53:48 be that surprised exclamation mark anything you can do to raise awareness has got to be a good thing is nhbc content that the existing projects you have dealt with meet these principles i understood that there had been some
00:53:59 understood that there had been some questions raised brian now can we take it mr ledson that you didn't see that response either i don't believe i did no would you agree that it appears clear that uh by or at least in
00:54:10 appears clear that uh by or at least in april 2015 brian martin did not consider looking at that to be an issue limited to a one-off misclassification of a product in a bba certificate i accept that
00:54:21 certificate i accept that and uh
00:54:23 and uh presumably you were unaware of that at the time
00:54:26 the time i was um yes i cannot recall being aware of it at the time and unaware of the fact that mr martin considered that it was a good thing for nhbc to be doing something to raise awareness well i think it's a yes it's a good it
00:54:38 well i think it's a yes it's a good it was a good thing for the nhpc to be raising awareness yes but um raising awareness is one thing enforcing the building regulations as a regulator
00:54:50 the building regulations as a regulator through its ai department was another wasn't it of course yes now let's look at uh nhb 402792
00:55:00 402792 this takes us later into 2015. if we go to page three please we see another email from steve evans to brian martin this time 15th of june 2015 subject combustible cladding
00:55:13 subject combustible cladding good afternoon brian i right to request the department's view regarding the need for limited combustibility external cladding finishes on buildings with the floor level exceeding 18 meters in height assessed in accordance with
00:55:24 height assessed in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document b together with the associated paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 and then underneath that and it goes on at length uh steve evans went on to set
00:55:35 at length uh steve evans went on to set out his own and indeed the nhbc's understanding of the sections of the guidance he's asking about now if we go to page four please and let's look together at the final paragraph he says this
00:55:46 um our own view is that there is little point in ensuring that an insulation product meets with molc molk
00:55:55 molc molk requirements materials of limited combustibility requirements when it can then be faced with a cladding finish which whilst achieving a class naught surface spread of flame requirement becomes a contributory factor in the
00:56:08 becomes a contributory factor in the spread of fire up the building when acted upon by a flame plume from a flashed over fire however
00:56:15 however there appears to be a difference in interpretation across the industry and so your opinion stroke steer would be very welcome thank you for your time did you see this email at the time no
00:56:27 did you see this email at the time no did you see any of this correspondence at the time um not this correspondence no well you made aware in june 2015 by brian martin or anybody else in the department that there was as he as he's put here a difference in a an
00:56:39 put here a difference in a an interpretation across the industry on the meaning and scope of 12.7 of approved document b not that i can recall did brian martin tell you that the nhbc were in june 2015 asking the
00:56:51 the nhbc were in june 2015 asking the department's opinion on that matter not that i can recall let's look at brian martin's response please um at page two at the foot of page two the next day sixteenth of june
00:57:05 page two the next day sixteenth of june uh uh
00:57:06 uh uh and
00:57:07 and he says this hi steve i can't offer a formal view as such specific products projects are a matter for the building i'm sorry specific projects are a matter for the relevant
00:57:18 projects are a matter for the relevant building control body and then over the page as you say the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread and this is particularly important for a
00:57:29 this is particularly important for a block of flats people do sometimes try to play games with the definitions and where this happens one should refer back to this objective we came across one incident
00:57:40 objective we came across one incident where an eps foam was used to fill a void behind some aluminium sheeting because it was not included specifically for its thermal properties the designers had concluded that it wasn't insulation
00:57:52 had concluded that it wasn't insulation and thus its use was okay when it caught fire the flames could be seen across the city exclamation mark that's where the reference to fillers etcetera was included in the a d text do you have some examples of specific
00:58:03 do you have some examples of specific instructions you've come across here maybe we could revise the text again or maybe test some of it now can we take it that you were unaware of that response all right yes uh can you just help us
00:58:16 uh can you just help us was there anything stopping brian martin being
00:58:19 being offering a formal view as such well i think um mr mr martin in the first um sentence there or the first paragraph there is um referring to the
00:58:32 is um referring to the limitations on what the department could say or comment on in relation to a specific
00:58:38 specific project
00:58:40 project given that we were not the enforcement body so i think that's what would be that's how i would have read his his first sentence but as he then goes on
00:58:51 as he then goes on in the rest of the email he makes a general comment on the issue so and that's a dialogue that we would have with for example the likes of the nhbc
00:59:02 with for example the likes of the nhbc or the labc on general issues about the understanding of the regulations and the approved documents guidance but miss let's go back to the foot of page one
00:59:13 let's go back to the foot of page one um
00:59:15 um brian martin was not being asked about a specific project was he no he wasn't but i think he was making that general point as a sort of context for the rest of what he said in the
00:59:26 for the rest of what he said in the email
00:59:27 email well the second sentence says that but the first sentence says i can't offer a formal view as such was there anything stopping brian martin from offering a formal or even informal
00:59:39 from offering a formal or even informal but
00:59:41 but unequivocal view about what the department's position was in answer to this specific generic question steve evans had raised
00:59:53 generic question steve evans had raised well i think um i think that's i think what mr martin is saying is he's he is conscious as i said that um the ability of the department to
01:00:04 that um the ability of the department to comment
01:00:05 comment on specific compliance scenarios is um you know related to specific projects was limited now the fact is is that i think that
01:00:17 the fact is is that i think that in effect
01:00:18 in effect he offered that general view in what he said in the following paragraphs of the email so he provided mr evans with their response on the general on the substance
01:00:29 response on the general on the substance of the general issue that mr evans asked him about that since as far as i've been able to sort of ascertain from a quick glance at the correspondence so a i think it's perfectly reasonable for mr martin to
01:00:43 perfectly reasonable for mr martin to have said what he said in that first paragraph i think it would have been questionable if he then said that's it can't say anything steve i think that would have been questionable but he didn't do that he sought to
01:00:54 didn't do that he sought to comment on um on on the general issue raised by mr evans so i don't see the problem with that well we've seen the answer he's given and i'm not going to debate its quality with you that wouldn't be
01:01:06 its quality with you that wouldn't be appropriate my question for you is was there a reason as far as you are aware why
01:01:13 aware why uh brian martin as the fire safety policy lead as he was at this time could not offer an explanation of the meaning of or as he understood it or as the department understood it of particular
01:01:24 department understood it of particular sections of the approved document on behalf of the department um would you mind scrolling on to the next page so i can re-read what mr martin said please can we go to page three please let's do that
01:01:40 well i think the important points i would take from this and i you know this is with the benefit of hindsight and obviously
01:01:47 obviously a subsequent study of section 12 is the first
01:01:51 first sentence of the paragraph at the top of the email which talks about the overarching objective and that
01:01:58 and that whatever else follows in the guidance it's important to relate that into the context of that overall objective which i think is set out in 12.5 so that's the first point i would make the second point i would make
01:02:11 would make the second point i would make is that in the um final sentence of the second paragraph there's a clear explanation to my mind that explains what for
01:02:22 to my mind that explains what for example was meant to be covered by the reference
01:02:25 reference in 12.7 to fillers etcetera so he's talked about an instance where clearly for whatever reason um a combustible product was used when
01:02:36 um a combustible product was used when it shouldn't have been used so i
01:02:40 so i think that that is a you know
01:02:43 you know they missed mr evans is obviously was was a very experienced building control inspector i'm presuming not knowing his background so necessarily and mr martin obviously
01:02:55 so necessarily and mr martin obviously had a lot of contact with mr evans and i expect would have regarded himself as having a very good professional relationship with mr evans so i would think
01:03:06 i would think that they're probably um
01:03:10 um well let's not speculate sorry i'm sorry okay well i i i i'm to my mind tell us something you know okay well
01:03:17 well um to my mind this email does express a view that the reference to fillers etc is meant to cover the
01:03:28 fillers etc is meant to cover the situations which mr evans had talked about and this um and he makes the offer at the end that if there were things that needed to be done to change ad-1207 then that's
01:03:39 done to change ad-1207 then that's something that could be looked at as part of the next revision of now
01:03:45 now i'll just show you the response that steve evans reacts with internally with john lewis at page two please middle of the page where he says john not a very clear answer indeed not an answer at all now
01:03:57 answer indeed not an answer at all now that's how it was received on paper we have we have mr evans and mr lewis's evidence about that i don't need to go through that with you my question again
01:04:08 again was there a reason as far as you're aware why brian martin could not offer an explanation could not offer a view an opinion a steer
01:04:22 on a general question he could have provided an answer to a general question and that was the question which was posed by the nhbc um without studying
01:04:34 um without studying the um the correspondence in detail i'm not sure whether i'm able to say that
01:04:40 that steve evans comment to mr lewis was base was yes was a reasonable comment on the on the on the basis of mr martin's reply to the original email
01:04:54 let me try one more time this way if the question had been brian i'm looking at 12.7 does it ban combustible cause from rain screen cladding yeah it would have been
01:05:06 screen cladding yeah it would have been am i right in thinking there would have been nothing to stop brian martin coming back and saying it does um no you're correct thank you right let's move on to uh the uae fires
01:05:18 right let's move on to uh the uae fires and i want to start with the torch fire in
01:05:22 in dubai in 2015. can we go please to clg-3031073
01:05:36 uh and uh if we go please to the bottom email in the chain it's an email from peter holland on the 21st of february 2015 2015
01:05:46 2015 2015 to various people including brian martin and louise upton subjected by high-rise fire you're not copied into this no but i think you are copied into the response above it yes as you can see or
01:05:59 response above it yes as you can see or you can't see but you are yeah and i think you accept that because you're familiar with it um peter holland um says this
01:06:07 says this the fire last night in the badly named high-rise torch building appears to have spread rapidly up the outside of the building due to inadequate or non-existent fire resistance in the external elements of the structure
01:06:18 external elements of the structure they have they have had previous fires in dubai where this has been a similar problem
01:06:23 problem thankfully it appears that the internal fire precautions have worked well enough to enable the circad 2000 occupants to escape safely brian martin will be able to confirm that this shouldn't be a
01:06:34 to confirm that this shouldn't be a problem in this country peter and if we go to the next email up in the chain we can see the brian martin responds
01:06:44 a little bit later that morning 21st of february 2015 and he says this as peter says they have had a few similar incidents in dubai there are provisions in the building regulations
01:06:55 provisions in the building regulations designed to prevent this kind of problem so this shouldn't be a problem in the uk there are of course no guarantees now to what provisions specifically did you understand this to be a reference well i would imagine it was he was been
01:07:06 well i would imagine it was he was been referring to b4 right and any specific part of b4 well um this would have been a b4 and then the relevant provisions in the approved documents guidance did you check with
01:07:18 documents guidance did you check with him what he meant um no i don't recall checking with him how specifically did those provisions prevent this kind of problem as far as you understood it at the time um
01:07:28 um as far as i understood it at the time um
01:07:33 um i can't i would have been aware of the general requirements the functional requirement in b4 but i would not have been aware of the
01:07:44 but i would not have been aware of the specific detail in the um guidance in section 12 of approved document b what did you make of his final words there there are of course no guarantees
01:07:56 there there are of course no guarantees um
01:07:58 um well i mean i can't comment on why he said that i can only assume
01:08:04 assume and this is an assumption that um
01:08:09 one would expect and hope indeed hope that there would be 100 compliance with the relevant requirements so it shouldn't be a problem but as we know as we found out
01:08:20 as we know as we found out regrettably that was misplaced so i'm not sure that there would have been anything other to it than that general comment but obviously i can't say what was in his mind when he put made that comment did you discuss
01:08:33 made that comment did you discuss the
01:08:33 the no guarantees or indeed any other aspect of the torch fire with brian martin um i can't recall
01:08:45 did you understand at the time that this fire
01:08:48 fire involved acm with a pe product um
01:08:55 i wouldn't pretend that i would have understood the detail of the external wall construction i'm not sure whether as part of general conversations or anything that i might have seen in some
01:09:06 have seen in some reports of the fire in the media et cetera whether acm panels would have been involved so i think i'm i can't say for sure
01:09:17 did you discuss this fire or any other international planning fire that had happened previously we know some happened in 2012 uh with any more senior officials in the department or ministers
01:09:29 or ministers um well we just certainly didn't discuss it with um with ministers though i note that there seems to be a reference in the uh in the email to the office of penny
01:09:40 in the email to the office of penny mordent the fire safety minister i also note um a number of other senior officials are on the copy list for um mr martin's um
01:09:50 um uh
01:09:51 uh email response and and the original email from mr holland but i didn't discuss it with any of our with with for example minister williams right so just just
01:10:02 minister williams right so just just pause there could you just and we can see in the response indeed in the original peter holland message he was i think by this time the the cr the cfra wasn't he i believe so yeah he sends it
01:10:13 wasn't he i believe so yeah he sends it to
01:10:14 to penny mordens but also neil o'connor and claire cooper yes who are they so claire cooper was my opposite number um on the fire safety um
01:10:24 um in the fire safety division neil o'connor was her director and at this point in time i believe yes i'm sure this is the case um
01:10:34 um the fire safety directorate was still part of what was then the department of communities local government who on the email chain including the copy parties were in the minister's
01:10:46 copy parties were in the minister's office so that would have been the office of penny morden she was the fire safety ministers i didn't stand at the time so it would have gone to her private office i see so just penny mordent thank you yeah let's go sorry
01:10:57 mordent thank you yeah let's go sorry let's go thank you now that's helpful let's go to the witness statement of richard harrell please clg3019487
01:11:04 paragraphs what 64 on page 19.
