Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Evidence from Stephen Howard (BRE) on classification reports and test procedures for cladding systems
00:00:07 welcome back everyone we're now going to start taking evidence from
00:00:12 from a new witness mr stephen howard of the bre so my first task is to make sure that mr howard is there and can see me and hear me
00:00:25 and can see me and hear me yes i can see you and he good thank you very much
00:00:28 very much indeed well now there are one or two things i need to we need to do the first is that i have to ask you to uh take make the affirmation can you do you have on your screen in front of you
00:00:40 you have on your screen in front of you the affirmation you do could i ask you please then to uh to say the words on the screen i do solemnly
00:00:48 solemnly sincerely and truly declare and and affirm
00:00:51 affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth thank you very much indeed um can i next ask you to confirm that um
00:01:02 can i next ask you to confirm that um you're alone in the room from which you're giving your evidence thank you and that you have no documents or other materials with you i hope no documents rather than you thank you very much and can you also
00:01:14 thank you very much and can you also confirm 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 messages that is
00:01:25 that is mobile phone or other devices lovely thank you very much indeed now you may like to know this you've probably been told that your legal representatives are in the virtual
00:01:36 legal representatives are in the virtual hearing room following the progress um they are able to intervene if they think it is central but we have an arrangement which should enable them to contact
00:01:48 which should enable them to contact council to the inquiry if they think there's a need to raise anything and so except in an emergency i'm going to ask them to keep their
00:01:56 their microphones and cameras switched off but as i say they are following your evidence um i hope we shan't have problems with our sound or vision but if we do
00:02:08 sound or vision but if we do we'll take a short break and solve them in that way we shall have a short break during this afternoon
00:02:17 afternoon about 3 15 but if you feel you need an additional break at any time we'll just indicate and we'll do our best to accommodate you um since i'm mentioning breaks i'm going
00:02:29 um since i'm mentioning breaks i'm going to say something now which i'll remind you of
00:02:31 you of from time to time and that is once you've started giving your evidence it's very important that you don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else until you've completely finished i'll
00:02:44 until you've completely finished i'll try and remind you of that whenever we have a break but if i forget to do so please bear it in mind all right is there anything you'd like to raise with me or ask me
00:02:55 with me or ask me uh no i haven't any questions okay thank you very much well if you're ready to go then i'll invite mr millet uh to put some questions to you yes mr miller when you're ready mr chairman thank you very much uh mr
00:03:07 mr chairman thank you very much uh mr howard good afternoon and thank you very much for
00:03:10 much for coming to the inquiry uh to give your evidence we're extremely grateful to you i hope that you can hear me clearly and see me clearly thank you
00:03:21 see me clearly thank you um if you have any difficulty understanding the questions i'm going to ask you
00:03:25 ask you they say and i can ask the question again or i can put it in a different way and if you feel you need a break other than at the scheduled break times that you've been told about please let us know
00:03:38 know we can do that um i would ask you to keep your voice up if you could please so that our transcriber whom you can't see can nonetheless get down clearly what you're saying onto the transcript
00:03:49 transcript and also when answering my questions please if you wouldn't shake your head or
00:03:53 or nod your head because those don't go onto the transcript you have to say no or yes as the case may be yes i understand now you've provided a witness statement to the inquiry could i
00:04:04 witness statement to the inquiry could i please take you to that it'll come up on the screen in front of you
00:04:12 is that the first page of your statement
00:04:17 yes it is the record it's bre four zeros five
00:04:21 five seven seven one and that's page one um can we go please to page 74 in that document
00:04:28 document you'll see a signature and a date uh 15th of july 2019 uh and a signature is that your signature yes have you read this witness statement
00:04:39 have you read this witness statement recently yes and do you say that its contents are true i don't have you discussed your statement or your evidence with anybody before coming
00:04:50 your evidence with anybody before coming here today to give your evidence no i haven't i'm going to start some questions
00:04:56 questions with the subject of your background education training and employment history
00:05:03 history in your witness statement you don't mention having any qualifications relevant to fire safety can i take it therefore that you don't have any qualifications relevant to fire safety
00:05:12 safety uh i don't have any qualifications relevant
00:05:16 relevant do you have any formal qualifications at all uh
00:05:20 all uh no right now if we go to paragraph two of your statement you can see that you say on page one paragraph two you can just
00:05:31 on page one paragraph two you can just have that up that you joined the bre on the 12th of july 1999. yes yes that's correct your main response originally my main responsibility was the development of
00:05:43 responsibility was the development of fire testing facilities for fire detection and alarm systems to underwrite its laboratory standards for the insurance industry and you say also that paragraphs three to four
00:05:55 to four uh and i'll summarize that between 1999 and 2006
00:05:59 and 2006 you were involved in the fire testing of cables and also the research and investigations into the rose park fires yes that's correct
00:06:08 correct and various prison cell underground park fires fire fighter firefighter physiology and police investigations into the fatal fires in anglesey and that's yes
00:06:19 in anglesey and that's yes yes i summarized that for you did you undergo any training to enable you to fulfill
00:06:24 fulfill those roles that you've described in those paragraphs of your statement um for the first before i joined bre i was working for the loss
00:06:35 bre i was working for the loss prevention council where i did quite a lot of work on fire detection and fire alarm systems right from a certification point of view so i was there for a number of years
00:06:47 so i was there for a number of years before that had a number of practical roles and jobs
00:06:54 that contributed to my my experience in those areas can we go back to paragraph four of your statement please where you identify your involvement in
00:07:07 where you identify your involvement in the research and investigations into the files you identified there
00:07:14 did you have uh were any of those any of those cladding fires or fires in domestic premises
00:07:24 uh rose parkfire was a care home um various prison cells speak for themselves the fatal fire anglesey was a flat i believe above a shop
00:07:38 a flat i believe above a shop and the fire at synthetic was uh i think you'll recall again right but not a cladding fire none of
00:07:49 right but not a cladding fire none of them are cladding fires no none of those are cladding farms
00:07:54 and none of those were investigation to investigations into fires in high-rise residential buildings no now towards the end of the 1999-2006
00:08:06 no now towards the end of the 1999-2006 period
00:08:07 period you say that you were involved in carrying out large-scale fire testing of sandwich panels for the lpcb approval purposes which is lps 781 i think
00:08:18 which is lps 781 i think yes the screen's not changed i'm still on the same page uh yes that's because i haven't asked you to go to paragraph five on page two and uh let's go there
00:08:33 you say that um the lpcb is the loss prevention certification board is it that's correct do you have any specific training for the work you identify there yes i was trained
00:08:45 you identify there yes i was trained um by others within bre to undertake those tests i see who trained you um two people mostly it was richard carwell
00:08:57 two people mostly it was richard carwell and david hall
00:09:01 right and did those did that training involve the use of the rigs of the burn hall in order to carry out large scale fire tests
00:09:12 no that's a different test those tests were actually running a facility
00:09:19 facility in middlesborough or off-site i see can you tell us a little bit more
00:09:26 bit more then about what was involved in these large-scale tests uh the 1181 test is essentially the fire testing the sandwich panels so
00:09:37 sandwich panels so you would instrument the system was in various thermocouples set up fire salts
00:09:48 set up fire salts set up data loggers um basically ignite the ignition source run the test for the period prescribed period of time record the data make notes of the build
00:10:02 record the data make notes of the build or damage to the build and produce a test report accordingly right did any of those tests involve tests on acm panels with a pe core no
00:10:16 acm panels with a pe core no did any of those tests involve testing combustible insulation yes good
00:10:24 yes good and were those combustible insulation panels separately from the sandwich panels or forming part of the sandwich panels
00:10:35 panels uh there was two different well you can have sandwich panels which are twin scheme with a pir core or polyitis or urinary
00:10:46 with a pir core or polyitis or urinary core
00:10:47 core there's other systems where there's combustible insulation in there behind basically a built-up wall right so quite similar to a vs8414 test
00:11:01 right so quite similar to a vs8414 test um well it was a no not directly similar they are similar in terms of fire testing but they're not directly comparable because one is a basically a
00:11:13 because one is a basically a self-contained room whereas a cladding test it's a vertical um
00:11:18 um shredder flying now in 2006 uh you tell us to same page paragraph six just below where we'd be looking but you were a joint business group manager for passive with dr sarah colwell um
00:11:31 for passive with dr sarah colwell um so does that mean that you sat alongside in parallel to her in that role yes and you explain what the role was managerial covering fire resistance testing reaction to fire testing testing
00:11:43 testing reaction to fire testing testing to bs eight four one four parts one and two
00:11:45 two lpcb activities lps 1181 testing and assessments uh when you started in that role as you've described it there how far advanced
00:11:57 described it there how far advanced was the project to have bs 8414 and the br135 criteria introduced into approved document b as the alternative or an alternative route to compliance
00:12:11 or an alternative route to compliance uh i don't know the answer today it's not something i was directly involved with at the time right and you may not have been directly involved at the time i understand
00:12:22 involved at the time i understand that can you give us though any insight into
00:12:25 into um uh who that project was being led by the bre
00:12:30 the bre at that time 2006
00:12:35 which but sorry which project would that be the the one to introduce br135 into approved document b yes uh i don't know
00:12:46 approved document b yes uh i don't know yeah you know am i writing thinking you had nothing to do with that i wasn't directly involved in the cladding testing or the amendments to be our one
00:13:00 or the amendments to be our one approved document no from your knowledge at the time did kingspan play any part in contributing towards the project to have the bs8414 test method and br135 criteria enshrined in
00:13:13 method and br135 criteria enshrined in approved document b i don't know uh can you provide at least an overview
00:13:25 uh can you provide at least an overview summary of your involvement in bsa414 tests
00:13:29 tests from the period to 2006 uh to 2014 my involvement i would have witnessed a large number of tests that was down
00:13:40 large number of tests that was down there
00:13:41 there or a large number of tests we did a lot of report reviews standard reviews
00:13:49 and things of that nature familiar as a familiarization with the test and in relation to those matters who reported to you during that period
00:14:01 um
00:14:06 so i'm not sure what we're directly with in relation to cladding well in relation to
00:14:12 to bs8414 tests um i'm not sure about actually it may have been phil park at the time but he may have been working
00:14:25 but he may have been working somewhere else on those tests i didn't really get involved in cladding until a lot later in that period my focus was elsewhere
00:14:36 in that period my focus was elsewhere right when did you become involved in claddings you referred to it
00:14:43 it was i think it's that that's actually given in the statement the date when um tony baker was promoted and i took on more of a role
00:14:56 and i took on more of a role uh yes and indeed a paragraph seven of the statement you you say that your involvement in cladding
00:15:03 cladding increased when tony baker was promoted to the manager for fire resistance in all around 2014. uh what i'm really asking you about is the who reported to you during the
00:15:15 the who reported to you during the period before that in relation to testing to bs8414 parts one and two
00:15:23 um it would have probably been phil clark
00:15:27 clark on those areas and to some extent only but
00:15:31 but tony baker also reported to me right tony baker and phil clark um did you take steps to make sure that tony vapor and phil clark carried out their work correctly and
00:15:43 carried out their work correctly and appropriately
00:15:46 yes how did you supervise them
00:15:52 um well with respect that with regard to tony baker
00:15:59 baker he was a senior member of staff um we had lots of discussions it was lots of activity around the um um fire testing
00:16:13 um um fire testing he was also the author been heavily involved in br135 in terms of phil clark again there was a lot of activity in the burn hall and reviews
00:16:25 in the burn hall and reviews of files and reports and data that was produced let's see if we can break it down a bit more you tell us in paragraph
00:16:36 more you tell us in paragraph six that you had a managerial role covering among other things testing to bs8414
00:16:43 bs8414 and in paragraph seven that that the involvement in cladding increased you know around 2014 so with that in mind
00:16:52 mind um could you tell us what your methods were
00:16:56 were or supervising the work of those um who reported to you in that sphere activity namely tony baker and for the clock as you've identified them
00:17:08 clock as you've identified them right at that time dr sarah colwell was the main lead on cladding on cladding are you drawing a
00:17:20 on cladding are you drawing a distinction between eight four one four parts one and two testing and cladding no yes so i will lead on bsa
00:17:31 so i will lead on bsa at that time 2006 to 2014 era colwell was the main lead on chatting
00:17:40 chatting for which we can also read bs8414 testing
00:17:44 testing what was your role uh i was more involved in reaction to fire testing
00:17:53 testing and the other aspects as it says there we were looking at developing installer schemes for passive fire protection
00:18:03 1181 testing did you supervise phil clark and tony baker specifically in relation to their work on testing anything
00:18:14 anything to bs8414 parts one and two
00:18:18 um [Music]
00:18:26 not directly no i don't believe i did but it was joined wrong correctly sorry correctly yes i would guess i was there and part of the management
00:18:39 i was there and part of the management team for the department but i can't remember specifically whether there was supervision of bs uh whether i was directly involved in bs8414 directly
00:18:50 directly involved in bs8414 directly supervising in the tony or field club who directly supervised phil clark and tony baker's work during the period 2006-2014
00:19:01 work during the period 2006-2014 on bs8414 tests
00:19:09 i um well i can't really recall at that but i would expect it was sarah coleman
00:19:17 coleman right in percentage terms roughly how much of the role would you say occupied your time in relation to the testing to bs8414
00:19:36 um
00:19:40 that's very difficult to answer possibly ten percent if that maybe less that gives us an impression that at least the degree of your involvement during that period did you receive any specific training in relation to bsa414 testing
00:19:56 yes we were down there i was down in the bernhard
00:20:00 bernhard quite a lot witnessing tests talking discussing things with tony baker and sarah coleman
00:20:08 and things of that nature did you read during that period at the 2003 second edition of pr 135 or the third edition published in 2013.
