It was the government, advised by BRE, who set the standard for cladding panels as Class 0. The Reynobond PE ACM panels were certified Class 0. The inadequacy of this standard was pointed out in 1987 (in BR 135), 1994 (BRE/gov internal report), 1997 (FSDG response to AD B consultation), 1999 (ETR Committee evidence and recommendations), 2001 (gov/BRE tests of PE ACM panels), and increasingly from c. 2012. While Arconic are clearly culpable also, it is only common sense that there will always be unethical companies that will adhere to the minimum standards set by governments. Brian Martin actually suggested raising the standard c. 2005/6 while still at BRE. The reply (if any) from his predecessor Anthony Burd at DCLG has not been disclosed. Nor the reasons why the government rejected the ETR committees recommendations. Burd's predecessor Tony Edwards was mentioned by Burd as possibly responsible, but he was not called to give evidence to my knowledge. The Caroline Cousins memo to Raynsford recommending rejection has been disclosed, but surely there would have been internal memos and correspondence discussing the issue and then giving reasons for rejection? Also the relevant BRAC minutes have not been obtained/published by the Inquiry. Why not?
It was the government, advised by BRE, who set the standard for cladding panels as Class 0. The Reynobond PE ACM panels were certified Class 0. The inadequacy of this standard was pointed out in 1987 (in BR 135), 1994 (BRE/gov internal report), 1997 (FSDG response to AD B consultation), 1999 (ETR Committee evidence and recommendations), 2001 (gov/BRE tests of PE ACM panels), and increasingly from c. 2012. While Arconic are clearly culpable also, it is only common sense that there will always be unethical companies that will adhere to the minimum standards set by governments. Brian Martin actually suggested raising the standard c. 2005/6 while still at BRE. The reply (if any) from his predecessor Anthony Burd at DCLG has not been disclosed. Nor the reasons why the government rejected the ETR committees recommendations. Burd's predecessor Tony Edwards was mentioned by Burd as possibly responsible, but he was not called to give evidence to my knowledge. The Caroline Cousins memo to Raynsford recommending rejection has been disclosed, but surely there would have been internal memos and correspondence discussing the issue and then giving reasons for rejection? Also the relevant BRAC minutes have not been obtained/published by the Inquiry. Why not?