01:11:14 and if we look at the last three lines of that paragraph uh he says i spoke to brian after the fire and i remember that there was a process of sense checking what we knew of the events in dubai against our own regime
01:11:26 events in dubai against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base what was the process of sense checking against our own regime to which mr harrell refers there well i would expect it
01:11:39 well i would expect it though i don't recall having any conversations about these discussions but i would have expected that what would have happened is that mr harrell would have um spoken to mr martin to understand a
01:11:51 um spoken to mr martin to understand a um you know what had been caused the fire to spread in the way it did in terms of materials on the on the particular buildings involved to have
01:12:02 involved to have checked the um the relevant requirements firstly in the building regulations part b iv
01:12:11 iv to have checked that what was said in the relevant section of approved document 12 provided robust guidance on compliance with those requirements
01:12:23 requirements so that's what i would expect
01:12:28 that to process to have involved did it happen
01:12:33 happen well i it was not reported to me so i have to take assurance from mr harrell's witness statement and um i believe he said this in his evidence to you
01:12:43 to you yesterday um that did some that those discussions did happen i
01:12:48 i see um
01:12:51 see um finally on this topic before we break um
01:12:56 um when
01:12:57 when you saw
01:12:59 you saw the emails in june 2015
01:13:03 uh
01:13:08 when there was discussion in june 2015 in response to the nhbc's question which we saw earlier do you remember
01:13:21 either you or brian martin having any thoughts about that question and how that might relate to this question namely
01:13:31 namely looking at the torch fire could it happen here i don't recall that and i don't recall any discussion well um obviously i was i explained that
01:13:42 well um obviously i was i explained that i don't think i was aware of the exchanges
01:13:45 exchanges in june 2015 certainly at the time but
01:13:50 but i certainly don't recall any discussion that joined potentially joined the dots between what has happened in dubai and indeed when there was a later fire and
01:14:01 indeed when there was a later fire and what was said in approved document 12 7 and some of the issues which you've raised which you've drawn to drawn on in relation to uncertainty about what paragraph 12.7 meant to be
01:14:14 about what paragraph 12.7 meant to be clear
01:14:16 clear to the best of your recollection is it the case that brian martin didn't come to you in or after june 2015 and say well i've now discovered that there's a
01:14:28 well i've now discovered that there's a difference of interpretation of 12.7 across the industry about whether or not a composite panel with a polyethylene
01:14:39 a composite panel with a polyethylene core or a combustible core is permissible um looking back on the torch fire discussions and peter holland's question back in february there is or maybe a problem i don't
01:14:51 there is or maybe a problem i don't recall that being raised with me it should have been raised with you they shouldn't it um i think um it certainly was an important issue and um yes it probably should have been
01:15:01 been uh raised
01:15:03 uh raised thank you said a convenient moment mr yes it is thank you well mr nedson we'll have a short break at this point we'll come back please at half-past 11 of course and just to remind you please don't talk to
01:15:14 just to remind you please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you very much
01:15:25 thank you mr minute half past 11 please
01:32:14 would you ask mr ledson to come back here please
01:32:28 all right mr ledson ready to carry on yes good thank you yes mr thank you mr chairman uh mr ledson january 2016 you may recall there was another major fire at a 63-storey hotel in dubai
01:32:40 major fire at a 63-storey hotel in dubai yes called the address downtown can we go to h-o-m-3043106
01:32:46 please um this is an email run from that month to january 2016 and if we go to the very foot of the page
01:32:57 to the very foot of the page uh we should have it expanded i think thank you you write to e brian martin copied richard harrell fourth of january 2016 subject dubai hotel fire brian
01:33:08 2016 subject dubai hotel fire brian anything we need to be aware of stroke worry about for part b
01:33:15 uh and can we take it that that was an immediate an immediate or reasonably immediate reaction to seeing the fire on the television yes now we can see the reply that you received from brian martin
01:33:27 received from brian martin the same day about 20 minutes later and he says might get some questions raised nothing new here
01:33:36 new here the fire is most likely to be similar to several others that have hit dubai over the last couple of years it relates to a cladding product which is a laminate of aluminium and polyethylene or similar this stuff is
01:33:48 polyethylene or similar this stuff is very rigid and makes nice shiny buildings
01:33:51 buildings sadly when it gets exposed to a fire the aluminium melts away and exposes the polyethylene core
01:33:59 requirement b41 is designed to prevent this kind of thing para 12.7 says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler
01:34:10 level any insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility the polyethylene core of the offending product would be considered as a filler
01:34:22 product would be considered as a filler material so should not be used over 18 meters brian
01:34:29 now um did you ask him and we can see i think no response from you but did you ask him at the time what he meant by would be considered as a filler
01:34:42 meant by would be considered as a filler material
01:34:43 material um i don't recall asking him that question
01:34:46 question in january 2016 were you already aware of this precise content of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b probably not was this the first time do
01:34:57 probably not was this the first time do you think that this that it had been explained to you um that brian martin believed that that particular provision was the one which would quote prevent this kind of thing happening in this
01:35:09 this kind of thing happening in this country
01:35:10 country i think it probably was did you go to the text of the approved document
01:35:15 document uh to see it in its context and ensure you understood it um
01:35:21 um i'm not sure that i did did you check to see that brian martin's confidence in it was well founded i'm not sure that i did did you know at the time did you notice at the time that the heading of the
01:35:32 at the time that the heading of the provision was insulation materials stroke products um no i don't think that i did right so you just took is this right that you just took what mr martin was telling you on trust and made no
01:35:44 was telling you on trust and made no further investigations um well i would have i would have taken it on trust because i would have expected mr martin to have explained you know what's happening as the expert and cognizant of the detail to um explain to
01:35:56 cognizant of the detail to um explain to me instead of the relevant provisions in the detail that he felt was was helpful and relevant and necessary
01:36:05 were you aware at this time of the debate and the confusion in the industry about the meaning of and scope of this paragraph of the approved document and specifically in relation to whether or
01:36:16 specifically in relation to whether or not the term filler material actually captured the core of an acm panel um no i don't think i was when you think of any any possible reason given that your email was specifically directed
01:36:28 email was specifically directed to
01:36:29 to the question whether there was anything there for the division to worry about your words in part b why brian martin didn't tell you at that stage
01:36:38 stage about the confusion that had existed in the industry um
01:36:43 um well i suppose um in respect of the specific question he was focused on that but
01:36:48 but clearly
01:36:49 clearly he did not provide any context in that email and i don't recall him providing me with any other context in any other exchanges i'm just trying to think of
01:37:00 think of whether you can help us
01:37:02 help us about why that is i asked you can you think of any possible reason um is is there one you can think of
01:37:11 well um i've been reading this exchange i would have inferred that mr martin was very confident in his view about the interpretation of those relevant
01:37:22 interpretation of those relevant provisions did you have any understanding in january 2016 about whether uh uh or not an acm panel with a polyethylene core had been installed on any high-rise buildings in the united kingdom i was
01:37:34 buildings in the united kingdom i was not aware of that as far as you were aware did brian martin himself have any such knowledge well certainly none that he expressed to me at the time did you ask him no i didn't i'm not well
01:37:46 no i didn't i'm not well i can't recall but i think i probably didn't
01:37:50 didn't do do you know why you didn't ask him well do we have any acm pe called clad buildings over 18 meters in this country um
01:38:01 well i think my it would have been because i would have taken um what was said in this email as pretty clear that we had an appropriate regulation ieb41 in place
01:38:12 appropriate regulation ieb41 in place and that we had appropriate guidance i paragraph 12.7 in place to prevent those sorts of products being used in england in buildings over 18 meters did you consider asking brian martin at this
01:38:24 you consider asking brian martin at this point to seek informal feedback perhaps through his network of industry contacts horizon scanning i think as you referred to it about whether in fact acm products with
01:38:35 about whether in fact acm products with a pe core might be in use in the united kingdom
01:38:39 kingdom um well i i did not now whether mr martin would have discussed this with mr harold separately i don't know but i don't i did not ask that question you didn't why is that
01:38:50 that question you didn't why is that um
01:38:51 um well as i said i think um i took assurance or comfort from what i took to be a very clear statement about the
01:38:59 about the uh the way the regulations and the guidance
01:39:01 guidance operated and therefore should have been implemented as you see you thought did you was this your thought process at the time that the quotation there from 12.7 was crystal clear
01:39:13 crystal clear and unequivocally and unambiguously applied to the core of a composite rain screen panel um well i was said i had no reason to doubt that
01:39:26 right were you also wholly satisfied that there was no risk uh or no material risk that such products were in use here
01:39:37 products were in use here on the basis of what brian martin had told you here
01:39:43 well i think i must have drawn that conclusion from what words in the email did you draw that conclusion do you think well a the statement that the regulation
01:39:54 well a the statement that the regulation requirement before one is designed to prevent this kind of thing so it's clearly addressed in uh requirement b41
01:40:03 b41 and then secondly the uh explanation in the final sentence of the email of the intent of paragraph 12.7
01:40:14 yes would be considered as a filler material did his use of the words would be considered signal to you um that
01:40:23 um that not only that is what the words mean so far as he's concerned but that was universally and unexceptionally understood that way um well i thought i would have thought that if there were any doubts or doubt
01:40:34 that if there were any doubts or doubt about that then that would have been um expressed in that um in this email so i took that as read is that that would be a general understanding
01:40:45 understanding of um across the industry and those and duty holders and building control now let's go to february uh of this year the next month um
01:40:55 um i'm going to show you some correspondence between brian martin and nick jenkins of booth murray who were cladding consultants can we go please to clg 3031093
01:41:09 and start with page five at the top of the page
01:41:13 the page this is an email from nick jenkins to brian martin copy to others at bre of the of the 16th of february 2016
01:41:27 of the of the 16th of february 2016 uh and he says this hi brian i'm forwarding this query to you as recommended by sarah colwell of the bre as you will note from the correspondence below sarah advises the dclg of the body
01:41:38 below sarah advises the dclg of the body with responsibility for adb2
01:41:41 adb2 this matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and if one thing is evident that there is much confusion and misunderstanding your soonest review of
01:41:52 misunderstanding your soonest review of the matter would therefore be most welcome
01:41:55 welcome now the substantive email which mr jenkins refers to here which sets out his concerns is set out much further down the chain at page 10 and i should show you that please
01:42:06 and i should show you that please um it's sent to sarah colwell as you can see on the 20th of january 2016 from nick jenkins hi sarah i hope this finds you well i'm just gonna show you quite a lot of this okay mr ledson if i
01:42:18 quite a lot of this okay mr ledson if i may uh he says we haven't met however i understand that you might be the best person to help me with some clarification i'm seeking in relation to my understanding of the current uk
01:42:29 my understanding of the current uk regulations as they apply to wall constructions for building over 18 meters featuring rain screen panels formed from acms last week i attended a siderise stroke bre facades conference on the topic of