00:20:22 or the third edition published in 2013. yes i would have read it specifically render 2013 i can't recall whether i read the previous version did you read the bs eight four one four
00:20:33 did you read the bs eight four one four part one and bs eight four one four part two standards published by the bsi yes so can we take it that you were familiar with both the standard and the
00:20:46 familiar with both the standard and the criteria
00:20:47 criteria yes now
00:20:52 yes now in paragraph seven which we have on the screen you say that in 2014 your involvement in cladding increased um we've established that means bs841 form
00:21:03 we've established that means bs841 form does that mean that you became more heavily involved with the actual tests themselves yes i did yeah what was it about the promotion of tony baker that led to your
00:21:14 promotion of tony baker that led to your increase in your involvement in cladding testing
00:21:18 testing because tony baker was largely responsible for the delivery of the tests up to that period so with his promotion to fire resistance testing um
00:21:32 to fire resistance testing um there was a requirement for someone to oversee the activities and step into the role that he was vocating yes i see by 2014 roughly and it is
00:21:43 yes i see by 2014 roughly and it is it is roughly how many bs 8414 tests and br 135 classifications had you been involved here
00:21:54 um i don't know but that is information that i can we can obtain if necessary it's not necessary to have a
00:22:05 necessary it's not necessary to have a precise number but roughly is it in the tens or in the hundreds of changes right and now in 2016 you were promoted to director of fire testing and
00:22:16 to director of fire testing and certification at the bre weren't you yes uh are you still in that role at the bre
00:22:22 bre today no what is your role at the bre today
00:22:26 today i no longer work for bi right where do you work now i work for a consultancy company called the international fire consultants right
00:22:38 and what's that called international fire consultants i'd say ifc yes ifc right i see okay and how long have you worked there for
00:22:49 for uh it'll be a year in may and what's your role there i'm a principal consultant principal consultants now um given your background would you
00:23:00 now um given your background would you say that at all times throughout the period from 2006 you've had a good understanding of the regulations governing fire safety
00:23:10 yes i have a good understanding of the test methods and the application of the tests did you have a good understanding of the building regulations relating to fire and in particular approve document b
00:23:23 and in particular approve document b in relation to certain tests that i run i wouldn't say at that time i was an expert on approved document b because it covers a large number of areas and a large number of disciplines so you understood well enough uh the
00:23:37 so you understood well enough uh the role uh that bs8414 tests to a br 135 criteria play within approved document b yes yes
00:23:48 within approved document b yes yes did you receive any training from the bre or any other institution within the community the testing community or the cladding industry generally
00:23:55 generally about approved document b and specifically um bs8414 within it uh i received in-house training on the subject from who from sarah caldwell
00:24:09 from who from sarah caldwell richard caldwell tony vegan and what form did that training take it would have just been on the job training going through the relationship and an
00:24:21 going through the relationship and an understanding between how the test and classification relates i'm sorry i was trying to interrupt you not deliberately i may have done
00:24:32 not deliberately i may have done say on the job training um did you ever get sat in a conference room and given a slideshow
00:24:40 slideshow about br135 or bs8414 uh i can't recall specifically but yes there were um presentations that
00:24:52 um presentations that were developed and given at various times so
00:24:55 times so it's quite possible that i've gone through in-house training but i don't remember specifically who else
00:25:02 else to whom else was this in-house training afforded during this period sorry you cut out for a second um was this in-house training given to anybody else during this period
00:25:17 um i can't recall i think at the time phil clark was taking a lead on cladding or was
00:25:28 taking a lead on cladding or was delivery
00:25:29 delivery responsible for delivery and tony baker um sarah colwell was still involved at standards in br135 i can't recall any
00:25:42 standards in br135 i can't recall any other specific training to start do you remember whether phil clark himself actually had the benefit of the training presentations that you've described
00:25:53 presentations that you've described i wouldn't recall because he was actually involved in the cladding as i joined
00:26:01 would you agree as a matter of principle that the purpose of the s8414 is to test the cladding system as it's intended to be used in a building
00:26:11 building thereby provide a full understanding of how that system as tested would perform in an actual fire
00:26:21 yes i understand and was it always your understanding
00:26:28 yes did you always understand that in order to be compliant with approved document b
00:26:41 to be compliant with approved document b only a system which complied exactly and corresponded exactly with the system as tested would would qualify
00:26:54 yes the approved document b basically specifies
00:26:59 specifies system should be classified to be i-135 was there ever a time where you can remember when you thought that if a system
00:27:10 passed the br135 criteria having been tested
00:27:16 tested under bs8414 then a system different from the one tested could be used
00:27:27 that i think that that is quite new i will try to answer that the proof document
00:27:34 document b is advisory it's guidance so my understanding is that it is not the only route to
00:27:45 it is not the only route to cladding being installed or any agreement to include the cladding system to be installed on a building so therefore you do not need vr 135 for cladding to be installed on
00:27:58 vr 135 for cladding to be installed on the
00:27:59 the building you would do to meet the requirements of approved document b
00:28:07 yes i'm not sure i've put the question terribly elegantly or whether you've understood it was there ever a time when you thought that a system tested under bs8414
00:28:18 under bs8414 which met the r135 criteria um could be applied in any different form even if slightly different form on a real building from the system as tested
00:28:32 what as i said bs8414 is a test standard br135 is a classification that that is only the one route to compliance or agreement with adb
00:28:45 compliance or agreement with adb so there is a process whereby you might not have the system as specified
00:28:51 specified or as classified yes i understand that but if you were following the alternative route to compliance as it came to be known uh was there ever a time when you thought
00:29:04 that the rules didn't require that you replicated the system on a building as they've been tested if you're claiming compliance or if
00:29:15 claiming compliance or if you are presenting at br135 as your route to compliance with adb and yes the system should match what's on the building and was it always your view that it should match yes
00:29:30 well as i said it's not the only route to compliance so once you have that
00:29:38 br 135 then is for others to determine compliance with the building rigs if you were going to use that as your route compliance was there ever a time
00:29:51 route compliance was there ever a time when you thought that the as built didn't have to match the the as tested no if you're using it as your route to compliance then it should match the vr135
00:30:03 it should match the vr135 now was there ever a time when you thought that the uk construction industry was not aware of that requirement that the as bill must match he has tested if you're going to use that as
00:30:14 tested if you're going to use that as the root compliance
00:30:20 um was i ever aware yes was there ever a time when you thought that the uk construction industry was
00:30:31 that the uk construction industry was not aware
00:30:32 not aware of the requirement that the system has built must match the system as tested
00:30:39 tested well for those systems that are br-135 classified my understanding was that that is the route to compliance in the construction industry in the uk understood that it did
00:30:52 in the uk understood that it did so you thought they did understand that did bre ever take any steps to ensure that its clients were aware of this or or thought it was necessary to spell it out
00:31:04 thought it was necessary to spell it out to clients um well there was promotional activity around bs8414 and br 135
00:31:16 and br 135 there's uh myself and sarah caldwell and possibly tony baker
00:31:24 baker presenting on the subject matter of testing
00:31:28 testing and meeting the recommendations [Music]
00:31:37 do you agree that given the classification reports or indeed test reports for that matter refer only to the particular system containing the components installed at
00:31:49 containing the components installed at the time of the test do you agree that it's vitally important that sufficient and accurate detail is provided within such a report so that the components are
00:32:00 such a report so that the components are readily identifiable yes if you're totally reliable if you're on the br 135 route to compliance or meeting the recommendations of adb in the
00:32:11 the test reports and classification reports should be accurate do you also accept that it's vitally important that the component parts detail
00:32:20 detail in the report are completely identified there's nothing missing yes now paragraph 12 of your statement if you can go to that please stop at page three
00:32:38 uh you say three lines down within paragraph
00:32:42 paragraph 12.
