This cladding material sneaked on to the market—I had not been aware of it. In fact, the specification for a recently completed block of student flats in the west of Edinburgh included material by the company that manufactured this particular product, although that material was specified as being single sheet. Somehow, without anybody knowing or being informed, it was replaced with this insulating material, on, I think, the pretext that it was better for insulation and might have been more robust.
I had never heard of anyone being aware of this material, so when I saw the fire, I could not believe what had happened. That sort of thing does not happen; cladding is solid and does not burn. The external material that we are talking about is just rainscreen cladding; it is there to keep the rain out and the water off, and is just part of the whole construction for insulating the structure.
The material was new to me. I had never come across it; indeed, I do not think that many of us had. We were all asking each other about it. When we looked at the student flats in the west of Edinburgh where it had been used as small infill—in that respect, it was similar to the situation with the new hospital in Glasgow—we found that no one had seen it as a risk, and it was used only in isolation.
As I have said, I was not aware of the material before the fire in London. We checked our records and, as far as we know, what had been approved on the plans was a solid, 3mm thick metal panel similar to all the other panels that had been used on the building. These different panels, which were coloured, were used instead. The company that runs the student flats has now replaced the panels, which is great, but I was not aware of the material. Having looked into the matter, I see that it has been on the market for a few years, and I hope that it has now been withdrawn. It is not at all a common material.
In the work that we as the building control authority in Edinburgh have been doing with the Government’s building standards division—and in the work that other authorities have been doing—to look at all the high-rises in Scotland, we have been digging out all the old plans, and this material has not really been specified anywhere. It has sneaked in a couple of times. After consulting the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, we felt that, where the material was used for small panels, it was not going to be a risk, but the company involved with the student flats removed and replaced the material—and quite rightly so.
I hope that you do not mind me continuing, but further to Denise Christie’s comments, I would point out that one of the other materials used behind rainscreen cladding is polyurethane, phenolic material, plastic foam or whatever you want to call it. That material is described as non-combustible or of low combustibility. However, many products that are deemed to be non-combustible that have been used in Scotland have recently been retested, and the manufacturers are now finding that these materials have been moved from class 0—the non-combustibility class—to class 1. I do not want to get too technical, but in the latter classification, the surface spread of flame is slightly different; in short, the material still has limited combustibility, but it does not quite meet the non-combustibility standard. If it is deemed that there is a risk, that will open up a huge can of worms. That said, in any wall construction, you will have to get through other virtually fire-resistant material to get to that material and that throws up a few questions. Government-accredited and approved fire-testing centres have been testing materials and giving them a classification, and the materials are now being retested, perhaps by a different test centre, and we are finding that they are being given a lower classification. That is throwing up some issues at the moment.
A lot of what is built has used materials that have passed tests. Manufacturers go to specialist testing centres and have the materials tested, and they describe them in their literature as combustible, of low combustibility or non-combustible. That classification is determined by a BSI standard 476 fire test that should be carried out in a lab on a rig to rigorous standards. There may be edge issues and different issues and the material has now been retested and given a lower classification. I think that we will find more of that happening.
I am sorry that I have gone on a little bit.