01:42:40 bre facades conference on the topic of fire safety during the day i asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of rain screen cladding panels formed from various grades of acm aluminium composite materials when used
01:42:51 aluminium composite materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems for building over 18 meters there was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel i believe and he goes on in that email to to explain his understanding of the source of the ambiguity and let's um to
01:43:04 source of the ambiguity and let's um to speed things up let's go to the final paragraph of the email um on the very foot of page 10 and he says this
01:43:13 this in
01:43:16 sorry page 10
01:43:20 the foot of page 10 thank you in my understanding compliance is not achieved via an if either one or two a satisfied scenario and just to pause there um
01:43:32 um one is
01:43:33 one is meeting the guidance of 12.6 to 12.9 um by restricting insulation product filler material etc to materials of limited combustibility and then two is diagram 40 which is
01:43:46 and then two is diagram 40 which is class naught those are the two two prongs and he says in my understanding compliance is not achieved by an if either one or two are satisfied scenario rather only via an if one and
01:43:57 scenario rather only via an if one and two are both satisfied scenario i think this is a logical especially a logical especially following the
01:44:08 a logical especially following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with return the page combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however would not tell you this
01:44:19 document however would not tell you this then if we go to page 11 where we are now he says this if my understanding is correct and the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding and the three millimeter thick core
01:44:30 and the three millimeter thick core associated with four millimeter acm is to be considered a filler material then as far as i'm aware the only acms available to the uk market that meet the adb2 definition of being materials of
01:44:41 adb2 definition of being materials of limited combustibility are alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of these products are classified as a2s1dnaut in accordance with bsen13501 of 2007.
01:44:55 bsen13501 of 2007. in our experience of supplying fabricated acm rain screen panels to specialist cladding contractors in the uk market we are rarely asked to provide such a2 rated acm materials the vast
01:45:08 such a2 rated acm materials the vast majority of acm panels we are asked to provide for architectural application are either a luca bond plus al pollock fr or larson fr products all of which are classified as b s one d naught in
01:45:20 are classified as b s one d naught in accordance with bsen13501 2007 and thus whilst they can be classified as products that are hard to burn and are not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance
01:45:32 limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb2 in many instances it is not even the b s1d naught rated acm panels we are asked to supply but standard polyethylene core
01:45:45 to supply but standard polyethylene core material acm that burns quite efficiently what's more i'm aware of many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the uk where such panels are installed in combination with
01:45:56 are installed in combination with various foil faced rigid foam thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted by as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb2
01:46:09 a7 appendix a of adb2 as a responsible supplier with muri euroclad would like to put a guidance note out to the market written specifically on routes to compliance in relation to the use of acm rain screen clouding panels and associated thermal
01:46:21 clouding panels and associated thermal insulation products used as part of multi-layered built up wall systems before we publish any such guidance we are ensuring we have our facts straight with that in mind i would very much
01:46:32 with that in mind i would very much appreciate your thoughts on my understanding of the current regulations now um mr leds and i've read a lot of that to you for reasons that i hope are obvious but did you see this
01:46:43 obvious but did you see this correspondence at any time before the 14th of june 2017 i don't recall no before that date the grenfell tower fire were you informed by brian martin or
01:46:54 were you informed by brian martin or anybody else in the department of any of the matters to which nick jenkins refers in this email i don't recall so were you told by brian martin or anybody else that he had been
01:47:06 martin or anybody else that he had been made aware in clear terms that many tall residential buildings are clad in acm polyethylene products i don't recall so were you aware of any discussions about
01:47:17 were you aware of any discussions about this at any time before the grenfell tower fire well none that i was that i recall being involved in now let's look at brian martin's response this is page four please
01:47:32 and what i was showing you there was the email that nick jenkins had sent to the bre in the january of 2016. it had come she'd sent it but she'd sent him to the department as we can see he'd written to brian
01:47:43 as we can see he'd written to brian martin and here is his response um if 16th of january 2016 1709 to nick jenkins copied to stephen howard and sarah colwell
01:47:55 sarah colwell hi
01:47:56 hi he says hi nick it is for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met adb give guidance on this by saying that the external wall should
01:48:08 by saying that the external wall should not provide a medium for fire spread in tall buildings it then offers two approaches a set of rules or a full-scale test in the rules we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form
01:48:20 word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium for fire spread i think the core of an acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler
01:48:32 reasonably be considered to be a filler so unless the core material meets the rules then ad suggests a full-scale test however if the designer and building control body choose to do something else then that's up to them
01:48:44 then that's up to them i'm on the road at the moment so drafting this from memory brian that's what he says on page 405 now um
01:48:54 did you see that at the time no did you discuss this response with brian martin at the time not that i recall no what is
01:49:03 what is when was the first time that you saw this response uh when you've just put it up on your screen right what do you think of it um could you scroll back to the previous page please
01:49:16 so um accepting the point um if this may have been prepared in a bit of a hurry i think it in shorthand does discuss
01:49:28 i think it in shorthand does discuss obviously the two approaches i think the option one and option two approaches set out in um in in approved document 12 um in in simple shorthand language but
01:49:40 um in in simple shorthand language but i'm sure is would have been understandable um i would imagine to mr mr jenkins and then reaches the um uh
01:49:52 makes the important point that um the word filler was deliberately added to as i understand it the 2006 version of adb to address this sort of issue
01:50:03 issue um and then uh says that the call of an ac acp panel could reasonably be considered to be filler so therefore if the panel was not of limited combustibility
01:50:14 combustibility the only uh the other option would have been to uh have ensured that the whole wall system had been had met the br 135 criteria perhaps my question was a little bit too open um we can see here that there is no reference here to nick
01:50:27 that there is no reference here to nick jenkins's concern about the presence or the likelihood of presence of a rash of acm panels of the polyethylene called throughout the united kingdom built environment no there is not no
01:50:40 environment no there is not no are you able to offer an explanation about why mr martin chose not to address that question i can't um
01:50:47 um now given the email we saw earlier you're in response to your own email of the 4th of january 2016 in response to the address fire you'd asked him whether there was anything to worry about for
01:50:59 there was anything to worry about for part b
01:51:01 part b and
01:51:02 and his response was that the polyethylene core of the offending product would be considered should not be used over 18 meters here we're seeing that he says it could reasonably can be considered
01:51:16 reasonably can be considered that answer introduces an ambiguity doesn't it um
01:51:24 well let me let me try it differently on the basis that it does introduce an ambiguity
01:51:29 ambiguity we may disagree with that premise but are you able to explain why mr martin expressed himself in this way um
01:51:37 um no other than um you know he may have drafted this in haste but
01:51:43 but um
01:51:44 um a substantial reason no right now you told us that you you weren't told by mr martin about this the apparent
01:51:52 apparent at least according to mr jenkins the apparent historic and ongoing use of acm products with a standard polyethylene core in this country and that is something is i think you accept that
01:52:04 something is i think you accept that that you should have been alerted to by mr martin not least because of your own question to him on the fourth of january i think if indeed if there was evidence that um
01:52:16 indeed if there was evidence that um of the nature of mr jenkins email then i think that would have been an issue which i would have expected to have been drawn to my attention now let's look at mr jenkins's next attempt it's um same
01:52:27 mr jenkins's next attempt it's um same date later that night at the top of page four
01:52:31 four if we go to that please he says hi brian melly thanks for your prompt response in the light of the fires that have taken hold of a number of buildings clad in acm panels in recent years i also think that the core
01:52:42 recent years i also think that the core of acm panels should most definitely be considered as a filler some acm calls meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk at present don't to the best of my knowledge there have
01:52:54 to the best of my knowledge there have been no full-scale eightfold one thought tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of acm panel i'm aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to have such tests carried out this however unfortunately
01:53:06 carried out this however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 18 meters tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such buildings and the numbers are growing
01:53:18 buildings and the numbers are growing whilst i appreciate it's for the designer and building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met i do think the current situation is of grave concern surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous
01:53:29 requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules with the above in mind do you think it would be worth setting up a meeting with the relevant bodies and experts represented to review the current presentation of the rules now
01:53:39 now did you at any time before the fire at grenfell received the news that quotes no existing buildings in the uk over 18 meters tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there
01:53:50 currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such buildings and the numbers are growing um i don't recall i don't recall so right no i mean this was i mean i think you must accept a a a
01:54:01 must accept a a a very large red alert situation with a life safety matter that needed urgent uh attention i would accept it was a serious matter yes that needed urgent attention urgent consideration
01:54:13 urgent attention urgent consideration yes are you absolutely sure that you knew nothing at all about it um
01:54:26 well i mean i presume you would have draw um my attention to any emails which suggested that mr martin or anyone else had drawn it to my attention
01:54:37 i cannot recall it being
01:54:40 it being discussed with me i can't say that my recollection would be 100
01:54:46 be 100 accurate on that point but i cannot recall it being discussed and as i say if if there are emails um or whether it's obvious that i have been copied into emails then clearly i
01:54:57 been copied into emails then clearly i would accept that but i as i say my recollections is that i wasn't aware of those of the seriousness of some of these um representations yes
01:55:10 i don't think there are any emails and my question is can you think of a reason why mr martin would have kept this red hot information even assuming it was new to him to himself
01:55:27 it would be wrong with me to try and speculate um it may have been that he felt well this is an issue we could address in terms of clarifying in the next iteration of adb it may be
01:55:39 in the next iteration of adb it may be that he felt that the guidance in bca guidance note 18 was helping getting the message out but i accept that neither of those two things deal with the sort of existing
01:55:51 things deal with the sort of existing the situation where panels may be on existing buildings i fully accept i mean what i'm really trying to get at is is in your experience of working with brian martin whether um
01:56:02 martin whether um he had as it were form for keeping important matters to himself and not keeping you completely and fully briefed well
01:56:10 well i mean in all of these situations i would rely on the judgment of the technical policy leads in discussion with um the head of the technical policy team i am mr harold in this at this point in
01:56:21 i am mr harold in this at this point in time mr bird before him to keep me informed and draw my attention to significant policy issues
01:56:32 now you know i didn't set out any parameters about what i felt should be drawn to my attention or not i would rely on