00:32:46 you say bianri then carries out the large-scale fire test to record time and temperature details is expressly set out to bs 8414 parts one and two if requested by the test sponsor bre
00:32:57 if requested by the test sponsor bre will produce a test report confirming the nature of the test recording the relevant time and temperature data such a test report will not of itself constitute any sort of classification
00:33:08 constitute any sort of classification can we take it that you were aware that adb
00:33:11 adb contained no mention of meeting the criteria
00:33:15 criteria in br135 pursuant to a vsa4134 test as an alternative route to compliance uh until 2007
00:33:30 um yeah no well no i don't know the answer to that because what i would have to do is review
00:33:38 review the previous version of approved document b i'm familiar with the 2006 version that i don't i wouldn't specifically
00:33:49 that i don't i wouldn't specifically know
00:33:49 know what was in the previous version of the document b in regard to usa for 1.135 uh is this maybe a timing point you say in your statement you
00:34:00 point you say in your statement you started being involved with psa 414 in 2006
00:34:03 2006 yeah that's the time when um that's the actual official date of the involvement it didn't come out in until april 2007. i take it that there wasn't a time
00:34:16 i take it that there wasn't a time when you were involved with bsa for one full testing when psa414 and pr135 were not within adb
00:34:25 adb that's correct all
00:34:28 my experience it was always within that document
00:34:33 document right um looking at the period before 2006 and i appreciate it before you were involved in bsa414 testing but from your involvement at the bre at
00:34:45 but from your involvement at the bre at that time
00:34:46 that time can you help us understand why clients would want to have a vs 8414 test before it would become enshrined as the answer as
00:34:56 answer as the test which would sanction alternative route compliance uh i wouldn't know the answer to that i really was not involved at that time
00:35:07 really was not involved at that time in 2006 so by the time i got involved there was a recommendation with an approved document the for the test and the classification method
00:35:20 method um okay thank you i'd like to turn to bre's standard operating procedures now um during your time as joint business group manager for passive fire testing which as you said was
00:35:32 fire testing which as you said was between 2006 and 2014 mr howard and as director of fire testing and certification at the bre from 2014 onwards
00:35:44 at the bre from 2014 onwards two periods were you always familiar with the bre standard procedures
00:35:51 at least so far as your role yes concern yeah yes were you responsible for ensuring that the standard procedures were followed in respect of ds8414
00:36:02 ds8414 tests which were carried out
00:36:06 um yes
00:36:09 without also the star and as the career progressed yes now you told us a little bit earlier about your
00:36:20 about your supervising tony baker and phil clark can you tell us what your system of supervision of those two bre employees
00:36:31 of those two bre employees was let's start with phil clark what was your system of supervising his work
00:36:40 work that was largely
00:36:43 review of test reports and review of files
00:36:47 files um at that time until 2014 really my involvement in cladding was on the periphery and it was more
00:36:58 was on the periphery and it was more training and familiar familiarization i wasn't directly involved
00:37:03 involved at the outset of the projects in that time
00:37:08 time and after 2000 well actually when in 2014 did you assume uh a greater role uh in relation to chatting and bs 8414 testing
00:37:20 chatting and bs 8414 testing i wouldn't know without reference to the um statement and if the dates in there i couldn't guess the month you've given us uh those dates can you you can't recall
00:37:35 uh those dates can you you can't recall no right um from 2014 whenever it was in that year what were the steps you would take to supervise phil clark's work
00:37:49 there was more emphasis on a more methodical approach record keeping reviews witnessing
00:38:00 record keeping reviews witnessing tests understanding issues with the testing system
00:38:08 you say there was emphasis on more methodical approach um do you mean there that you adopted a method you began to adopt a methodological approach or
00:38:20 adopt a methodological approach or methodology methodical approach record keeping reviews witnessing tests and understanding issues with the testing system yourself uh yes right you're not saying that when
00:38:33 uh yes right you're not saying that when you came in to supervise him you asked him to adopt a more methodical approach
00:38:40 no it's an ongoing process with labs it's with fire testing and laboratories that
00:38:47 that we're constantly looking to improve did you have
00:38:51 you have periodic reviews of mr clark's work um i didn't conduct any pdrs with phil clark
00:39:00 clark of until he actually joined passive which was in i think 2016 because the work
00:39:08 work phil what actually reported to directly to stephen manchester he was a colleague that delivered work for passive for those areas for cladding
00:39:24 before 2016 who conducted pdrs as you call them is it periodic development reviews with uh mr clark it would have been
00:39:35 with uh mr clark it would have been steve manchester from your knowledge how regular were those
00:39:48 did those periodic performance reviews take
00:39:53 take uh there'd be a sit-down meeting i'll get
00:40:01 recalling what they were like it was basically a review of performance and then goals for the following year
00:40:12 does anybody else review mr clark's work or his operating procedures
00:40:21 from 2014 onwards
00:40:26 from well it would have been steve manchester for the area up until he moved across to basic which i believe was 2016. nice now can we go to paragraph 52 of
00:40:39 nice now can we go to paragraph 52 of your statement please on page 12.
00:40:47 you say there in the and this is in answer to the question q2 have you at any stage of your involvement with bsa414 testing or classification
00:40:58 with bsa414 testing or classification br135 been aware of any deviation from standard or best practice as you understand it if say please give full details including identification of the relevant dates
00:41:06 dates test sponsor and tested system the details of all individuals involved can you say i cannot recall
00:41:15 this is a paragraph 49 and then any deviation from standalone best practice there's a continual process of improvement as required by the standards against which bre is accredited
00:41:26 against which bre is accredited but just causing that those are the ucas standards which apply to bre ucas and the accreditation body the actual standards of international standards is that can you
00:41:37 international standards is that can you tell me what that is 17025 for the test
00:41:42 iso17025 that i say 17025. can we go into paragraph 52 and there's a question there under r if you have any
00:41:53 you have any if you have ever had any concerns as to any aspect of the bre's bsa414 testing please describe the nature of and reasons for any such concerns in respect of any such concerns
00:42:04 concerns in respect of any such concerns what action did you take the paragraph 52 you say you know around march 2011 i raised an issue with those involved in the testing but the test reports and files were being returned to those involved in the
00:42:15 being returned to those involved in the testing repeatedly with the same issues i had an internal email exchange with tony baker tom lennon and phil clark to discuss and resolve this when you say the same issues what were
00:42:26 when you say the same issues what were those issues it's possible i can't recall in detail but it's possibly things like missing paperwork
00:42:34 paperwork or the paperwork's not being filed correctly
00:42:37 correctly or certain items of paperwork not being signed project numbers are not attached to
00:42:48 right
00:42:55 if you go to paragraph 53 you say following this exchange we work to improve bre's approach to reporting by way of example see the email from phil clark dated may 2013 attaching updated copies of
00:43:08 may 2013 attaching updated copies of bre's standard operating practice now when you say we worked to improve bre's approach to reporting but who are you referring to here
00:43:22 well in the first paragraph it was discussions with tony baker tom lennon and phil clark that's um i see so you were all involved in an effort to improve bre's approach
00:43:33 in an effort to improve bre's approach to reporting that right yes and what changes were made what changes were made as a result of that um [Music]
00:43:45 [Music] it's hard to recall very long time ago i think there was paperwork generated by phil clark beyond that without going back through
00:43:58 beyond that without going back through the records at the time it's very difficult to recall it might have been things like more structure to the files making sure that we had the paperwork correctly
00:44:10 but just tell me generally what was your role in updating vre's standard operating
00:44:14 operating practice
00:44:20 um i can't recall possibly signed off or approved standard operating procedures but i can't recall what i approved at
00:44:33 but i can't recall what i approved at that time what i generated let's go to the email that you're referring to there it's a bre 405773 at page two
00:44:55 and we can see on page two that phil clark sends tony baker and tom lennon copied to
00:45:07 tony baker and tom lennon copied to steve manchester and you uh planning test drawings data sheets and he says tony tom i've looked at the clowning procedure and have updated some of the sap and drawings
00:45:18 drawings please could you have a look at the attached documents and let me know if you have any comments and or addition when we're all back in i will convene a meeting to discuss moving the clouding forward cheers phil now you've got this email
00:45:31 cheers phil now you've got this email did you read it do you think i believe i read that and uh there are a number of documents attached uh if you look at the top you can see
00:45:44 uh if you look at the top you can see what they are because you i think forwarded this email to yourself you see that on the 26th of june
00:45:51 june 2019 uh
00:45:55 2019 uh it just i imagine in preparation for your statement and you can see that one of the um one of the attachments uh is standard procedures can you see that
00:46:12 yes in the same document run if we could scroll down to page five we see the first page of the standard operating procedures document for undertaking ds8414
00:46:23 document for undertaking ds8414 parts one and two tests uh and um is it right if we look at this we can scroll together the first part of that document
00:46:32 document pages five to ten relates to the pre-test setup isn't it we could scroll the pages down five to six to seven to eight to nine to ten see that yes one seven
00:46:46 see that yes one seven yes and then eight and then nine and then ten name again uh and if you go to page six within that run let's just go back to that
00:46:57 run let's just go back to that can you see that there's a requirement for an as-built drawing a line drawing of the azvelt sys as build systems showing the major components do you see that yes
00:47:11 major components do you see that yes and that's how it's described and i'm assuming that the this version here is a mock-up is it's an example of how you might yes
00:47:25 and on pages seven to ten if we just scroll through those four pages we can see uh just go back to seven yes system and components photo collection
00:47:37 system and components photo collection sheet to ensure photographs of the relevant and important components are taken
00:47:41 taken the following sheets to be used to collect and log images of the system and its components um who was responsible for completing that task there that will be
00:47:54 that task there that will be the project engineer responsible for the delivery of the test would that be the officer in charge
00:48:02 yes it's the person respond yes
00:48:08 and similarly in relation to the line drawing we saw at page six who would be the person responsible for completing that task
00:48:13 that task without also being a project engineer it should be
00:48:17 should be yes yeah so the project engineer or officer in charge whoever was running the test was responsible for filling in this run of documents that right
00:48:30 yes it is but it could also be others involved who the project manager for the
00:48:37 for the test um delegated or asked to do it as well
00:48:42 well he wasn't exclusively the project engineer others did get involved
00:48:50 and if others got involved was the system
00:48:53 system at the bre such that the project officer project engineer or officer in charge would make sure that whoever did it if it wasn't them
00:49:05 it wasn't them uh had done it right and filled in correctly yes yes now if we go back to page 10
00:49:15 we can see that there's a second part of this
00:49:18 this document page 10 please and that is uh halfway down the page standard procedures for undertaking bs8414 parts one and two tests
00:49:30 bs8414 parts one and two tests and it says the bs eight four one four tests are undertaken on walls one to four in the bre burn hall the following working procedures will assist whether taking the test procedures set out here are to be
00:49:41 procedures set out here are to be followed while undertaking the test and do not refer to pre-test setup which is described in the in the document standard procedures for undertaking bs8414 arts one and two pre-test setup which
