BRE & Simco contractor Evidence - Tuesday 2nd March 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:11 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to begin today by hearing further evidence from mr stephen howard formerly of the bre i'm just going to check

00:00:23 of the bre i'm just going to check uh that mr howard can see me and hear me satisfactorily good morning mr howard good morning thank you very much indeed um we better just do the housekeeping before we go

00:00:35 just do the housekeeping before we go any further uh can you please confirm that you are alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i'm alone in the room yes thank you that you have no documents or other

00:00:46 that you have no documents or other materials with you i have no documents or other materials thank you and that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving

00:00:57 capable of receiving messages that's correct thank you very much well now as usual i'm here with my fellow panel members miss istafan and mr akbar good morning

00:01:10 and mr akbar good morning good morning good morning everyone and i think that um

00:01:18 we're pretty well ready to begin this the procedure mr hyde will be the same as it was yesterday

00:01:25 yesterday uh again your legal representatives are following the hearing um we'll have a break during the morning as we have in the past is there anything that you would like to

00:01:36 is there anything that you would like to raise or ask me before we begin no fine thank you good thank you very much well in that case mr millet perhaps you'd like to ask some questions yes mr german thank you and good morning mr chairman

00:01:48 you and good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning mr howard good morning now we're going to turn to look at the bs 841 for part 2 tests that celetex carried out

00:01:59 part 2 tests that celetex carried out on their rs 5000 insulation product in the first half of 2014. now the first test was carried out in february 2014 but before we look at that i just want

00:02:10 but before we look at that i just want to ask you about your involvement with celetex

00:02:13 celetex before february 2014. can we look at cel50708 please first

00:02:34 and if we go to page three of that

00:02:40 we can see that this sits in an email chain which we looked at i think on thursday uh in the context of the concerns that he had raised about kingspan but he but this is now um

00:02:52 kingspan but he but this is now um about details of the system that he wants to test and if you look uh at the email on the bottom of the screen you'll see it starts

00:03:03 it starts and this is the one center oh 9 17. 18th of october 2013. stephen once we have agreed the final design which i hope it will be soon i will get back to you with confirmation

00:03:15 i will get back to you with confirmation one of the one of the key considerations for us with testing to br 135 is that it enables us not to limit ourselves to one particular application stroke builder is there anything the bre

00:03:26 stroke builder is there anything the bre can offer

00:03:27 can offer that could extend the use of our product in other systems similar to the tested rig

00:03:32 rig the main one for us is that whilst we will be testing a particular rain screen cladding panel we do not want this to limit ourselves to that one particular panel

00:03:43 you you reply a little bit further up but if you go up the screen please to the email above it at the top you can see that you reply on the 21st of october at 11 41.

00:03:55 of october at 11 41. thanks for the email we would need to see further details of the systems in question to answer the question fully from the information below i do not think we would be able to issue an assessment report on a terracotta systems based on the testing of an acm

00:04:07 systems based on the testing of an acm panel

00:04:08 panel however without a full explanation of the differences between the systems we are a bit in the dark in terms of the claims in the market would it be possible for you to forward an example and were you alluding there to the

00:04:20 and were you alluding there to the possibility of a desktop assessment when you refer to an assessment report on terracot on a terracotta system yes if we go to cel401883 then next

00:04:33 yes if we go to cel401883 then next please

00:04:35 please we can see that the discussion progresses into the autumn of 2013. um this is a further email from jonathan roper to you on the 8th of november 2013.

00:04:48 to you on the 8th of november 2013. uh and start steve as discussed earlier please find below a list of requirements that ideally we would like to get out of the test report i understand that all of these will not be possible

00:05:00 of these will not be possible but broadening the scope as much as possible is critical to us and then he sets out three uh three criteria which he wants to have in the test did you

00:05:11 he wants to have in the test did you give any advice to celetex in relation to how to broaden the scope of the application of any bs 8414 test i think the only correspondence was to

00:05:22 i think the only correspondence was to explain the process i we would need to test and then do an assessment or the way the market was working at the time was to do an assessment to follow but i don't believe

00:05:34 assessment to follow but i don't believe we ever got to the point where we were testing where we defined what a worst case scenario was do you know why mr roper thought that it was possible uh given that

00:05:45 was possible uh given that bsa414 is a system test and not a product test because that was the way the market was working and

00:05:56 working and i you would take a test report and then it will be a desktop assessment to review changes from the test report and

00:06:07 from the test report and i would that was in an email from me to him i believe yes that was so was it in the latter part of 2030

00:06:18 part of 2030 that was the that was the situation at that stage was it that was the situation can i then go to cel401888

00:06:29 can i then go to cel401888 please with you

00:06:42 and he said well this is an email from you

00:06:46 you back to uh jonathan roper on the 13th of november 2013 and you say i've spoken directly with phil and you will make contact this is what you'll be faced with a steel frame with a simulated floor snap

00:06:58 steel frame with a simulated floor snap more photos to follow if you need higher quality let me know was this email your response to jonathan roper's email of the 8th of november

00:07:10 well i can't actually recall that but if it's in a chain yes it probably wouldn't it probably will be right um

00:07:17 right um and it doesn't appear to be in a chain it seems to be a separate document and do you know why you told him that phil clark would be in contact rather than answering his questions yourself

00:07:28 yourself because phil was responsible for the interaction with the contractor and the client

00:07:34 client to get the systems onto the test frames right

00:07:43 i so going to say phil would be managing from that point on the client interaction i i see can we then go to the first test itself and you deal with this in your witness

00:07:55 and you deal with this in your witness statement at page 31 can we please go to page 31 and look together at paragraph 137 and this is uh in response to the question above it you just see the question question 6c

00:08:08 you just see the question question 6c which bre employees dealt with the test sponsor at each stage this is to include brokering quotes and other preliminary correspondence planning installation the test itself and the preparation of the report

00:08:19 and the preparation of the report what was your own involvement at each or any of these stages what was the extent of phil clark and or tony baker's involvement to teach and you say it paragraph 137 i dealt with the initial inquiry stage tony

00:08:30 with the initial inquiry stage tony baker initially acted as project manager and provided the initial quotation to celetex as i set out above but i believe he subsequently changed roles to file resistance manager it appears that his direct involvement

00:08:41 it appears that his direct involvement in the project ended in around november 2013.

00:08:46 2013. now you uh say that you dealt with the initial inquiry stage in relation to the first test was that the limit of your involvement in the first test

00:08:58 first test i believe so yes i didn't get directly involved

00:09:03 involved if we go on to page 33 two pages on please in the in your statement and let's look at paragraph 149 um you say question which individuals

00:09:15 um you say question which individuals from celetex attended the test on 14th february 2014 uh you um you say email correspondence indicates that the

00:09:26 email correspondence indicates that the following people were scheduled to attend the test on 14th february 2014 jonathan roper jamie hayes rob warren and david cooper and then at 149 were you present during

00:09:37 and then at 149 were you present during the test i do not believe i attended the test but i cannot be completely sure of this

00:09:41 this an outlook meeting request suggests that the following bre staff were present phil clark tom lennon lee ammond and simon barrow

00:09:52 since you wrote your report have you had any further recollections about whether you

00:09:55 you did in fact attend the test or not no i don't believe i attended that test now at the time of that first test in february 2014 you were the business

00:10:06 in february 2014 you were the business group manager uh had you given that it was february 2014 do you think you'd become uh as fully involved with cladding as you say in your statement you did

00:10:18 as you say in your statement you did become in 2014 not at that stage that was in the process of planning moving away from tony baker to myself did you think well do you

00:10:32 to myself did you think well do you recall whether you yourself had oversight of that test program at that point it would have said with it well i can't recall exact dates but it would have sat within the responsibility

00:10:43 within the responsibility of the department i was business group manager for right let's just see if we can get a little bit more precise could we go to page 22 of your statement please and let's look at paragraph 98

00:11:01 and let's look at paragraph 98 now the question here question 5c sorry 5e as far as you were aware who at the bre had oversight of bs 8414 testing

00:11:10 testing in 2014 who had overall sight of this test this is the february 2014 test did you say paragraph 98 i was the business group manager at the time so i

00:11:21 business group manager at the time so i would have had oversight of the test program

00:11:23 program phil clark had oversight of this specific test working for stephen manchester dr debbie smith was director for the for the fire testing area um so you had oversight of the pro

00:11:36 um so you had oversight of the pro phil clarke oversight of this specific test does that mean that you didn't have oversight of this specific test i didn't attend the test no you told us that that's that that's

00:11:48 you told us that that's that that's that's understood but did you have oversight of it even though you didn't

00:11:54 attend well phil clark had oversight of the specific test i.e the project management from construction onto the system i had very little involvement in this

00:12:05 i had very little involvement in this test

00:12:06 test right directly directly i understand that did you uh well let me let me ask it this way was phil clark your did phil clark report to you directly

00:12:19 did phil clark report to you directly uh in relation to this test as a matter of

00:12:22 of the hierarchy of the bre phil clark was reporting into stephen manchester but he would have spoken to me regarding that test

00:12:33 so you were indirectly

00:12:37 supervising it yes can we go to bre four zeros 5808 please

00:12:55 bre405808 this is an email from phil clark to you on the 19th of february 2014. so four days after the test

00:13:06 days after the test and you can see that there's an attachment and he says thieve attached is the data for the celetex test for you to look at i have also included a still of the

00:13:18 i have also included a still of the system at the time the crib was extinguished with the complete panel superimposed to show where the flames are in comparison to the panels and panel joints

00:13:27 joints i'm happy to come to you to discuss if you have any questions phil and

00:13:36 there's an attachment to this which was the uh

00:13:39 the uh full test data um and some photographs i'll put i'll give the references but i don't think we need to go to them unless you want to look at them bre 40 is 5809

00:13:51 at them bre 40 is 5809 which is the test data and bre 40 is 5810 which is the photographs do you know why mr clark was sending you this data to look at

00:14:04 um it's it wasn't unusual and it's not unusual to send data around for the largest tests for review

00:14:13 review of what's actually gone on did you consider that data

00:14:21 uh i would have imagined i'd looked at the graphs which is considering the data but right not much more i don't believe

00:14:32 right not much more i don't believe but you say it's not unusual to send data around the largest tests for a review of what's going on um what precisely

00:14:43 um what precisely was it that phil clark wanted you to look at

00:14:46 look at in the data he was sending you i think it was probably forwarded on to me for information they'd run the cladding test is a large-scale test

00:14:57 large-scale test it was the first test with a new client i'm pretty sure i'd have been aware of a failure and he was then just showing basically what the temperature which measurements

00:15:09 what the temperature which measurements of that test were on the day

00:15:14 right so you would have examined at least in some detail

00:15:22 detail at least in some detail as you've described the data that he sent you yeah i think i would have reviewed the data

00:15:32 for what purpose would you have reviewed the data

00:15:39 out of the interest really i mean cladding's a large scale test it was to glean data and information from what had actually gone on so as i said for the larger scale

00:15:51 so as i said for the larger scale tests if you you're interested in temperature profiles you're interested in maximum temperatures you're interested in what goes on with the test it it sounds and please correct me if

00:16:03 it it sounds and please correct me if i'm wrong about this from your last answer

00:16:05 answer that because cladding was a large-scale test there was something perhaps less usual about it as far as your work is concerned or perhaps something more interesting about it

00:16:19 is that he said it was probably the largest standard test that um bre ran but it wasn't unusual to send around data from other tests uh

00:16:33 other tests uh he wouldn't send you around for all tests but 1181 which is the sandwich panel test was often circulated for information to those involved

00:16:44 now mr clark says at the end of the email which i'm afraid to disappear from your screen but i'll tell you what it says he says i'm happy to come to you to discuss if you have any questions and did he actually come to discuss

00:16:58 and did he actually come to discuss the data with you i don't recall a discussion about that test now you don't recall it but uh do you recall whether you had any questions arising

00:17:10 whether you had any questions arising out of the data he sent you i don't recall no not on that specific test

00:17:17 test let's go to cel50842 please

00:17:29 this is an email from uh jonathan roper to dr parina patel and david cooper both of ifc