01:56:38 rely on the best experience and professional judgment of my experienced team to do that so far as you are aware is this right
01:56:49 is this right that the contents of this email run i've shown you so far did not percolate up to you and beyond you to your seniors in the division
01:57:01 you to your seniors in the division or to the ministers um well i'm pretty sure that they would not have they didn't percolate beyond me um i would have known about that um
01:57:12 um i
01:57:17 i can't recall seeing these emails at the time and i say i cannot recall that i wouldn't want to put 100 credence or my memory of any discussions about these this this this particular
01:57:29 about these this this this particular email chain or some of the others we've um you've shown me right now let's go to the foot of page two because we can see brian martin's response to the jenkins evening email the next morning at 9 49
01:57:41 evening email the next morning at 9 49 17th of february 2016 he says this thanks nick and i think we need them to go to page three i'm not sure the text really is all that ambiguous given that it must cover all forms construction
01:57:52 forms construction people often argue that it isn't clear when they're trying to justify doing something that is clearly wrong i'm not entirely sure that even the acm products that have flame retardant cores would meet the rules of thumb in the ad so
01:58:03 meet the rules of thumb in the ad so it'll be interesting to see if any of them get through an 8414 test but that's just my opinion we've recently commissioned a survey of part b users with a view to feeding into the next revision in the first instance it might help if you put your views into that
01:58:15 help if you put your views into that please and then there's an uh internet address there's a meeting of the cwct group to talk about clouding and fire safety it's run by bath university maybe you could ask them if
01:58:26 university maybe you could ask them if you can get involved brenda raptor details below is organizing things now were you aware in february 2016 that brian martin considered that the text in paragraph 12.7 to be in any way
01:58:37 paragraph 12.7 to be in any way ambiguous
01:58:40 ambiguous well
01:58:42 well at this point in time i obviously saw the response to my email about the due by fire which i read i didn't check except that i didn't check and perhaps i should have checked
01:58:54 check and perhaps i should have checked but i read that as being that mr martin was pretty clear about the requirement of the regulation what it meant and what the relevant approved document guidance was seeking
01:59:03 seeking to achieve and the intent of that guidance did had you received any feedback by this point mid february 2016 that
01:59:11 that there were people in the industry trying to justify doing something on the basis of a clearly wrong interpretation of the approved document b i don't believe so
01:59:30 looking at the outcome
01:59:33 given what we see here do you accept as a fact that there were that the um
01:59:39 um suggestion of a meeting and the clarification of what nick jenkins regarded as an ambiguity at the very least was not acted upon by the department at all at any time before the
01:59:50 department at all at any time before the fire at grenfell tower
01:59:56 well i don't know about the meeting of the cwct group that's referred to here
02:00:01 here but clearly we did not because a matter of fact i mean the department did not issue any um guidance or further guidance on section 12 of um ad adb
02:00:15 section 12 of um ad adb um
02:00:16 um i mean that is a question of fact yes i mean you can see from the response i've read to you that brian martin's reaction was instead of grappling with this within the department was to send mr jenkins off to the cwct group to talk
02:00:29 jenkins off to the cwct group to talk about cladding and fire safety my question is why didn't the department take charge of this problem
02:00:37 problem at that stage um
02:00:44 well it's a bit difficult for me to answer
02:00:47 answer that question because as i say i was not aware i do not recall being aware of
02:00:53 of this particular exchange at the time um
02:00:58 um all i can assume is that the various pieces of work which we had in train um the various other pieces of guidance which have been published such as the bca guidance note 18
02:01:10 bca guidance note 18 um were addressing the problem that's all i can that's all i can assume that's an assumption though it's not knowledge um it's well clearly as a matter as i said it's accepted as a matter of fact we did not issue any
02:01:22 matter of fact we did not issue any other
02:01:23 other any any guidance i mean are you able to explain why the department didn't take this problem by the scrap of the neck have a meeting with nick jenkins work out what the real
02:01:34 with nick jenkins work out what the real problem was and work out how widespread it was and take matters take the initiative and take matters forward as opposed to leaving it to mr jenkins and
02:01:43 and industry bodies to to talk about well
02:01:48 well i mean with hindsight we you know i absolutely accept that it should have been gripped better um and that is um that is a matter of deep regret um
02:02:01 i think all i can assume is that
02:02:08 it was expected that um we could address issues of um clarifying the guidance through the work i described um in terms of the um the revisions to adb i'm accepting everything that we've
02:02:20 adb i'm accepting everything that we've discussed previously about um about you know the delays to the timetable etc
02:02:27 etc um
02:02:28 um that
02:02:31 the bca guidance node which obviously should have you know all building control what he should have been aware of was a way of um ensuring that building control was would be would know
02:02:43 was would be would know of the issues and be able to grip them when it's considering um when it's considering proposals for building work plans of building work etc
02:02:54 plans of building work etc um
02:02:55 um but i absolutely accept that although um that would deal with the sort of you know the present situation um it would not have dealt with the
02:03:06 um it would not have dealt with the the past situation the bca guidance note isn't it a good excuse is it mr ledison because the bca guidance note was guidance to some part of the industry about
02:03:18 to some part of the industry about guidance
02:03:19 guidance the guidance itself which is the statutory guidance comes from the department so you can't how is it possible to rely or outsource the clarification of the statutory guidance
02:03:30 of the statutory guidance to subordinate guidance issued by one section of the industry well the building control bodies ultimately are the enforcing bodies and clearly they take cognizance of the
02:03:41 and clearly they take cognizance of the approved documents guidance but it's perfectly open
02:03:46 open and legitimate for building control bodies to provide further guidance to their members on issues which is done through the building control alliance guidance note and you know the labc will do that for public sector building
02:03:58 do that for public sector building control
02:03:59 control and um for example the nhbc would do it for
02:04:02 for uh for the for for an hbc so
02:04:05 so subs as you say supplementary guidance notes are not sort of an unknown or an illegitimate part of the system in the process but
02:04:15 but um
02:04:16 um clearly
02:04:18 clearly it is very regrettable and i accept that and accept even if i didn't know at the time then you know i need to ask myself why i didn't know at the time and should i have known at the time and why didn't i make it take it upon myself
02:04:30 i make it take it upon myself um to have been more challenging on some of these matters um
02:04:35 um it was felt that um we these mechanisms were
02:04:40 were sufficient to ensure that the building control world and through them developers because you know building control would be refusing plans of building work or not signing off building work um to get uh get the message out
02:04:52 um to get uh get the message out now you know i i entirely accept criticisms of that that was was inadequate but i'm trying to explain as best i can um some of the thought processes that
02:05:03 um some of the thought processes that were probably going through our minds at the time but it wasn't was it for building control bodies or their collective organizations in the building control industry to resolve
02:05:14 building control industry to resolve a fundamental and inherent ambiguity latent or even patent on the face of the approved document itself that was for government well yes but i think that obviously there is a clearly um
02:05:27 i accept you know the opinion that was being expressed by mr jenkins reflecting um
02:05:36 his experience and
02:05:39 and i clearly accept also the concerns raised in the cw ct
02:05:46 ct and clearly um they were all very serious
02:05:49 serious concerns
02:05:50 concerns um
02:05:55 mr martin had a view as he's expressed in this email and previous emails which perhaps
02:06:00 perhaps didn't necessarily share um some of the views about the ambiguity expressed by um by the likes of mr jenkins let's move on in time then to
02:06:13 let's move on in time then to the next cwct fire group meeting 17th march 2016. can we please start with your statement at page 54 paragraph 207
02:06:24 at page 54 paragraph 207 and you say this while preparing this statement i've seen the cwct minute 17th march 2016 which raised an issue regarding limited combustibility and the interpretation of
02:06:35 combustibility and the interpretation of section 12 of adb particularly paragraph 12.7 but i do not recall being aware of this at the time just so that we're clear what was it that you weren't aware of at the time
02:06:46 that you weren't aware of at the time sorry the um cwc minutes and therefore the um discussion i see so you weren't aware of the issue regarding limited combustibility and the interpretation of section 12. um
02:06:57 um no
02:06:58 no right were you aware at the time that the meeting was taking place i very much doubt it so you weren't told anything about about the outcome is that right um no i don't recall being told anything about the outcome right well
02:07:09 anything about the outcome right well let's see how we go then maybe we can take this a little bit more quickly with the minute clg three zeroes one nine four four zero page two
02:07:17 page two i'll show you page one i'm so sorry page one because that shows you the date and the attendees there's the date 17th march 2016. uh in farrington street and those
02:07:29 uh in farrington street and those presents are there you could see david metcalf is there and brian martin is there as well as others who i don't need to identify and if you go to page two you can see at um
02:07:40 go to page two you can see at um a heading combustibility of material at the foot of your screen it says this approved document b clause 12.7 requires insulation and filler material in the external walls of tall buildings to be of limited combustibility bca guidance note 18
02:07:53 combustibility bca guidance note 18 extends this requirement to all material in the wall it was accepted that clause 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation the title of
02:08:05 and open to interpretation the title of the clause is also misleading insulation materials stroke products and this will be changed in the next revision of adb
02:08:16 and i think we can pause there now
02:08:21 now you've you saw these minutes as you say in the course of preparing your witness statement
02:08:26 statement was this
02:08:27 was this section of the minutes when you saw them a surprise to you
02:08:37 um well at this stage i was aware of the bca guidance note 18 so i would have understood um what said in the first paragraph right second paragraph was that a surprise to you
02:08:48 that a surprise to you well
02:08:48 well um clearly um i can't say it was a surprise to me insofar as obviously the issue about um section 12.7 had been well aired prior to um you know in the immediate
02:09:01 prior to um you know in the immediate aftermath of the fire and therefore prior to preparing my witness statement and indeed prior to my becoming aware of these minutes so um
02:09:10 um i can't say it was a pr surprisingly in terms of the exact terms in which you've asked that right that question i'm afraid you see um you had asked
02:09:19 asked brian martin very pointedly i would say so on the 4th of january 2016 after the address fire whether there was anything in adb to worry about and he had come back and told you
02:09:29 told you in terms that uh the core of an acm panel uh would be considered filler you see and here you are seeing a note
02:09:40 seeing a note only
02:09:41 only a year or so after that which in which the
02:09:45 the participants at the meeting including brian martin as i've shown you accept that 12.7 is poorly written open to interpretation with a misleading clause
02:09:56 clause now putting those two together were you not surprised when you first saw well i'm putting i mean i did not put them together at the time when i first saw this that's the first one i made looking back on it
02:10:07 looking back on it yes um
02:10:09 yes um there is a contradiction i accept between what i you know what what i'd understood and what i understood being told in january 2016 with the um with what said in this meeting
02:10:21 meeting now let's look and see what brian martin says
02:10:24 says uh let's go to his state clg 3-0 is 19469 page 49 paragraph 138 and he says this
02:10:36 on 17th march 2016 i attended the second meeting of the cwct technical group at the meeting a draft roadmap to summarize the measures needed to ensure a facade complies with the prescriptive
02:10:47 a facade complies with the prescriptive rules of atp was presented i recall being satisfied that the raid map adequately set out how compliance with the functional requirements could be achieved
02:10:57 achieved excuse me