00:49:52 arts one and two pre-test setup which we've already seen tasks can be undertaken by any member of the test staff but must be confirmed by the nominated officer then you have t.o test officer oic
00:50:03 then you have t.o test officer oic officer in charge and sa safety officer
00:50:08 was this document created around the time of your email we've seen may 2013
00:50:18 [Music]
00:50:23 i'm not 100 sure i don't know the actual date of that document
00:50:32 it may have been it may have been in response to that do you remember whether there was a this document had a predecessor i believe there was a previous system
00:50:43 i believe there was a previous system but i'm not that community right or is it the case that this document simply formalized what had already become a common practice within the bre
00:50:56 um
00:50:59 i believe it's the latter that i haven't got
00:51:03 got i i haven't got any information to say or that what paperwork was in place at that time i believe there was a
00:51:15 at that time i believe there was a document prior to that and was this document created as a
00:51:27 and was this document created as a result of
00:51:27 result of a project to improve bre's approach to reporting so i think you've said apparent 53 of your statements yes believe that's the case that's that's the product of it
00:51:38 that's the product of it now let's look at one or two of the other standard forms bearing on test procedure
00:51:42 procedure which were also attached to the 15th of may email
00:51:46 may email and we can go back to the email on cb1 will see the attachment this is bre 40 is 5773 please page two to show you the email
00:52:03 to pay i think page three but i think we could probably use uh page two uh you can see uh one of the attachments there is in the second line clouding test data file and report preparation
00:52:14 file and report preparation sheet you see that yeah uh it's right isn't it that that document has a checklist which includes requirements
00:52:25 requirements such as receive client system specifications uh undertaking component check and obtain samples construction survey photographs and final construction photographs taken
00:52:37 final construction photographs taken isn't it i'm not familiar with that document
00:52:41 document if that's right uh well maybe we can show you that uh do you remember whether before we do
00:52:53 uh do you remember whether before we do whether that was a document uh created in or around uh the 15th of may email as part of the same project i believe it was right
00:53:06 uh and what would be involved in checking the components of the test
00:53:12 right measurement of components identification from labels
00:53:20 [Music]
00:53:26 not sure there's much else i can end really right and you'd expect those tasks to be carried out fully accurately and completely would you yes
00:53:39 you yes and would you expect the officer in charge of the project engineer to compare the drawings received from the client for the rig to
00:53:50 received from the client for the rig to be built
00:53:50 be built with the as built test rig
00:53:55 yes if you're including items that go into the report then they should be checked
00:54:03 and would you expect that person to record clearly and completely the details of each component of the test rig
00:54:14 test rig as built yes
00:54:21 and what would the purpose of taking samples be
00:54:27 i'm well for standard testing if you're doing a test contract with a test sponsor i think you're unlikely to take test
00:54:38 i think you're unlikely to take test times
00:54:39 times you'll probably need to take test samples if the certification board the lpcb were involved in the project there was additional requirements
00:54:51 we'll come back to the question of process later in your evidence can i then turn uh to the chronological story and start with kingspan's br135 classification
00:55:04 kingspan's br135 classification uh and i'd like to ask you first about the vre's relationship with kingspan and some of the tests to be s8414 sponsored by kingston and carried out at the bre
00:55:15 the bre uh just confirm for me that you were not involved with kingspan's first official bs8414 test to part one of that standard on a system
00:55:26 to part one of that standard on a system opera
00:55:27 opera a system comprising k-15 carried out on the 31st of may 2005 no did you have any involvement with the creation of the test report for that
00:55:39 creation of the test report for that test
00:55:40 test later in that year 2005. no
00:55:47 before you assumed your joint management role with sarah colwin in 2006 have you ever had any dealings with kingspan um
00:56:00 with kingspan um yes it's very likely that i conducted 1181 tests at the site in hollywood uh on sandwich pants
00:56:12 uh on sandwich pants and who would have been remember who were your contacts at kingspan for that purpose at that time a gentleman by the name of joey humphries and martin gilbrand
00:56:28 and did they have anything to do with bsa414 testing you know at that time at that time no better there was
00:56:39 no better there was 8414 tests conducted for kingsman limited which is the panel's division and i believe all those have been submitted
00:56:51 now let's turn let's see how we go with this given your lack of involvement personally let me see if i can understand some of the more systemic questions can we go to kin 50134 please
00:57:14 this is the bre
00:57:19 report which is the classification report
00:57:26 report dated 28th of september 2015 or kingspan k15
00:57:33 uh based on the eight for the bs8414 test done in 2005. you see that yes uh you i think have quite a lot of involvement in the production of that
00:57:44 involvement in the production of that report didn't you that's correct uh just pausing there is a ten year delay between the date of the test and the date of the classification the
00:57:56 and the date of the classification the normal occurrence of the bre in your experience no
00:58:02 if we look at page two we can see that the report was prepared by uh veda gaobsite now i i i'm sure i've mispronounced her name
00:58:13 mispronounced her name i don't want to do that how do you pronounce her surname um it's difficult for you to website saying i i like you it's a
00:58:24 website saying i i like you it's a difficult one
00:58:28 right okay well we'll call it veda and you signed it as well on the 28th of september
00:58:34 september that's correct i'll come back to the report in detail in a moment but in in paragraph 41 of your statement of page 10
00:58:43 page 10 let's just look at that you tell us in
00:58:48 general
00:58:54 uh in answer to the question what checks are carried out by the bre before a br135 report is approved uh uh you
00:59:04 uh uh you set out there a list of five checks that would be carried out uh and you set them out there and they won't read them up to you um
00:59:15 won't read them up to you um could you explain in practical terms uh how the relevant bre employee carries out those checks
00:59:26 on the br 135 classification yes you say the relevant beyond check the following
00:59:32 following yes it would be from the published report from the published test report right
00:59:40 right would the relevant bre employee whoever it was
00:59:44 it was go behind the test report as published and look at the underlying data um not usually you take the data that's presented in the
00:59:55 take the data that's presented in the test reports in what circumstances might the relevant bre employee go behind the data stated in the published test report
01:00:08 um only if there were if on review of the test reports um there was that there were concerns
01:00:20 um there was that there were concerns raised but usually the br135 is issued against
01:00:23 against the test report it would only be if something was spotified spotted in the test report that you may go further
01:00:38 just help me then uh under c looking at the check undersea that any observations in the relevant test report have been reviewed and support the
01:00:49 have been reviewed and support the mechanical performance section of the draft classification report does that involve looking at the test reports or the documentation or
01:01:00 the test reports or the documentation or observations made in the test report itself or do you just take
01:01:05 just take those observations and lift them straight into the classification report no it would be a review of the test observations as stated in the published test report yes
01:01:16 yes not uh in any underlying documents no i follow and this relevant employee would it nor who would it normally be
01:01:29 would it normally be the person the officer in charge of the test it would usually be the person who's writing the test report who does the classification as well was
01:01:40 who does the classification as well was it normal for the person writing the classification report not to have written the test record no
01:01:51 so is this right that in fact the production of a classification report for the relevant bre employee would be a relatively straightforward exercise because they're essentially uh just checking their own
01:02:04 work it it should be it should be a couple there should be the information within the br135 should be a mirror of what's in the test
01:02:16 should be a mirror of what's in the test report
01:02:17 report when i say checking their own work i
01:02:32 yes
01:02:36 so just bearing with me so far it wouldn't be normal for there to be a ten year delay between test reports and classification report and it wouldn't be normal for the employee
01:02:47 employee writing the classification report not also to have written the test report that's your evidence so far yes that is not normal procedure no you would normally have the tech
01:02:58 would normally have the tech project engineer or test engineer writing both the test report and producing the classification now when you produce the september 2015 br135 classification
01:03:12 september 2015 br135 classification report based on the test done on kingspan in 2005. did you discuss the test report which is dated the 8th of december 2005
01:03:25 is dated the 8th of december 2005 with its author uh no i didn't why is that uh because i discussed it with there was
01:03:37 uh because i discussed it with there was a conversation which would because i believe the author was uh phil clarke
01:03:46 author phil clark or dave hawke is it possible to have a look at the original 2005 uh page it is
01:03:57 page it is and we'll come to it in due course uh certainly but can we rest for the general question at the moment uh let me ask you this did you have
01:04:08 let me ask you this did you have a conversation with phil clark who was certainly the primary author of that report on the 8th of december 2005 about well and my question is why is that why didn't you have a discussion
01:04:20 that why didn't you have a discussion with that given that you weren't the author of the test report because i didn't think it was something that was necessary we've been asked to produce a classification report
01:04:32 produce a classification report on a report issued by bre even though this is unusual uh given the norm that the person uh writing the test report would do the classification report
01:04:44 classification report why not simply have a conversation with him about a report that was produced 10 years
01:04:48 years before to make sure you understood what it was you were reviewing because as i said i didn't believe it was necessary at the time bre edition was a test report um the
01:05:00 bre edition was a test report um the report was signed off the report was approved consultation went on within the department as to whether we should do it i didn't feel it was necessary to discuss with phil clark
01:05:13 discuss with phil clark right when you produced this classification report did you review any hard copy or electronic files of data underlying that test report the data that was reviewed was that
01:05:25 data that was reviewed was that presented in the test reforms
01:05:30 so help me when you produce the classification report you only had in front of you 2005 test report yes you telling us you
01:05:41 test report yes you telling us you didn't have any of the hard copy or electronic document
01:05:45 document underlying a 2005 test report no right well we'll come back to that in a moment can i just uh ask you to look
01:05:56 ask you to look uh at uh veda's with a statement bre 405627 at page 11 please
01:06:12 she says in her statement that paragraph 47
01:06:22 stephen howard of bre reviewed the technical file and my draft of the classification report and subsequently authorized the final draft of that report
01:06:33 final draft of that report she says that you review the technical file she's right
01:06:39 i don't believe i reviewed the actual test file i think the technical file that's been referred to the technical file produced for the classification report because you open a technical file for each project
01:06:51 technical file for each project or they file for each project if that file was available then i don't recall going back to that review what was on the technical file the
01:07:03 what was on the technical file the technical file would have been
01:07:07 well
01:07:11 i would imagine on the technical file was the paperwork quotation correspondence associated with um the production of the classification report any technical data
01:07:23 report any technical data the technical data was based on would only be the test report i believe i can't call reviewing that report uh reviewing the file
01:07:36 uh reviewing the file so it's not a technical file at all really it's a correspondence file comprising the original test report and correspondence with the client about about the production of the classification report
