Senior civil servant responsible for building fire safety says 2001 tests 鈥渏ust got missed鈥�
A series of dramatic failed fire tests on aliminimum composite material (ACM) cladding before the Grenfell tower fire had 鈥渏ust got forgotten鈥�, a senior civil servant has told the inquiry into the disaster.
Brian Martin said the government-commissioned fire tests, carried out 16 years before the West London blaze, 鈥渏ust got missed鈥�.
The inquiry has already heard that one of the 2001 tests had revealed the danger of ACM cladding, the type which was installed on Grenfell tower and has been blamed for the rapid spread of flame in the fire which killed 72 people on 14 June 2017.
Technicians at the 黑洞社区 Research Establishment (BRE) had set light to a 9m section of wall covered in the material, resulting in 65ft high flames - twice the height of the test rig - just five minutes into the 30-minute test. The rig then had to be extinguished because of safety concerns.
BRE scientist Sarah Colwell has previously told the inquiry that experts who witnessed the test were 鈥渟hocked鈥� by the results, which she described as 鈥渃atastrophic鈥�.
This was of major significance as the panels had passed the UK fire rating Class 0, which meant they could be used to clad external walls on buildings above 18m.
But while the BRE鈥檚 report on the tests to the government said that ACM had been 鈥渙ne of the worst performing products鈥�, it simply concluded that the issue of the material鈥檚 compliance with Class 0 鈥渕ay require further consideration鈥�.
Martin had been employed by the BRE at the time and was one of three senior fire safety experts working on the testing project.
He also worked two to three days a week in the housing department - now known as the Department of Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government - as an advisor on a review of fire safety in buildings.
He joined the department full time in 2008 as the civil servant responsible for Approved Document B, the part of building regulations which deals with fire safety.
Yesterday, he was asked by counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC why the BRE report鈥檚 warnings about the test results had been 鈥渆xpressed in such feeble terms鈥�.
Martin said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know鈥�, though he admitted that it 鈥渃learly needed to be raised in stronger terms鈥�.
鈥淥ne gets the slight sense, Mr Martin, that there鈥檚 some sort of problem about coming clean with government and telling them that class 0 was a problem鈥� and it鈥檚 dangerous, because once some products which achieve class 0 are tested to full scale, they are dangerous, spectacularly so. That鈥檚 the sense one gets. Is there anything in that?鈥� Millett asked.
鈥淣o. I don鈥檛 believe anyone at the department or anyone at BRE would have deliberately concealed this, and鈥� I can鈥檛 think of any reason why either group of people would have wanted to do so鈥�, Martin replied.
See also>> Government officials 鈥榙id not heed鈥� coroner advice after fatal Lakanal House fire
Asked if he had checked whether the government planned to look into the results further, Martin said he did not remember 鈥済iving it any consideration at the time鈥�.
The inquiry has already heard that proposed changes to Approved Document B under the coalition government had been hampered by a drive for deregulation, but Millett pointed out that at the time of the BRE鈥檚 report this had been 鈥渁 decade off into the future鈥�.
He asked: 鈥淲hat possible reason was there for government, in whose offices you sat half the week, not acting on the advice there, oblique though it may have been?鈥�
鈥淎t that time, I don鈥檛 think there would have been any reason not to act on it, and again, this sounds awful, but I think it just got missed鈥�, Martin said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 understand how a result of that magnitude didn鈥檛 get more prominence at the time, and so I don鈥檛 think anybody that I was talking to recognised the need to do more.鈥�
Asked if he had forgotten about the tests by the time of the Grenfell tower fire, Martin said he had not and had tried to track down the reports, which were eventually found by BRE manager Debbie Smith and shared with him 鈥渟everal months after the fire鈥�.
But the test results, which had been regarded as commercially confidential, were not disclosed to the inquiry until they were revealed by the BBC in September last year.
Asked why the data had until then been 鈥渟at on鈥�, Martin said: 鈥淭ragically, I think it just got forgotten and fell between the gaps.鈥�
See also>> The true cost of Gove鈥檚 new cladding policy on the housing sector
鈥淢r Martin, are you able to give us an assurance that you and Anthony Burd [another civil servant] did not sit on this data or your knowledge of it for the full nine years that you were a full 鈭抰ime civil servant, hoping and praying fervently that it would never see the light of day?鈥� Millett asked.
鈥淚 can assure you that neither of us would have done that鈥�, Martin replied.
The inquiry has already heard that the government had been lobbied by various industries in the years after the tests to retain Class 0, as introducing tougher standards would push many products out of the market.
Martin and Colwell had worked on new pass/fail criteria for products in the aftermath of the tests. Although a passage in the first draft of the criteria had referred to weaknesses in the tests needed to obtain 鈥楥lass 0鈥�, a second draft had omitted the passage.
鈥淲as one of the reasons why these words disappeared from here the need to preserve class 0 to keep the UK market sweet?鈥� Millett asked.
鈥淎bsolutely not鈥�, Martin said.
The inquiry continues.
