黑洞社区

A senior civil servant has told the Grenfell inquiry that he 鈥渟truggles to understand鈥� why he did not take action to prevent a major cladding fire.

Brian Martin, who was responsible for guidance on fire safety in buildings for nearly 17 years before the Grenfell fire, admitted that he missed opportunities to address the risks of using deadly ACM cladding in high-rise buildings.

He said it was 鈥渟omething I regret in a way I find difficult to describe鈥�.

The inquiry has heard that Martin was the person in the housing department 鈥渢o whom everybody turned鈥� for expertise on fire safety in buildings.

Over the past week, the hearing has been shown a series of emails from cladding experts sent to Martin in the years before the Grenfell fire warning him of the widespread use of ACM on tall buildings in the UK.

Martin was also repeatedly warned about confusion in the construction industry over an ambiguous passage in building regulations, authored by him and his colleagues, which some interpreted as permitting the use of combustible cladding materials above 18m.

In 2016, he was sent an email from cladding professional Nick Jenkins which warned of 鈥済rave concern鈥� that the number of tall buildings in the UK fitted with ACM cladding was 鈥渕any and growing鈥�.

The inquiry has already heard that Martin responded by saying that fire caused by ACM 鈥渟houldn鈥檛 be a problem in the UK鈥� because the building regulations were 鈥渄esigned to prevent this鈥�.

On his sixth day of questioning, he was asked by counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC why he had not taken Jenkins鈥� concerns more seriously.

He said: 鈥淥ver the last few months, where I鈥檝e been looking back through all these documents, I think I鈥檝e recognised that there were things that I could and should have done, and I struggle to understand why I didn鈥檛 do them.鈥�

He added that he had been 鈥渨orking in isolation鈥� because of a 鈥減rogressive reduction in resource鈥� at the housing department but admitted that this was not an 鈥渁bsolute defence鈥�.

Martin told the inquiry last week that he had 鈥渃ompletely underestimated鈥� the hazard posed by ACM and admitted that he would have focused more on the issue if he had 鈥渇ully understood it鈥�.

Asked yesterday why it took the Grenfell Tower disaster in June 2017 which claimed the lives of 72 people for the dangers of ACM cladding to be fully appreciated, Martin said: 鈥淭hat鈥檚 quite a complex question. I鈥檓 not sure if it鈥檚 for me to answer that in full.鈥�

鈥淲ell, for whom else is it to answer, then, if not you?鈥� Millett said.

鈥淲ell, I can answer it, but it鈥檚 a long answer鈥�, Martin said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the progressive decay in the construction industry, the progressive decay that went alongside it in the building control world, the impact of government policy on regulation and the resources available to try and address these risks.鈥�

In 2011, three years after Martin had joined the housing department full-time, ministers had introduced what was dubbed a 鈥榬ed tape challenge鈥� where new regulations could only be added if existing ones were removed.

The 鈥榦ne in, one out鈥� policy was strengthened in 2013 to 鈥榦ne in, two out鈥� and to 鈥榦ne in, three out鈥� in 2016.

Martin said yesterday that his team had 鈥渞eally struggled to get anything done鈥� within the department because of the drive for deregulation, which was intended to stimulate the economy in the years after the financial crisis.

鈥淭here was a lot of pressure on the team in relation to deregulation,鈥� he said. 鈥淥nce we got past the 2015 election, we had a combination of an even greater ambition towards deregulation, 鈥榬egulation鈥� was a dirty word, and there was so much political disruption, it was very difficult to get any kind of traction, and any document that would have gone out from the department would have needed to have had political approval.鈥�

Martin had agreed in 2014 to add a 鈥榝requently asked questions鈥� (FAQ) document to fire safety guidance clarifying that ACM and other combustible materials should not be used in cladding systems above 18m.

The FAQ was never published, and ACM was only explicitly banned by the government in December 2018, a year and a half after the Grenfell fire.

Asked if the FAQ would have needed ministerial approval, Martin said: 鈥淎bsolutely鈥� It鈥檚 a document published by the department. Anything like that is politically cleared.鈥�

But he had also not raised the issue of the industry鈥檚 confusion over the building regulations with his colleagues.

He said: 鈥淚 wish I had. I think I probably should have done. I think it鈥檚 a combination of factors鈥�It鈥檚 difficult to know what was going on in my head at the time.鈥�

Martin faces his final scheduled day of questioning tomorrow. On Wednesday, the inquiry will hear evidence from Brandon Lewis, who held the role of housing minister between 2014 and 2016.

The inquiry continues.