00:17:37 of ifc international fire consultants dated the 17th of february 2014. subject celetex br135 preliminary thermocouple data

00:17:48 thermocouple data and it says perina david please find attached preliminary data of our test on friday i've spoken to phil this morning and he sees no reason why

00:17:59 sees no reason why a classification report cannot be issued as it is in his opinion that extending the test to the full duration of 30 minutes rather than stopping at 25 mins would have made little difference

00:18:10 mins would have made little difference and as shown attached we meet the performance criteria of br135 and not exceeding 600 degrees within the first 15 minutes depending on how phil's peers at the bre received this it may be useful if we

00:18:21 received this it may be useful if we could set aside a date in the diary in which you could dial in to discuss your view from the test

00:18:30 was this the reason why mr clark was sending you the test data maybe to see if you agree whether a br 135 reports could in fact be issued no because the br one three five tet or

00:18:43 no because the br one three five tet or the bs84

00:18:45 the bs84 one four test needs to run for an hour if you've

00:18:48 if you've had to put a sample out at 25 minutes then that you would you could not classify that to pr135

00:19:05 well that's that's a reason why he might not have done um my my

00:19:12 um my my i understand that um but did you have does this prompt your recollection whether you had a discussion with mr clark about whether you could classify this data to be r135

00:19:24 this data to be r135 no

00:19:28 let's um look then at the retesting of celetex rs5000 can we go please next to is cel5086

00:19:47 now this is an email from mr roper to you jonathan wrote to you on the 14th of march 2014 uh and it responds to you that's on the screen can we just scroll down please

00:19:59 screen can we just scroll down please uh to the bottom of page one and look at yours to him on that day ten o'clock we'll come to the response shortly you say to him jonathan i understand you've been talking with phil clark regarding the freeing up of one of the

00:20:11 regarding the freeing up of one of the existing block work walls the estimated cost for removing the wall and returning this rig to a part two configuration will be 2 500 pounds this will reduce the time scales for testing if you want to proceed let me know i

00:20:23 if you want to proceed let me know i will list your formal quotation uh at that stage how do you form the impression that celetex were keen to reduce the time scales

00:20:35 scales yes they wanted to retest as quickly yes have you had a discussion with celetex before that about that subject

00:20:45 i don't recall one when you say i understand you've been talking with phil clark and phil phil clark talked to you about this topic which then prompted you to send this email to jonathan roper yes probably

00:20:58 to jonathan roper yes probably yes it's more likely that jonathan roberts asked when the next slot in the test booking was possible and phil said

00:21:09 test booking was possible and phil said then that we can remove the buckworks and run the other rigs to bring this date forward right and then if you go to the response at the top of the page he comes back to you and says the same

00:21:21 he comes back to you and says the same day

00:21:22 day uh two minutes later in fact uh looking at the time stamp of 2102 steve correct we're keen to re-test as soon as possible and therefore we are more than happy to pay to free up one of the existing block work walls

00:21:34 work walls was it was it clear to you from that not just the speed of mr redmon's response but what he says in the text of this email that um celetex were in something of a hurry to re-test

00:21:47 yes they were in a hurry to re-test but a lot of people are keen to get into fire

00:21:55 fire testing labs and tests this was nothing particularly unusual across the fire testing labs and they were happy to pay them pay the 2500 as we can see yes

00:22:07 2500 as we can see yes now you were still business manager at the time of the second test that's may early may 2014 weren't you yes so does it follow that you still had

00:22:19 yes so does it follow that you still had oversight

00:22:20 oversight of the test program i didn't yes was that oversight in the same way as you did in respect of the february test or have you become closer to um the um the testing

00:22:33 to um the um the testing at the bre at that time i was becoming closer to the testing yes in what way were you becoming closer which differentiated your role into in february 2014 from the role

00:22:44 into in february 2014 from the role uh as you had it in may 2014. um things like more client communication more looking at dealing with

00:22:57 things like quotations looking at the resourcing available looking at other staff

00:23:03 staff things of that nature i've just generally become closer to the operational throughput of the test right did you become more closely involved in

00:23:14 did you become more closely involved in the specifics of tests data produced results of the tests

00:23:23 tests um

00:23:28 i've become more yes more involved not in the day to produce but the data reviews and things like that of the tests

00:23:38 now you say in your statement of paragraph 68 that you attended the second test on the 2nd of may 2014 uh so

00:23:54 thank you um let's go to bre 3030681

00:24:11 this is a collection of photographs which is labeled at the bottom nine five three six nine page one of two

00:24:22 do you know whose handwriting that is i believe that's fuel class uh and um this is the report number 295 369 for the may 2014 celetex test

00:24:38 369 for the may 2014 celetex test can we look at the top left-hand picture

00:24:43 and just have that one blown up please um that's a close-up of an edge and can you see a white board behind the orange or

00:24:53 orange or ruby colored cladding panel which is not present

00:24:57 present behind the gray or white panel immediately below it yes now mr roper told us that that is a six when i say that i mean the

00:25:08 is a six when i say that i mean the board behind the ruby outer board is a six millimeter magnesium oxide board that was installed at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the

00:25:19 two thermocouples and at the top of the rig

00:25:20 rig that was his evidence were you aware of the inclusion of the magnesium oxide board in those locations at the time of the test

00:25:31 when did you first become aware of its inclusion

00:25:37 inclusion i understand that there was communication between celetex and bre after the grenfell fire when bre were notified

00:25:49 grenfell fire when bre were notified of this issue with this test report

00:25:53 notified by whom i think the communication was from celetex that said that the communication come from celetex into bre right now in his evidence to the inquiry

00:26:07 right now in his evidence to the inquiry last week

00:26:07 last week mr clark told us that he was off-site on a first aid course on the 29th and 30th of april 2014 and as we know the test took place on

00:26:20 and as we know the test took place on the 2nd of may 2014. um

00:26:24 2014. um and his evidence was also that it would be common practice that the rig would be handed over by the contractors who built the rig

00:26:34 the rig to the bre a clear day before the test on the second so he calculated that that would be on the wednesday the 30th of april

00:26:46 wednesday the 30th of april do you agree with that um procedurally yes i can't confirm the dates without specifics but procedurally that sounds

00:26:58 specifics but procedurally that sounds correct

00:26:59 correct uh and he says that based on that he thought in his evidence that it was likely that the insulation and the cladding layers were installed during the very two days he was out of

00:27:10 during the very two days he was out of the office does that again does that accord with your experience time scales for installation of rigs such as these um it's possible i haven't got

00:27:23 um it's possible i haven't got detailed knowledge of or i didn't i haven't got detailed knowledge of how they would install the systems and whether those sort of panels would have

00:27:34 sort of panels would have been installed in those couple of days he also told us that during his absence he would have arranged someone to deputize for him and take over the supervision

00:27:45 over the supervision and the carrying out of checks on the installation is he correct about that um yes there was other people down there was always someone on site

00:27:57 was always someone on site within the burn hall for health and safety cover and contractual supervision what hand over there was i don't know

00:28:10 you say there was always someone on site within the bernhard health and safety cover and contracts to supervision does that tell us that at all times

00:28:19 all times during the construction of the rig by the contractor someone from the bre was supervising that exercise they would supervise the contractors

00:28:31 they would supervise the contractors but they wouldn't we wouldn't spend order there wouldn't be a hundred percent

00:28:36 percent uh inspect that we wouldn't be there all the time during the construction process we cannot guarantee because you just said that at all times during the construction of the rig by the contractor someone from the vre

00:28:50 uh you said there's always someone on site that contracted supervision that's what you just told us from a health and safety point of view

00:28:58 of view to make sure that they're not infringing their risk assessments or doing other things that they shouldn't be doing down in the halls but there's a lot going on in the burn

00:29:09 but there's a lot going on in the burn hall

00:29:09 hall so you wouldn't have 100 supervision of all the contractors installing stuff all the time um i'm sorry to press you just a little i just want to understand

00:29:20 just a little i just want to understand a bit more precisely what you what you mean you said there's always someone on site within the burnt hall for health and safety cover

00:29:27 cover and contractor supervision by that do you mean that there was always somebody in the burn hall for one or other of those tasks no what i mean by contractor supervision

00:29:40 no what i mean by contractor supervision is

00:29:40 is to make sure that they're using mechanical equipment correctly if they want it with them that they are following their risk assessment that they are wearing their hard hats they're wearing gloves and

00:29:51 hard hats they're wearing gloves and things of that nature they're not doing things in the burn hall that will compromise health and safety that was the health and safety that was the contractual supervision

00:30:02 and that but that and that would be um continuous with it in other words there wouldn't be gaps in the contractor health and safety supervision

00:30:13 supervision there should be some well i cannot guarantee there was never gaps but there should be someone on hand most of the time in that area specifically covering those areas you

00:30:24 specifically covering those areas you wouldn't you shouldn't leave contractors unsupervised no

00:30:29 no and who was it do you know who had that responsibility for that supervision during the construction of celetex's rig on the 29th and 30th of april 2014.

00:30:41 april 2014. uh i can't remember exactly who was responsible at that time phil clark would have um

00:30:53 phil clark would have um a part to play on there i can't remember whether richard lahrmann was was bernhard manager at the time it depends on dates

00:31:04 depends on dates now phil clark went uh on a course on the 29th and 30th of

00:31:11 of april um would somebody have taken his place

00:31:15 place as pro as project engineer or officer in charge of the test

00:31:21 um only if specifically asked and only if to do so and there was a reason over and above having a

00:31:32 a reason over and above having a contractor management in place to do something and did he ask i don't i don't recall recently seeing a request either via

00:31:43 recently seeing a request either via email but

00:31:48 he said that he would have arranged someone to deputize for him did he

00:31:58 i don't know the answer to that he identified you as one of the individuals he might have asked to do that that was for the transcript day 95

00:32:09 day 95 page 185 lines 10 to the end and page 186 lines one to twelve do you remember whether you were the person he asked to deputize in his two-day absence

00:32:21 to deputize in his two-day absence i don't recall i don't believe all this are there records that the bre kept at the time of exactly when the rig is built

00:32:33 is built something like a burn hall diary showing who is present

00:32:38 no i don't believe there is sorry to be a contractor signing sheet on a daily basis but i don't believe you'd sign ins you

00:32:50 but i don't believe you'd sign ins you wouldn't sign staffing what would be the bre's ordinary practice where the person overseeing a particular test

00:33:01 particular test was off-site for a day or a number of days during the construction of the test break

00:33:08 well as i said normal practice at that time would be to ensure that health and safety covering contractor supervision was in depending on the absence and depending

00:33:20 depending on the absence and depending on the

00:33:21 on the where you were in the build stage others would be asked to take records but it depends where you are in the build stage to do that

00:33:36 does

00:33:41 are there were there at the time any records

00:33:45 records of where new bay contractors had got to in the build stage at the time mr clark went off on his two-day course

00:33:57 would the the information would be available from dates and photographs and dates and notes well why does it depend on where you are in the build stage

00:34:10 because they may have it might have been a stage where they were

00:34:16 they had finished or a very early stage where they were just setting out or materials coming in and that sort of activity we wouldn't have staff

00:34:27 have staff covering the build of the rig 100 of the time

00:34:30 time some of the builds are two weeks you say the information would be available from dates on photographs and dates on notes

00:34:39 notes did the bre keep photographs with dates on them such as electronic photographs files well any photographs that were taken

00:34:49 taken would be date state

00:34:55 right

00:35:01 now

00:35:04 if mr clark is right that he asked or would have asked somebody to deputize

00:35:11 deputize for him during his two-day absence would there have been was there a process for some kind of handover uh not a formal process it would be more

00:35:23 uh not a formal process it would be more of an informal process what would that informal process involve just

00:35:27 just a local arrangement with someone else to make sure that notes were taken and photographs were taken at those stages

00:35:39 taken at those stages of the build we didn't have a formal handover process

00:35:56 did you ever speak to anybody who had taken over from mr clark during that two-day period i don't recall

00:36:10 about the construction of the rig sorry sorry did you speak to anybody who had taken over from mr clark during that two-day