01:07:47 classification report that's correct that is my understanding you see the reason i'm asking you is that mr
01:07:51 that mr in his weakness statement david hall and i don't think we need to go to it but it's a bre-405622 at page 11 paragraph 42 says that his understanding
01:08:03 paragraph 42 says that his understanding is that the original test file for the 2005 kingspan k15 test is no longer available
01:08:12 is that right
01:08:15 um i yeah i don't believe we located the fire
01:08:21 fire right i believe that we located the actual physical test file that was called for the storage of nodes data printed off photographs and things like that
01:08:34 that's it did you look for the original test
01:08:37 test file when setting about your task of preparing the classification report um yes i believe
01:08:47 and i'm assuming from what mr hall your agreement with it was that you couldn't find it exactly i don't think it was ever located
01:08:59 located if it was located it would have been provided to the public inquiry so i don't there is a mechanism there to confirm whether we ever located it but it's not clear to me whether we did
01:09:11 but it's not clear to me whether we did on
01:09:13 on given that practice was to use the test report only as the basis of the classification report what was the purpose
01:09:22 purpose of trying to find the test file so that you could collate all the paperwork
01:09:28 paperwork regarding that project in one place again so that it was just good practice so that we recovered the file placed it back in the system
01:09:39 file placed it back in the system along with the classification but if the classification report was going to be based solely on the data appearing on the face of the published test report
01:09:50 test report what was the point of going back to the original test file comprising the data underlying the test report
01:09:58 only from a filing and procedural places that you've located a file but there's no real necessity for us to access the original project
01:10:12 mr chairman is that a convenient moment well does it suit you mr miller presumably it does uh it's as i'm stranded between the beginning of one topic well
01:10:24 the beginning of one topic well we'll take the opportunity since you stopped mr hard we as i said we're going to have a break during the afternoon we'll take that break now we'll start again please at half past three and uh let me remind you
01:10:37 three and uh let me remind you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break
01:10:43 the break all right yes so i understand thank you very much see what happens to you then thank you
01:24:35 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr howard uh mr howard are you there can you see me and hear me all right seeing here thank you thank you very
01:24:47 seeing here thank you thank you very much and you're ready to carry on i am but i'm not full screen at present for some reason oh well now if you
01:24:57 i hesitate to give anyone technical advice but in the top right hand corner of the
01:25:02 of the produce screen that i've got there's a button called view do you have that yes you click on that you should get various options one of which is full screen
01:25:13 screen thank you very much oh good i managed to work the oracle right well if you're ready to carry on i'll invite mr millet to ask some more questions
01:25:21 questions yes very much mr chairman uh mr howard can i ask you please to go to page 10 of your witness statement and look at paragraph 40 with me please
01:25:35 uh and you say uh in that paragraph there
01:25:41 there should i show you i should actually show you the question at the foot of page nine first if you can just be showing that
01:25:46 that because it's important you see the question you're answering uh it's question 2k what information stroke documents are normally provided to the author of the br135 report following a bs 8414 test report on the
01:25:57 following a bs 8414 test report on the same system and if you turn the page to paragraph 14
01:26:03 you see that you say that the classification report author will also have access to any photographs and or videos which may not have been included in the test report as well as access to the test file generally how does that square with what
01:26:15 generally how does that square with what you were telling us earlier on um about the classification report being based solely on what appeared on the face of the test report
01:26:24 report um well if if you are bre staff and you are working within the department that was dealing with cladding or fire then you would have access to
01:26:34 access to the records and the storage so
01:26:40 it's facts that you would have access but the br135 is generated on the basis of the test report
01:26:50 report right uh let's just get back into my question when a classification report author sat down to prepare the classification report uh would they use the underlying test
01:27:01 uh would they use the underlying test data
01:27:02 data that you refer to here such as photographs or videos or the test file itself
01:27:07 itself or would they solely work from what appeared on the face of the test report they would totally work on what was in the test
01:27:14 the test so what was the purpose of the classification report author having access to the photographs or videos or the test file generally
01:27:23 i think it was just a statement that if necessary
01:27:26 necessary and they had specific questions or they identified something in the test report that they are unclear of then they have access to further information usually you would just well you would
01:27:37 usually you would just well you would base the classification report on the test
01:27:41 test um but does paragraph 40 mean that when you came to the classification report also in respect of the 2005
01:27:48 the 2005 test report you didn't have access to the photographs or videos not included in the test report or the test file
01:27:59 test file no we based the classification revolt on the test report did that put you as the author of the classification board in an unusual position yes
01:28:11 unusual position yes can we go to paragraph 50 of the same statement please on um
01:28:19 see a little bit lower down paragraph paragraph 50 which is on page 12.
01:28:33 uh
01:28:38 and uh you say there the bre is sometimes asked to test building specific systems where there can be a conflict between the test standards uh and what's needed for the sample in
01:28:51 uh and what's needed for the sample in each case in each such cases any deviations will be noted at the relevant test report a view will be taken as to whether the system can be satisfactorily classified to be r135
01:29:02 satisfactorily classified to be r135 would that be an instance where as a classification report author you would need to look at the underlying test data no because it should be in the test report deviations
01:29:14 report deviations should be recorded in the test report now can we look at mr clark's witness statement please this is the bre is 5768
01:29:31 and i'd like to go to paragraph 50
01:29:36 please
01:29:44 in that report which you see at the bottom of page 11
01:29:51 and you you can see that he says there uh in answer to the question what documents provided to the bre employees tasked with preparing writing or approving a bsa414 test report
01:30:02 approving a bsa414 test report and he says the test file will be prepared as part of the process for testing
01:30:06 testing which included any relevant information pertaining to the system installed which had been tested this would include items such as drawings of the system provided by the client
01:30:13 client any delivery notes of materials received by bre notes taken by the test officer detailing the construction of the test sample
01:30:20 sample photographic evidence of the construction and any construction materials used it would also include a set of photographs taken before during and after the test a set of handwritten or typed observations set to drawings showing the
01:30:32 observations set to drawings showing the position of the thermocouples and a channel and the channel number assigned to each instrument do you agree with that list you set out there yes and it appears we
01:30:45 yes and it appears we we we could see from other test files that an assortment of other documents were also usually included in the test file such as email correspondence
01:30:56 uh yeah things like financial information potentially would be included in the test file um quotations invoices
01:31:07 the correspondence some correspondence now if we can go to page 58 of your witness statement please go back to that page 58 i want to look at paragraph 252.
01:31:24 and the question you're being asked here question 8a what documents and information were made available to you this is in the context of the september 2015 classification report you
01:31:35 september 2015 classification report you authored
01:31:36 authored you say i had a copy of the original test report i.e test report 220876 fire test data and notes from the test itself
01:31:47 data and notes from the test itself see that and you cite um yes you cite the exhibit numbers of your exhibit um it's right i think we can check it if you like but pages 634-649 is just another copy of
01:31:59 pages 634-649 is just another copy of the original test report isn't it would it be possible to say that because of my yes of course absolutely
01:32:10 because of my yes of course absolutely bre 40s 5773 please
01:32:16 and i'll just show you your exhibit i just wondered whether you would recognize the numbers um if you go to page 618
01:32:27 um if you go to page 618 you can see where the start of the test report is
01:32:34 yeah that's it yes and uh if you go to page 634
01:32:46 and there's another one yes it's just another copy of the test report yes seems to have gone in twice uh 653
01:33:01 that's uh a further copy of the drawing of the test rig already included in the test report isn't it yeah six five four to seven seven until it's it's some 22
01:33:15 until it's it's some 22 um 23 pages is we can see six five four following uh um email correspondence relating to the request
01:33:24 request for and preparation of the classification report in 2015 isn't it
01:33:32 yeah roll through the pages if you like but we've been if that's one yes yes so in fact is it right that the only contemporaneous documents from the time
01:33:43 contemporaneous documents from the time of the bsa414 test that you had available to you when you prepared the classification report in september 2015 uh are the three pages of notes that we
01:33:54 uh are the three pages of notes that we can see on page 650 you can go to that
01:34:02 me see them there yes i think that information was located but i cannot actually recall where we found them
01:34:13 and just to be clear that's 650. if you could just look at pages 651 and 652 completeness i said it was three pages to confirm with me that those are the
01:34:24 to confirm with me that those are the notes
01:34:24 notes on the file you you reviewed yes yes if i've submitted those in evidence
01:34:33 evidence but as i said the review for the br 135 would have been based on the test report now based on the exhibit i've shown you we've seen two versions of the test two copies of the test report we've seen
01:34:44 two copies of the test report we've seen the drawing we've seen the 2015 correspondence and the three pages of contemporaneous documents do you agree that you didn't have a complete test file for the 2005
01:34:55 complete test file for the 2005 uh test to work from in accordance with the usual
01:34:59 the usual things that you might have normally yes that's correct you didn't have access to the delivery notes or the full set of photographs showing the construction and the components no you wouldn't have been able to double
01:35:11 no you wouldn't have been able to double check the components of the test rig no the br135 is based on a signed off test report
01:35:22 you didn't have the test videos
01:35:25 uh i don't believe so no but the usual practice is to issue the br 135 against the test report and you didn't have access to any of the email correspondence from the time of
01:35:36 email correspondence from the time of the 2005 test no now
01:35:42 no now before we look at the report itself classification report itself can i look with you at some of the correspondence leading up to its production can we go to paragraph 53 of your witness statement please
01:35:56 witness statement please page 53 of your witness statement
01:36:00 sorry i said paragraph i meant paige and look at paragraph 234 please
01:36:07 and at 234 you're answering the question from the inquiry question eight in your recollections as to the preparation of the classification report dated 28
01:36:18 the classification report dated 28 september
01:36:19 september 2015 a copy of which is attached to your reference
01:36:24 reference that report was prepared by veda and approved by you for kingspan insulation limited
01:36:31 limited if we look at paragraph 234 your answer you say as far as i'm aware the first contact i had regarding what would become classification report p101812 1000 was when i received an
01:36:42 p101812 1000 was when i received an email from connor mcintosh bre on 19th of august 2015 see pages nine five one nine two five two three
01:36:49 two three mr mcintosh had forwarded an email from adam heath of kingspan on the same date which started as follows and you've set it out
01:36:59 it out and he says on a slightly related topic it has come up in discussions recently that we never commissioned a classification report for our bs 8414 test attached to reference
01:37:10 test attached to reference this test was originally completed in 20 in 2005.