02:10:58 excuse me the minutes go on to note that the 2015 bca guidance note 18 had extended the limited combustibility requirement to all material in the wall of a tall building this was not an objectionable clarification
02:11:11 objectionable clarification indeed at the meeting it was accepted as is recorded the paragraph 12.7 of adb was open to interpretation acting on behalf of the department i undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of adb
02:11:23 next revision of adb the conclusions of that section of the discussion uh were that when he goes on to to say what they are the cladding should not contribute uh to the spread of fire and the combustibility clause is
02:11:34 of fire and the combustibility clause is intended to include all materials in the external wall an exception may be made for small isolated components that would not contribute to fire spread emphasis in the original
02:11:45 in the original now
02:11:45 now before the fire at grenfell on the 14th of june 2017 were you made aware at any time
02:11:52 time that brian martin considered the 12.7 of the approved document was poorly written or open to interpretation or misleading i don't recall so
02:12:02 recall so were you made aware at any time before the grenfell tower fire that he had told anybody else in the department that he considered that to be the case i don't recall so did he tell you or that others in the cladding industry had expressed
02:12:14 in the cladding industry had expressed the opinion that 12.7 was poorly written open to interpretation and misleading i don't recall so he didn't mention any of this to you is that right i don't recall so you'd recall that wouldn't you um
02:12:26 so you'd recall that wouldn't you um i probably would recall it and if you told you come back from the meeting and told you that i've accepted the 12.7
02:12:34 the 12.7 which was the one thing that stopped to dubai cladding fire happening here was open to interpretation poorly written and misleading you'd recall that wouldn't you well i think i probably would recall it can we take it that you never mentioned a word of this
02:12:46 that you never mentioned a word of this to you um well i can't sorry i you know it seems blindingly obvious as a thing to recall or not at this point in time i cannot be you know absolutely accurate in terms of my memory but i think it's
02:12:58 in terms of my memory but i think it's reasonable for you to ex to say and put to me that if something of this importance i would recall um so you know that's i don't recall being
02:13:09 i don't recall being um told and i think probably if i had been told then i probably would remember
02:13:23 now he refers there to technical guidance mate 18 issue one which is the second edition published in the june of 2015. can we look at your statement please
02:13:34 can we look at your statement please page 54 paragraph 208
02:13:39 you say this i'm also aware of the building control alliance guidance note 18 which was published in june 2015 which set out a view of you you say there of the interpretation of the requirements of
02:13:51 interpretation of the requirements of adb in relation to external wall systems including reference to paragraph 12.7 and then you go on to say that the bc is an umbrella organization etc and if you turn the page its
02:14:03 etc and if you turn the page its guidance is intended to assist building inspectors in understanding compliance issues to ensure consistency of practice across both sectors the department did not approve this document
02:14:14 department did not approve this document and i did not recall it being discussed at the time although i'm aware that brian martin was involved in the discussions with the bca when it was being prepared now can we go back to the previous page please page 54.
02:14:26 please page 54. i emphasize this when reading it to you in the second line because you say which set out of you of the interpretation um
02:14:34 um when you say that did it
02:14:37 did it set out the correct view
02:14:43 um
02:14:48 well without um i need to see the exact terms of the building control alliance guidance note to be able to give you a definitive answer on that no doubt you will show me them
02:14:59 will show me them but
02:15:02 from when i saw the guidance note and i can't recall exactly when i first saw it
02:15:08 saw it although it wouldn't have been in june 2015 i'm sure of that um i don't think i read anything in that which leapt off the page to me to being an incorrect interpretation of
02:15:20 an incorrect interpretation of um um the relevant requirements in adb right
02:15:26 uh
02:15:29 does that tell us that the view as you can you've set it out there
02:15:35 there adb contained in the building control alliance guidance note 18 of june 2015 and i think in this respect not different from the 2014 version was a view shared by your
02:15:47 was a view shared by your by you and brian martin at the very least
02:15:50 least i believe so yes right were there any discussions between
02:15:55 between you and brian martin about uh that technical guidance note 18 and specifically the fact that it applies the requirements of materials of limiting
02:16:07 requirements of materials of limiting combustibility to all elements of the external wall build up including external facings um
02:16:15 um i don't believe having a discussion certainly not in at the time that the the um
02:16:21 the um uh bca guidance note was prepared certainly did not discuss it at that point were you aware that the guidance recommended as the main route to compliance for buildings over 18 meters as i say
02:16:32 for buildings over 18 meters as i say that all elements of the external wall system were to be of limiting combustibility and not let me just finish and not only the insulation and the core of the rain screen panel um it would assist me if i was able to
02:16:44 it would assist me if i was able to actually see the relevant text yes let's do that it's bca seven zeros two i think we'll take you to the june 2015 version because that's what you're referring to in your statement bca702
02:17:01 issue one as you can see june 2015 titled use of combustible cladding materials on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height um and i was asking you about if we go to page there's a lot in this yes um i'm
02:17:13 to page there's a lot in this yes um i'm not going to read it all to you of course yeah i've given the time but if we go to page two please option one as you can see there i'll read that to you the use of materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the
02:17:24 combustibility for all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 meters this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material smaller gasket parts and similar low-risk items can be excluded
02:17:35 similar low-risk items can be excluded from this requirement the definition of an mlc molk is stated in table a7 of adb-2
02:17:42 adb-2 so my question was were you aware that the guidance recommended that all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 meters including
02:17:53 below 18 meters including the external facing material were to be of limiting combustibility well i know that um there is an exclusion um which is very
02:18:01 is very although in obviously not using the exact same terms as the exclusion in paragraph 12 7 is referenced there so um
02:18:10 so um i would have i would have interpreted this
02:18:13 this um as meaning that all of the most significant elements of the cladding system i think the word was used in earlier on in the guidance note i noted uh should be of limited combustibility but that there would be some smaller
02:18:25 but that there would be some smaller parts as in the second sentence which were
02:18:27 were excluded and that would have been um
02:18:31 um the bcaa's version as it were of the relevant um exclusions in ad 12.7 so i don't see i don't necessarily see a contradiction between
02:18:42 between this and what is in ad-1207 even though obviously it's expressed differently did you ever have a discussion with brian martin about whether
02:18:53 about whether approved document b section 12 um
02:18:57 um and its requirement for materials and emitting combustibility was limited to the core of a rain screen panel or extended further and included the surface of a rain screen panel um i
02:19:09 surface of a rain screen panel um i certainly didn't have that discussion to my member to my recollection so when it says that the external facing material must be a material of limited combustibility what was the basis for
02:19:20 combustibility what was the basis for your
02:19:22 your uh understanding that that was consistent with approved document b well i mean i'm in discussing this obviously i'm talking with the benefit of
02:19:33 with the benefit of of your hindsight let's not do that right i'd like you to go back to the time
02:19:38 time mid 2015 and your statement and i want to know whether at the time you had any thoughts or any discussions about the breadth of option one and how it could be the case
02:19:51 and how it could be the case that external facing material was required to be material of limited combustibility i would not have had those discussions in
02:20:00 in summer 2015 right did you
02:20:05 ask yourself internally in your own mind the question what is it what not only extends the molc requirement to the core of
02:20:16 of a panel
02:20:18 a panel which was the discussion that you i think it had an understanding that you had but extends further than that to the skin the external surface well do you have any internal thought processes about that well not not at the time uh and at any
02:20:30 well not not at the time uh and at any time before the grenfell tower fire i think that's unlikely i don't recall having so i think it's unlikely did you understand the guidance produced by organizations such as the bca to have the same status as the statutory
02:20:42 the same status as the statutory guidance produced by government well clearly they do not because they're not statutory guidance did you consider that it was possible for industry guidance to extend by which
02:20:54 for industry guidance to extend by which i mean expand the meaning or scope of any provision in the guidance prove document b
02:21:09 i'm pausing to this question if i may because i mean the short answer is you know the guidance industry guidance clearly cannot
02:21:19 cannot um sort of supersede government guidance there is a but however which is thinking about how
02:21:29 compliance with the requirements of the regulation may be
02:21:33 be met
02:21:35 met so for instance
02:21:40 it is perfectly disciplined i may if i may draw an analogy an example from somewhere else where in effect
02:21:47 in effect compliance with an industry standard is regarded as compliance with the regulation um so this is in relation to bs7671 which refers to electrical safety where you know we spend a bit of time saying
02:21:59 you know we spend a bit of time saying this but basically what we say in approved document p which is part p electrical safety is that if your work complies with b7671 it will comply with part p
02:22:09 part p so
02:22:10 so the concept of drawing on industry guidance to support
02:22:14 support approved documents guidance is is is understood and is clearly part of the system and that's why for example you know we would reference other standards and so on and indeed industry
02:22:26 standards and so on and indeed industry guidance documents in all of the approved documents so
02:22:31 that is why i'm
02:22:34 i'm pausing because if per chance that industry guidance went beyond the
02:22:43 the the terms of the approved document
02:22:49 and that was what industry regarded as good practice then i would think building control bodies may well point to um
02:23:00 um the industry guidance as good practice what good looks like and work with the relevant duty holder on complying with that and then ultimately if the duty holder
02:23:11 and then ultimately if the duty holder didn't like that but reverted back to the approved document guidance then clearly there is the issue about how that works in terms of the statutory provisions relating to the
02:23:22 the statutory provisions relating to the status of approved documents in the building act i'm sorry that's a very roundabout and convoluted answer but i'm not necessarily sure it would there is a an absolute yes no answer to that question and i apologize
02:23:35 answer to that question and i apologize as i say if that was rather a complex answer did you discuss with brian martin at any time after mid 2014 when issue north of the bcaa's technical guidance note 18 was
02:23:46 note 18 was first promulgated august when it went onto the website um that year the nhbc and indeed the bca was taking a more restrictive line on combustible materials in the cladding of
02:23:58 combustible materials in the cladding of high-rise buildings then adb contemplated um i don't recall having any discussions with mr martin or anyone else about that i think we can agree that no revision or amendment to the text of section 12
02:24:11 the text of section 12 of
02:24:12 of adb was ever made to indicate this apparent extension um certainly not at this time now no were you aware of any attempts by the department to communicate this interpretation of paragraph 12.7 to a
02:24:24 interpretation of paragraph 12.7 to a wider audience than the members of um
02:24:31 the the bca or the or cwct fire group i don't think so no now you say in paragraph 208 that the department didn't approve technical guidance note 18. um
02:24:43 approve technical guidance note 18. um is that because the department did not routinely approve industry guidance such as this no because um i mean as you will be aware there's a sort of particular status to approval
02:24:55 status to approval as set out in the building act and we would have gone through various procedures et cetera so no we would not approve formally
02:25:03 formally industry guidance of this nature
02:25:08 i i i mean could could for example brian martin have told the meeting in march the cwct meeting on the 17th of march that that the bca technical guidance note 18 had expanded
