Grenfell Inquiry experts attended meeting with combustible insulation lobbyists, minutes reveal

The 29 November meeting, held in Brussels, was described as the first meeting of the organisation’s ‘Advisory Group Facade Fire Safety’, which it has set up to “build a roadmap towards safe and sustainable facades” in light of what was described as the “real and significant” problem of combustible facades.

The meeting involved discussion of the post-Grenfell ban on the use of combustible insulation on high rises – implemented in 2019 in the UK.

The minutes record that some participants felt it was a “key commercial risk” to the industry and would “harm the commercial interests of its members”. Human safety and property protection were also identified as top priorities.

The attendance of Professors Bisby and Torero at this meeting came after they had been invited to write short reports advising inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick on potential policy recommendations.

These reports, written earlier in 2019, were released in October when Sir Martin’s first phase report was published.

Professor Torero, a leading academic from University College London, wrote against the idea of banning materials based on a specific fire classification, concluding: “Introducing further bans/restrictions on the basis of classifications that are a product of inadequate testing will not resolve the issue of ‘adequate level of vertical flame spread’.”

Professor Bisby, who leads a team at the University of Edinburgh, included a whole section in his report on the combustibles ban. He wrote: “lt is my opinion that this approach (ie the ban) undermines the ‘outcomes based’ approach to fire safety that is supported by the Hackitt Review…

“While ‘a ban’ may be politically appealing under the circumstances, I am concerned that, by promoting a regulatory approach wherein designers are discouraged from being competent and taking responsibility for their designs, the manner of its implementation could lead to unintended and negative consequences across the construction sector.” 

Sir Martin did not follow these suggestions in his eventual recommendations.

As the meeting in November was held under ‘Chatham House’ rules, the minutes do not record what the specific participants said or what position they took. Other academics and industry experts were also invited.

The minutes say: “A key commercial risk for the Modern Building Alliance specifically is the possibility of a ban of plastic materials used in facades. This has started in the UK for certain types of buildings and will perhaps spread beyond.

“Some would argue that this harms their commercial interests while not addressing fire safety and it will also jeopardise reaching energy efficiency targets in Europe… Some experts believe that designing fire-safe facades using combustible products is not a technical problem and it can be achieved relatively easy.”

Given the real risk of a ban, the minutes record the importance of all actors taking their responsibilities seriously and for the industry to “take initiative” and “show governments it can take actions that are better than seeing its products banned.”

Representatives from the plastic insulation industry present at the meeting included a senior director from Kingspan – a core participant in the inquiry, having provided an estimated 15% of the insulation for the cladding system and further insulation for the windows.

Both professors advised the inquiry during its first phase – which assessed the cause and spread of the fire that killed 72 people in June 2017. They are also due to return to provide expert opinions during the second phase of the inquiry’s work.

It is understood that neither professor was paid by the Modern Building Alliance – and the costs of attending were either self-funded or met by their universities. The inquiry was informed of their attendance.

A spokesperson for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry said: “As leading academics, Professor Torero and Professor Bisby must be free to attend conferences at which matters within their fields of study are discussed. They do so as independent academics and not as representatives of the inquiry.

“Both of them are well aware of the duties they owe to the inquiry and of the need to avoid being drawn into discussions that might compromise, or even appear to comprise, their independence. We have no reason to think that either of them has acted in any way that would cast doubt on their ability to give impartial expert advice to the inquiry.”

Both Professor Bisby and Professor Torero declined to comment and directed Inside Housing to the inquiry’s statement.

A spokesperson for the Modern Building Alliance said: “As a European industry association, we regularly engage with outside experts to help inform our views and gather a broad church of opinion. Fire safety of facades is an important topic for our industry; we therefore invited a group of experts from different countries and different backgrounds to share their perspectives and suggestions.

“They expressed a diverse range of views which will help to inform the Modern Building Alliance’s support for a data-driven, holistic and performance-orientated approach to advance fire safety in buildings.”

The inquiry is currently on hold until at least 24 February while the attorney general considers an application to provide an assurance to witnesses that their oral evidence will not be used to prosecute them.