00:36:22 that two-day period about the construction of the rig i don't recall don't you

00:36:31 can we go to bre-405773 please page three

00:36:43 this is the statement of uh practice and if you go to page one you can see what the document is

00:36:56 one you can see what the document is now you can't i'm sorry so page three is where it starts in fact this is the cladding test data file and report preparations sheet otherwise known as the sap i believe

00:37:06 believe uh and um if you uh go down uh a little bit further you can see um what is to be done before

00:37:18 um what is to be done before the test itself and the fifth item down is undertaken component

00:37:25 component check and obtain samples you see that yes and was it the bre's invariable practice

00:37:34 practice i say invariable was it it's practice to follow the steps in this statement of practice

00:37:44 well i think that was still under development at the time so in terms of a broad brush then that is the practice that we should

00:37:56 then that is the practice that we should have been followed but whether what exactly happened on this one i can't say in detail but generally speaking that is a good reflection of what

00:38:07 that is a good reflection of what should be done as for most tests yes and therefore do you agree that it would be

00:38:15 a good reflection of most tests that a component check and sample should be samples should be taken

00:38:24 taken we wouldn't take samples for test systems throughout because we wouldn't do attention additional tests if samples were going

00:38:36 additional tests if samples were going to be taken that would be if we were doing third party approvals or lpcb work what about undertaking the component check that should be done yes and what about

00:38:49 that should be done yes and what about the

00:38:49 the construction survey and photographs each major layer which is the next mission

00:38:58 yes that should be done

00:39:02 did that happen on this occasion

00:39:07 um well from the photographs that are available then

00:39:14 then the photographs are taken and there's layers

00:39:18 layers that you can see in the system so

00:39:24 to some extent the records are there as to what was tested

00:39:33 yes and did you yourself notice that in two places on the rig as shown by the photographs i've shown

00:39:44 as shown by the photographs i've shown you and further photographs will come to the eight millimeter marley eternity board was being used as well as twelve millimeter barely a turnip board

00:39:54 no can you explain why not because i wasn't directly involved in the test

00:40:02 the test so in terms of reference i wasn't there actually surveying the rig

00:40:09 rig so i wasn't directly involved in taking notes or photographs of the system going back to the we may still have up on the system have it up on the system

00:40:21 on the system have it up on the system the

00:40:22 the statement of practice do you agree that it would have been normal from may 2014 i think you do but there would be

00:40:31 would be a construction survey and first photographs of each major layer yes you account for why that there isn't in your records a construction survey

00:40:44 your records a construction survey and a set of photographs of each major layer of the rig under construction

00:40:50 well i thought we had photographs in the layers

00:40:56 i can't comment on why the construction photograph the construction layers notes were missing but i thought we had photographs of all the layers well can you explain why there is no

00:41:07 why there is no set of photographs of the magnesium oxide

00:41:10 oxide layer being installed at two levels on this rig

00:41:18 now

00:41:22 did you yourself notice the fact when you attended the test that the celetex rig had two bands of pink outer panels running around it one of the level two thermocouples and one at the top of the rig

00:41:36 um yes if i tended to test i think it'd be obvious that there was two different colored pens here did you ask anyone from celetex what those two

00:41:47 those two different colored bands were no i don't recall asking the question why is that

00:41:58 because it you often see various configurations of test samples various decorative layers it was it didn't appear to be

00:42:10 it was it didn't appear to be anything a particular note at the time

00:42:20 did you record it did you recall the use of the two layers of ruby board anyway no because i understand my involvement

00:42:31 no because i understand my involvement on the day that the test was being delivered by others who were project managing my involvement on the day i seemed to recall was a safety officer

00:42:43 recall was a safety officer so the construction notes that the rig would have been sitting with phil clark on the day or over that period you see no record of the installation itself which

00:42:56 of the installation itself which shows the installation of these two layers or levels of ruby panels can you explain why that is uh no i can't but there are photographs

00:43:09 uh no i can't but there are photographs that were taken which shows the two layers

00:43:13 layers it may have been those outer layers may have been

00:43:17 have been installed in a short period of time can we go to cel 50964

00:43:30 can we go to cel 50964 please this is uh an email in june 2014 after the test

00:43:45 and it appears you had a telephone conversation on uh that day with mr roper uh and then he follows this up with an email if you look at this email this is an email from mr

00:43:55 mr from jonathan roper to you on the 12th of june

00:43:59 of june copy to phil clark steve as discussed could you please arrange a holding letter confirmation that we've successfully tested to bs eight four one four part two two thousand five and meet the criteria set out of br135 whilst we wait for the

00:44:11 out of br135 whilst we wait for the official report to be issued could you also please arrange that our current class naught test concerning our fr5000 product can be renamed and reissued with certex rs 5000 as the product code

00:44:24 with certex rs 5000 as the product code as explained these are identical products but we are simply recall recoding the product to launch for range screen applications our fr 5000 test report was issued in november 2011 and has a reference of 275720

00:44:39 and has a reference of 275720 i'm just pausing there was it common practice for the bre to be asked the confirmatory holding letters such as this

00:44:45 this yes is it common for them to be issued yes did mr ripper tell you in your discussion why you wanted such a letter

00:44:56 wanted such a letter no as i said it's common for those test sponsors or those testing products to request letters of comfort whilst we write the

00:45:09 letters of comfort whilst we write the test reports do you remember what you discussed with mr raker during that conversation

00:45:16 no no i don't recall the conversation can we go on then to cel50969

00:45:31 and then we see again uh there was a further conversation it seems uh on around the 16th of june this is an email from jonathan roper to you of that date

00:45:44 and he says as discussed could you please send us a holding letter to confirm we've successfully tested to be r135 bs8414 part 2 2005. asap system comprised a range green

00:45:56 asap system comprised a range green cladding system fixed to supported by a structural steel frame and he sets out the ingredients of it below

00:46:02 below components of it below and we'll see them

00:46:05 them fire cement sorry fiber cement cladding panel proprietary vertical railing system ventilated cavity 100 millimeter celotex rs 5000 non-combustible sheathing board

00:46:16 non-combustible sheathing board metsec frame two layers of plasterboard

00:46:22 do you remember the discussion that you had with him on or around the 16th of june

00:46:28 june uh i don't recall

00:46:33 it seems from this that he asked you for a holding letter to confirm that the test had successfully passed the br 135 criteria do you remember that

00:46:44 the br 135 criteria do you remember that discussion i remember the emails i don't remember having a specific discussion so i do remember the emails and the holding letter

00:46:54 right

00:46:58 did you notice when looking at this email

00:47:01 email that there was no reference in there to the

00:47:04 the ruby-colored pink colored bands of plasti

00:47:08 plasti of outer rain screen material

00:47:13 um did i notice no because it's basically a letter of comfort or a confirmation so it's just really too it's

00:47:26 so it's just really too it's as i said it's a letter of comfort it's not

00:47:29 not can we go to cel402001 please and this is uh your letter to uh

00:47:42 and this is uh your letter to uh jonathan roper uh and uh it says it's dated the 17th of june 2014. so the day after the email we've just seen when you say dear mr roper fire testing

00:47:54 when you say dear mr roper fire testing of cladding test project update vs8414 part two fire test on the system as supplied and installed by celetex was tested on the 2nd of may 2014 we have reviewed the data and video

00:48:05 we have reviewed the data and video footage of the test and confirmed that we are in the process of issuing a test report and a classification report to be r135

00:48:11 r135 should you require any further information please feel free to contact me

00:48:17 me and you send that to him uh by email at cel401209 if we can just go to that key since at the bottom of page one in that email run

00:48:35 page one in that email run uh you can see the email at the bottom of the screen next to how you say uh 17th of june how's that that's what you say

00:48:43 you say why were you asking jonathan raper whether he was satisfied with the content of the letter you were sending

00:48:51 um just

00:48:55 good client management just to request i've done a letter of comfort comfort did it meet its requirements it's a question of is that um acceptable

00:49:08 is that um acceptable does that meet your needs for our letter of comfort yes did you think that was an entirely appropriate thing to do given the requirements of impartiality

00:49:20 as i said letters of comfort are pretty common

00:49:23 common and it was just a statement saying what's your view on this letter of comfort that we have sent out no i mean did was it really appropriate did you think

00:49:34 appropriate did you think uh to ask him his view about whether what you had provided to him was sufficient yes i don't think it's appropriate

00:49:46 now let's see his response uh at the top of the page he's top of page one 17th june same day he comes back to you and says steve this is fine thanks for

00:49:58 and says steve this is fine thanks for the exception of to the naked eye it's not able to be clear whether we have been successful or not i understand that for a test report to be issued this means that we have passed but could we be a little clearer in the holding letter could we amend the second

00:50:11 holding letter could we amend the second paragraph to state we have reviewed the data and video footage of the test and confirmed that we are in the process of issuing a test report

00:50:18 report a classification document to state that the tested system has met the criteria laid out in br135 or something similar

00:50:27 and then if we look at cell 50373 373 we see what happens next

00:50:38 this is a further copy of the further version version of the 17th of june 2014 letter that you wrote to celetex

00:50:50 that you wrote to celetex and you can see the text in the second main paragraph we have reviewed the data and video footage of the test and confirmed that we are in the process of issuing a test report and classification document to bl-135

00:51:04 and classification document to bl-135 classification report will confirm the recommendations in clause 12.5 proved document b have been complied with

00:51:11 with uh it's clearly not a cut and paste necessarily but this was you amending the letter to accommodate mr robert's request wasn't it

00:51:19 it yes why are you letting your test sponsors suggest what to write in holding letters

00:51:32 what because of the interaction that you have with your client base i mean he probably had a need for a holding letter and of a certain

00:51:46 and of a certain level of data

00:51:49 yes why are you letting your test sponsor such a celetex take control of that level of detail and the wording to be used

00:52:00 well i don't believe they were taking control they could suggest word but ultimately if we disagree with wording then we'll change it and i think in this instance it wasn't a cut and paste and not

00:52:11 it wasn't a cut and paste and not amended it accordingly the letters of statement of fact it reflected the facts at the time i i'm not um i'm not challenging that i'm simply seeking to

00:52:23 i'm simply seeking to uh understand the process here it looks as if mr roper suggests he wasn't happy with your first version suggested some wording for your second version you took that suggestion on

00:52:35 version you took that suggestion on board

00:52:35 board and reworded the letter not exactly with his own words but to accommodate his requests and my question really is is did you see

00:52:47 and my question really is is did you see the dangers of allowing celetex to take a measure of control or participation if you prefer the word in what you were saying about their product

00:52:58 no i don't believe there's any danger because the letter is factual it says what we did and it's a summary of that there's it has just confirmed that the test

00:53:10 it has just confirmed that the test report or the test has been conducted and we were in the process of issuing a test report and planning to issue a classification

00:53:20 there's no i can't it's a statement fact do you agree that this exchange shows a measure of close collaboration on the

00:53:31 a measure of close collaboration on the precise language of the holding letter i think it shows a response to a client to a reasonable client request i don't

00:53:42 to a reasonable client request i don't think there's any collaboration as such why is there no description of the tested system in this letter

00:53:53 because then very little you can't the letter's not usable other than

00:54:03 than um just the confirmation that has been the system has been tested in the letter is basically unusable confirming

00:54:15 beyond confirming that we tested did you know what mr roper wanted it for no you ask him no why not because as i said letters of

00:54:28 why not because as i said letters of comfort

00:54:29 comfort are pretty usual we send them out confirmation of completed tests it's we do it right or we used to do it

00:54:40 it's we do it right or we used to do it right

00:54:43 what did customers generally want to use comfort letters for

00:54:53 it all sorts of different reasons there is probably a contract or contracts in place which are requiring a test

00:55:04 which are requiring a test and a classification to br 135 or what other standard that we have tested to

00:55:11 tested to and we're in the process of testing you say you used to do it has the bre changed its practice i don't work for a bra anymore so i'm talking in the past tense

00:55:23 talking in the past tense oh i see right

00:55:26 going back to the last answer but one you say there's probably a con contract or contracts in place requiring a test and a classification