02:25:20 technical guidance note 18 had expanded the guidance or expanded the restriction i should say in paragraph 12.7 well he could certainly have drawn the cwct's attention to the bca guidance
02:25:31 cwct's attention to the bca guidance note and expressed a view as to whether um you know the um you know expressed a view about that guidance in terms of um
02:25:41 um how he saw it fitting with the system and thought what he saw it doing now let's go to nhb403453
02:25:48 this is the longest email chain in august 2014. so it's back in it's back in time
02:25:59 and if we go please to page two and the email sent by steve evans of nhbc to brian martin on the 15th of august
02:26:08 august i think we touched on this earlier on in your evidence but let's look at the third paragraph which i did pick up with you he says this i've also attached for your information a copy of the bca guidance note on the use of combustible cladding
02:26:19 note on the use of combustible cladding materials and residential buildings which has been produced to reinforce the requirements of the regulations and to aid industry on how they can prove compliance when proposing to use materials on buildings over 18 meters
02:26:30 materials on buildings over 18 meters that are not materials of limited combustibility and a note was attached and if we go up to the top of page two we can see brian martin writing as follows on the
02:26:42 brian martin writing as follows on the same day thanks steve that's very helpful is the bca note published and if we go to page one we can see steve evans replying an hour later and say
02:26:51 say saying hi brian it's due to go onto the website shortly we're presently changing providers i understand this i understand so there's a slight delay and then
02:27:00 and then his response to that in the next email up in the chain same day a couple of minutes later 20 minutes later okay thanks whoever wrote it did a good job now isn't that in all practical terms at
02:27:11 now isn't that in all practical terms at least the apartments of the department's approval
02:27:13 approval of the document well
02:27:17 well um
02:27:17 um it's not a formal approval um it's not a formal approval no but it's it's it's an indication of approval it's an indication that um we that brian felt that the
02:27:28 felt that the particular document um did a good job in terms of um you know the subject matter and presumably the presentation and drafting of it and therefore if um it was going
02:27:39 of it and therefore if um it was going to be published by the bca it does it as it obviously was then you know the department was not then immediately going to say no we don't agree with this take it down right were
02:27:50 agree with this take it down right were you aware oh let's sorry let me go back a bit can we go to his statement please again
02:27:55 again brian martin statement at clg three zeros one nine four six nine page forty nine paragraph one three eight and this is the final sentence um i've showed you this before he says acting on
02:28:07 showed you this before he says acting on behalf of the department i undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of adb he's referring that to 12.7 were you aware at the time that brian martin had given that undertaking
02:28:18 brian martin had given that undertaking um i was not aware at the time did what authority did he have to do so on behalf of the department well i read this as saying that um he well obviously there's a
02:28:29 there's a clear process when we're changing 80 of approved documents as has been discussed for those
02:28:36 for those documents to go through due process internal clearances etc etc so of course ultimately it's the authority rests ultimately with with ministers to sign this off i read this
02:28:48 sign this off i read this as simply saying i note what you're telling me i will make sure that when we produce the revised version of adb 12 subjects to agreement of ministers etc etc this
02:29:01 to agreement of ministers etc etc this change will be made that is how i would read that i don't think anything more than that is intended and certainly i would not read anything more into it than that
02:29:10 than that did brian martin tell you at any time before the grenfell tower fire that he had given this undertaking as he says he did
02:29:16 did i don't recall so do you remember him telling you at any time before the fire that paragraph 12.7 required amendment i don't recall sir
02:29:26 now in march 2016 uh which is when we are at the moment there was no ministerial agreement to a review of approved fee was there well there was no ministerial agreement
02:29:38 well there was no ministerial agreement to the specific plan of work no correct well indeed the discussion document that we went through last week was still in the process of being drafted correct and it hadn't been submitted to ministers correct no
02:29:49 correct no in fact the final discussion document didn't include any reference to the ambiguity or the requirement to change a misleading clause in 12.7 did it it did not
02:30:01 in 12.7 did it it did not are you able to explain why that is so well i think that this would have been a matter in my view that we would have addressed through the simplification and clarification
02:30:12 the simplification and clarification process so it would have been absorbed within that process and i think we discussed last week
02:30:18 week the distinction which i had in my mind about
02:30:21 about the work on adb which was to do with clarification and simplification and i would have placed a change to clause 12 7 in that category as opposed to the the technical work where as i explained last
02:30:33 technical work where as i explained last week
02:30:33 week we were looking at some new issues which we didn't particularly we didn't have answers to and therefore we were treating them as issues that needed to be explored explored etc through research and so on
02:30:45 research and so on so i would have seen this very much as part of the simplification clarification exercise
02:30:51 exercise and
02:30:53 and and would have been dealt with like that
02:31:02 let's move on to the july of 2016. clg one triple zero eight three four seven uh second email down in the chain on page one is an email sent by you on the 20th of july 2016 at 12 34 to your g6
02:31:16 20th of july 2016 at 12 34 to your g6 and g7
02:31:17 and g7 staff in the building regulations team i think yes
02:31:21 think yes yes yes uh subject slide pack for new ministers our new minister you write our new minister has asked for a slide pack on building regulations straight epcs and then you go on to give
02:31:32 and then you go on to give some details about what's needed now if we go to the top email in the chain we can see
02:31:36 can see a response only to you from richard harrell 20th of july 2016 bob can you also include maintaining cost-effective technical standards in response to
02:31:47 technical standards in response to evolving industry practice or something similar in the bullets there is needed as a this is needed as a counterpoint to the deregulatory agenda and important that ministers recognize that there are risks if they decide not to maintain the
02:31:59 risks if they decide not to maintain the core standards eg flammable tower cladding
02:32:03 cladding do you know why was there a reference there as you understood it at the time to flammable tower cladding what was that about well i don't know um what it was about
02:32:15 well i don't know um what it was about i don't recall asking mr harrell at the time what he had particularly in mind as opposed to a general comment
02:32:26 comment i think the key thing i take
02:32:29 i take reading
02:32:31 reading this email is that
02:32:34 is that a concern from mr harold rightly as to whether there might be any pressure which there wasn't but just in case to reduce
02:32:44 to reduce standards i the key phrase i think is if they decide not to maintain the core standards and then the reference to flammable tower landing would be a reference to the maintenance of the core standard um
02:32:56 standard um i obviously can't comment for what was in mr harrell's mind um but that's how i think i would have interpreted what he said at the time right
02:33:08 right but you didn't ask him you didn't know what he meant you didn't ask him no i was very clear in my own mind about the key point which was about we need to be very careful or sorry we need to be
02:33:19 be very careful or sorry we need to be very clear with ministers about the risks associated if deregulation actually led to existing provisions being
02:33:30 being changed and weakened in any shape or form and i think um mr harrell would have mentioned this as an example so if uh well he does sorry yes he does so he does my question really what i really want to get at is
02:33:43 really what i really want to get at is he we can see he uses as an example but you don't pick it up with him it was the reason it was being used as an example because the department was well aware by this point
02:33:54 well aware by this point of the importance of of adb
02:33:59 of adb addressing flammable tower cladding in light of what the department at the very minimum knew including you about the fires in dubai well of course we knew adb 12 was important i think there's a
02:34:10 adb 12 was important i think there's a distinction between you know the issues around whether adb 12 can be improved and we've discussed
02:34:17 discussed discussed that i think what we are getting at here um and this was meant to be a sort of a you know a one-liner in a detailed slide pack which we discussed last week in my evidence
02:34:29 last week in my evidence to make the point that
02:34:34 there are some core standards which we as officials would advise are absolutely essential to ensuring safety of people using buildings
02:34:44 buildings including b41 for example and really whatever you do about deregulation then this is something that you shouldn't be looking at i mean i think that is the message that i follow
02:34:55 think that is the message that i follow that we were trying to get now whether the whether that came clearly across in the presentation then i'm accept that's another that's another issue and perhaps you know we discussed it last week and i think
02:35:05 think um some of the some of that presentation there was too much
02:35:09 much shorthanding maybe in the constraints of time and space i had in putting that together now i want to ask you one or two questions about something slightly different fire sector federation can we
02:35:21 different fire sector federation can we go to your statement please at page 56 paragraph 215. and at paragraph 215 you say i was aware that the first sector federation fsf expressed views on atb
02:35:33 expressed views on atb and had planned to set up a working group on adb i recall this came to my attention in october 2014 paragraph 5.4 of the minutes for the third brack meeting of october 2014. i recall that brian martin
02:35:45 october 2014. i recall that brian martin went to meetings of this group but i did not attend and i never saw any outputs from the sff's work i'm not aware that the department ever received any formal outputs from the fsf's work now that's your statement against that
02:35:58 now that's your statement against that background mr ledson can we go to clg3019394
02:36:03 now this is an email sent to you and richard harrell by brian martin
02:36:09 martin clg3019394
02:36:13 brian martin to you and richard harrell 13th of june 2017 subject fire sector federation campaign for a review of adb note the date yes and note the time and
02:36:24 note the date yes and note the time and date 1859
02:36:26 date 1859 yes do you remember receiving this um well clearly i received it whether it registered with me at this precise date time and this precise date i can't
02:36:38 date time and this precise date i can't recall and clearly it contradicts what i said in my statement and i apologize for that
02:36:43 that now let's look at the brochure that's attached
02:36:48 attached which is referred to by mr martin
02:36:54 uh um and uh
02:36:58 um and uh it says if we go to that page we've lost
02:37:11 looks like it's become disconnected completely well somewhere something has gone which has cut off all our screens yeah i mean i mean you may would have intended to ask
02:37:22 mean you may would have intended to ask me but just just come into that that's that's right don't say anything more until i can get the document back i think it's uh let's just pause for a moment
02:37:58 you take your time and see what you can do for us
02:38:22 mr chairman um my microphone's gone off i think as well um
02:38:28 um i don't know how long this will take but it might be sensible to take the break now for the cp questions i say that because i've got i'm only going to ask about this document and this is your last topic this is my last topic in my
02:38:39 last topic this is my last topic in my last document well we could do that yeah um i mean obviously there may be further follow-up questions from the questions i ask but that's i i'm likely to give you the nature of the of the document right yeah well i think
02:38:51 of the document right yeah well i think we might do that mr ludsum the um the accepted procedure is that when council gets to the end of his questions we have a break for yes both to enable him to sweep up anything he's overlooked
02:39:02 him to sweep up anything he's overlooked and also to allow other people to make suggestions i think um it might be sensible to take that break now yes and that will give the people in charge of the
02:39:13 people in charge of the uh document display time to get that going
02:39:16 going and um
02:39:19 and um we can use the time in that way so we'll we'll break now 15 minutes should be long enough shouldn't it mr miller uh i think it will be long enough yes we've had because we've had a long break since the two days we should we say 10 minutes