01:37:14 in 2005. i have three questions really can a classification report be a suit for this test how much would it cost what is the time scale for delivery in the event this is possible any guidance you can offer here would be much appreciated
01:37:27 much appreciated now that is
01:37:33 seven bre-405773 page five twenty so again it's your exhibit uh uh and produce sight from it so we can stick with your witness statement in his covering email to me mr mcintosh wrote
01:37:45 to me mr mcintosh wrote any thoughts on this one below test completed in o5 and they're wanting a classification report for it and then you uh replied on the 21st of august as follows why
01:37:56 august as follows why so we would need to go through and check it that it is okay in principle though i can't see why we wouldn't classify
01:38:05 um what do you mean when you say that you would need to go through and check it's okay
01:38:09 it's okay okay for what well you would need to go through and review the test report against test standard make sure the test standards that was used
01:38:21 standards that was used was the correct version to be classified by vr 135
01:38:25 by vr 135 the email that mr mcintosh forwards to you
01:38:28 you you recite it was also forward to something called damien ward who was who was he
01:38:34 was he damien worked within the lpcb of the passive fire department why was he involved in this um it was just a case of obtaining
01:38:46 it was just a case of obtaining an opinion from someone else that um on this matter really it was just a question of a colleague to see if they had any uh raised any
01:38:57 to see if they had any uh raised any concerns
01:39:00 uh who made the decision that the report was okay as you put it
01:39:08 me by signing off the classification report
01:39:11 report what told you that the report was okay
01:39:16 well you're measuring the okayness against
01:39:19 against because the report was issued against a version of br135 that was current and could be classified to
01:39:29 to sorry the report was issued against a version of bsa414 that could be classified to be r135 at that stage did you check with anyone more senior than you as to whether it would be appropriate
01:39:40 would be appropriate uh to issue a classification report based on this test report no what's that because there was it's something that the test lab does a lot of
01:39:52 lab does a lot of throughout the year not on test reports that old
01:39:55 that old i admit but issuing the classification reports for tests within the responsibility of the department given the special circumstances here namely the decade
01:40:06 namely the decade of delay between the test and the classification and the absence of the original test file with the sorts of documents through which the classification report
01:40:17 through which the classification report author would normally have access given those two things why didn't you just check with somebody more senior than you as to whether it would be uh appropriate to issue a classification
01:40:28 uh appropriate to issue a classification report based on this test report because my view was a test for the classification report is just a statement of past file the classification report refers to a
01:40:41 the classification report refers to a test report that was issued to bs april one or part one and the classification report is no more than a statement of path fail against that statement to be r135 let's go to page
01:40:56 to be r135 let's go to page 525 please for example that's bre 4 series 5773
01:41:09 and if we look down the page you can see that here is an email from adam heath halfway down the page on the 25th of august 2015 date uh timed at 12 38
01:41:23 august 2015 date uh timed at 12 38 uh to you copy to adrian parjita and conor mcintosh
01:41:31 and uh it's titled bs814 part two with 140 millimeters k15 behind terracotta and that's the subject of the first two
01:41:42 and that's the subject of the first two paragraphs of this email but i'm interested in the third paragraph which says this the business is also interested in getting a classification report for our bsa414 test from 2005.
01:41:53 for our bsa414 test from 2005. is this possible what are the time and cost implications and you respond as you can see from the email just above that if that can be scrolled down so you can see it a little bit later that day to
01:42:04 see it a little bit later that day to adam heath 1503 adam uh please find attached the report for the terracotta test and then in the last paragraph or sentence of that email you
01:42:17 paragraph or sentence of that email you say i think we have the other classification report in hand i will check and let you know regard stephen howard what do you mean by in hand
01:42:27 uh i i expect to meant that it was being produced
01:42:31 produced we made a decision we were going to do it and it was someone was drafted in the br135 report at that stage had somebody gone through and checked that it was
01:42:42 and checked that it was as you put it okay the report to be issued as per the earlier email we saw well i wouldn't recall but it does say that i need to check
01:42:55 it does say that i need to check and we'll come back to him the following week
01:42:59 week right when you say i think we have the other classification report in hand what what had already happened
01:43:09 happened in relation to the production of that classification report that you were telling him
01:43:16 i think i think it was a discussion along the lines of we were reviewing the test report and with the with the view
01:43:27 and with the with the view if we could to produce a classification
01:43:32 it says with it i think it's in hand i hadn't actually checked at that point as to where we got do you know have you actually started work on the production of a classification report um i can't given the dates i can't say
01:43:46 um i can't given the dates i can't say categorically but we probably reviewed the test report had a look to see if if there was anything that would prevent issuing of the br 135 but
01:43:58 issuing of the br 135 but you would go through and check the report
01:44:02 report before we issue the classification well i just wanted to work out from you what had already been done
01:44:12 well we've located the test report it's probably been reviewed it's been discussed i'll tell you that's sort of advice or opinions from other people as to whether we should do it
01:44:22 it and i think we that reflects the stage of where we're at we should be able to tell because the agreement to do it actually
01:44:33 would be a quotation so if it's critical that the
01:44:37 that the timelines there should be a quotation which is at the point where we have basically committed to do it
01:44:44 it now further up the email chain do that please go up five two four at the top of that page we can see an email from you the veda copy to damien ward on the
01:44:56 the veda copy to damien ward on the 3rd of september 2002
01:45:01 in which you forward to veda the email chain and the test report itself and you say the
01:45:13 the test report itself and you say the test report is here and you identify it on your system can you go through and correct but you need to check that what they are saying is correct photos etc are in the same place
01:45:26 photos etc are in the same place you need to write the classification report an example is attached
01:45:32 and then you go down and ask for a quotation
01:45:35 quotation get out a little bit further you identify the report it seems uh
01:45:46 uh um i don't know whether that's a different report but it looks like it's got a different number
01:45:53 number can you just tell us what's the difference between that the report and the test report sorry third the first one was i believe was an ongoing project
01:46:05 project so there's two sets of correspondence there oh i follow i'm sorry so the first one is not the report then the second one is the the second one then refers to if you
01:46:16 the the second one then refers to if you the
01:46:17 the 300 number 303 930 is a test report i believe i don't think it's a classification report for a different project and the 228
01:46:30 for a different project and the 228 2208 76 was the 2005. so there's two subject matters on that email
01:46:37 email so so the first the first part of the email is about one click classification report
01:46:40 report second can you quote for a second classification report and that that's this before the 2005 report
01:46:47 report yeah they need to check on issue levels of br135
01:46:52 of br135 what do you mean by that sentence
01:46:56 would just basically to check to check which issue
01:47:06 the issue level of the document and br135 i think what i meant was have a breed of br135 and make sure that um
01:47:14 um the issue levels of the bond three five and the standard actually match i can't be 100 sure
01:47:29 did you ask veda to carry out any particular checks given that the bs8414 test had been carried out some 10 years previous uh
01:47:43 some 10 years previous uh not specifically because test reports as i said a statement of fact
01:47:50 fact that the checks that would be made were whether
01:47:54 whether the issue level of br135 that was current would allow classification to the
01:48:00 the standard that was used at the time for the
01:48:04 the test when you say the issue level do you mean
01:48:07 mean the most recent data publication yeah but when with technical documents they usually say when they're revised or up issued it's usually issue one issue two issue
01:48:18 usually issue one issue two issue three so we've worked to the latest version
01:48:22 version right nicely so br one three five in 2015 would have been the third edition you call that the third issue sorry third edition i see and um
01:48:33 third edition i see and um did veda carry out any particular checks you know
01:48:38 you know um i don't know i haven't without going through the firewall i wouldn't know and
01:48:49 did you ask yourself why it was that kingspan was asking for this classification report ten years on after the test
01:48:58 uh i did and i think the response was we never actually asked for one at the time
01:49:05 time okay one as yourself what lay behind kingspan's request why do they suddenly want one now given that they hadn't asked for one of
01:49:16 given that they hadn't asked for one of the time
01:49:17 the time nor asked for one at all during the intervening decade i i don't know the actual reasoning as to why
01:49:26 to why they needed a particular that needed a br135
01:49:31 br135 now right to me that wasn't it's technically or procedurally whether we can issue a classification
01:49:42 whether we can issue a classification document the reasons why i didn't pursue
01:49:49 did you ask yourself how it was that kingspan had managed only with the test report but no classification report for k-15 in that 10-year intervening period
01:50:03 um
01:50:08 did i ask myself well i think the answer to that
01:50:12 to that that is i was aware that the test report was being being used in support of cladding systems being installed on buildings but the level of detail i had
01:50:24 buildings but the level of detail i had of that was minimal because you have very little visibility as a test lab as to what manufacturers are actually doing with the test data that they have or test reports
01:50:35 test data that they have or test reports that they have
01:50:52 did king's fan ever give you a reason why
01:50:55 why they wanted the classification report now
01:50:59 now and had never asked for it in the intervening 10 years no can we go to bre all zeros five zero seven one please
01:51:20 bre all zeros five zero seven one please this is an email i think we need to go to the bottom of page one for it uh from adam heath to veda uh on the 8th of september 2015 and 1523
01:51:36 uh on the 8th of september 2015 and 1523 uh relating to this uh um related to this classification report as well as the terracotta test which i think was the subject matter of the
01:51:48 think was the subject matter of the other report that you would ask her to write and he says dear peter thanks for the prompt request on a slightly related topic it has come up in discussions recently that we never commissioned a classification
01:51:59 commissioned a classification report for our bs 8414 test attached to reference
01:52:03 reference this test was originally completed in 2005.