00:55:37 a test and a classification it was at your practice then at the time to provide comfort letters such as these which are in quite general terms in order to satisfy a contractor need for

00:55:49 a contractor need for such a letter without a full test report

00:55:54 as i said letters are comfort across the business and were often issued did you ever give it it was practice at

00:56:06 did you ever give it it was practice at the time to to confirm the status of tests following the testing before issuing a test report

00:56:17 test report and given the variety of uses to which these comfort letters could be put did you not think it appropriate to ask mr roper on this occasion to use it for no because it's just a

00:56:29 to use it for no because it's just a confirmation of what's gone on the letter in its form could not be used to put a system on a building which is why there's no summary of materials in there it's just

00:56:41 summary of materials in there it's just a confirmation that a company has tested and we are in the process of writing a report and classification document but that prep that at that point of course

00:56:52 course the uh classification test report and the classification report had not been finalized had they no in fact they weren't finalized until

00:57:05 no in fact they weren't finalized until early september 2014 were they no but that's the reason why people request

00:57:12 request letters of comfort because of the time delay between running a test and the issuing of the test report

00:57:24 test report at the time you wrote this comfort letter mr howard had you reviewed all the data and fully satisfied yourself uh that uh the test data supported

00:57:36 uh that uh the test data supported classification to br 135 yes i would have reviewed the test data and i'd ensured that we had run for the full duration of the test

00:57:47 run for the full duration of the test right it wasn't quite my question you reviewed the test data seen that it had run for the full duration of the test but my question was had you reviewed all

00:57:58 but my question was had you reviewed all the data and fully satisfied yourself that the test data supported classification to the r135 yes i believe can you explain why it therefore took so long

00:58:09 therefore took so long for the test report and the classification report to come out thereafter

00:58:18 because the workload is delays in test reports are not exclusive to cladding and they're not exclusive to bre it's

00:58:31 and they're not exclusive to bre it's there is usually months of weight or it was my

00:58:34 was my experience at the time in the department between issuing of or completion of tests

00:58:42 tests and actually issuing a test documentation including classifications a three-month turnaround or a six month turnaround was entirely possible

00:58:57 there were delays post grenfell getting test documentation out of the year i don't know where bre is with that now the delays between tests and issuing

00:59:08 the delays between tests and issuing documentation is common

00:59:15 we can follow the history of this through but you'll recall that the drafts weren't issued un until i think the 19th of june uh and then there was a review process and

00:59:26 there was a review process and discussion with the client wasn't there with celetex in in july before the reports were finally issued in

00:59:34 in early august i said september earlier i meant august

00:59:40 sorry i'm not sure what you're asking now you're asking whether i agree with that

00:59:43 that what i'm putting to you is that how can you reconcile producing this document at this stage when in fact there was still a lot more work to do on the drafts and including discussion with clients

00:59:55 including discussion with clients because the classification is largely temperature-based and you have your other um factors in there they are quite

01:00:06 um factors in there they are quite simple to review and establish whether the parameters have been met by review of the data and footage

01:00:20 now can we move on then to the test report itself the test report as it was eventually produced was issued in the name of phil clark and teddy baker

01:00:32 phil clark and teddy baker but phil clark told the inquiry in his order this last week and this is day 96 page 93 lines 18 to 25

01:00:40 25 that you had had involvement some involvement in checking it while it was still in draft is that right that's correct can we look at that it's bre three zeros

01:00:52 can we look at that it's bre three zeros three zero six seven seven

01:01:06 now this is a copy of the draft test report which was produced on the 2nd of june

01:01:17 which was produced on the 2nd of june 2014

01:01:21 by the bre and at the top of the page there you can see it says 18 7 slash 14. see that yes and at the bottom right hand side

01:01:32 yes and at the bottom right hand side it's marked version 3 for checking and signing yes then there's a signature or scratch underneath that which we believed we feel clark's can you confirm

01:01:42 confirm yes that looks like phil clarkson do you know whose handwriting it is when it says version three for checking and signing

01:01:53 and then it's at the top the date 18th of july 2014. does that also fill clark's handwriting oh that's mine that's you yeah right

01:02:05 yeah right that's in blue yes you can go to page six of this document

01:02:14 you can see that there is uh handwriting on this page in various different colors uh and some initials let's just go through this

01:02:25 through this um you can see that someone in blue pen has checked the components listed under paragraph 3.2 description of product you see that

01:02:36 yes it's in blue pet was that you yes it was you

01:02:45 and we can see that almost all of them have ticks next to them

01:02:51 them um what were you checking the components listed there against

01:02:59 um i can't recall possibly photographs drawings

01:03:07 any notes available notes available what sort of notes or any notes that were available in the file right um

01:03:19 in the file right um and the handwriting at the top there two layers 10 millimeter plasterboard is that

01:03:23 that is that your writing yes and the scratch next to it is that phil clark's

01:03:30 clark's signature yes so just help me with the process at this point was the process that he had done the draft sent it to you you had written your annotations on it in blue

01:03:41 written your annotations on it in blue baro and then it had gone back to him for further marking and he initialed next to where you've written is that is that how it worked um the

01:03:52 is that how it worked um the yeah the process was i would just write on the various versions of the test report until all the corrections have been done and confirmed

01:04:06 yes what i'm really seeking to understand is when you see the little signatures there that whether

01:04:13 whether phil clark had written those next to what you had already written or ringed yeah i thought when you go through a test report you just try and highlight the

01:04:24 the any issues any questions or any differences between what's in the test report and what's um coming out of the review and at the

01:04:35 coming out of the review and at the bottom of that list you can see the last bullet point says 12 millimeters malia turnip decorative brain screen board and in brackets you've written natura

01:04:47 and in brackets you've written natura is that right yes i can't work it out is that the closed bracket or is it a question mark it's a question mark right why were you the uh the tourer

01:05:02 just to confirm whether it was marley eternity why did you want to confirm that it was a question asking

01:05:14 confirm that it was a question asking what specific marley turner called it was

01:05:17 was i prompted that question remember

01:05:24 i don't it was just i think marley at the time were producing various boards so it was just a confirmation back to phil

01:05:33 phil or a question back to him them

01:05:38 do you see something to raise the question

01:05:46 and i said i can't recall as to said it's

01:05:50 it's there was a specific hold that was commonly used in systems and it was miley attorney the juror

01:05:57 juror so the question was

01:06:01 should that be in there or is it a different product can i just ask mr howard do you know what natura refers to it's a product name yeah but what does

01:06:12 it's a product name yeah but what does it signify a composition a color or what composition i believe it's a specific type of bulk reference

01:06:25 can we go to bre 3032

01:06:30 372 page three

01:06:39 and have that blown up please on the screen

01:06:43 screen this is a delivery note from fgf birmingham and if you look at the top right hand corner you can see it's dated the

01:06:52 the 14th of april 2014.

01:06:57 at the very bottom you can see it's signed by phil clark he accepted and you can see what's delivered

01:07:06 delivered under the description and unit and original quantity and quantity delivered and you can see that it says under description natura

01:07:17 description natura and there are some measurements three zero seven zero times twelve fifty times eight millimeter ruby sheet original quantity six quantity delivered

01:07:28 original quantity six quantity delivered six

01:07:30 six and then underneath that immediately underneath it natura n154 cream white three one three zero times twelve eighty times twelve millimeter sheet quantity five

01:07:43 sheet quantity five and then there's something called natura plus also in 12 millimeters uh opal

01:07:53 this clearly identifies the mali eternity 12 millimeter product as natura doesn't it as you can see

01:08:04 and it also identifies the ruby panels as natura

01:08:08 as natura my question is had you identified the 12 millimeter panels as natura by reference to these delivery network this delivery note

01:08:19 network this delivery note i can't recall

01:08:26 you can't recall

01:08:30 would you have looked at the delivery notes on the file when checking the components of the rig as you did

01:08:41 you did um can i be clear what i mean would it have been your practice to have done that

01:08:47 done that i wouldn't usually go back to delivery wouldn't usually know sometimes sometimes what would uh what would govern whether

01:08:59 what would uh what would govern whether you sometimes would do that

01:09:03 if there was question marks over the build or specific descriptions of products but it wasn't my usual practice to go all the way back to the building to the delivery notes

01:09:25 uh it looks on the documents today that you would have been prompted to ask the question natura by looking at this document

01:09:38 by looking at this document forming part of the delivery nets on the file

01:09:41 file is that right is that where you would have gotten the doterra from i can't recall that natura is a great is a specific type of miley

01:09:52 great is a specific type of miley eternity

01:09:53 eternity so it was probably to confirm what the board was on the system it was what the the annotation on the report

01:10:04 what the the annotation on the report is mature with a question mark i what was it what i'm really suggesting to you is that you wrote the word natura with the question mark next to it

01:10:15 mark next to it because you'd seen that brand name in the delivery note rather than recalling that that was a brand name for a malia turnip board

01:10:25 i don't recall i mean as i said it's a popular old

01:10:33 looking at the delivery note you can see as i've shown you in the first line that it identifies the eight millimeter uh ruby board but also as mature isn't it

01:10:42 it yeah uh but we don't see that you commented

01:10:45 commented on the fact that only one type of malia turnip was identified in the list that we've just been looking at in the draft report

01:10:55 namely the 12 millimeters but not the eight millimeters

01:11:01 you don't do that do you no it's not it's

01:11:05 it's on the delivery don't it wasn't recorded in the report can you explain why you didn't note the presence of

01:11:16 you didn't note the presence of the eight millimeter marley eternity ruby

01:11:20 ruby on the list of components when you were reviewing it because i would not

01:11:26 would not have gone all the way back to the delivery notes

01:11:32 when checking a report

01:11:35 right that's the next but you said you couldn't recall whether you did or not is your explanation that because because it's not there that therefore you didn't is that what you're saying

01:11:46 saying no what i said was it wasn't my usual practice to go all the way back to the delivery notes to check system components i'd only go back to delivery notes if there was a real question mark that needed the information from them

01:11:59 that needed the information from them let's get back to the the draft report please bre three zeros three zero six seven seven page 13.

01:12:22 three zero six seven seven page 13. uh you can see here that you you looked at this because uh you wrote this arrow in blue pete

01:12:32 let me ask you is that yours yeah that looked like my right assumed it is because it's in the blue and you wrote two sides what's that a reference to property to

01:12:43 what's that a reference to property to increase the size of the photograph in the report

01:12:57 is that not a reference to the fact that there were two sizes of mali eternity board shown here as the different colors

01:13:13 i no i think he's probably more likely to be looking at to get the increase the size of the report

01:13:21 report sorry the size of a photo i can't recall specifically

01:13:30 it doesn't say increased size it says two sides

01:13:34 two sides there's two sides with a figure two not to

01:13:41 so is this not a reference to the fact that you had noted here that there were in fact

01:13:47 in fact two sizes of eternity board one signified by the white and one signified by the clearly visible ruby vans on this photograph i don't recall that i don't

01:14:01 i don't recall that i don't i can't recall why i wrote that

01:14:05 given that you could clearly see from this photograph that there were two colors as indeed you observed during the test why did you not go back and

01:14:16 test why did you not go back and check the delivery notes if you didn't um

01:14:19 um to to to check what these two products were but there's four colors just four different colors it was not unusual to have

01:14:32 colors it was not unusual to have multi-colored systems installed

01:14:39 why not note the fact that there were two different colors in the list of components

01:14:50 well but there's four different colors if you look at that photograph so it just looked like multi-used multi-colored balls

01:15:05 well you say four different colors i can see that the wing wall of the fossil has got a slightly darker gray panel there where's the fourth colour it might be shadow

01:15:15 shadow but on the wing wall

01:15:22 right given that you were there at the time

01:15:27 time you would have noticed four colors i don't think you mentioned the fact that you've noticed four colors at the time

01:15:35 time uh as opposed to shadow representing one of them

01:15:39 of them are you going just on the photograph now or do you have a recollection that there were in fact four colors at the time i don't really recall this specific test in that level of data was

01:15:52 specific test in that level of data was because it wasn't the project manager what i'm trying to say is it's a multi-colored system which i have seen that didn't strike me as anything unusual

01:16:04 didn't strike me as anything unusual they just used multi-coloured bulbs

01:16:10 there's gray balls at the bottom on the wing

01:16:17 phil clark's evidence and this is both in his witness statement and to the inquiry last week was that uh he had actually had a specific conversation with mr roker about the ruby-colored balls

01:16:28 ruby-colored balls because he wanted to know about them if it was so if it was so common to have multi-colored rigs as you're telling us um are you able to account for why it was necessary for mr clark to have that

01:16:39 was necessary for mr clark to have that conversation because certain colors and certain pigments used to dye balls have a higher organic content

01:16:51 content so they performed differently in reaction to fire tests and the ruby coloured board was one such board yes

01:17:03 yes i wouldn't know that without the um knowing what the diet was or the organic content or testing a phone but color

01:17:15 testing a phone but color is one of

01:17:18 it's one of the questions that you ask right so if it's very usual to have multi-coloured boards would it be very usual

01:17:28 usual to understand what each board with different colors was because as you say of different performances in fire

01:17:39 of different performances in fire depending on the pigments used

01:17:46 yes we i mean looking at this we should have understood and fully documented what what each color was

01:17:53 was in the book but it's a large scale test and in hindsight yes we should have detailed

01:18:03 detailed all the colors that were on there and what the boards were yes in hindsight that's that's noted and i'm grateful but i just tried to work out the thinking at the time

01:18:16 thinking at the time given that you would need to understand what these boards were if they were of different colors why didn't you go about that task when reviewing the list of components

01:18:29 because i if i just took it at the time that they'd supplied multi-coloured bonds

01:18:35 bonds and we were testing a multi-coloured board system i didn't see anything it's a cladding test it's a large scale test i didn't see the need to go any further with that

01:18:46 with that did you not see the need at least to identify clearly each separate set of boards of different colors

01:18:55 colors so that somebody reading the test report would understand that there were different colored boards on the outside possibly with different file performances

01:19:07 i didn't at the time no you didn't why is that um

01:19:18 i just think for the larger scale tests i'd accepted or it was accepted that the boards

01:19:27 it's going to eat not a small scale reaction to fire test if you're running a cladding test it's a large scale test maybe there wasn't the um

01:19:41 the the thought that the color would that make that much difference in the cladding test size of the test did you notice the fact

01:19:52 size of the test did you notice the fact that these ruby balls were at very specific points important points

01:19:58 points on the rig namely at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig did i notice specifically uh yeah i've

01:20:10 did i notice specifically uh yeah i've seen the test revolver reviewed a draft of the test so i would have noticed because i went through it and my writing's on and therefore were you not curious to know why these multi-coloured

01:20:22 know why these multi-coloured different coloured boards were present at those particular places on the ring

01:20:31 not specifically no i didn't ask a specific question because you have multi-colored you can't have multi-colored systems yes and you can have multi-colored

01:20:43 yes and you can have multi-colored systems i understand that but where the multi-color where the different colors appear these two important parts of the rig the level two thermocouples and the top of the rig why didn't you specifically ask yourself

01:20:55 why didn't you specifically ask yourself i wonder what those are because i've just assumed that all we had

01:21:02 had was a consistent level of bold different colors

01:21:06 colors you will often see in buildings uh different color on floor slab lens the decorative features so it didn't strike me that we were doing anything particularly different to what was

01:21:19 particularly different to what was [Music]

01:21:20 [Music] the intestine elsewhere

01:21:24 did you not wonder why those different colors weren't used anywhere else on the rig

01:21:29 rig or other locations on the rig no did the fact that they were only at the level two thermocouples and

01:21:40 only at the level two thermocouples and the top of the rig not signifying anything to you at the time no no not really i think that i had accepted with dealing with a single layer of bold and they'd chosen

01:21:51 single layer of bold and they'd chosen multi-coloured balls well why wasn't the mere fact that they had chosen multiple boards reason enough

01:21:59 enough for you to go back and find out what they were against the delivery notes on the fire

01:22:06 because as i said the significance of the multi-colored boards in those level at those points was not it was as if we were dealing with a i

01:22:17 it was as if we were dealing with a i was under the impression we were dealing with a single layer of board system with different kind of boards that and that was the configuration in which they wish to test

01:22:30 indeed given i'll try one more time and maybe you can't help any further but given

01:22:37 given the fact that these were different coloured boards the coloured boards can perform differently in a fire given the specific locations

01:22:45 locations at the level two thermocouples and the top of the rig why didn't you just check to make sure you understood precisely what those boards were being used at those important locations

01:22:57 those important locations before signing off on the list of components in the test report because as i said i didn't put enough emphasis on the colors because i was dealing with

01:23:10 the colors because i was dealing with what i thought was a single layer of bold on the system can we look at pages i'm wondering whether you can find a convenient point sorry mr chairman unthinkingly overrun

01:23:23 sorry mr chairman unthinkingly overrun my time i apologize i know i was letting you run because it was all part of a set of questions but um as a convenient moment

01:23:32 moment are you sure it's as convenient as any that yes

01:23:35 that yes all right well i think it's time we had a break mr hard so we're going to take a break now

01:23:40 break now and uh we'll resume please at 20 to 12. and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right

01:23:51 break all right thank you very much

01:40:45 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr stephen howard mr howard you can hear me i hope and see me okay good thank you very much uh

01:40:57 okay good thank you very much uh and you're ready to carry on i hope yes thank you very much well then when you're ready mr minute please thank you mr chairman mr howard did you ever have any discussions internally within the bre

01:41:08 within the bre about what these ruby-coloured boards were on this rig um i can't recall did mr clark tell you at any point that

01:41:20 did mr clark tell you at any point that you could ignore the different colors on the rig

01:41:23 the rig because they made no difference no did mr clark tell you that they made no difference because the white boards had been thickened from eight millimeters in the february 2014

01:41:35 eight millimeters in the february 2014 test to 12 millimeters in the may 2014 test

01:41:40 test no can we go back to page six of the report please that's some

01:41:46 some bre 303067 at page six

01:41:57 and you you say under section 3.3

01:42:06 just at the very bottom of the page do you see under fire breaks uh it says vertically either side of the

01:42:18 uh it says vertically either side of the half

01:42:19 half for the full height of the test frame and those are your words you've suggested should be added in there aren't they yes yes now if we look

01:42:30 yes yes now if we look at bre 303067 page 12 same report page 12.

01:42:40 we can go to figure one and that's the system

01:42:43 system during construction uh which clearly shows um clearly shows this um is this image what prompted you to make the

01:42:55 image what prompted you to make the correction or the addition

01:42:59 i can't recall i mean it's the reports of drafting process at that stage that we're going through i would check

01:43:08 check photographs that would check notes or check a number of things right you can clearly see on this can't you

01:43:17 can't you that there are fire barriers vertically either side of the half sort of full height of the test frame yes yes now um

01:43:28 yes yes now um in her experts report dr lane has observed and i better show you this um

01:43:36 um this is a blas 5026

01:43:44 but page 40 blas 5026 page 40. this is um section e four point five point twenty one

01:43:59 four point five point twenty one but she says the provision of cavity barriers is different in the photograph figure two in the bre report which is the figure it became in the final version

01:44:08 version relative to the design droids figure 7 in bre report additional vertical cavity barriers were installed in the test above level 1 but not shown on the test joins an additional third horizontal cavity

01:44:20 an additional third horizontal cavity barrier installed in the test but is not represented in the test joint now let's just that's what she says um if we look at the copy of the report as issued um that's at bre

01:44:33 of the report as issued um that's at bre bre-402497 can we go to that please at page 17. bra402497

01:44:41 bra402497 page 17. this is the this is figure 7 of the issued report that she is talking about uh and if you

01:44:52 that she is talking about uh and if you uh look at it you may need to have it blown up a bit but you could see pretty clearly from that that it doesn't show the vertical fire barriers does it

01:45:00 now this this diagram is not in the version that you reviewed nor

01:45:12 nor um the inquiry believes but we'll have to check

01:45:15 to check the version reviewed by mr baker can you help us as to how this diagram got into the final version of the report

01:45:27 oh come on no i don't know how that went in would it be normal for a diagram such as this to be inserted after

01:45:36 after after checking

01:45:40 no you shouldn't do that right can you explain how come it happened

01:45:46 well all i've done is review reviewed a draft

01:45:50 draft i have returned a draft for correction i can't

01:45:53 can't explain how an additional drawing went into

01:45:57 into a poll

01:46:02 can we go back uh to the draft that you reviewed um bre-3030

01:46:13 um bre-3030 and this time let's go please to page 29.

01:46:25 but this is uh

01:46:28 bigger

01:46:34 this is figure 90.

01:46:39 uh

01:46:43 when you read this report and made corrections did you look at this photograph um i can't recall possibly is there any text either side

01:46:56 possibly is there any text either side of the photograph because my usual practice would be to write on the documents

01:47:04 well let's chase it through go back to page 26. bear with me

01:47:15 if you look at the bottom of page 26 you can see figure 16 and you've written through it and put 15. so you've changed the number

01:47:26 15. so you've changed the number so you actually reviewed that one didn't you

01:47:29 you yeah and then if we go to the next page page 27

01:47:35 page 27 this is figure 17

01:47:40 there's there is no annotation on that page

01:47:45 and similarly page 28 figure 18 and page 29 figure 90.

01:48:00 uh are you saying that the fact that there's no mark on that page mean that you simply didn't look at those pages of the report um i might have flipped through it but

01:48:12 um i might have flipped through it but the report is still in draft stage so with the number of corrections that were in here including issues over the cavity barriers

01:48:23 barriers it just

01:48:26 it wasn't a final review of the document so i can't recall whether i would have gone through and checked each individual at that stage or we were

01:48:37 each individual at that stage or we were at the stage where it was going to go back well

01:48:39 back well it was definitely going back around for another set of corrections and other set of reviews yes what i'm really seeking to explore with you mr howard is the extent to which you reviewed the full report that

01:48:50 which you reviewed the full report that you were reviewing uh did you see figure 19 i can't recall is there any reason why you wouldn't have seen figure 19 working on your usual practice uh no i'd

01:49:03 working on your usual practice uh no i'd have flipped through the report as i said the report was going back for a considerable number of changes and there was obviously technical details wrong

01:49:13 wrong so

01:49:14 so [Music]

01:49:17 [Music] you say you would have flipped through the report that's not a fair description of the diligent approach you took to this document you actually made corrections on it in including some technical corrections of

01:49:28 including some technical corrections of some detail is it quite fair to describe your process as simply flipping through it um what i'm saying is it was going back around for another

01:49:40 it was going back around for another review i can't recall whether it got to the whether i was looking at a photograph and it was right there's so many corrections on this that we need to redo this needs to go back

01:49:51 we need to redo this needs to go back around for a full review we can see if we read on though to page 33 for example uh that there was a further annotation by you because you write in on page 33

01:50:03 by you because you write in on page 33 if you can just go to that at the top of the page

01:50:05 the page not on file with a tick at the bottom then you clearly got you went you clearly got past figure 19 didn't you

01:50:12 you in your review yeah

01:50:19 so can we take it then you you although you may not recall it specifically now sitting there today you saw figure 19 when you reviewed this report this draft

01:50:30 when you reviewed this report this draft report

01:50:32 report yes i think i would have gone through the report when you went through the report and saw figure 19

01:50:40 figure 19 what did you think the white board was at the top of the rig running round and one board

01:50:48 one board at the second layer thermocouples i don't recall as i said this is a drafting process so

01:51:00 can we some of these reports go round five or six times yes this is the first time i think you've seen this wasn't it

01:51:11 you've seen this wasn't it well no if you look on the front it says version three well do you remember whether this was the first time you'd seen this i think this was the first time i'd seen it but it was obviously

01:51:23 it but it was obviously requiring a considerable volume of work can we have um up on the screen please together let's play some side by side page 27 and page 29

01:51:36 side by side page 27 and page 29 respectively figure 17 and figure 90.

01:51:44 now when you went through the report making your review and corrections as you went did you not notice

01:51:52 notice that when the rig was being dismantled um on the right on the left hand side when it was a just post test still smoldering

01:52:03 smoldering we could see the ruby panels in place in those two locations on the rig but during dismantlement uh those two ruby-colored locations had gone and behind them was

01:52:16 had gone and behind them was this white material

01:52:22 if i'd have spotted that i would have written it on the document but at that review stage i may not have seen or sorry i may not

01:52:33 i may not have seen or sorry i may not have registered at that point as i said this is a draft in progress and some of these go around the loop five or six times why would you not have spotted it after all these photographs are simply

01:52:45 all these photographs are simply separated in this report by only one page

01:52:50 how is it that as going through this report as you did you would not have realized that there was something underneath the ruby boards in those two locations on this rig

01:53:06 well as i said you go through the drafts i think

01:53:10 i think possibly that report got to the point where there was so many corrections needed that it had to go back for review i mean i'd gone through the report the process would be

01:53:21 process would be to review the report until you were satisfied with it if i may have just flipped through those couple of photographs because they're photographs and gone on

01:53:32 because they're photographs and gone on to check whether other material or other aspects or the way i was checking it was going from one point to the other as i said

01:53:40 i said these reports go through the loop go back around the loop a number of times they do that so that to try to minimize the chances items being missed

01:53:53 minimize the chances items being missed we saw earlier that you were doing at this stage a careful tick check of the precise components of the rig weren't you

01:54:06 of the rig weren't you yes i was comparing what was in the report to

01:54:10 report to the information in the file

01:54:13 and clearly these photographs were in the file because they're in the report yes yeah

01:54:25 they're in the report yes yeah so why is it that when doing your tick check

01:54:29 check uh review of the precise components of the rig

01:54:34 the rig you didn't when you came to these photographs ask yourself i wonder what that is on figure 19. is that a component of the rig and what is it

01:54:45 is it because this is a to me this was a first draft report i've been through it once and i expected to go through it another couple of times

01:54:57 before adding my signature

01:55:01 i don't understand that you may have expected it to go through another version or two but at this stage why wasn't your review as thorough as you could have made it so

01:55:12 as thorough as you could have made it so as to minimize any further work to do on it because what we usually do is well what usually happens is the report iterations

01:55:24 usually happens is the report iterations going through and you keep reviewing and you keep checking the various drafts it's not it's an iterative process

01:55:36 at that stage as i said the reports go around

01:55:40 around go back and forward a number of times the the aspect of the cavity barriers should have been reflected in the um drawings and that would have been

01:55:51 um drawings and that would have been checked

01:55:53 checked but we're at a drafting stage so they just

01:55:56 just keep going through the loop until you are satisfied it may have been i've just

01:56:03 just not spotted it at this stage

01:56:12 i feel bound to suggest to you that you you did spot it at this stage as part of your careful check of the precise components of the ring and decided to ignore the presence of that white banding in figure 19.

01:56:27 why would you have left the investigation of what that white banding was

01:56:31 was in figure 19 uh to a later review process

01:56:37 process because as i said the review process the test reports is iterative and it may be either or i'd have gone back through maybe you would start that was a partial

01:56:49 maybe you would start that was a partial check

01:56:50 check when you get to the point of the large number of corrections it's time for the report to go back to get it closer to what is going to be the final issue when you signed this draft off

01:57:01 when you signed this draft off at what point did you have in mind that you would actually look carefully at these photographs sorry can you say the question again

01:57:12 sorry can you say the question again this draft off when did you think you would have a close look at these photographs i expected to do the final sign off of that report and you did didn't you

01:57:25 and you did didn't you no i didn't do the final sign of these are draft reports that are going through the loop

01:57:30 the loop let's have a look there's not a sign of process for draft reports it's just return for corrections so when you sent it off expecting for there to be a further review

01:57:42 there to be a further review when did you think you would see this again

01:57:48 when phil clark had made the changes and those changes have been cross-checked and further reviews of the document have been done

01:58:01 mr hyde would you agree that the whole purpose of the iterative process that you've described is that each person who plays his part in

01:58:13 that each person who plays his part in that process should identify everything that he can that may be wrong with the draft in its current state it is if you expect it to go to someone

01:58:26 it is if you expect it to go to someone else

01:58:27 else if i'm reviewing the test reports myself and i expect to sign off the final draft it just keeps coming back to me yes but wouldn't you expect to spot all the mistakes that you can you can

01:58:40 all the mistakes that you can you can every time it comes around

01:58:46 well you would expect hopefully what you would do is have a test report to start with that you only check once well maybe what you do is you go through

01:58:57 well maybe what you do is you go through an iterative process and there are times when you don't pick it up on the first check i quite understand that you may not pick something up on the first check

01:59:09 the first check but the way you conduct the first check surely

01:59:12 surely is that you attempt to pick up everything yes you would attempt to pick up everything so one might have thought that you would attempt

01:59:23 attempt you would examine the photographs to satisfy yourself that there was nothing that required any further action would that not be fair

01:59:33 well that in high well yes i should have picked up every error

01:59:40 error in that report but i've not done so but as i said it's that i was fully expecting that report to come back to me so it was in my mind as to the the report needed a lot of

01:59:53 as to the the report needed a lot of work at that stage all right thank you very much um let's move on in time um can we go please

02:00:03 please to bre 40 5773 page 385.

02:00:21 this is an email from you to celetex debbie berger and jonathan roper on the 17th of october 2014 so some six months or so after the may test

02:00:34 six months or so after the may test and you say we had a conversation a while ago regarding the content of the classification reports and the level of technical detail they contain we need to put a lot of info in but you don't want your competitors to see it

02:00:44 see it we've come up with a way of doing it so if this isn't interesting can you remind me of what you were hoping to achieve sorry it's been a while and i will see if we can do it and

02:00:56 just on the we have come up with a way of doing it it is the reason why you need to put a lot of technical detail into reports that

02:01:05 that a bs 8414 test is a system test and any br 135 classification relates only to the specific system tested

02:01:17 yes and therefore anyone relying on a br135 classification needs to know exactly what the system tested was yes

02:01:29 exactly what the system tested was yes that's correct so um what information if any were you suggesting might be legitimately omitted

02:01:41 well i did provide separate evidence of this with how we were going to address this issue because as i gave him evidence yesterday it's

02:01:54 as i gave him evidence yesterday it's not unusual for manufacturers to request that specific

02:01:58 specific proprietary information is not detailed in the reports and as i explained yesterday across the reaction to fire testing it's

02:02:10 across the reaction to fire testing it's pretty commonplace to do that the way we were going to do it is issue of full reports and issue a second document that makes it very clear that there is a full report available

02:02:22 that there is a full report available for whoever is relying on that in the br 135 to install on the buildings

02:02:29 buildings that that was available and i have submitted evidence and

02:02:34 examples of how that was going about it actually gets us over this issue of removing specific lines or specific technical details from the report

02:02:46 details from the report um you started that answer with something that neither i nor the transcriber could hear but said inaudible something bored in answer to my question

02:02:57 something bored in answer to my question what was your answer my question was what information if any were you suggesting might be legitimately admitted and i heard you say something bored could you just tell us what you

02:03:08 bored could you just tell us what you said i didn't say bald had said manufacturers often request that proprietary information is withheld from the reports

02:03:19 withheld from the reports so

02:03:20 so [Music]

02:03:23 sorry i interrupted you and i've provided examples in my evidence of a way to achieve that and it gets us away from this business of removing specific details in the

02:03:35 of removing specific details in the report

02:03:37 report at their request which is common in reaction to test and classification

02:03:44 what specific information were you advocating be removed from or not mentioned in the report

02:03:54 report well that would have come down to the request of celetex or whoever we were going to do it for but it would involve issuing a full report with all the details and a

02:04:07 a full report with all the details and a second document called a supplementary rule

02:04:10 rule that makes it very clear the specific details have been uh removed but there is an original report available for review yes and as

02:04:22 report available for review yes and as you say

02:04:23 you say you deal with this in your statement i think should we go to that it's a paragraph 188 in your statement

02:04:42 uh and it's on page 42. uh is it is this what you were referring to when you said earlier that you've given evidence about that yes and

02:04:54 yes and uh in the last part of that paragraph says a proposal was made that bre might be able to issue supplemental reports showing less detail than the main report which could then in theory be put into the public domain although the supplemental report would make it very

02:05:05 supplemental report would make it very clear

02:05:05 clear that full test and build details were available in the main report so is this right that your way of doing it referred to in the emails was to come up with this supplemental truncated version of the

02:05:17 supplemental truncated version of the report which could be put into the public domain which then signposted the availability of the main report that was that plan was that was what was being suggested and i've i believe i provided examples of where

02:05:30 i believe i provided examples of where we've done that for others i see and that's what you're referring to or that's what she is referring to is it in her email that's what i understood because the proprietary information in

02:05:42 because the proprietary information in the reports is valuable and as i said it's not uncommon to have those requests what you end up doing with reactions fire reports is just basically saying

02:05:54 fire reports is just basically saying the manufacturer or test sponsor requested this information is withdrawn and

02:06:01 it's this in my view at the time was a better way of doing it can we go to cel40s 2131 please

02:06:21 this is an internal email within celetex in october 2014 uh where debbie berger writes to jonathan room and paul evans and also john roper

02:06:33 and paul evans and also john roper copied saying i'm going to set up a meeting with steve howard early next week

02:06:37 week to talk about how to detail our bre rs 5000 file report so as it gives the relevant commercial info without sensitive stuff we've got some ideas that could help us would you like to come to this meeting i

02:06:48 would you like to come to this meeting i would value your input if so would you give me access to your diary so i can schedule a meeting

02:06:55 is that a reference to your email at the 17th of october where you told her that you've come up with a way of doing it i'll get stopped now and we know that

02:07:06 i'll get stopped now and we know that you did meet debbie burger on the 4th of november 2014

02:07:11 2014 and

02:07:14 we have a note of that meeting and before i ask you to take you to that can i just ask you uh what was to the best of your understanding i know this isn't your language what was the sensitive stuff that she

02:07:26 what was the sensitive stuff that she didn't want to have in the report

02:07:32 i don't know but from experience information such as position of cavity barriers number of cavity barriers manufacturer cavity barriers

02:07:44 manufacturer cavity barriers and things of that nature were considered sensitive in that sector so it wasn't unusual as i said and other

02:07:56 so it wasn't unusual as i said and other areas of testing it's not unusual for test sponsors to remove details of proprietary or requested removal of details of proprietary information also

02:08:08 details of proprietary information also there's not always a problem with any 8414 test given that it's a system test you're going to be testing a product within a system comprising um components uh

02:08:19 comprising um components uh which are proprietary

02:08:25 it's only well it is a problem that you saw

02:08:28 saw it's a problem if the test sponsor if the security of the test report becomes an issue for the test sponsor

02:08:39 becomes an issue for the test sponsor if they cannot rely on that being held in confidence to the people that they are supplying it to then it becomes an issue but from a technical point of view you want to put

02:08:50 technical point of view you want to put as much information in the test report as you can yes i was just wondering why it was that it took until late 2014 to come up with this double report solution wasn't it a

02:09:02 this double report solution wasn't it a much more common problem before that well the the approach before that and it's across rtf reports is to remove the information on request

02:09:14 is to remove the information on request and basically put a statement in that says held on fire which it was the the approach that we can come up with

02:09:23 up with was to issue two reports one with all the technical detail one effectively unusable but demonstrated that the test was in existence

02:09:35 existence yes and given that you'd have to come up with a way of doing it it looks very much like this was the first time that you had encountered this problem

02:09:43 problem is that right um on cladding yes but it was

02:09:48 was there's a set of procedures under the e-golf rules that we were using in other areas so this was you applying those

02:09:58 those um rules to this area can you account for why this was the first time this had come up on cladding as you put it well it wasn't the first time because in the original

02:10:13 the first time because in the original kingspan report the 2005. there are sections in there that says products are held on fire and as i said it's come across it's across the reaction survivors

02:10:25 across the reaction survivors forgive me your answer was so it's like in answer to my question it looks as if this was the first time you'd encountered this problem you said on cladding yes that's what you said is that