02:39:31 the two days we should we say 10 minutes no let's say 15 just be absolutely clear
02:39:37 clear all right thank you there are mister that's 15 minutes we'll come back at five to one and then we'll um see what further questions there'll certainly be some on this document that you haven't yet of course but
02:39:48 course but we'll see what else there is for you then all right yes thank you thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please
02:40:01 right mr miller well we'll make use of the time in that way we'll come back at five to one and see what things look like then yes thank you very much
02:54:36 would you ask us to let him come back in please
02:54:40 please [Music]
02:54:50 all right mr leds and when our connection with the documents has i'm glad to say been restored for which i thank our technical experts and we'll now take the remainder of your questions yes yes mr chairman thank you
02:55:02 questions yes yes mr chairman thank you we're now back on um i was on uh i've shown you a witness statement and i was on clg 3019394
02:55:11 and this is the email that brian martin sent you and richard harrell on the 13th of june 2017 just before 4 p.m that afternoon
02:55:20 afternoon and he attached the brochure as you can see from the fsf um and uh the brochure itself is at clg 30 is 19395. and the title of it is
02:55:32 and the title of it is why does approved document b need to be reviewed
02:55:37 reviewed and it goes on the last review of the approved document badb was carried out in
02:55:42 in 2006. we have witnessed significant changes to building design and construction over the last 10 years it is now out of date placing businesses and communities all over the uk at
02:55:53 and communities all over the uk at potentially fatal risk uh
02:55:58 uh now um you saw this at the time yes well can i just explain that it was sent to me at the time um and
02:56:08 um and um obviously i arrived quite late in the day on the 13th of june to be honest with you i don't recall i certainly didn't read it at that point as soon as it arrived in my inbox which
02:56:20 as soon as it arrived in my inbox which is why i made the statement in my witness statement erroneously i realize that i hadn't seen anything from the fsf i think probably what would have happened is that if i probably would have thought long
02:56:32 if i probably would have thought long document here i'm not going to be dealing with this tonight i'll put it in the entree for tomorrow and of course the world changed mr chairman we lost the document yes i didn't think i'd interrupt um mr
02:56:43 didn't think i'd interrupt um mr leslie's answer but the answer is is it we have on record but i'm afraid this is some
02:56:49 some a problem uh i don't know how long it'll take to come back
02:56:54 back there are one or two passages in this document i need to show the witness i'm going to suggest mr chairman if it's not inconvenient to the witness and to you and your members of the panel that we break now
02:57:07 that we break now and come back at five to two and hope that the
02:57:09 that the right well it's just possible it might be coming back fairly quickly
02:57:30 so
02:57:41 so
02:58:11 um can i just ask technical support who i know are making a value oh well you've answered my questions right there it is thank you very much i'm hoping we can get there before the before the next
02:58:22 before the next collapse if there is one i hope there isn't um
02:58:25 isn't um well thank you for the last chance just a minute
02:58:28 a minute uh resistance hasn't got her screen working
02:58:32 working you sure have you got it on yours i have yes chad right you have mr millet i have yes right it sounds look so it's on the public screens as well all right do you mind going on
02:58:43 all right do you mind going on we'll go on for the moment thank you very much thank you now um
02:58:47 now um just looking at the paragraph i've just read out to you did you agree in june 2017 that the guidance in approved document b was out of date potentially fatally so well i certainly was it was out of date and needed review
02:58:59 was it was out of date and needed review yes of course and indeed it was to prove exactly so nine hours later um well indeed yeah now let's go to page four um i want to ask you about
02:59:10 i want to ask you about some of the numbers there in the white text on a blue background yes
02:59:18 on page four blue blue text on a white background i think is what i mean under other findings yes uh and uh it says then
02:59:40 um i'm sorry it's this it they've got they've got two sets of figures some of which are derived from the smaller print but we're looking at the middle of the screen other findings from the fsf and cic surveys include
02:59:52 from the fsf and cic surveys include 92 percent of fsf members indicate a need to make changes to building regulations and approve document b more than half of the cic find the guidance and approve document be difficult to use
03:00:04 difficult to use a hundred percent of fsf members agree agreed the need to address inconsistencies in building definitions over 88 percent of fsf members and 42.3 percent of cic members
03:00:16 members and 42.3 percent of cic members agree
03:00:20 and then document b is not adapted to suit the trends used in today's construction methods design and usage you see that yes now um
03:00:30 now um you may or may not have read this in detail on or after the afternoon of the 13th of june 2017. um do you know when you first read it gosh
03:00:41 gosh it would have been some time way after the fire right and presumably would this be right that your thoughts on reading this document in light of the events of later that
03:00:54 in light of the events of later that that night were that
03:00:58 were that this was
03:00:59 this was a
03:01:01 a something of a prescient prediction well clearly i mean i don't think we have ever said that adb was not needed and needed to be reviewed
03:01:13 was not needed and needed to be reviewed for all sorts of reasons we've gone through this so clearly um
03:01:19 um the fsf
03:01:20 the fsf you know views it's absolutely clear from this from this from this summary the
03:01:26 the depth of feeling amongst the members of the fsf
03:01:29 the fsf and the cic about issues with approved document b um so of course i accept what is reported here about those
03:01:40 what is reported here about those concerns and i think we've talked a lot about the regrets that all of us have i have
03:01:49 i have about the delays in approved in in that review process well let's take a look at the way in which brian martin brought this document to your attention on that afternoon if we can get back to the email please at clg
03:02:01 email please at clg three nine 3019394
03:02:03 and because i didn't read the text of it to you
03:02:06 to you it says this both the federation have been sitting on this until after the election is now on their website and he gives the address i expect our new minister will have this leaflet shoved up his nose at
03:02:17 have this leaflet shoved up his nose at some point soon brian
03:02:20 brian what did you understand brian martin to mean by that last sentence um well
03:02:28 i think what he would have meant is that um the fire sector federation would have very quickly drawn the document to the attention of the new uh building regulations minister or the fire safety minister or probably both would you
03:02:40 minister or probably both would you agree that the tone in which he stated what you have very politely just said was dismissive and casual to the point of cynical no i would not
03:02:51 point of cynical no i would not you would i would not accept that i mean clearly um it was
03:02:59 i can understand why you why you would make that point to me i would not have dealt with it and certainly
03:03:05 certainly if brian then said if we you know if we hadn't been dealing with grenfell that we can just ignore this document then i would have said i don't think we can ignore this document and i'd have wanted to
03:03:15 to understood it and explored it and seen how what was being proposed in the document fitted or could be brought in to the work we had underway on adb
03:03:29 to the work we had underway on adb so it's unfortunate mr martin will have to answer himself what he meant by this phrase it's certainly not a phrase i'd have used and i certainly would not have accepted
03:03:37 accepted if i if if it had come to pass that um this was um an approach taken towards what was an important piece of stakeholder communication
03:03:49 stakeholder communication which
03:03:50 which um we had been expecting for some time i believe i think i refer back to when i think i first heard about this initiative going back a couple of years if not longer and clearly the fsf
03:04:02 and clearly the fsf were an important body i recall
03:04:07 recall that uh sir david amis asked for us to be involved with the fsf in the apvg correspondence we discussed last week
03:04:13 last week and um minister water norm minister barwell agreed that would be the case so to my mind this was an import absolutely important
03:04:21 important contribution to what needed to be or could be changed in adb and i would have been absolutely insistent that it was treated in that respect does the
03:04:32 respect does the tone which mr martin adopted in his last sentence they're characteristic of his or your
03:04:38 or your division's approach to fire safety concerns
03:04:41 concerns by external stakeholders no i don't accept that mr chairman um there are one or two extra questions that have come in from others to ask and one or two of my own i
03:04:53 one or two of my own i they're not necessarily five-minute questions um it might be sensible to take a break now well how long do you think you need maybe five maybe five minutes maybe ten
03:05:04 maybe five maybe five minutes maybe ten minutes something somewhere between five years getting out of the way now very well
03:05:08 well um now um
03:05:11 um now um uh mr harrell gave evidence uh on uh day two four five that
03:05:22 he wrote a naive email in may 2016 asking mr martin if there were technical changes to adb following the latino recommendations and he said that there were tensions with mr martin and that he
03:05:34 were tensions with mr martin and that he was dissatisfied to the point where he was looking for alternative employment and didn't want to upset mr martin
03:05:41 martin day 243 apologies i don't think i need to give you the reference um were you aware of any tensions between mr harold and mr martin well i was certainly aware um
03:05:54 martin well i was certainly aware um could you provide me with a a date please for that may 2016 may 2016 sure so um i was aware um that both mr harrell and mr martin
03:06:05 um that both mr harrell and mr martin were very frustrated with lack of progress and i know mr martin being mr martin he would not have been slow in making that known to mr harold indeed
03:06:19 in making that known to mr harold indeed to me
03:06:20 to me and he probably would have put it in quite forthright terms without knowing the exact details of the exchanges to which you refer
03:06:30 refer um
03:06:31 um so
03:06:33 so clearly i mean i remember discussing this with mr mr harrell and yes we wanted to see what we could do to try and ensure
03:06:44 to try and ensure that mr martin remained a member of the team remain motivated to do the job we wanted of him and
03:06:53 and and that would have been behind i think some of what mr harrell was talking about there um
03:07:02 um i think
03:07:03 i think i also recall um and i'm sorry i did see some of this evidence so i'm slightly sort of playing back maybe playing back what the way mr harold described it him referring at the time that he had a
03:07:15 him referring at the time that he had a different view for example on how
03:07:19 on how um approved documents in general but also including adb should be
03:07:24 should be restructured which perhaps didn't fit with the way mr martin thought such a restructuring could happen but i regarded that as absolutely two professionals you know
03:07:35 absolutely two professionals you know with a difference of view which they're quite right to express to one another and they would and they should sort it out which i believe is what what happened
03:07:43 happened given that mr harold didn't want to upset mr martin as he put it uh
03:07:48 uh was there a concern or a sense that you had that that mr martin was somehow impregnable given his apparent expertise well no one is impregnable
03:08:00 well no one is impregnable but on the other hand mr martin's if mr martin had felt so dissatisfied that he handed in his resignation he would have been a significant loss in terms of expertise and experience and
03:08:12 terms of expertise and experience and knowledge
03:08:13 knowledge to the team and
03:08:16 and i mean at this point in time we had been badly badly scarred uh by our
03:08:23 uh by our challenges and difficulties and failures frankly which mr harold talks about and i'm happy to you know give my own view on this
03:08:31 on this to
03:08:31 to in terms of recruitment of new professionals for reasons which mr howard explained to you and i absolutely concur with mr howell about all of that so my first instinct and i'm sure
03:08:44 so my first instinct and i'm sure i probably would have said this to mr harrell would be we should try our utmost to
03:08:49 utmost to um
03:08:51 um you know ensure that to keep to keep mr martin you know that doesn't mean to say we will do everything he wants and everything he says but on the other hand if there are there are choices about things that we can do
03:09:02 are choices about things that we can do which might make the difference between mr martin
03:09:04 mr martin staying with us and mr martin upping and going then i would opt for the first uh mr harold told us yesterday that
03:09:15 that i use his words psychologically we were just beaten up frankly i think we were just not confident we were stretched and over time that must impact on your psychology that's what he told us yes i