01:52:06 2005. i have three questions really i mean we saw this before um and then if you go up the page to the next email up
01:52:18 next email up you can see that avida forwards that email onto tony baker uh on the same day dear tony please be so kind to advice regarding our client request below and
01:52:29 regarding our client request below and then
01:52:29 then above that we can see that tony baker uh responds to veda on the 9th of september
01:52:38 september and he says this is not a straightforward one in theory we could issue a classification document however i can understand why one was not issued for this test as it seems like an indicative
01:52:50 this test as it seems like an indicative type test bs8414 br135 is a system test and classification system and from what i can see from this report there's no external weather protection system included
01:53:02 included for example render system or grain screen cladding whilst they have a cement board overclocking i doubt this would be considered a complete system data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past
01:53:14 misrepresented in the market in the past i suggest this question should be passed by steve howard and or debbie smith before
01:53:18 before a response is sent
01:53:24 so this is what veda is doing uh at that date the first question is were you asked the question should we
01:53:36 were you asked the question should we assume a classification report as suggested by tony baker yes
01:53:45 and did you discuss with tony baker the fact that
01:53:49 fact that it appeared from the test that there was no external weather protection system but instead a cement board over cladding uh i don't recall talking to him no did
01:54:01 uh i don't recall talking to him no did you ever
01:54:02 you ever did you discuss with him the fact that this looked like an indicative type test
01:54:14 did you discuss with him the observation made by teddy baker to vida here that data such as this have been misrepresented in the market in the past
01:54:27 uh no i didn't discuss those elements specifically with him against this graphic with regard to that classification from your own
01:54:39 to that classification from your own knowledge at the time
01:54:42 was it the case that data such as this have been misrepresented in the market in the past
01:54:49 i wasn't aware of misrepresentation of that report but as i said i had very we had very little
01:54:59 little visibility of what was being accepted on what's basis for compliance with or meeting the recommendations of adb now
01:55:10 meeting the recommendations of adb now clearly tony baker has got the concerns he's expressed in this event do you know whether he had a conversation with debbie smith about these matters i don't know then
01:55:24 do you agree that the concerns expressed by tony baker in his email to veda on the 9th of september 2015 with serious masses which deserved consideration by the bre
01:55:37 well i don't actually agree with the statement
01:55:41 statement that it was an indicative test report why don't you agree with that statement because if you issue an indicative test report
01:55:48 report procedures within bre use to mark the test reports as indicative or not to issue an indicative report at all we had we were looking at a test that
01:56:00 we had we were looking at a test that was
01:56:02 in my consideration compliant with what was going on at the time
01:56:12 now if you go to page five five seven in this exhibit
01:56:39 we can see that this is an email from veda to you on the 14th of september 2015 right which says
01:56:51 right which says uh and the type the subject forward bs eight four one four one king span phenolic insulation system classification report and there's an attachment it's a draft
01:57:03 and there's an attachment it's a draft stephen please check the draft of kingspan phenolic system classification report
01:57:07 report thanks regards veda see that yeah then if you look below that what she's forwarding to you is an email also to you
01:57:22 is an email also to you or maybe in fact it's just an email part of the email chain with this below it
01:57:28 she says same day
01:57:36 good morning stephen please can you check the quotation for kingspan insulation but also please see below tony notes and then she's highlighted those hi vida
01:57:48 and then she's highlighted those hi vida this is not a straightforward one etc etc you can see the whole of the block text
01:57:51 text which i read to you originally from 9th of september email um from tony baker to vita she's passing this on to you mr howard
01:58:02 passing this on to you mr howard you would have seen the text of this this question uh although they may not may not necessarily pose directly by tony baker to you was certainly passed on to you by veda wasn't it
01:58:13 veda wasn't it yes yes did you have a discussion with either veda or debbie smith or tony baker
01:58:22 baker about the the concerns raised by tony baker in his email to veda we've seen i believe are disgusting with leader right and and can you tell us please the
01:58:34 right and and can you tell us please the nature of those discussions
01:58:38 um i think i would have discussed through
01:58:44 through concerns raised that she's raised with me and the reasoning why i thought it was still appropriate to issue a classification right well let's see if we can get a little bit more into the detail
01:58:55 bit more into the detail you received this email from veda on the 14th of september and then that you get it twice because we can see your sentence at 8 42 and then again later that morning when
01:59:06 and then again later that morning when she sends the report because it's part of the same email stream at what point did you have the discussion with peter on the matters the subject of teddy baker's email
01:59:19 i can't recall in an exact time uh if we can go up we are he's talking about the same report or is that a different
01:59:43 i'm not i can't remember an exact time but i was aware of this as an issue i'd seen the emails i didn't my view is we're issuing a
01:59:54 my view is we're issuing a classification report against a bre test report that isn't an indicative or marked as one against the tested system so
02:00:05 against the tested system so what did you tell veda did you tell her yes it's straightforward we can issue this because it's not an indicative type test yes i think that was believable in my
02:00:16 yes i think that was believable in my view but whether i communicated that with it directly i'm not i can't recall what led you to think that this was not an indicative type test because the test
02:00:29 test because the test when you issue indicative the usual bre practice is not to issue test reports for indicative tests they just issue a letter if you do an ad hoc
02:00:41 issue a letter if you do an ad hoc or indicative type test it's made very clear in multiple places in the test report that it's an indicative test
02:00:53 that it's an indicative test now you can see the reasons in this email that mr baker gives which feeder is passing on to you that morning and he says and you will have seen that 8414 br135 is a system test
02:01:06 8414 br135 is a system test uh and from what i can see from this report there's no external weather protection system included for example render system or rain screen cladding did you agree with tony baker on that point
02:01:20 yes i think yes there was it wasn't a render system or rain screen shading it was a single board yes and he says it's a cement board over cladding
02:01:31 cladding and then goes on to say i doubt this would be considered a complete system did you agree with tony baker on that um
02:01:46 yes to some extent yes and in that sense if that's what mr baker meant by it seems like an indicative type test
02:01:58 indicative type test you were agreeing with his observation weren't you well no i don't believe that it was an indicative test as i said we just bre had issued a
02:02:11 test as i said we just bre had issued a full test report against the tested system we don't comment
02:02:16 comment on beyond what it requires in the stand about system configuration and in fact you shouldn't so if we'd issued a full test report
02:02:28 so if we'd issued a full test report we don't comment on sample suitability for placing on the market we're not involved in a design it's a classification report issued against
02:02:38 against the test report which was in call in accordance with vs8411 indeed is to have it and and in a sense that's the point you're right
02:02:49 in a sense that's the point you're right that the test report was not marked indicative but nonetheless mr baker is telling veda and she you that it looked in substance to be indicative because the cement board over
02:03:02 indicative because the cement board over cladding
02:03:03 cladding would would not would mean that it couldn't be considered a complete system and you agreed with that so in that sense you were agreeing that in substance and substance
02:03:15 in substance and substance the test was it was only indicative no [Music]
02:03:20 [Music] and i don't understand your answer why was that an indicative only test if in fact the cement board over cladding that was being used was not uh
02:03:32 was not uh representative of planning systems out there in real life because we don't because what you are doing is testing a system to a standard we don't comment
02:03:44 a system to a standard we don't comment on the system designs or anything like that
02:03:47 that providing the sample and that can be any configuration meets the requirements of bs8414 i.e in terms of size configuration and things of that nature
02:03:58 things of that nature in my view that's classifiable to br135 we don't comment on
02:04:06 the relationship between sample and what's placed on the mark
02:04:13 clearly mr baker had this concern because he could see what the system comprised saw that it had only a cement board overclocking and that told him that it looked like an
02:04:24 and that told him that it looked like an indicative test why didn't you go back to mr clark who had written the original test report and discussed this question with him because
02:04:34 because i was confident that the test report that had been issued was a full test because i seem to recall now
02:04:42 now with the number of people involved with their experience my understanding was that they would not have issued an indicative test report again in that one
02:04:53 test report again in that one it's bre does not issue indicative test reports that look very close to or bear any resemblance to full test reports
02:05:04 resemblance to full test reports well to be fair to mr baker it doesn't say it's an indicative report he says indicative type test so he's chosen his words carefully
02:05:11 carefully i'm assuming he'd ask him when he comes but he's raised this concern with you that it might be problematic to issue a classification report because of the nature of the
02:05:24 because of the nature of the overclouding used namely only a cement board as opposed to a render system or rain screen cladding and that was his concern
02:05:34 what was why did you not share that concern because what you're doing because the system complied
02:05:42 complied or could be tested to bs 8414 and that defines whether you can classify
02:05:49 classify we're not commenting on the suitability of the product we're not involved in design
02:05:54 design all we are saying is the system can be tested to bsa414 part one it's met these temperature limitations or its performance and then temperature limitations didn't go above
02:06:05 temperature limitations didn't go above this
02:06:07 this that is all the classification revolt is saying it's not an endorsement of design so can we take it from this evidence the exchange we just had you disagreed with mr baker
02:06:19 yes i think he said it's an indicative type
02:06:23 type oh i don't agree it looks like a full report to me and i don't think and i think at that point
02:06:30 point we possibly disagree or he needs to speak to himself but i think it's we don't get involved in system design we don't comment on the
02:06:41 system design we don't comment on the system
02:06:42 system even that you were disagreeing with tony baker
02:06:46 baker why didn't you seek to have a conversation with him discuss his concerns with him before instructing veda to continue with the drafting because if you read in the emails
02:06:58 because if you read in the emails he has raised the matter with me and considered it appropriate for me to make the decision and
02:07:06 at the time just considered the matter was closed i viewed it as a quite reasonable to issue a br135 classification against that so that he put it onto veda
02:07:19 so that he put it onto veda to pass this question by you you disagree
02:07:23 disagree did you just how did you express your disagreement to veda
02:07:30 i can't remember whether i discussed it or
02:07:33 or whether i doubt there had been an email or exchange because basically we were in very close proximity in the office did you actually address your mind to these concerns do you actually sit down
02:07:44 you actually sit down and look at the uh makeup of the 2005 test ring and actually ask yourself whether mr baker was obviously wrong or there was something in what he was saying
02:07:56 something in what he was saying i've considered his comments
02:08:00 right and then you just dismissed them did you
02:08:05 did you well i took the decision for the reasons i've outlined that i thought it was within the scope of bs841 for part one to issue
02:08:13 to issue i think the test samples are in the scope of the standard and therefore it's within the scope of dr-135 you see the
02:08:24 within the scope of dr-135 you see the the basic thrust of mr baker's concern was the last sentence in the main paragraph there data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past
02:08:33 past now you told me earlier answered my question whether that was something you were familiar with you said not really no i probably misquoted you but that was the gist of it but here you are being told that in terms by mr baker
02:08:44 being told that in terms by mr baker um were you not concerned to get to the bottom of what um what that was about
02:08:54 i think we were aware or there had been discussions
02:09:02 of misrepresentation of test reports in the past i didn't think really it was
02:09:12 if the test had been conducted in accordance with the standard then that's not a reason sorry that is a reason to issue a br135
02:09:34 but
02:09:39 this is a red light isn't it blue light telling you that data such as this test report
02:09:50 done on a system which was not representative of what was out there in the market has quotes been misrepresented in the market in the past were you not concerned before
02:10:02 were you not concerned before instructing veda to complete the classification just to understand what the nature of that problem was
02:10:11 no because it's what we are doing at that point is issuing a classification report against um attachment now accept those test
02:10:23 um attachment now accept those test reports and documents as far as i'm well my view and still is going into a professional environment of architects building control and the such like
02:10:35 building control and the such like now
02:10:39 if we were just fulfilling issuing a classification report which i still believe is valued against the test that we conducted
02:10:50 despite the risks of misuse
02:10:54 we don't regulate the market fire test labs do not regulate the market in that way
02:11:03 you don't regulate the market no you do you are responsible for classifying the result of tests which is then used which are then used
02:11:14 which is then used which are then used in the market my question is why were you prepared to classify
02:11:20 classify the data in the test report given the warning from tony baker that data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past without getting to the bottom of what that meant
02:11:36 i think i had enough knowledge of what was going on in the market and concerns raised that it wasn't i didn't feel it was an issue that we could