02:10:38 yes that's what you said is that was that not is that that's your evidence do you want to change that well it's the first time i did i'd had to deal with it and come up with a solution that didn't give us

02:10:50 solution that didn't give us this issue of putting the details that held on fire can we then go to the note of the meeting cell40 is one two six

02:11:01 meeting cell40 is one two six zero

02:11:06 this is debbie berger's note of that meeting

02:11:10 meeting and you can see the date of it it's uh

02:11:15 and you can't see it from the document but it was it was the 4th of november

02:11:22 2014. uh let's look at the bullet points um at the top of the page mark it it says growing uncertainty technical application first bullet point

02:11:34 technical application first bullet point emotional

02:11:35 emotional and then underneath that life safety is it right that the bre recognized that life safety was a consideration

02:11:50 life safety is a consideration in fires but

02:11:53 but i wasn't aware of these notes do you remember what she said or anybody said at the meeting which might have led her to write the word emotional there

02:12:04 word emotional there no looking further down the bullet points you can see that there's reference to the bre bba nhbc approvals sensitive to insulation being about sales and then underneath that the last bullet

02:12:16 and then underneath that the last bullet point by k-15 approvals in the past what was that about i don't know i don't remember this conversation

02:12:27 conversation and these were not the set of minutes that

02:12:31 that i've seen was the suggestion being made here that the bre in the past had been too sympathetic to manufacturers that the point that was being got at here

02:12:42 here by those at the meeting

02:12:46 but as i said i don't recall any of these

02:12:50 these areas being specifically discussed and that's

02:12:55 that's i can't really comment on what was meant by that state if you go down the page to items two and five

02:13:03 five item two says uh gain advice from a facade engineer andrew james total facade solutions to direct us

02:13:12 direct us uh and they'll under five bring together stephen howard from bre and andrew turtle facade solutions to better understand how to move forward with testing explore and was it you who recommended andrew

02:13:23 and was it you who recommended andrew james total facade no you know how his name came up i don't i don't believe i know andrew jones

02:13:33 jones if this note is accurate can you explain why you or the bre would be involved in helping celetex to quote better understand how to move forward with testing

02:13:46 sorry where where are we looking but at 0.5

02:13:51 0.5 sorry bring together stephen howard from bre and andrew and andrew uh jones i should say i think total facade solutions to better

02:14:02 total facade solutions to better understand how to move forward with testing

02:14:05 testing the question is uh uh my question is why were you

02:14:09 were you in would bre be involved in helping celestex to better understand how to move forward with testing because it would be back to this issue

02:14:20 because it would be back to this issue of

02:14:21 of if they wanted to cover a range of products

02:14:26 products setting up the test test plans and test programs

02:14:31 programs to test the most onerous um configurations that's it that is something that's common

02:14:38 common across the business was it common across the business that you would work together with uh facade engineers such as andrew jones from facade solutions in

02:14:49 as andrew jones from facade solutions in uh in designing or setting up test plans and

02:14:53 and test programs well we wouldn't i mean we don't design i wouldn't 100 know who i was talking to but the information that we provide

02:15:04 information that we provide back as the approach to take in terms of thickest and thinnest insulation and things of that nature if a client brings in someone else and it's

02:15:15 a client brings in someone else and it's we would talk to them as well along those same lines would it be common that you would work together with a facade professional in use your words and not my words

02:15:28 in use your words and not my words setting up the test plans and test

02:15:34 programs well i think i can only think yes potentially it wouldn't be common but we would do it nothing to prevent us talking to a facade company along those

02:15:47 talking to a facade company along those lines

02:15:48 lines providing we had the permission from celetex to do so

02:15:57 and then you can see what would be explored in those two sub-bullet points under paragraph five indicative tests on a2 and class north cladding panels and consider designs for retesting

02:16:10 consider designs for retesting so it looks as if according to this note of this meeting there was discussion about the bre being involved

02:16:18 involved with mr jones of total facade solutions in consideration of designs for retesting

02:16:25 retesting again the scope of that would be identifying uh testing configurations that could be taken forward to assess you agree that there was discussion about that at this meeting

02:16:38 about that at this meeting i really don't recall that meeting and i'm

02:16:41 i'm a bit surprised at that level of detail

02:16:45 right um under item two just looking back a little bit up the screen please um it says in uh the uh bullet points under that f sfs and breakfast are testing consider

02:16:56 f sfs and breakfast are testing consider test as part of bs8414 part two as instructed by steve howard what does as instructed by steve howard mean

02:17:06 mean do you think i don't know i don't recall the meeting and right i don't recall because it would be

02:17:18 right i don't recall because it would be very very unusual to test the brick facade so i'm pretty sure i'd have remembered that

02:17:26 that because we wouldn't usually test those sort of systems were you advising celetex on possible systems

02:17:34 systems to test in order to widen the scope of rs 5000's

02:17:39 rs 5000's application

02:17:50 we would offer the same service to celetex or we would offer the same approach of testing so we could feed into assessment reports there's no reason not to

02:18:01 reason not to how did that sit with your obligations to remain impartial did you think as i said we're not we're not detailing how

02:18:12 we're not detailing how clients should test we're telling them the parameters which they should test in the worst case scenarios

02:18:18 scenarios so that we can assess on for that as i said it's common throughout the fire testing area to provide this sort of information it looks from this note that there was

02:18:30 it looks from this note that there was no discussion at this meeting about coming up with the solution you'd come up with about by which you would have a supplemental report and a main report

02:18:41 supplemental report and a main report that doesn't appear to have been discussed at this meeting looking at it can you explain why that was

02:18:48 um no it was just a an offer had been made and they decided not to

02:18:57 not to proceed with it can we go to ceo401261 please

02:19:11 this is an email sent by jonathan room of celetex to andrew jones of total facades on the 14th of november 2014.

02:19:25 and he says i andy reason to be trying to get hold of you over the last couple of days is twofold one i met with steve howard from the bre last tuesday to discuss the option of further testing of our rs 5000

02:19:37 of further testing of our rs 5000 product psa414 and choice of materials and then he says one thing that steve mentioned was he would like to understand better the decision-making process for designing a facade system

02:19:48 process for designing a facade system he's privy to manufacturers tests of the bre but would like clarification from the other side of the fence

02:19:56 would you be interested in arranging to speak with steve this would certainly help with our future discussions we're deciding what we should test um is mr room's record of your what you said there in the

02:20:09 of your what you said there in the second paragraph correct

02:20:15 yes and that was a response it was given i would like to better understand the decision-making process i.e what the variables were for facade

02:20:26 i.e what the variables were for facade system and yes there was privity manufacturers tests as were all the tests why were you interested in gaining such an understanding

02:20:36 so that in essence we could

02:20:41 understand the parameters that they wish to test

02:20:45 to test which we wish that we could test and then

02:20:48 then move forward with assessment unless you have a full understanding

02:20:55 you can't set your test systems down

02:21:03 what's the other side of what did you understand

02:21:08 and help us was meant by the other side of the fence i know you didn't write this email but what was the other side of the fence that you were seeking to understand the text is correct

02:21:20 well i don't know i don't know what side of the fence is being referred to i was there providing or we were there providing a testing service manufacturers and

02:21:32 manufacturers and not sure i can add to what was meant by other side of the fence

02:21:38 i want to ask you finally about class naught

02:21:41 naught and your involvement in issuing the class naught classification for rs 5000. now do you recall that in fact historically celetex had tested fr-5000

02:21:53 historically celetex had tested fr-5000 uh which was the same product with a different brand name uh to bs 476.6 and part seven in november 2011 and achieved national class laws

02:22:08 achieved national class laws i wouldn't yes i'm aware of it but i wouldn't remember it specifically so you have two documents uh and you accept from the

02:22:18 from the the ur signatories to the classification yeah

02:22:23 yeah and just for the record it's cel 50382 and 383.

02:22:27 and 383. um let's go to ceo four zeroes one two one zero please page two

02:22:44 and if we go to page two in that email run we see an email sent at 10 19 in the middle of the screen there from jonathan roper to you copy to phil clark do you see that

02:22:55 do you see that and uh he asks you in the second paragraph can you also please arrange uh that our current class naught test report concerning our fr 5000 product can be renamed and reassumed with cell text rs 5000

02:23:07 text rs 5000 as the product code this is uh june 2014.

02:23:15 if you have any concerns at the time about the bre re-issuing this classification for a product without carrying out any additional testing no because there's procedures in place

02:23:27 no because there's procedures in place to deal with that that are followed and the reissue classification documents made it perfectly clear that no technical assessment had been

02:23:39 no technical assessment had been conducted and the manufacturer declared all they were doing is changing enough

02:23:47 um uh now

02:23:51 final final topic uh i just want to ask you about

02:23:55 you about phil clark's visit to the bre uh in preparation to give his um witness statement to make his witness statement um we heard uh

02:24:06 um we heard uh from him and indeed following a letter from the bre solicitors on the 24th of february 2021 last week but mr clark attended the bre site for a

02:24:18 but mr clark attended the bre site for a period of three days unaccompanied by any legal representative before he prepared his witness statement for the inquiry and it was his evidence when he was asked that he'd been given access to any

02:24:29 asked that he'd been given access to any bre files and documents that he deemed relevant

02:24:32 relevant my question for you mr hannah is were you aware

02:24:35 you aware that he had made that visit yes did you see him during that visit um i believe so briefly

02:24:50 how briefly

02:24:54 i knew it was on site i can't recall exactly how much time we spent together but i would have said hello

02:25:02 can you remember what you discussed

02:25:06 i don't believe we discussed anything right

02:25:13 he told us as i say that he'd be given access to any bre files or documents that he wanted to see did you assist him in that exercise not directly that was undertaken by

02:25:25 not directly that was undertaken by angela richards

02:25:30 did you assist indirectly in that exercise to potentially because we secured all the files in one area

02:25:41 the files in one area so any access to the files i may have been asked what cover they were in what drawer they were in where on the v drive where on the

02:25:53 where on the v drive where on the extracts

02:25:54 extracts but my involvement was no more did he

02:26:01 ask directly or indirectly for the full test file

02:26:09 i can't remember producing the full test file for him but that would have been he would have had available to him the records that we had on site including electronic

02:26:20 including electronic versions did he mention to you directly or indirectly through angela richards that he thought there were documents missing from the test file no

02:26:32 from the test file no or documents missing generally no

02:26:38 did he ask you directly or indirectly for any specific documents

02:26:44 um i don't believe so i don't exactly recall as i said angela richards was dealing with it first hand [Music]

02:26:53 [Music] i wasn't did you discuss mr clark's attendance at the bre site in order to have access to documents with dr debbie smith at all either at that time or later

02:27:07 at all either at that time or later i would have been involved in the process yeah can you tell us what you did by way of involvement in the process well it would have been as i said we collated all the records

02:27:19 collated all the records and debbie smith had a pa as well it would have been facilitating letting people know where certain files were there's certain things

02:27:31 were there's certain things just explaining the filing system the mix between files and electronic records when you were collecting all the records

02:27:43 when you were collecting all the records or when you were involved in the collation of all the records did you notice

02:27:47 notice that the test file for the may celetex test was incomplete in any way no

02:27:56 did you examine any of the records that you thought might be relevant for the purposes of the inquiry to ensure that they were complete

02:28:06 um

02:28:09 well i examine the file to produce evidence i don't think i would have gone through a process of checking the files to see that they were complete

02:28:20 complete did anybody do that

02:28:23 no i can't recall knock them away

02:28:30 did nobody at the bre go through the bre's records to make sure that what the bre was advised was relevant for the purposes of the inquiry was complete

02:28:44 well you have access to records and they were the ones that were there any

02:28:51 any any records that we'd have

02:28:57 were provided i'm not sure i understand the question whose decision was it do you know to allow mr clark unsupervised access to the bre's documents and data

02:29:08 documents and data over the course of three days

02:29:13 um well it would have sat with debbie smith

02:29:18 did you discuss that question with debbie no

02:29:28 do you know can you tell us how it was that debbie smith came into her decision that mr clark should be afforded a three-day

02:29:39 should be afforded a three-day unsupervised access to the bre's documents

02:29:42 documents because the request for evidence and it was the same with dave hall and richard jones we just

02:29:54 richard jones we just it was a case of providing access to the records

02:29:57 records so they could produce their witness statements the treatment phil clark was no different to richard jones or dave hall actually said were they also given unsupervised access i don't know my question is that i knew

02:30:10 i don't know my question is that i knew they were on sites

02:30:13 as i said the level of supervision was with angela richards right and what's her what was her role

02:30:20 her role angela richards i think her role at the times

02:30:24 times customer service manager right

02:30:28 but just all the evidence from people that had left was given at the bre site so just to be very clear

02:30:37 clear who made the ultimate decision that mr clark should be given unsupervised access to the vre's documents over that three-day period well i think that some i did not make

02:30:50 well i think that some i did not make that decision that sits at a level above me so

02:30:56 well i believe it was debbie smith but that that i don't um recall directly

02:31:06 yes thank you very much now mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions there may be one or two further questions in mind and just go back and review and there may well be questions from

02:31:17 and there may well be questions from others that i need to put so is that a convenient moment for the usual break it is certainly well now mr hyde just so that you understand how things go from here mr minute thinks he's covered the

02:31:28 he's covered the full ground that he needs to cover but he needs a couple of minutes just to check that and there are others who are following this hearing who also may wish to suggest questions that should be put to

02:31:40 suggest questions that should be put to you so we

02:31:41 you so we have a break at this stage just to give them that

02:31:44 them that opportunity i'm going to say that we'll come back at quarter to one please and at that stage we will know whether there are any more questions that we

02:31:55 there are any more questions that we need to ask you all right and no talking about your evidence while we're on the break very good all right course to one please thank you very much

02:45:25 welcome back everyone we're now going to see whether mr millet has any further questions for mr howard just check that mr has there i think he is are you mr howard yes i am

02:45:36 i think he is are you mr howard yes i am good thank you very much well we'll see now whether there are any more questions for you

02:45:41 for you yes mr millet thank you very much just um two questions really um the first is in relation to the enlargement of the photograph in the draft report that you

02:45:52 draft report that you reviewed can i just have um two documents up side by side on the screen the first is from the draft report that we looked at earlier that's bre

02:46:03 earlier that's bre three zeros three zero six seven seven at page thirteen

02:46:16 and the second at the same time please is bre

02:46:21 is bre four zeros two four nine seven also page

02:46:36 13. uh and i wanted to show you these because in fairness to you because uh when i asked you about two size

02:46:45 size uh you said it was about enlargement uh and on the left hand side we could see the drop with your annotation on it and on the right hand side we can see this the

02:46:54 the uh what has become figure three uh in the report as issue which has indeed been enlarged now when you wrote two sides uh were you intending that it should be enlarged as

02:47:06 intending that it should be enlarged as we see

02:47:07 we see or were you just remembering that it had been enlarged and were um x plus factor rationalizing why you had written two sides

02:47:16 i hadn't no i hadn't remembered specifically that they've requested gone in to enlarge the photo but that is typical of my style right uh

02:47:28 that is typical of my style right uh can i then show you cel 50742 please

02:47:45 and ask you to go within that email run to page five

02:48:00 and uh this is an email i'm afraid it starts at the foot of page four

02:48:13 and it's an email from

02:48:20 jonathan roper we go to the foot of page 4 on the 8th of november 2013. if we go to the top of page five

02:48:32 uh you can see it's to luke creswell and john simmons there at simcoe and he says uh as discussed i'm awaiting the bre to send generic rig details over to help you with design

02:48:44 details over to help you with design process uh steve bre thought a visit to the rig

02:48:48 the rig once the initial design is done would be beneficial etc and then he says also as discussed the bre are not willing to accept two variations of panels

02:48:59 variations of panels the critical point of the test can only be occupied by one panel and unfortunately using rayno bond on the return wing isn't possible as much as they limit the scope of the tested system they do accept that

02:49:10 tested system they do accept that although one system was tested i.e eternity

02:49:13 eternity they understand that commonly this allows insulation products to be used with a variety of systems in practice i think testing with an eternity panel is the route to go but shouldn't cause us any issues with regards to using cx at celetex behind

02:49:26 regards to using cx at celetex behind renault bond on the up-and-coming job i've also got labc involved to issue a report stating cx can be used by a variety of systems above 80 meters to prevent any challenge building control

02:49:39 building control now just at the beginning of that paragraph mr roper it appears to be reflecting a discussion he'd had with the bre about the bre's unwillingness to accept two variations of panels

02:49:50 two variations of panels um do you recall yourself having a discussion with jonathan roper at around this time november 2013 in which you said that the bre would not accept two variations of panels

02:50:02 accept two variations of panels no i don't remember the discussion was it in fact the bre's practice not to accept two variations of panels

02:50:12 [Music]

02:50:19 you would well you would accept variability in the panels but not for assessment purposes if they come up with a design which involved

02:50:31 come up with a design which involved multiple colors or multiple panel configurations for a specific building or a test then i can't see how you could say no to that

02:50:41 that but what you wouldn't be able to do is test

02:50:44 test multiple types of panel on a system and then do

02:50:48 then do any assessment work or extrapolation work from that that being said can you explain how it became common or was common by may to have

02:50:57 have multicolored rigs

02:51:01 i just said it was acceptable to have multi-coloured rigs if that was specified we wouldn't accept multi-coloured rigs or multi

02:51:13 multi-coloured rigs or multi different materials on the rigs so an acm

02:51:18 acm because what we would accept that if they specified it would prevent any further work being done on the risks into award use of that data going forward

02:51:29 forward did you see anything when reviewing the draft report for the may test that showed you that there was any specification for multi-coloured rig or multi-materials

02:51:43 sorry did i see anything when you reviewed the draft report that showed you that there had been any specification which would explain the multi-colored

02:51:55 which would explain the multi-colored rig no

02:51:59 and and therefore given that there was no specification about what the multicolors would be why did you not investigate

02:52:10 sorry what

02:52:17 i think there may be some misunderstanding here and there may be a distinction between multi-colors of the same material and varieties of different materials can we make it clear

02:52:29 different materials can we make it clear which one we're talking about please well i'm just going doing the best i can on the answer let's get back to your answer you say and this is at page

02:52:42 and this is at page of the transcript a moment ago you wouldn't accept multi-colored rigs or multi-different materials on rigs so an acm and an eternity because we would accept that if they specified it

02:52:56 would accept that if they specified it i thought you were saying to us that you would accept different colored panels on a rig if it was specified

02:53:08 yes if fact if we were asked the question

02:53:11 question whether we could use a test report for future assessment work and they decided to mix materials then we would say

02:53:22 then we would say we would limit we would say we can't do that they can still test in that configuration they can test this is fine it's their sample to test

02:53:34 but as i said if they provided multi-colored panels then and that is what they wanted to test then we would do so it only becomes an issue if they wish to

02:53:48 it only becomes an issue if they wish to use

02:53:49 use the data that they get for other purposes or other systems because you've got different materials and different interactions

02:53:58 i see so just so that i'm clear are you saying that you wouldn't expect there to be a specification for different colors of panels on a rig

02:54:10 for different colors of panels on a rig when testing it

02:54:14 there'll be a design drawing or there will be

02:54:18 will be what they were asking is what are the practical limitations of mixing materials on a rig so if you put an acm and a cement or particle board on there you've got

02:54:30 or particle board on there you've got differential materials now they're quite within their rights to test but from that we probably go no we can't do anything with that because you've got mixed materials but

02:54:42 because you've got mixed materials but within within their rights to test whatever they wish mr miller can i just clarify my own understanding of what what i think mr hard is saying mr todd if i

02:54:54 mr hard is saying mr todd if i understand you correctly you're saying this

02:54:56 this if the client wants you to test a rig which has different types of materials let's say eternity panels and acm panels you would do the test but

02:55:07 and acm panels you would do the test but you could not do a br135 assessment because of the difference in materials is that right first point no we could classify what we couldn't use

02:55:18 we could classify what we couldn't use it for

02:55:19 it for or it would be extremely difficult to use it for is for assessments you mean desktops desktops oh i see all right because the number

02:55:29 number because you've gone to you've got variable materials on a single rig and things become unpredictable now it's the second situation i just wanted to

02:55:40 wanted to ask you about is whether where you have different colors of the same material let's say acm panels of a variety of different colors would that how would that affect things

02:55:55 would that how would that affect things i would have to review that but acm we'd have to know what the coloring process was whether it was an anodizing or whether it's a surface finish

02:56:07 or whether it's a surface finish because then you would have a look at the respective performance of the colors but

02:56:12 but from a small scale reaction five quantity

02:56:15 quantity without knowing what the process is for an acm and the end finish i can't i can't really answer that it's quite a technical question well that that may be a bad choice for example

02:56:26 example what about marley eternit different colors

02:56:30 colors uh different color panels would we permit that yeah and would that have any impose any restrictions on either

02:56:41 impose any restrictions on either classification or subsequent uh use for assessment it would it would prefer i don't believe it would restrict the classification at all

02:56:49 all because you would issue a classification on what tested we would then have to look at what the various colors were and how what additional data we would

02:57:00 and how what additional data we would need to carry that forward but

02:57:05 it's it's a technique it's a technical question

02:57:08 question that we would need to address on a per contract basis right thank you very much well mr millet i'm sorry to interrupt your flow but i just wanted to get that to be clearer i think that's a bit

02:57:19 to be clearer i think that's a bit clearer mr chairman thank you i do have one more question and it's this given the difficulty that you've just described difficulties the right word in um doing desktop assessments on

02:57:33 doing desktop assessments on uh or as a result of using tests where the rig was comprised of multiple colors or types of panel you just

02:57:45 colors or types of panel you just explained to us is was that not a very good reason to be meticulous about precisely what those panels were in their various types or colors when

02:57:58 in their various types or colors when listing the components of the test rig in the test report yes in hindsight and if and yes to make that

02:58:13 and yes to make that usable for assessment purposes then you would need a lot more information but on the day there was no we were not looking to do any assessment work we

02:58:24 looking to do any assessment work we weren't testing a system for celtics so there would be more questions asked if we got went down that road in terms of have you considered the

02:58:36 in terms of have you considered the various colors can we use this color throughout the rig and was the danger in extrapolating in assessment reports based on multi-formal

02:58:48 assessment reports based on multi-formal multi-colored rigs not itself a warning light to you to make sure that what you listed in the test report was complete and accurate and didn't

02:59:01 was complete and accurate and didn't simply ignore the fact that there were different colors of panel on the brick

02:59:07 but as i said we should have listed accurately but the system has tested met the br 135 criteria so that is what you'll be our test report would report on and that is what your bl-135

02:59:20 what your bl-135 would state your classification is for the rig

02:59:23 the rig as shown it's not a classification and a statement that you can then use the data to carry on

02:59:34 well mr howard in that answer you just said well that's the test would be the 135 criteria my question i'll put it one more time is given the dangers

02:59:45 given the dangers of extrapolating by means of a desktop assessment from multicolored rigs or rigs made of panels from different forms was it not vitally important to you to

02:59:56 was it not vitally important to you to make sure that the list of components of the rig as tested

03:00:01 tested identified precisely what each of those separate colors or components were yes i think i've actually stated we should have listed all the panels and the colors as i said

03:00:13 and the colors as i said the test report classification report covers a

03:00:17 covers a specific configuration mr howard thank you very much i've got no further questions for you and i've in fact come to the end of my questions completely um it just remains for me

03:00:28 just remains for me to express my gratitude to you for coming to the inquiry investigations it's been very helpful and we're very grateful to you so thank you thank you well ms hart is

03:00:39 so thank you thank you well ms hart is also right that i should thank you on behalf of the panel for the time you've given us to uh give us your evidence it has as mr it said been very useful to hear what you could tell us and we're very

03:00:50 you could tell us and we're very grateful

03:00:51 grateful for your coming to do so so thank you very much indeed and that's all the questions we have and you're now free to go about your business in the ordinary way thank you very much

03:01:04 um well that's a convenient point we'll resume at two o'clock [Music]

03:01:15 please