03:09:26 psychology that's what he told us yes i heard that yesterday um were you aware at the time that he was feeling that way as he put it well i mean mr harold was under a lot of stress for all sorts of reasons
03:09:39 stress for all sorts of reasons um and so i was aware of that and you know we did try and help mr harold with that um for example in terms of time off etc to to recuperate and recharge his batteries
03:09:50 batteries um it was a very difficult time for mr harold
03:09:54 harold um
03:09:55 um and i know that he was
03:10:00 he had a lot he had some excellent ideas about how
03:10:04 about how um the program of work could be carried forward
03:10:07 forward and really what he wanted to do and he was absolutely right in this was to try and find a way that
03:10:14 that through
03:10:15 through in the department and with ministers the team had a program of work which was set in effect you know we're talking just immediately post when the year after the 2015 election so a programme
03:10:26 after the 2015 election so a programme of work
03:10:27 of work appropriately resourced appropriately staffed with an appropriately agreed research program and was for examples that would take us through that period so we weren't in this constant chopping
03:10:38 so we weren't in this constant chopping and changing and having every five minutes to deal with with the next issue um that would have given stability to him
03:10:48 to him to the team it would probably meant that we produced better products it probably would have meant that we would have produced products with with greater dispatch um
03:10:58 um and
03:10:59 and he felt
03:11:00 he felt he
03:11:01 he took the failure to achieve that as he you would have obviously seen from his evidence very um very deeply and i regard
03:11:11 regard and i'm it's you know
03:11:15 one of the things i would have said in my final remarks so i'll say it now is i bitterly regret it was my job part of my role
03:11:22 role that when um to ensure that building regulations were not always at the back of the queue for resources for priorities etc
03:11:32 etc and that's part of what a deputy director's role is to make sure that he or she
03:11:37 or she is representing his or her team to the top of the office to understand to get
03:11:43 to get you know appropriate attention and it is a bitterly regrettable for me because obviously you know who knows whether it ultimately impacted on is precisely what happened to grandfather you inquiry will reach a
03:11:55 to grandfather you inquiry will reach a view and decide that but it would be ever forever my conscious thought i didn't do i failed on that because we were at the back of the queue and we didn't get up the front we didn't get building rigs up the queue
03:12:07 building rigs up the queue and i you know that was my role and i can't say that i discharged that to the best as as i would have wanted to well thank you um mr ledson i think you probably anticipated
03:12:18 probably anticipated my final question to you because i thought i phil i ought to ask it anyway if i need to flag it and if you feel you need to repeat what you've just told us then please do that but looking back on it now and looking at looking at the evidence that we've
03:12:29 at looking at the evidence that we've covered over the last two and a half days together perhaps reflecting on it over the weekend and the time you've had between uh is there anything now looking back that you would have done differently yeah
03:12:42 done differently yeah well
03:12:43 well i'm not going to run away from the fact that
03:12:45 that grenfell happened on my watch i was the head of the building regulations division there are responsibilities that go with that role
03:12:55 i've explained and accepted as we've gone along where there were misjudgments and errors and i accept that the inquiry may conclude that they were avoidable errors
03:13:06 conclude that they were avoidable errors and maybe and serious misjudgments and i am not going to run away from my share of the responsibility for that that's my role that's what i would regard my role as the leader of
03:13:18 would regard my role as the leader of the team
03:13:19 the team encompassing
03:13:22 i feel that we tried our best that i tried my best within
03:13:26 within various limits but i have to ask myself the question i have asked myself the question very very deeply was my best good enough and it would be for everyone my conscience that perhaps my best was not
03:13:38 conscience that perhaps my best was not good enough and i regret that looking at it slightly more dispassionately um clearly looking back on it
03:13:49 looking back on it in terms of the review the big decision point was sort of spring
03:13:53 spring 2016.
03:13:56 2016. i think if we had at that point taken a hard-nosed view that actually you know however optimistic we may be we are not going to get all of the program of work associated with the
03:14:07 program of work associated with the discussion document the simplification work the technical reviews done within those time frames i think we could and should have thought seriously about
03:14:18 and should have thought seriously about extracting the part b work even if it was only the the simplification of part v and driven on with that and got that going and that obviously would have helped not least with um with mr martin
03:14:31 helped not least with um with mr martin and mr howell's motivation now why was that the case now i think the case i think mr harrell mentioned
03:14:40 mentioned weaknesses in our program management and i think that's there was something in that um we were working very up much through our line management chain
03:14:51 our line management chain and realistically we didn't have someone outside and not personally attached to what we were trying to do and i said i think in some of my evidence that you know i think i lost sight of the trees
03:15:02 know i think i lost sight of the trees for the wood on the discussion document i think that's absolutely right we didn't have someone who said are you really sure you're going to be able to deliver to this timetable are you really sure you're going to be able to deliver
03:15:14 able to deliver what's your plan b what's your can what do you need to be putting in place for your contingency um that was a program management failure and um we should have seen that i should have seen that and done
03:15:25 i should have seen that and done something about that um i'm sorry i'm going to take a bit of time here joe i hope you don't mind i have got some things which i really do want to right we'll say it will take me another five minutes or so
03:15:36 so um
03:15:37 um i think the other issue on challenge is that
03:15:43 is that as i've pretty much well i did accept not pretty much in some of my comments this morning we
03:15:51 we did put our faith that the system was working as it was intended to do as originally set up under the building act
03:15:59 act the building control bodies were doing a competent job that industry bodies were doing a competent and appropriate job
03:16:08 job and that duty holders were properly and seriously
03:16:11 seriously addressing compliance for what they needed to do to ensure compliance and i mean you know not just grandpa but everything that's happened subsequently clearly shows
03:16:22 clearly shows that was a misplaced optimism
03:16:26 optimism and
03:16:27 and whether we thought the alternative was just too horrendous to come to contemplate i don't know maybe part of that was subliminally at the back of our minds my mind
03:16:39 now i would
03:16:42 i would defend some of what we try to do through the discussion document on the system issues
03:16:47 issues now i'm not going to pretend we'll come halfway to pretending that our analysis
03:16:54 and our uh prognosis
03:17:00 prognosis anyway compares to what dame judith hackett came forward to in her review in terms of its precision
03:17:06 precision insight or power but we realized that the system there were challenges to the system and within the limits particularly the limits placed on us by
03:17:17 placed on us by in effect the ruling out of changes to the building act meant that we were limited in what we could do but we were looking at resourcing we were looking at quality issues in building control
03:17:28 quality issues in building control so
03:17:29 so we did try but it was it was weak though i think we did the best that we could within our within our terms but again coming back and i think this is the real the the
03:17:41 and i think this is the real the the lesson of challenge both on an institutional basis that we didn't at the time have that person who wasn't attached to what we were trying to do had no sort of
03:17:52 what we were trying to do had no sort of you know um i hate the word but i hate the expression but i can't find a better one skin in the game you know what i mean you could say you are you really sure about this are you really sure about
03:18:04 about this are you really sure about this
03:18:05 this now
03:18:06 now um
03:18:07 um i'm very pleased that subsequently the department has appointed the chief scientific advisor a chief scientific advisor was imposed for a short period of my time on a part-time basis but there wasn't a chief
03:18:18 part-time basis but there wasn't a chief scientific advisor around for a significant period of time now
03:18:23 now he or she could have been the person to provide that challenge and also he or she could have brought us in perhaps a wider network of contacts who could provide us with a slightly different
03:18:34 provide us with a slightly different view
03:18:35 view from from that we received from um
03:18:39 um from the context we had um so
03:18:43 um so that's an institutional challenge issue and i think from a personal perspective the one you know the lesson i have learned from this whole process is you know
03:18:52 know i should have perhaps challenged more strongly um including my team um and including the top of the office and including what i was hearing from
03:19:04 and including what i was hearing from from others um
03:19:08 um i would
03:19:09 i would just like to reiterate the resources point and i've said i feel that i didn't do as good a job as i could have done in that but we were under intense pressure
03:19:20 pressure i'm not saying that the building regulations team suffered disproportionately worse than other parts of the department i don't think we did if you just purely look at the numbers and reductions but i
03:19:32 look at the numbers and reductions but i think the real problem that we had is our vulnerability on the technical side to as it were natural wastage so people would resign people would retire absolutely right
03:19:45 retire absolutely right but
03:19:46 but as mr harold described and i remember the difficulties and the challenges and the grief that we had trying to recruit replacements was was a real winner well you'll have
03:19:58 was was a real winner well you'll have seen from the evidence how difficult that would have been i'd actually forgotten that we'd got so far as to get someone who would have done a really good job
03:20:05 good job possibly working with mr martin so far as an
03:20:09 as an appointment had been made but we he quite rightly just got fed up with the length of time it took to get through as much as anything the security clearance was just a function of of the fact that we moved into the
03:20:20 of of the fact that we moved into the same premises as the home office and that's been an ongoing issue which has affected many people so
03:20:27 so yeah um i mean i should also say um i you know i think i i accepted this i also feel
03:20:33 also feel personally that i should have had a better grip on the handling of the appg correspondence because clearly um
03:20:39 um there were we didn't handle as well as we could and i think there were some learning points also about how that correspondence is handled it was probably just
03:20:50 handled it was probably just in effect treated as a normal piece of correspondence and it shouldn't have been and um and there was and you know there were faults there um but as i say i mean i'm
03:21:03 frankly i will not accept impugning of motivation of my team on some of this i mean i can understand why that view would have been taken but i may be reached on the basis of reading
03:21:13 reading emails
03:21:14 emails cold
03:21:17 my team were dedicated professionals and they were dedicated to the task on the other hand as i said however you try you know sometimes your best is not
03:21:29 your best is not good enough i deeply regret that is the case and i wish to apologize to the victims brave survivors in relation to that thank you thank you very much
03:21:40 thank you very much well mr let some italian remains for me to thank you very much for coming here and assisting us with our investigations and for giving more evidence i'm sorry we've detained you for longer than we had originally anticipated but
03:21:52 than we had originally anticipated but we're grateful to you nonetheless so thank you very much thank you and i should thank you also on behalf of the panel all three members of the panel mr ledson it's been very helpful to us to hear how things were going on inside the
03:22:04 hear how things were going on inside the department shed a lot of light on the documents we've been seeing and so we still find it very helpful so thank you very much for giving us so much for your time thank you i'm glad to have been assistant and now of course
03:22:15 have been assistant and now of course you're free to go thank you
03:22:30 right thank you very much mr millet um we have another witness we do waiting to appear we do uh and that next witness uh it's a ken knight and he will be taken by andrew kenya queen's council yes
03:22:42 by andrew kenya queen's council yes thank you well i think although it's never
03:22:45 never popular to have a slightly shorter than usual lunch i think on this occasion we'll
03:22:50 we'll truncate it a little bit and we'll resume at 2 15 please very good thank you thank you very much
03:23:06 you