02:11:48 issue that we could resolve over whether we issued a classification report or not i still stand by that the issue the classification report is
02:11:59 the issue the classification report is valid so you were prepared to let me just be very clear about this mr howard you were prepared to go ahead and sanction the issue of a classification report based on test data which such as this
02:12:11 based on test data which such as this have been
02:12:12 have been misrepresented in the market in the past without further investigation of what that was about
02:12:19 um
02:12:23 well as i said i think i was aware of misrepresentation concerns and i don't think it
02:12:29 think it um directly related to this issuing of this classification i think there are separate issues right let's just look at that a little bit more uh what were the misrepresentation concerns
02:12:42 what were the misrepresentation concerns of which you were aware now this what was the actual date of
02:12:52 i think there was an email dated somewhere around 2010
02:12:59 and subsequent information that claims were being made against insulation uh was things like limited combustibility and things of that nature or combustible
02:13:12 and things of that nature or combustible insulations of the entire claim to be limited combustibility yes and you you may be referring i don't know to the nabc certificate for k-15 uh
02:13:24 know to the nabc certificate for k-15 uh is that something you knew at the time of this email something that you've picked up probably not no
02:13:31 so let's be clear mid september 2015 what data your knowledge at that time have been misrepresented to the market
02:13:44 have been misrepresented to the market i think there was an email from tony baker and i think it was dated around 2010 um raising issues and again
02:13:57 um raising issues and again i don't remember specifics but there had been issues over misrepresentation of data in the cladding market
02:14:11 data in the cladding market was something you knew at the time was it
02:14:16 not specifically but i was aware of it at the time of issue of the 2015 classification given that you were aware at least in general terms of some perhaps vague concerns about
02:14:29 some perhaps vague concerns about clients misusing test data such as this why were you prepared without any further investigation to go ahead and sanction the preparation of publication of a
02:14:42 the preparation of publication of a classification report because i felt it was a valid request the clustered test report was valid and therefore you could issue the
02:14:56 valid and therefore you could issue the vr135 against that document despite your knowledge of the risks of this misuse yes why would it i don't understand the misuse
02:15:09 i don't understand the misuse aspect the test report is a test report on data
02:15:13 on data the classification is a pass fail statement against the test report we've been i think around this track a number of times mr howard i'm going to suggest to you uh that you
02:15:25 i'm going to suggest to you uh that you simply ignored mr baker's warning you didn't discuss it with him you've had no meaningful discussion with veda about it
02:15:31 about it and you just instructed her to get on and see the classification report without stopping to think about what mr becker was telling you um no i had considered the issue i felt it was right and within procedure
02:15:45 i felt it was right and within procedure to issue
02:15:46 to issue the r135 no i didn't discuss it i cannot recall discussing mr baker but i did discuss it with vina
02:15:55 now uh
02:15:58 can we go to um bre zero three four four six please uh and i'd like to go to page two in that email run
02:16:15 this is an email at the very bottom of page two
02:16:25 of the 21st of october 2013 to you mr howard
02:16:30 this is before the 2014 year that you've given your statement for when you became more involved with clatting
02:16:39 clatting so uh do we have to bear that in mind but let's proceed indeed
02:16:50 but let's proceed indeed let's proceed and uh it looks as if mr roper's email to you is in the uh black text and your response to him
02:17:01 black text and your response to him uh that you send on the 24th of october is at the foot of page one if you could just go to that
02:17:11 and then we'll go back to this email on page two
02:17:14 page two at the foot of page one you go back to him and say thanks for the email please see below
02:17:21 see below p.s and then go to the top page two pieces to see what it is that he's asking you and
02:17:32 and what you're saying and
02:17:40 in the second paragraph mr roper says to you
02:17:46 the example i can give in fact i probably ought to read you the first paragraph as well so you've got the full context he says stephen without having the through-wall system details to hand i cannot give a full
02:17:58 details to hand i cannot give a full explanation on the differences between the systems however as an example we would be looking to test using an acm panel with battle joints with a cavity of 38 millimeters between the cladding of the substrate in
02:18:09 the cladding of the substrate in conjunction with nhpc guidelines if we tested this system and passed and somebody wanted to use an open jointed acm panel with a cavity of 50 millimeters with exactly the same brackets insulation
02:18:20 brackets insulation via brackets and cement particle board could this be covered in a report stating so and then you give your answer
02:18:31 essentially you're saying desktop i think um
02:18:34 think um but let's look at the next paragraph you say the example i can give is one of our main competitors who produce both pir and phenolic insulation they've successfully tested the product of bs8414
02:18:45 of bs8414 part one onto a masonry wall using a merely a cementitious board as the outer face
02:18:51 face not only does this not cover the majority of the market in which they are used but the cementitious board doesn't actually represent a drain back and ventilated grain screen system however we are aware that this product is used in buildings above 18 meters
02:19:03 is used in buildings above 18 meters using a wide variety of constructions some onto masonry someone to steal frame with acm panel cladding terracotta etcetera
02:19:10 etcetera we're surprised that they feel confident enough to allow their product to be used in buildings their fire test doesn't cover unless they have a report to say other your response to that as you can
02:19:21 other your response to that as you can see
02:19:22 see um is if the products are lpcb approved then we can act if we have issued a test report on a system then the anus is on the building area and the building control
02:19:33 control to ensure that the system being installed is covered by a test report i'm not sure that i have much more to add and
02:19:39 add and that's the full run of that email i want to show you my first question is this did you understand mr roper in that correspondence to be referring to
02:19:50 correspondence to be referring to kingston in their 2005 test
02:19:54 uh yes this is thursday's king spain but he doesn't specifically say that
02:20:01 say that which is why i asked you you understood it to me in kingspan even though not quite specific did you agree with mr roper that cementitious board did not represent
02:20:12 represent a drained back and ventilated rain screen system
02:20:19 sorry i missed that
02:20:23 well let me put it differently and again you just glitched out for a second did i okay i'm sorry about that and if we can go back to the document please
02:20:35 you can see in the second block of black text
02:20:39 text um he says the cementitious this is four lines down the cementitious board doesn't actually represent a drained back and ventilated rain screen system now in the blue text below it which is
02:20:52 now in the blue text below it which is your answer you didn't disagree with him can we take it therefore that you did agree with mr roper
02:20:57 roper that a cementitious board did not represent
02:21:00 represent a drained back and ventilated rain screen system no because of not i would not answer i would not get into that sort of discussion
02:21:12 discussion with a client in that way so no i haven't agreed with him
02:21:21 no i could see you haven't agreed with him and i understand the reasons why you might not might not express yourself one way or the other and let me ask it this way then did you agree
02:21:31 agree in your own mind even if not expressly with mr
02:21:35 with mr roper's statement that cementitious board doesn't represent drain back and ventilated rain screen system
02:21:46 no i don't agree
02:21:50 so you disagree did you you didn't you thought he was wrong did you
02:21:57 you i think at the time i
02:22:02 i didn't have sufficient knowledge of all the different variations it's not uncommon to have cementitious boards
02:22:11 boards on ventilated rain screen systems
02:22:19 mister roper was telling you
02:22:26 that the cementitious board as the rain screen which is what it was representative of planning systems
02:22:37 representative of planning systems being installed out there in the real world
02:22:41 world i know your answer that you didn't have sufficient knowledge but you didn't have you didn't in fact have sufficient knowledge or experience to say that he was wrong about that did you
02:22:54 well from my experience i didn't agree with it because i'm aware that there were cementitious boards being used on in the march used in the market as a range outer
02:23:06 used in the market as a range outer layer on a range
02:23:11 yes yes sorry that the email at the very least tells you doesn't it or at least strongly suggests that
02:23:24 it or at least strongly suggests that kingspan was selling k-15 the basis of a bs-8414 report build up with a holy up unrepresentative uh system that
02:23:37 uh system that was what he was telling me wasn't it well that was his opinion you didn't i think you told us have enough experience at that time to disagree with it
02:23:50 possibly not no
02:23:54 but i'm aware that there are certain baseballs used as round screen cladding well what type of cementitious board was used as the outer layer of a cladding system at the time
02:24:05 layer of a cladding system at the time of the tests 2005 do you know i can't recall without looking at the report and see what it's called so when you receive this concern from mr
02:24:16 so when you receive this concern from mr roper that you are being told about yeah you seek to investigate it further or did you just dismiss it out of hand or i think if you look up at the email
02:24:27 the email chain there's a request to him to provide examples of claims in the market so he was specifically
02:24:38 specifically requested to forward on examples as to what the issue was i.e what claims were being made by whom
02:24:49 what claims were being made by whom so that email that is being shown is there's more of it that goes that starts early yes i've seen that in relation to a
02:25:00 yes i've seen that in relation to a specific
02:25:00 specific comparison between one system and another and the possibility of extrapolation i understand that really what i'm asking you is what you did with the concern expressed by mr roper to you in the
02:25:12 expressed by mr roper to you in the second paragraph about the cementitious board
02:25:17 the trigger would have been because he was asked to provide examples there's two emails that are interleaved so
02:25:25 so if you look if we go back up there's a request to you to send through examples we've seen your response to this part of the paragraph
02:25:36 response to this part of the paragraph just look at it again at the bottom in blue and you say you just have that batteries on the screen you say if if we've issued a test report
02:25:48 you say if if we've issued a test report on a system and the onus is on the building owner and building control to ensure that the system being installed is covered by a test report i'm not sure that i have much to add much more to that
02:26:00 much more to that were you not concerned at the time that kingspan
02:26:04 kingspan seemed to be or at least being said to be misrepresenting the report that they obtained from the bre in the market but as i said this is the end of the email string
02:26:15 email string so essentially there's a request earlier for him to send examples of his concerns
02:26:25 concerns and misrepresentation of the product in the market it's as you go up the email i can't it's in that section there at that point i was expecting
02:26:39 at that point i was expecting contract information or marketing information or something to support his claim that would have been the trigger to take this further
02:26:50 this further if you look as i said if you go up the email there is a crest request there for information well there's one there's one certainly i'm not going to stand here and scrabble around in the emails but certainly on
02:27:01 around in the emails but certainly on page three there's a request from you to him on the 21st of october uh to answer the question uh that he's asked you uh in the email below that on the 18th october the foot of page
02:27:13 on the 18th october the foot of page three top page four because is that what you're talking about yes
02:27:18 about yes right so but uh but this comes later in the
02:27:22 the in the piece and really what i want to end with is just i just want to put to you
02:27:26 you and we'll ask you did you take any action at all internally within the bre in response to mr roper's concerns as expressed in that paragraph
02:27:35 paragraph the truth would have been more information supplied by mr up the in the absence of any more information you uh didn't do anything
02:27:47 no the trigger would have been more information from uh mr rogue so you don't say in the paragraph in blue could you please give me more information about the cementitious board
02:27:58 information about the cementitious board and your concerns about it what information did you need
02:28:04 well we'd need to well we would need well ultimately you would need enough information to either go to
02:28:15 to either go to trading standards or build or support a complaint to either trading standards or approved or the approval body the there was kind of misrepresentation
02:28:29 the there was kind of misrepresentation in the market but you would need evidence of that
02:28:34 how are you getting on mr millet i've come to the end of this line really i just want to ask one more question and why didn't you ask mr roper for more information on his allegation so that you could explore it i thought i
02:28:46 so that you could explore it i thought i had i thought i'd ask for examples of misrepresentation in the market
02:28:52 market just because a system hasn't got br135 as i said earlier prove document b is advisory
02:29:01 advisory or guidance and there's other methods or buildings or a cladding systems to be accepted onto buildings now without full details of that process
02:29:14 without full details of that process there's very little comment that you can make
02:29:17 make now i genuinely thought that i'd made it clear that we needed detailed examples and that has i acted on that basis
02:29:28 and that has i acted on that basis yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment i think it is yes well mr hyde we're going to call it a day there
02:29:37 day there we're finished finished for the day i'm afraid i have to ask you to come back again on monday of next week to continue but i think you were expecting that yeah yes all right so um we'll resume then at 10 o'clock on
02:29:49 so um we'll resume then at 10 o'clock on monday
02:29:51 monday and uh please remember over the weekend it's obviously particularly important not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right thank you very much and we
02:30:03 all right thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you on monday then
02:30:05 then thank you thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday