Philip Clark, former BRE Burnhall manager (2004-2015), gives evidence about his role in BS8414 testing, his work with Celotex and Kingspan, and controversial post-test advice given to manufacturers. Key topics include test procedures, commercial pressures on BRE, and his later employment by Kingspan.
00:00:08 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Uh I'm here as usual with my fellow panel members Miss Surya Istapan and Mr. Ali Akbore.
00:00:19 Istapan and Mr. Ali Akbore. Good morning. Um before we meet our witness for today, can I just mention for the benefit of those who are joining
00:00:30 for the benefit of those who are joining the hearing remotely but have not been with us before that those who are not active participants which I think normally will include the witnesses legal representatives. Please keep your
00:00:42 legal representatives. Please keep your cameras and microphones switched off at all times to help us to avoid any technical problems. Now today we're going to hear evidence from Mr. Philip Clark. So, I'm just
00:00:54 from Mr. Philip Clark. So, I'm just going to check that Mr. Clark is there and he can see me and hear me. Mr. Clark, are you there? I'm here, sir. Yes, and I can hear you very well. Good. Thank you very much. Um, now you
00:01:06 Good. Thank you very much. Um, now you should have on the screen in front of you the words of the affirmation. Do you have them there? Uh, not at the moment. No, I think they'll come up soon if we are
00:01:17 I think they'll come up soon if we are patient.
00:01:19 patient. There we are. Um now yes.
00:01:22 now yes. So could you would you please make the affirmation by reading the words on the screen in front of you? I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole
00:01:34 shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Uh there are a few things we just have to run through before we start uh taking your evidence. Can you first confirm to me that you're
00:01:45 Can you first confirm to me that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence? Indeed. Yes, I am. Thank you. Can you confirm also that you have no documents or other materials with you? I have nothing at all. No.
00:01:56 I have nothing at all. No. Thank you. And finally, can I ask you to 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?
00:02:07 is capable of receiving messages? I have none of those with me. No. Excellent. Thank you very much. Now for your benefit I just should perhaps tell you that your legal representatives are present in the virtual hearing room and
00:02:18 present in the virtual hearing room and will be following the evidence. uh they can intervene if they consider it necessary to do so. But we have a system in place under which they uh will
00:02:29 in place under which they uh will normally be expected to contact council the inquiry by email and so I don't expect that they will uh actually uh intervene in the course of the hearing.
00:02:40 intervene in the course of the hearing. Uh I hope there won't be any problems with sound or vision. If there are, we'll have a short break while we iron them out and I shall have to ask you to bear with us while we deal with them. Um, if anything occurs that causes you
00:02:54 Um, if anything occurs that causes you to want uh a break or to bring anything to my attention, just indicate and I'll try and make sure I invite you to explain what it is. Um, we shall have a
00:03:05 explain what it is. Um, we shall have a short break during the morning at about 11:15 and during the afternoon at around about 3:15. If you need an additional break at any time, again, would you just indicate and then we'll
00:03:16 indicate and then we'll I will do. Yes. Try to accommodate you. Um, since I've raised the question of breaks, can I just mention this? Um, once you've started giving your evidence, it's important that you don't discuss your
00:03:27 important that you don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else, including your lawyers, until you've completely finished. Now, I'll try to remind you of that whenever we have a break, but if I forget to do
00:03:38 we have a break, but if I forget to do so, just please bear it in mind. I'm aware of that, sir. Yes. Good. Well done. Thank you very much. Now, is there anything you would like to raise with me or bring to my attention before we start? No, I'm fine. Thank you very much. And
00:03:50 No, I'm fine. Thank you very much. And um thanks for the introduction. Right. Thank you very much indeed. At that in that case, I shall say good morning to Mr. Millet and invite him to uh put some questions to you. Yes, Mr. Millet.
00:04:01 Millet. Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning members of the panel. And good morning, Mr. Clark. Good morning. Can I start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry
00:04:12 you very much for coming to the inquiry today and giving your evidence? We very much appreciate it. If you have difficulty understanding anything I'm asking you in the course of my questions, please just ask me to repeat the questions and I can do that or I can
00:04:25 the questions and I can do that or I can put the question in a different way. If you feel other than uh as part of the scheduled breaks, let us know and we can take a break. Can I also ask you please to keep your voice up so that the
00:04:36 to keep your voice up so that the transcribers can get down your evidence clearly and precisely and also please don't nod or shake your head mean yes or no because those don't come
00:04:47 mean yes or no because those don't come out on the transcript. You have to say yes or no. I understand. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Now you've made one witness statement and that's dated the 15th of July 2019. Can I please take you to it?
00:04:58 July 2019. Can I please take you to it? It appears at BRE 405768 and it should appear on the screen in front of you.
00:05:12 Uh do you recognize that as the first page of your witness statement? I do indeed. Yes. Can we go to page 83, please?
00:05:23 Uh you'll see a signature there above the date of the 15th of July, 2019. Is that your signature? It is sir. Yes, it is. Have you read this witness statement recently?
00:05:32 recently? I have indeed. Yes. Now, uh on the 1st of December 2020, uh your legal representatives wrote to the inquiry um telling us about some corrections that you wish to make to it.
00:05:44 corrections that you wish to make to it. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. And I think it's right that one of the corrections was at paragraph 174 on page 41. Can we go to that please?
00:06:00 Uh, in that paragraph, uh, you say twice that Mr. Evans was present at the May 2014 Cellex test. You've now reviewed the video footage of that test and you
00:06:12 the video footage of that test and you wanted to change or amend your paragraph in certain respects. What What would you like to say now? Um
00:06:20 Um I'd miss um understood the the one of the gentlemen that was that came to two tests. I for some reason thought that was Mr. Evans.
00:06:31 some reason thought that was Mr. Evans. Um to this day I still don't know the gentleman's name. Um I thought he was Mr. um Roper's senior staff member. Um he was so I can confirm that Mr. Evans
00:06:45 he was so I can confirm that Mr. Evans won at those tests as I state in that statement. Right. You say you can confirm that he wasn't. Uh are you confirming it or you are you just saying that you now can't remember whether it was Mr. Evans or not?
00:06:56 not? No, I've watched back the evidence that Mr. Evans gave to the inquiry. Um I've checked the video and the person I thought was Mr. Evans isn't Mr. Evans. I
00:07:08 thought was Mr. Evans isn't Mr. Evans. I can confirm that. I have seen the video and would say that it wasn't Mr. Evans. Can you tell us who you recall or think was the person that you mistakenly thought was Mr. Evans? Um,
00:07:21 Um, I can't think of the person's name. Um, um,
00:07:27 um, no, I can't, I'm afraid. No. What led you to think that it was Mr. Evans?
00:07:32 Evans? Um, because I I'd not met him and I just assumed it was him. I thought it I thought the person who was with um Mr. Roer was his
00:07:43 person who was with um Mr. Roer was his senior staff member not introduced to you. Um he may have been but I I couldn't remember him at the time with the with the amount of work we have. You don't always remember people's names.
00:07:54 always remember people's names. The next correction that you told us that you wanted to make was to paragraph 251 on page 61.
00:08:08 Uh and there in paragraph uh uh A you refer to a delivery note from Euro form and in B um you refer uh to an in
00:08:21 and in B um you refer uh to an in invoice
00:08:24 uh uh from FGF. Now in fact the invoice from FGF is not an invoice for magnesium oxide. It was for Marley Eternit wasn't it?
00:08:36 for Marley Eternit wasn't it? That's correct. Yes. Yes. So, just to cut through this, can can we read this statement here as saying that the only invoice relating to magnesium
00:08:47 the only invoice relating to magnesium oxide is the one that you've identified in paragraph little A above? That is correct. Yes. Yes. And that one was 12 millimeters, not 6 millimeters. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. The third
00:09:00 That is correct. Yes. The third correction that you wanted to make as you told us was that paragraph 65 on page 267. Sorry, paragraph 267 on page 65.
00:09:14 Uh, and you say, uh, in the penultimate sentence, I believe I may have been away possibly on a first aid course during the strip down
00:09:26 a first aid course during the strip down in particular. What do you now want to say in relation to that?
00:09:32 to that? Um,
00:09:35 Um, from from day one, I was questioning why I hadn't seen some of the things that um were on the on the rig. Um I subsequently looked at a personal um
00:09:48 subsequently looked at a personal um diary that was occasionally used on my iPad.
00:09:53 iPad. Um I had it in my head that at that point I was out in a at a first aid course um and I managed to uh unbeknownst to me I had put into that
00:10:05 unbeknownst to me I had put into that diary um and subsequently had checked that I was actually on the on a first aid course when the system was being constructed not when it was being taken down.
00:10:15 down. Right. So to be clear you were on a first aid course but that was uh before the test not after the test. Yes that's correct. Yes. Now, having made those corrections, uh, Mr. Clark, do you say that the contents
00:10:27 Mr. Clark, do you say that the contents of your statement are true? Yes, I do. Have you discussed the contents or the evidence that you're going to give to us with anybody before coming here today? I haven't. No.
00:10:39 Now, I'm going to start uh with the topic of your role and responsibilities uh and your background. Am I right that you have a BSc in environmental chemistry? That is correct. Yes. You got that in 1997.
00:10:50 You got that in 1997. Yes. And in paragraph three of your witness statement on page one, uh you tell us uh that uh between June 2006 and November 2010,
00:11:04 uh you say you studied part-time for a post-graduate diploma in fire and explosion engineering. Relevant courses included explosion prediction and mitigation, fire risk assessment and
00:11:15 mitigation, fire risk assessment and management, fire dynamics and modeling, fire safety design and accident investigation. I passed written exams in modules for fire dynamics and modeling, fire risk assessment and management and explosion prediction and mitigation.
00:11:26 explosion prediction and mitigation. Although I did not end up pursuing the diploma to completion. Did you study the fire safety design module?
00:11:34 module? I did. Yes. And can you tell us why you didn't complete the diploma? Um it was something that I started um
00:11:45 Um it was something that I started um when the work at B was quite quiet. Um I was at the time I was um single as well. Um and we got to a stage where no sorry
00:11:56 Um and we got to a stage where no sorry it wasn't single. We'd just had a a baby. So um things at work and work life became um more important at the time I
00:12:07 became um more important at the time I think. Um and the the work at B grew to such an extent that it was um impossible to do both really and have a family life. And uh and what point in time
00:12:21 life. And uh and what point in time roughly you can give me the year did you say that uh work at BR grew to that extent?
00:12:29 extent? Um
00:12:33 so I think I probably sort of halfway through the course. Um it it was one of these courses that while it claimed to be part-time you the the period that you
00:12:45 be part-time you the the period that you had to do with the work was very tight. So it was the same as if you were on the course itself. So um it it took up a lot of time
00:12:55 of time in the way you described um probably to about 2012 2013
00:13:02 2013 right now. Um is it fair to say that the qualifications that you describe or the courses that you say you've been on and studied meant that you understood the risk to life from fire?
00:13:13 risk to life from fire? Um yes indeed. Yes, definitely. Now, in 1998, you joined the BRE, didn't you? I did. Yes. Was that your first job straight out of university?
00:13:24 university? Um, straight out of university. Yes. Not my first job in in my life, but straight out of university. Yes. Uh, and a paragraph 13 of your witness statement, you say that you took on the part-time role of BR Burnhall manager in
00:13:37 part-time role of BR Burnhall manager in 2004. That's right, isn't it? That's correct. Yes. There thereabouts. Yes.
00:13:43 Yes. Yes. Thereabouts. What training were you given when you took on this role? Um none specifically um
00:13:54 um in not for the management of the facility but part of that was internal training um health and safety risk assessment um things to do with construction
00:14:06 um things to do with construction management directive CDM regulations um because the we treated the the hall as a construction site. So um the health and safety around that was based on what you
00:14:19 safety around that was based on what you would expect for CDM with um power tools and health um PPE etc. Do the B regard itself as a designer for the purposes of the CDM regulations at
00:14:30 the purposes of the CDM regulations at that time in force? No. No.
00:14:34 No. No. Um now as part of the role you describe the part-time role of Burnhall manager from 2004. Yes. Did you run the cladding testing program?
00:14:46 program? I did. Yes. What did that involve in summary? Um
00:14:53 Um so that would be liazing with um clients once they they'd agreed a contract. Um agreeing where they would um what facility in terms of the wall they would
00:15:05 facility in terms of the wall they would come into. um working with them to make sure they provided the um relevant paperwork in terms of risk assessment, method statement um and their required
00:15:19 method statement um and their required um liability insurance etc. and for their staff and also checking that their staff were competent in terms of using um plant and equipment and that type of
00:15:32 um plant and equipment and that type of thing. um and anduling them in um disposing and getting a bit rid of post test materials etc. What about taking delivery of testing
00:15:43 What about taking delivery of testing materials? Um not specifically um the BR had a dedicated goods in um facility. most of the materials
00:15:57 facility. most of the materials particularly the smaller items would go through the goods in um we did for a period of time not have a forklift directly. So the larger items again would go through them but as time went
00:16:10 would go through them but as time went on we had um the facility to offload larger products ourselves plaster board etc. Um so we would take that if it came directly to the hall.
00:16:24 directly to the hall. Thank you. Now, Mr. Hayes told the inquiry in his oral evidence at day 74, page 146, lines 7 to 15, that you would always be passing through the burnh hall going to and from your office. A general
00:16:35 going to and from your office. A general picture. Uh would that be accurate? Um
00:16:39 Um my office was um in the in the bone hall. Yes, that is correct. Um that didn't mean I was there necessarily all the time. Um
00:16:51 um so one of the things I did at BRE was I worked across with other people in in the group so we could be in other buildings. Um but generally yes. Yeah.
00:17:03 buildings. Um but generally yes. Yeah. But I could I could access my office without going into the hall itself. I didn't it wasn't the main thoroughare. Okay. I mean but is it fair to say that you were in the
00:17:15 you were in the um at least daily? Uh yes. Yes. At least once a day. Yes. Uh now is it right that in your role uh
00:17:26 Uh now is it right that in your role uh you worked and I say role your role you occupied between 2005 and 2015 that's a decade.
00:17:33 decade. Yes.
00:17:34 Yes. But during that period did you work closely with Kingspan when they were carrying out their BS 8414 tests on Kingspan K15?
00:17:45 Kingspan K15? Um yes I would say yes. Yeah. Yes. And did you also work closely with Celotex on their 2014 BS8414 tests?
00:17:56 Celotex on their 2014 BS8414 tests? Yes.
00:17:59 Yes. So, can we take it that you were at least and to the best of your recollection are still very familiar with the tests carried out both by Kingpan and by Celtex on their products?
00:18:10 Kingpan and by Celtex on their products? Uh, yes. Yeah. Maybe not so much the 200. I I am now obviously with the the evidence that has been sent to me in terms of the 2005. It's it's such a long
00:18:22 terms of the 2005. It's it's such a long time ago. Um but generally, yes. Yes, I'm fully understand what they tested and when. And we'll come to those tests later, but just sticking at the moment with your
00:18:33 just sticking at the moment with your role at the B. Uh you say in paragraph three 13 of your statement, there's no need to go to it, that in 2015 you joined the passive fire center within the BRE and undertook cladding testing
00:18:46 the BRE and undertook cladding testing as your full-time role. Is that correct? Uh that is correct. Yes. Yes. The passive fire center. So um within BRE the way the work was
00:18:59 So um within BRE the way the work was split out um was sort of semi-divisional in a way. So with within the because you have fire resistance, you have sprinkler
00:19:10 have fire resistance, you have sprinkler dete, you have sprinkler um passive protection, you have um reaction to fire, you have fire resistance that was broken down into distinct um work
00:19:21 broken down into distinct um work streams as such. The passive fire center tended to look after the the reaction to fire tests which are around passive protection. So insulation um things like
00:19:34 protection. So insulation um things like cement particle board and and all of the smaller scale testing to do with that. Yes, I see.
00:19:45 And when you say reaction to fire, you're using that phrase in the regulatory or scientific sense. Yes. Yes. So in terms of the test they would undertake um the thing that B does
00:19:58 would undertake um the thing that B does is that it does um fire resistance testing which is a separate building on the site. They do reaction to fire testing which is different um testing. Yes. Thank you. Um at paragraph 14 of
00:20:11 Yes. Thank you. Um at paragraph 14 of your witness statement on page three uh you say that you undertook the heat release measurements during the lacal fire reconstruction. Uh in general my question is what was the purpose of the
00:20:23 question is what was the purpose of the lackal reconstruction? Um the it was to determine um I think the they'd come up with a a
00:20:35 I think the they'd come up with a a theoretical cause of the fire um and to look how how the fire had spread from the the main initial compartment and smoke had spread from that compartment
00:20:46 smoke had spread from that compartment into other parts of the building and also how the um spandrel panels on the front of on the balcony in the area had um contributed in some way or other to
00:20:59 um contributed in some way or other to the um fire spread in the in the building.
00:21:03 building. And what exactly were were you investigating as part of the heat release measurements? So I was looking at um my my recollection is that they
00:21:14 at um my my recollection is that they built the structure so that the compartment where the the fire originated according to the the um fire investigation they put that under the
00:21:26 investigation they put that under the calorimeter. So BR had like a a 9 by9 calorimeter which measures oxygen depletion. um that was used to determine
00:21:37 depletion. um that was used to determine the growth rate of the fire um and the potential heat release that that fire um gave out.
00:21:46 gave out. I see. When did this reconstruction testing take place? Um
00:21:53 Um it would have been probably about six eight months after the the fire which I can't remember the date. Was in the summer of 2009. Yes, it would have been probably um early 2010
00:22:06 have been probably um early 2010 possibly.
00:22:07 possibly. And what were the results of the uh um that investigation that the BR did? Um I wasn't party to that. So in terms of undertaking the work, what would
00:22:19 of undertaking the work, what would happen was I would undertake the work um for the heat release and then that would be given as a data package to the team who were working on that. So because of
00:22:30 who were working on that. So because of the um my understanding it was through the potentially through the Met Police. So I wasn't involved with it in terms of anything other than producing the data
00:22:41 anything other than producing the data for the heat release. After lack did you or more generally have any concerns in relation to cladding and insulation and the spread of fire on external clad facads? Um my
00:22:55 of fire on external clad facads? Um my understanding is that a secondary piece of work was done through the under the opaces of the um at the time I think it was ODPM
00:23:07 was ODPM um I've changed the name but the office of the deputy prime minister um one of the pieces of work that Bar has done over the years is to investigate um
00:23:19 over the years is to investigate um fires and how they impact on the um approved document. B. So if if there's any fire, for example, that is um what we potentially call erroneous or um has
00:23:32 we potentially call erroneous or um has led to a a larger than a large loss of life or loss of property. They would investigate that. And my understanding is that after the lacal, they did an
00:23:43 is that after the lacal, they did an extra piece of work looking specifically at spandrel panels. Um I can't remember exactly when that was written but I I have seen it referenced in various things to do with the grandf
00:23:55 in various things to do with the grandf inquiry. So were you involved with that? Uh I wasn't. No no the only the only involvement I think was to book them onto the test rig because what they used for that was one of the cladding the
00:24:07 for that was one of the cladding the BS8414 test rigs. What was the result of that secondary piece of work? Um again I wasn't involved with it
00:24:18 again I wasn't involved with it directly. Um my understanding was they had come to the conclusion that the risk associated with um fire spread was not a
00:24:32 associated with um fire spread was not a risk that they had identified. Was there a final report that was produced by the B as a result of that secondary piece of work? Um there is. Yes. Yes. I understand it's still publicly available on the BR
00:24:45 still publicly available on the BR website. I think it was um
00:24:51 Sorry, do you want to continue? I I was just about to say I think it was the paper authored by um David Crowder and Kira Holland um and Martin Ship. It's it's it's widely been
00:25:02 It's it's it's widely been That's
00:25:04 That's I know that. So, um were they David Crowder and Kira Holland? they the ones who were involved within the BR on that work? They were indeed. Yes. Yes.
00:25:16 They were indeed. Yes. Yes. Um has the B or did the B changed anything uh in its practice of fire testing or uh anything of the kind as a result of the Lacal house fire and the
00:25:27 result of the Lacal house fire and the investigations done by the B? Um not that I'm aware of. No. Now you tell us in paragraph 16 of your statement that you left the B in
00:25:38 statement that you left the B in December 2017 and you joined X over Warrington Fire. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. Why did you leave the B? Um
00:25:48 Um I was made an off a very good offer um to change. um I'd been there a very long time and I did feel I was coming to a stage where um I wasn't able to progress
00:26:01 stage where um I wasn't able to progress with the the way things were I think necessary. Um and I I thought a change would be something that would be worthwhile.
00:26:13 Is is it right that you then left Exova in December 2018 and went to work for Kingspan?
00:26:20 Kingspan? I did. Yes. Indeed. Yes. Did you apply to Kingspan or were you headunted? Um, I was headunted. Yes. Uh, and presumably they made you an even
00:26:31 Uh, and presumably they made you an even better offer. Is that right? It did. Yes. Yes. And the position you took at Kingspan in December 2018 was I think you tell us the as operations manager for the fire research center. Is that right? That is correct. Yes. Who
00:26:43 That is correct. Yes. Who was your line manager at that time and thereafter? Um, my direct line manager was a gentleman called Jay Humphre.
00:26:54 And how did that fire research center relate to Kingspan Insulation UK Limited?
00:27:00 Limited? Um,
00:27:02 Um, so just just for clarity, it at the time I started it, it hadn't been built. Um, so I was there to progress it from um paper to actually
00:27:16 progress it from um paper to actually delivering the facility. Um, in terms of where we were when when I left, we hadn't actually started
00:27:27 I left, we hadn't actually started getting any work through it specifically um due to a couple of delays in terms of um but my understanding was that this
00:27:38 um but my understanding was that this was a global resource. So, it was a facility that both panels and insulation would use um were going to use or
00:27:49 would use um were going to use or probably will are using now. Right. Just just just help me with this. Um the fire research center was a was a building was it? A building. Yes. Yes.
00:28:00 A building. Yes. Yes. Where?
00:28:01 Where? Um it's based in um Hwell in Princer.
00:28:09 So it's it's a brand new facility. Um so when I joined they literally the day I joined they'd only just got planning commission for it. And it's owned and run by Kingspan. Is
00:28:20 And it's owned and run by Kingspan. Is it?
00:28:20 it? It is. Yes. Yes. And do do you know who uh runs the fire research center now?
00:28:31 uh runs the fire research center now? Um I don't know. Who ran it uh during your time at Kingspan?
00:28:37 Kingspan? Um
00:28:39 Um it was never run. It was it was um being constructed and um just before I left we
00:28:50 constructed and um just before I left we we'd got the reaction to fire suite up and running and we were starting to do calibration tests and commissioning tests.
00:29:00 tests. Sorry, say again. No, I interrupted you. It's my fault. Please finish your answer. Um and there was still um they were just installing extract system um when I was
00:29:14 installing extract system um when I was made redundant. So had never actually put any testing through it as of um August last year. I think when you left Kingpan uh as uh we know
00:29:27 when you left Kingpan uh as uh we know you did come to that in a moment. Did um who was in charge of the fire research center? Was that Joe Humphre or somebody else?
00:29:35 else? Um I I wasn't aware. I I'd assume it had been because he was he was based in the office there. Um I I was out the door so
00:29:46 office there. Um I I was out the door so quickly that I didn't have the chance to ask that question and I haven't had the um any conversations with anybody to find out what how they restructured it.
00:29:57 find out what how they restructured it. And do you know um whether well let me ask you it this way. Who was the most senior person within Kingspan who uh gave direction in relation to the fire
00:30:09 gave direction in relation to the fire research center? Um
00:30:13 Um the person who was dealing directly was a gentleman called Mike Stenson. Um my understanding is he he was the head of um
00:30:26 head of um innovation for Kingspan and I as far as I'm aware and could see from the structure he reported directly to Gilbert um McCarthy and um to Gene Mr.
00:30:40 Gilbert um McCarthy and um to Gene Mr. and to such an extent that Gene Mertr did come and visit the center. Um so he was intrinsically he was aware of it. he was here and came and visited.
00:30:51 was here and came and visited. And just help me the idea behind this fire research center. Was this to test only Kingspan products or to test other manufacturers products as well? Um
00:31:01 Um predominantly Kingsban products. Yes, I think that was the ultimate aim. Part of the
00:31:09 the philosophy behind it was that they they'd made a large investment in a facility in Ireland um that they call the Icon Center. So that was a research and development and product development
00:31:21 and development and product development facility which I think they've they've they've made clear is there and my assumption is they would be testing material that came out of that and and was the idea that they would
00:31:32 and and was the idea that they would test according to British standards at this fire research center for example BS8414.
00:31:39 BS8414. Uh yes, there was a there were those and reaction to fire, European testing, um 13501 suite as well. So the the full gamut really. Yes. Yeah.
00:31:54 And so far as you know, is is that um project the fire research center uh up and running and conducting tests? Um I don't know. No. And was it was the idea was the idea
00:32:08 And was it was the idea was the idea that that Kingspan would then use the test results from their bio research center to assist with the sale of products.
00:32:16 products. Um
00:32:19 Um my understanding was that it would be predominantly research and development. So, one of the problems um in the industry is it's very difficult to get into
00:32:31 to get into um into laboratories and test facilities because they're they're pretty busy in terms of um backlog of work. The idea was that because of um research and
00:32:44 was that because of um research and development and new products, bringing new products to market, if you're then putting that into a stream where um there's already a backlog, it holds up,
00:32:55 there's already a backlog, it holds up, it delays um sort of development. So I think the idea was to give themselves the ability to develop in-house take it get it to a
00:33:07 develop in-house take it get it to a stage where they were happy for it to go for a formal test right
00:33:12 right as opposed to going to doing lots of indicative testing and then coming back and trying to figure out what happened.
00:33:23 and trying to figure out what happened. Yes, I see. That was my understanding. Did did was the ID did the fire research center have any um independent oversight or
00:33:34 or um
00:33:35 um it
00:33:37 it it was going to be run um under the basis of the ISO7025 um UKCAST accredititation.
00:33:49 um UKCAST accredititation. One of the tasks I was working on before I left was to pull that together and to make sure that the systems were aligned with that standard. Um, one of the
00:34:02 with that standard. Um, one of the things I said from day one when I started was that if the the lab was going to be that way, it would have to be running as if it was an independent lab because of the degree of scrutiny
00:34:14 lab because of the degree of scrutiny that would be required. And one of the things that is is to make it as open and transparent as possible. That was that was my philosophy. Whether that was taken from the management, I'm I'm not
00:34:25 taken from the management, I'm I'm not certain. But um that would be the philosophy I would have run it. Right. Uh you say that was one of the things you said from day one.
00:34:36 things you said from day one. To the best of your recollection and it's not very long ago. Was that idea taken up and pursued or? Um yeah, it was never never pushed back. I was tasked to pull together the um
00:34:48 I was tasked to pull together the um requirements for 17025. Yes. So it was never oh no don't do that. That's not the way we want to go. I think the the understanding was we would it would be clear and if it needed to be audited it
00:35:01 clear and if it needed to be audited it would be audited and the traceability would be there. Now um
00:35:06 Now um Kingspam were clearly a former client of yours at the BE weren't they? Indeed. Yes. Yes. Presumably that's how they got to know who you were and offered you the job. Is that is that um Yes, it was. Yes. Yeah. They they
00:35:17 um Yes, it was. Yes. Yeah. They they they
00:35:19 they I think it was a meeting that I had with Jay Humphre um just as I was leaving and he basically said to me or had I known you were leaving, I'd like to have a conversation with you. So um
00:35:31 conversation with you. So um Right.
00:35:32 Right. Yeah.
00:35:33 Yeah. Right. And you left Kingspan when? um in June 20
00:35:41 June 20 19. Sorry, 2020. June 2020. Yeah. So,
00:35:46 Yeah. So, a moment ago that in your evidence that you were out the door so fast, what happened? Um
00:35:54 Um I was just made redundant. It was basically I was just about to go to do something and um I got a call to come to the office. Um, I was told that
00:36:06 the office. Um, I was told that as um, a consequence of restructuring, they were it had been decided they no longer needed an operations manager for that facility. Um, it was literally 10
00:36:17 that facility. Um, it was literally 10 minutes. No, no, come back. Um, come back and get your stuff later. Um, right. Were you surprised about that?
00:36:28 right. Were you surprised about that? Um, yes
00:36:30 Um, yes indeed. I I did make the comment, I don't know how you're going to run a facility when you've got nobody with any necessarily any fire experience. Um,
00:36:41 necessarily any fire experience. Um, but
00:36:43 but I felt that there was nothing I could say and that necessarily wasn't my concern because they obviously decided to get rid of me um for one reason or another.
00:36:53 another. Did you did you feel that it was genuine?
00:36:57 genuine? Um,
00:36:59 Um, not necessarily. No. do you think lay behind it? Um
00:37:05 Um I it wasn't long after that happened that the um information came out of what Kingspan had been doing in terms of the
00:37:16 had been doing in terms of the falsification of tests. Um I think that may have paid a little part, right?
00:37:25 right? Um but I've got no substantive evidence to say that. That was just a feeling I had
00:37:30 had at the at the time. Yes. Yes.
00:37:33 Yes. Yes. Now, it's right that you're employed by by the BBA, is isn't it? I am. Yes. When did you start work at the BBA? In September this year. September this 7th of 20. Sorry.
00:37:45 7th of 20. Sorry. October 2020. Yeah.
00:37:47 Yeah. Okay. And what's your role now at the BBA? Um so my role at the moment is um I'm a senior principal um scientific um
00:37:58 I'm a senior principal um scientific um certific certification scientist. Um my role at the moment is um I'm working out of the Liverpool office. um working with a team to improve um BBA's working
00:38:13 a team to improve um BBA's working practices, bring in new ways of working um and um to a certain extent try and improve their understanding of fire and
00:38:25 improve their understanding of fire and fire behavior. Um yes. Um, in your current role, you say a team with to improve BBA's working practices, um, does does any of that
00:38:39 practices, um, does does any of that involve examining or putting into practice lessons learned as a result of the Grenfield Tower fire? Uh, yes it does. Yes. Yes. Um the the new manager director is very keen to
00:38:51 new manager director is very keen to um take the lessons and the the um recommendations from the hacket report and um all of the the lessons that are coming out of the inquiry and
00:39:02 that are coming out of the inquiry and making sure that they're they're not going to happen again, right?
00:39:07 right? Um in one way or another. And it's it's you you listen to him and that's that's top of his agenda without a doubt. Right. And what's that gentleman's name? Um, it's Hardy Guzler. Hardy Gesler.
00:39:19 Um, it's Hardy Guzler. Hardy Gesler. Sorry.
00:39:21 Sorry. Right. The transcriber might struggle with that. I'm gonna have to ask you to spell it.
00:39:24 spell it. G I E S L E R. I think. Uh, it was probably me then not being able to hear it. Um just just something were you were you provided with a a report or briefing or or or document
00:39:36 report or briefing or or or document which set out your role um by of implementing these lessons learned from the Grenell Tower fire when you arrived at the PBA? Um
00:39:47 Um no I wasn't specifically so when I was in I wasn't specifically brought in with fire in mind. I think what's happened is since I've been here
00:39:59 what's happened is since I've been here um we've now got a new um technical director and I think possibly there may be things that will utilize my knowledge
00:40:10 be things that will utilize my knowledge of fire going forward but that wasn't the principal reason I was employed. Um and um forgive me for this but but
00:40:21 and um forgive me for this but but you say uh keen to take the lessons uh from the the Grumple Tower fire. Are you able to tell us in summary form what
00:40:32 you able to tell us in summary form what those lessons are that you are assisting to to learn and implement? You mean in you mean specifically in BBA or across?
00:40:43 you mean specifically in BBA or across? Um
00:40:46 Um I think one of the things
00:40:51 I I to be honest I I don't really I can say but I think it will be my interpretation of it. I've not had a conversation with anybody directly to say this is what we have found that is
00:41:05 say this is what we have found that is incorrect and this is what we want to improve. I think generally it's more along the lines of how we improve the construction industry and BBA's part in that as opposed to
00:41:19 and BBA's part in that as opposed to necessarily BBA directly. anything I say would be sort of supposition as to reading in what's what's going in because because I've not
00:41:30 what's going in because because I've not been party to any internal investigations. I don't know enough about what the shortfalls were to um answer that question directly. It's right isn't it that in the space of
00:41:42 It's right isn't it that in the space of three years summarizing it you went from test house to test house client to certifying body. I did. Yes. Yes.
00:41:54 I did. Yes. Yes. Can we conclude in general from those rapidly sequential roles that the relationships between client testing house and certifier uh were and remain
00:42:05 house and certifier uh were and remain close?
00:42:07 close? Um
00:42:08 Um I think it's like with any industry there is a certain amount of um you you work see in terms of my
00:42:20 you you work see in terms of my involvement with the BBA it was very limited in what I did at B for example um but the skill that I have are interchangeable and and relevant to what
00:42:31 interchangeable and and relevant to what BBA do so um and it's part of still part of the constru construction industry. So they are interchangeable. Yes. And and and there is this Yeah. The client
00:42:42 and there is this Yeah. The client relationship and the the contractor. Yes. Yeah. Um I'm going to change to a different topic which is your knowledge of fire regulation. Given your background and your role, Mr. Clark, would you say that
00:42:53 your role, Mr. Clark, would you say that you had a good understanding of the regulations uh applicable in England and Wales? Um safety. Indeed. Yes. Yes. I wouldn't say it was
00:43:05 Indeed. Yes. Yes. I wouldn't say it was if you asked me something I would know where to go to look it up. It's not um um encyclopedic in that way, but I would say yes, I would know.
00:43:16 say yes, I would know. Yes. Um can I show you paragraph 22 of your statement at page five?
00:43:30 Um you say there I have personally been involved in BSA414 testing since 1999 and have worked as part of the team to develop both BSA414 part one and BSA414
00:43:43 develop both BSA414 part one and BSA414 part two. The work involved undertaking testing on the various products both with and without fire barriers. The initial work formed the basis of BS8414 part one which was published in 2002.
00:43:55 part one which was published in 2002. Now when you say you were involved in BS8414 testing since 1999 um and and that's three years isn't it before publication of the standard in
00:44:07 before publication of the standard in 2002.
00:44:08 2002. Yes.
00:44:09 Yes. Yes. When you were involved did you mean involved in the preparatory work uh for the um the testing? Yes. So at that time the BRE was still
00:44:24 Yes. So at that time the BRE was still um still had its Cardington laboratory um and there were a number of test walls at that laboratory which were used to form the basis of the um BR135
00:44:38 form the basis of the um BR135 document.
00:44:40 document. Um so in that document there are a number of tests that um myself and others undertook as part of the that document and and also went in
00:44:53 the that document and and also went in towards the um 8414 and what did those tests involve? Um so at the time most of the systems
00:45:04 Um so at the time most of the systems that were on the market were what we call external wall insulation systems. Um and they would either been a um
00:45:15 Um and they would either been a um fiber mineral fiber um system or a an expended polyyrene system. Um they would generally be
00:45:27 system. Um they would generally be um mechanically fixed back to a a block work substrate. So the part one test is for the um block work substrate wall and
00:45:38 for the um block work substrate wall and then they would be rendered and um with a decorative finish and a a reinforcing mesh over the top of them. So they were what we call external wall insulation systems.
00:45:50 systems. Now, the 1999 date for start predated, didn't it, the whole parliamentary group um inquiry in 2000 into the safety of
00:46:01 um inquiry in 2000 into the safety of cladding as a result of the garment court fire in 1999, didn't it? Um I I can't say to be honest. I I was at the time I wasn't aware of that. Um
00:46:13 at the time I wasn't aware of that. Um it was just a job I was doing. Um so that was beyond what I was where I was. I was more a technician at that point. I see. After the APG inquiry in 2000,
00:46:25 I see. After the APG inquiry in 2000, did you get to see or get any training on the um findings of that inquiry, its conclusions? Um
00:46:35 Um I would say no. Okay. Um, were the BS8414
00:46:42 BS8414 test and the BR135 criteria something developed by the BR from two from 1999 on its own initiative or was it responding to demands from
00:46:55 or was it responding to demands from central government to improve fire safety?
00:46:58 safety? Um, my understanding it was driven from central government. Yes. Yes. Right.
00:47:04 Right. So can we can we say that it was driven by central government even before the Ghana caught fire in 1999? Um I I to be I don't I can't answer that
00:47:18 Um I I to be I don't I can't answer that question before 1999. I wasn't I didn't have the understanding at that time to be able to answer that question. I from from this position now um I would say probably yes um from from my knowledge
00:47:31 probably yes um from from my knowledge now but in 1999 I would be would have struggled to answer that question. That's very fair. Now we know from BR's website that the BRE was privatized by Michael Hesseline who was the then
00:47:43 Michael Hesseline who was the then deputy prime minister in March 1997. When you started working on BS8414 in 1999,
00:47:52 1999, was it the goal to use the BS8414 test to BR's commercial advantage? Um,
00:48:03 no, not that I was aware. No, there there would be a commercial advantage for any test. Um but the thing with
00:48:15 but the thing with the fact it became a British standard gave anybody in the world the ability to undertake that test. So if it was I think particularly if it was going to be primarily for BR's commercial advantage
00:48:28 primarily for BR's commercial advantage it wouldn't have been published as a British standard. Um
00:48:33 Um but given
00:48:36 but given given BR's position at the time it inherently became something that B did because they it was the only organization that had the facilities to undertake that.
00:48:47 undertake that. Exactly. And I was going to suggest to you that it would have had first mover advantage, wouldn't it, if B if BSA414 became, as it did, a British standard. Um
00:48:58 Um I suppose the answer would be yes but um as I say it's like anything if you're at early adoption stage and you do the research then if you've got
00:49:10 you do the research then if you've got that facility there already um you're you're at that advantage straight away. Why particularly other organizations didn't choose to take up the testing, I
00:49:23 didn't choose to take up the testing, I don't particularly know. I wasn't commercial in that regard. Um and that would be a question you'd have to sort of ask other people and and in reality until the fire at the the Grandfell
00:49:35 until the fire at the the Grandfell Tower um there weren't many other organizations taking doing 8414 testing. Um,
00:49:42 Um, no. Uh, but
00:49:47 from the start of your involvement, did you see or was it the case that the BS8414 test was a potential source of revenue for the BRE?
00:49:58 revenue for the BRE? I'd never heard it in that terms. No, it's it's a test that is done for um when I started I was never in that position where I was talking about the
00:50:10 position where I was talking about the financial aspects of it. I was a technician. Um and I I wasn't party to those conversations. It's a question it would only be supposition as to whether that
00:50:21 only be supposition as to whether that was the their intention. I see. Can you tell us uh from your own knowledge uh how the BRE was going to make its money to stand on its own two
00:50:32 make its money to stand on its own two feet having been privatized from 1997? Um
00:50:39 Um no, again it would be it would be my interpretation of what was there. I I've never seen anything to say this is what we got to do. We've got to target this. We've got to do that. Um I I can't
00:50:50 We've got to do that. Um I I can't answer that question. See, the reason I'm asking you is is this hypothesis that having been privatized, uh, the BS8414 test would be a source of revenue. So, the more tests you did, the
00:51:01 revenue. So, the more tests you did, the more revenue you would make. Can you comment on that? Um, well, that's Yeah, that goes without saying really. Yes. Yeah, it's I agree. Yes.
00:51:11 Yes. Yes. And the more more successful tests you did for a client, the more they would want to come back and confidence that you would pass their products. I would argue it was the other way around
00:51:23 would argue it was the other way around in a way because if a client does a successful test, they they go away and they may not come back. But if they're doing unsuccessful tests, then they may need to come back. Um,
00:51:36 need to come back. Um, but we're not the the whole idea of the the 8414 test was to to make sure that systems were compliant with building regulations. Um
00:51:47 with building regulations. Um and and ultimately I don't think they made a lot of money out of it. Um it's quite an expensive test.
00:51:56 test. To your recollection, did anybody at the time take any steps to consider uh whether there were any inherent conflicts of interest within the BR in
00:52:07 conflicts of interest within the BR in carrying out tests designed to protect life safety for money? Um,
00:52:14 Um, no. Because every single test that anybody does in any sphere of regulation or require or you could you could argue is BSI in the
00:52:26 you could you could argue is BSI in the same position when they're checking PPE. Um, any organization that has a remmit to undertake testing for life safety or
00:52:37 to undertake testing for life safety or commercial gain would always be accused of doing that. Um, I don't
00:52:46 I don't I don't think BR was in a position where they ever made lots and lots and lots of money. We're we're not a blue chip company. And and even if they did, the way this the organization is structured
00:52:59 way this the organization is structured is that it's uh an a and not for profit and and any profit that was made goes back into um research and PhDs and um
00:53:11 back into um research and PhDs and um investment in making the built environment better. Um so it wasn't going to shareholders in that regard. There was nobody driving that you have to do this because I'm not going to get
00:53:22 to do this because I'm not going to get my dividend at the end of the year. I understand that. I understand that. I'm just seeking to understand uh whether as as a matter of fact there were any such investigations or considerations. What about later on? Um
00:53:34 considerations. What about later on? Um was there any uh were there any steps taken to examine the propriety of these commercial pressures at at any time before you left?
00:53:45 at at any time before you left? Um that's a question I cannot answer because it was a question I was I wasn't involved in that regard of the business. Um that's probably if you need to ask
00:53:57 Um that's probably if you need to ask that question that's somebody you like Steve Howard or Tony Baker may be able to answer that question. Um but I can't I can't answer that question. Very well. Um, were you aware that
00:54:08 Very well. Um, were you aware that approved document B did not mention the criteria in BR135 as an alternative route to compliance in paragraph 12.5 of approved document B until the 2006
00:54:21 approved document B until the 2006 edition of ADB was published in April 2007.
00:54:25 2007. Um, I wasn't aware of it directly. No. No.
00:54:31 No. What was your understanding of why sponsors were carrying out or wanting you to carry out BS8414 tests before uh 2006 2007 when the alternative route to
00:54:44 2006 2007 when the alternative route to compliance did not exist in approved document B? Uh sorry, could you repeat that question? Sorry. Why did sponsors want you to carry out BSA414 tests uh before
00:54:56 you to carry out BSA414 tests uh before uh the BSA414 test was enshrined in approved document B? Um
00:55:06 again I I don't know the answer to that. Um
00:55:10 Um was did you say BR135 was not into until the 2006 version or 8414 as a whole? the the criteria in BR135
00:55:23 as a route to compliance, right? But but my understanding was that BS8414 was uh was still a test you could undertake
00:55:32 undertake from 2002. Yes. Yeah. Um it still gave the ability to get on to high-rise buildings. um and it was a
00:55:43 high-rise buildings. um and it was a demonstration of the systems um performance in terms of um fire spread. Um so it was still a valid test. Um, as with all of these things,
00:55:56 with all of these things, the evolution of um, safety and understanding changes and and clearly there was a decision made in 2006 that the criteria set out in the L135
00:56:09 set out in the L135 was something that the the government body thought was a is something to attain um, and a minimum standard that system should should achieve.
00:56:22 Yes, but given that the alternative route to compliance with ADB, namely by uh passing a BS8414 full system test and meeting the BR135
00:56:36 full system test and meeting the BR135 criteria, was not enshrined in the regulation until the 2006 amendments to ADB. The question is why did sponsors carry out those tests before that date?
00:56:48 carry out those tests before that date? Um that's that's a question I could I couldn't answer. At that time around 2006 I wasn't in a position where they were the conversations I was having with
00:56:59 were the conversations I was having with people. Um that would be the likes of my colleague Sarah Cowwell, Richard Cowwell um who were predominantly working for that. So I was in more of a techn
00:57:11 that. So I was in more of a techn technician role at that point. So, it's a conversation I never had with anybody um and was necessarily aware of. Um it could be that and this is just my pure
00:57:23 could be that and this is just my pure supposition is that the regulations hadn't been updated for a while and it it was just decided I think there was a program of updating the building regulations in 2006, some of which I was
00:57:34 regulations in 2006, some of which I was involved with and it it may just been that it was a prudent time to put it in. Did the B think or see it that if BS8414 system tests and BR135 became a formal
00:57:48 system tests and BR135 became a formal alternative route to compliance with ADP then that would work to the BR's commercial advantage. Um again I wasn't party to commercial
00:57:59 Um again I wasn't party to commercial conversations like that. So it would be pure supposition to any an answer I would give a B just my supposition. Did the B play any part do you know in
00:58:11 Did the B play any part do you know in pushing the BS8414 test and the BR135 criteria into becoming enshrined in approved document B as the alternative route to compliance.
00:58:24 route to compliance. Um
00:58:27 Um so I think to a certain extent you need to understand the history of BRE and how it works with government and and where it sits in terms of because the RE
00:58:38 it sits in terms of because the RE and particularly the fire research station as was because um they became they amalgamated um in 200 sorry 1997
00:58:50 they amalgamated um in 200 sorry 1997 9697
00:58:52 9697 that was the government's prime um source of information for regulation particularly around fire and and and that and that they used BR in that way
00:59:05 that and that they used BR in that way as their source of information is is my feeling for what that did even though we the organization was privatized it was still their main um go-to facility to
00:59:18 still their main um go-to facility to get the answer the questions answered
00:59:25 Yes. And I'm not quite sure that answers my question, but I'll ask it again. Did the B, do, you know, play any part in pushing the BSA414 test to BR135
00:59:36 pushing the BSA414 test to BR135 criteria into becoming enshrined in the approved document B as the alternative route to compliance? Um,
00:59:45 Um, again, I can't because I wasn't part I can't say definitively. I would be very surprised if they weren't. Um,
00:59:55 Um, but not because there was a commercial advantage because it was the right thing to do to to address the the issues that had come to light. But who was involved
01:00:08 had come to light. But who was involved do you know from the BR's side in that uh campaign is one way one way of putting it that that effort. Um
01:00:20 Um my understanding is that was primarily driven by um Dr. Sarah Cwell um and um um who else? Maybe Dr. Debbie Smith
01:00:33 um who else? Maybe Dr. Debbie Smith maybe. I I can't recall I I think Dr. Sarah Cwell was probably the main driver of that. Um yeah.
01:00:43 yeah. Um does the name Brian Martin ring any bells with you? Yes, I know Brian is. Was he involved in this effort? Um I don't think he was. No. Um I think
01:00:55 Um I don't think he was. No. Um I think he had a a different remitt um at his time in B. He was employed by the BRE I think and secunded to the government department which later became um TCLG
01:01:09 department which later became um TCLG and now the MHCG and worked there three days a week uh to to lead on getting BS8414 and BR135 into ADB.
01:01:19 ADB. Is what I've just said correct to your knowledge? Um I knew he was secounded to um was it ODPM at the time? obviously the deputy prime minister. Um I wasn't aware of
01:01:33 prime minister. Um I wasn't aware of what he was doing there. No, it's not a conversation I ever had with him and he he never said, "Oh, this is what I'm doing there." So I'm not aware of that. I'm just aware he was seconded.
01:01:45 I'm just aware he was seconded. Right.
01:01:47 Right. Would it be fair from your own knowledge to describe BS8414 and BR135 which is the criteria you use as a joint project as between the BR on the one hand and
01:01:58 as between the BR on the one hand and government on the other with with Brian Martin on both sides? Um
01:02:05 Um yes I think that will probably be a fair thing. Yes. From from where I stand, I obviously I've got nothing in terms of what I've seen in terms of paperwork or or audit
01:02:17 seen in terms of paperwork or or audit trail to say that, but I think the way it worked, I think that would be a fair assumption. Yes.
01:02:29 Do you remember whether Kingspan was involved in any way in contributing to the discussions about whether or not an alternative route to compliance should be written into the regulation
01:02:41 should be written into the regulation where uh combustible insulation was to be used within a clinging system? Um my understanding is and and having
01:02:52 Um my understanding is and and having sort of if you see British standards there's normally something at the beginning of the standard where it lists participants who who have been used to
01:03:03 participants who who have been used to draw together the um the standard and and that is usually um not individual organizations but I
01:03:14 um not individual organizations but I think British BSI for example would look to the likes of BBA, BR, um Warrington buyer, um
01:03:25 buyer, um BSI obviously and I think at the time when the um first version of the 841 for I think an organization called Bruffma
01:03:36 I think an organization called Bruffma were involved which is the British Europa Manufacturers Association. Um I think they were part of the committee that drew that up but that that was also as well the likes of Rockwool and other
01:03:48 as well the likes of Rockwool and other organizations. Um I don't know whether Kingpan specifically were but I know in terms of what they made their trade association was I think if I recall. So
01:04:01 association was I think if I recall. So Kingspan and Rockwell as in as voices within Bruffma who would be a consult team for British standards. So Bruffma were the urethane manufacturers association. So King uh
01:04:13 manufacturers association. So King uh Rockwell wouldn't sit under that but they may have been represented by another um another body another um trade association. I can't remember what they would come under. Um, going back to
01:04:25 would come under. Um, going back to BR135 for a moment, we know that the 2003 edition of that publication was co-authored by Brian Martin, but do you have any input into the writing of that edition?
01:04:36 edition? Not the writing. No. No. What about the research for it? Um,
01:04:46 200. No, I don't think anything specifically new was put in unless they used the test data for the raincreen um appendix B I think isn't it for the
01:04:59 appendix B I think isn't it for the BS8414 part two um so the data we produced as part of that the research for that may have gone in but I wasn't involved directly no you work with Brian Martin on that
01:05:10 you work with Brian Martin on that edition even on the research side um not that I recall No, not not not third edition. No,
01:05:21 third edition. No, I think I think by that time most of the research had been done. Anyway,
01:05:27 Anyway, c can I ask you to look please at paragraph 20 of your statement to page four.
01:05:40 You say that uh in the uh
01:05:47 um third line, fourth line down, halfway down the paragraph. It is important to note that each test report and each classification report is applicable only to the particular system tested. The
01:05:59 to the particular system tested. The fact that a system with one or more specified components has been classified to BR135 says nothing about whether a different system containing the same components will or will not achieve such classification. Was that an
01:06:11 classification. Was that an understanding of BS8414 and BR135 that you always had? Yes. Yes. It's a it's a system test. Yes. Did you at any point form the view
01:06:23 Yes. Did you at any point form the view that the UK construction industry was not fully aware of that limitation
01:06:32 um in terms of a personal view or personal professional view? Your view at work?
01:06:40 work? it. I think it was you needed to explain it to them. I think on occasion was Yes. Yeah. Particularly if if people weren't necessarily
01:06:51 um understanding of this the standard. They'd heard about it um and they they understood there was a requirement for it, but they wouldn't necessarily understand it was a system test unless
01:07:02 understand it was a system test unless you explained it to them. I think there was a
01:07:06 was a it's it's like any test. Sometimes people hear these things but you you need to explain actually what it means. Did the BR to your knowledge take steps positively to make sure that its clients
01:07:18 positively to make sure that its clients the likes of Kingspan and Celotex perhaps were aware uh that uh there was this gap in the in knowledge. Um I think they did. Yes. Yeah. I've
01:07:30 Um I think they did. Yes. Yeah. I've seen um over the years several presentations that were given um by the likes of Sarah Cowwell and Steven Howard and I think Debbie Smith and and others where they do go out and
01:07:44 and and others where they do go out and say look this is a system test this is the regulation that it's designed to meet um these are the routes that you can you can undertake and and I have seen definitely presentations of it um
01:07:57 seen definitely presentations of it um in forum where that it would be appreciated and and understood. Yes, I think they they went out their way to do that. Yeah. Um from 2003 until it was revised in
01:08:10 Um from 2003 until it was revised in 2013 and perhaps even after that, uh did you consider that BR135 in either edition, second or third, was
01:08:21 in either edition, second or third, was clear enough that BS8414 uh was a full system test? Um
01:08:32 to be honest I the role I was in I wasn't really considering BR135. I think I say in my statement that I was predominantly on the testing side and
01:08:43 predominantly on the testing side and the interpretation and um
01:08:50 issuing of BR135 was done by other people in the organization. So it wasn't something I concerned myself with day-to-day. Was there a concern generally at the BRE
01:09:01 Was there a concern generally at the BRE that it was not clear to customers uh that uh a system which had passed the BS8414 test had to be replicated exactly
01:09:12 BS8414 test had to be replicated exactly in its application on a building and any deviation uh would make the system so applied non-compliant. Um it's not something I'd heard
01:09:23 Um it's not something I'd heard generally but um it would be explained to clients in that respect. Yes. So it wasn't something that B were hiding that
01:09:34 wasn't something that B were hiding that that this is a system test and that's that's it. Yes. To your understanding did clients in other words the likes of Kingspan and Senate which is what I mean by that in
01:09:46 Senate which is what I mean by that in this question. Did did clients fully understand that principle. Um,
01:09:58 yes, I think so. Yes. Yes. Do you ever have occasion to have to spell it out to a client? Um,
01:10:07 Um, not that I can recall. No, no, not not directly to say somebody said, "Oh, if I do X, can I do Y?" Um, no. I don't I can't ever recall having sat down to
01:10:19 can't ever recall having sat down to somebody and say, "Look, you do understand this is a system test. You can only do this." I think I it wasn't the sort of conversation I would ever have. No.
01:10:29 have. No. And given that the BRE uh uh tests and classification reports it produced refer only to the particular test system containing the product installed at the
01:10:41 containing the product installed at the time of the test. You agree that it was vitally important always that the component parts of the test are fully and accurately identified in the test report and in the classification report.
01:10:54 report and in the classification report. Yes, without a doubt.
01:11:01 I'm now going to ask you about B processes and procedures. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'm unlikely to get to finish this before the break, but I could make a reasonable start. What would you prefer to do, Mr. We
01:11:12 What would you prefer to do, Mr. We could take the break slightly early. Um or you can run on for a bit if you'd rather do that. I think I can run on from it for a little bit and if I have to stop midway midway through the topic, there's no
01:11:23 midway through the topic, there's no there's no real problem with it. All right, carry on then. I'll carry on for a little bit. Um at the times when you were running the uh cladding testing program, were you fully familiar with the B standard procedures?
01:11:35 familiar with the B standard procedures? Um
01:11:39 the had a plethora of standard procedures. Um it depends which one you're talking about. All of them. All of them that apply to your your testing. Um the ones that apply to testing as far
01:11:50 Um the ones that apply to testing as far as I was aware. Yes. Yes. It's it's like anything. If you don't know something you don't know, you don't know it in a way.
01:11:56 way. Thanks. Were you responsible for ensuring that the standard procedures were followed in respect of tests carried out? Um
01:12:05 Um for what period, sorry, were you talking about? for the period that you were running the testing planning program which I think was from 2004 as you told us.
01:12:13 us. Uh yes yes yes I was aware. Yes. At paragraphs 38 and 39 of your statement uh I don't we need to go to it. Um page eight you say well you set
01:12:24 it. Um page eight you say well you set out the role of the client stroke project officer. Is that one person client stroke project officer? Um
01:12:36 not necessarily. Um
01:12:40 Um so in terms of delivery of the test the testing the way the amount of staff we had then probably yes it was predominantly me I would have said um it
01:12:51 predominantly me I would have said um it depends at what point in the process you're talking about because um the way it was structured was I would be handed the testing part of the contract. So
01:13:05 the testing part of the contract. So the likes of Tony Baker or Steve Howard may have done the preliminary work to get the client um to sign up to the contract. I would then take them through
01:13:17 contract. I would then take them through the um the testing process. So in terms of the testing side of it then I would say yes that was one predominantly one person.
01:13:24 person. And is that the same as the officer in charge in the list of test personnel that you provide at paragraphs 42 and 46 of your state? Um
01:13:35 yes because what would tend to happen was I would be the officer in charge and then my colleague um would be the safety officer. So so yes yes I would say
01:13:47 officer. So so yes yes I would say primarily because it was I was the person doing most of the testing anyway. So there a dual role right and who would be responsible for ensuring that uh as you put it in your
01:13:59 ensuring that uh as you put it in your statement of paragraph 38 all required information regarding the materials fixings and names of the materials being installed had been provided um
01:14:13 dayto-day onsite um that would more than likely be my role um there was an occasion where we um I wasn't
01:14:24 an occasion where we um I wasn't necessarily always there. So I would ask other people to do it. Um and that did include to a certain extent um Steven Howard if I was out um um on occasion as we had an apprentice
01:14:37 um on occasion as we had an apprentice who sometimes would do that but then I would just I would check. So I would say predominantly me because I was the person mainly running the test. Now in the next paragraph 39 you say that that
01:14:48 the next paragraph 39 you say that that person would request a sample of each of the components used in the construction of the test system and where possible photos are taken. Would that person be you again where you were in charge of
01:15:00 you again where you were in charge of test? I I think towards the latter part of before I moved on to other things um that was being done by other people. Um there was an occasion where um I think
01:15:13 there was an occasion where um I think Steve Howard had decided he wanted other people to become involved and I think at least um one of the Kingsban Trespair reports um was done by a gentleman
01:15:27 reports um was done by a gentleman called um
01:15:29 called um oh forgotten his name sorry Connor McIntosh.
01:15:34 McIntosh. Yes.
01:15:34 Yes. Yes. that when did Steve Howard decide that he wanted other people to become involved?
01:15:40 involved? Um I think that was probably about 2016 maybe or 15 16 and um when samples were provided
01:15:53 and um when samples were provided uh what would happen to them? Um
01:15:58 Um as in would we keep samples? Do you mean they would come in? What was what what would be the process? the samples would arrive where would they go? So um the way the burnh hall worked is
01:16:09 So um the way the burnh hall worked is that um we had four test facilities to four test walls that we would we would use and the client would be allocated an area within
01:16:21 area within the sort of um in front of the wall and their material would be delivered to as close to the wall as we could. um they would then take control of their
01:16:33 would then take control of their materials and in terms of the how it would work for me to go and get the information. I would go down at some point when it was convenient and say look I need to come down can you pull
01:16:45 look I need to come down can you pull together all of the components that you are using
01:16:49 are using for me and I would photograph them and then they would give be given back. I see. So was the system that was operated that and for every component of a test that came into the burnh hall you
01:17:01 a test that came into the burnh hall you or perhaps one of your assistants would photograph them and log them. Yes. Yes. But they weren't kept. They were just recorded on a on a photograph.
01:17:12 were just recorded on a on a photograph. We didn't keep samples. You didn't keep the samples. But did you keep the photographs? Yes. The photographs were kept. Yes. A log of each and every sample with a photograph that came into the burnh hall
01:17:23 photograph that came into the burnh hall for any particular test. Is that right? Yes. Yes.
01:17:26 Yes. Yes. I see. Uh, and you say you take photographs where possible. When would it not be possible to take photographs? Um,
01:17:37 sometimes yeah, I don't know why, but where possible.
01:17:44 possible. Probably wasn't an occasion where it wasn't possible. So, could we say that it was the invariable practice of the photograph samples as they came into the bird hall? Yes. Yes.
01:17:53 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Great. And is it right that the project officer would also record the details of each component from their own examination? Um,
01:18:06 most of the time the photograph would suffice. Um, so there weren't sort of written descriptions of things. Um,
01:18:17 descriptions of things. Um, the this the photograph was sufficient in most cases. Um, one of the practices I tried to always do was to make sure that you we got the
01:18:28 that you we got the packaging that the material came in um, photographed as well as the item because obviously if you take a picture of a screw, it means nothing if you don't actually know what it what it refers to.
01:18:39 actually know what it what it refers to. So, we would predominantly take a picture of the box that it came in and the the label on the box. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're mid mid topic as I predicted we would be
01:18:50 mid topic as I predicted we would be which is which is no bad thing but this might be a convenient moment to break. All right. Well, if that if that's convenient to you, Mr. Minute, I think we'll take a break. Mr. Clark, I said we'd have a break during the morning. We'll take it now. We'll resume please
01:19:03 We'll take it now. We'll resume please at uh 25 to 12. Okay. And I will remember this time to remind you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence during the break. No problem.
01:19:13 problem. All right. We'll see you a bit later then. Thank you very much. Thank you.
01:35:13 Welcome back everyone. Uh we are now in a position to resume hearing evidence from Mr. Clark. Uh Mr. Clark, are you there? Can you hear me? And can you see me?
01:35:22 me? I can hear you and see you sir. Yes. Thank you very much. Then when you're ready, Mr. Millet, on you go. Mr. Chairman, um Mr. Clark, can I just ask you please to go back uh to the
01:35:34 ask you please to go back uh to the transcript from this morning uh and I will put the exchange we had at page 25. Uh I don't think it's necessary for it to be displayed, but I was asking you
01:35:45 to be displayed, but I was asking you about the circumstances in which you left um Kingspan. Uh and you said uh that they'd obviously decided to get rid of me for one reason or another. And I
01:35:56 of me for one reason or another. And I asked you, did you feel that that was genuine? And you said um not necessarily. No, my question, what did you think lay behind it? Uh, and you said it was not long after that happened that the information came out of what
01:36:08 that the information came out of what Kingspan had been doing in terms of the falsification of tests. I think that may have played a little part. And then you said, I have no I got no substantive
01:36:19 said, I have no I got no substantive evidence to say that that was just a feeling I had. And then I asked you at the time and you said yes. And my question uh following on from that uh is
01:36:30 question uh following on from that uh is um the feeling that you had at the time um was that based on any discussions or conversations or documents that you'd seen at the time which led you to have
01:36:41 seen at the time which led you to have that feeling? Um no no um it was it was just the way it was how quickly it was done. I'd been there for 18 months. My understanding was that I
01:36:52 18 months. My understanding was that I was a key part of what they wanted to do and
01:36:58 and all of a sudden you're called into an office and we want you to leave. Um, and it was only really when the it was disclosed to Dr. Smith at BR about these
01:37:10 disclosed to Dr. Smith at BR about these tests which they've subsequently withdrawn that I sort of put two and two together and thought have they just used COVID as an excuse for something or had they Yeah, it just it just didn't sort
01:37:21 they Yeah, it just it just didn't sort of seem to fit. That was after you left. After I left. Yes. So, at the time you were handed your redundancy notice, you is this right? You didn't connect that with what you
01:37:32 You didn't connect that with what you later discovered about the falsification of the
01:37:34 of the No, no, no. Thank you for clarifying that. Um I want to just continue exactly where I left off if I may then with um paragraph 41 of your statement please. Um, if we can go to paragraph 41 on page
01:37:47 Um, if we can go to paragraph 41 on page 11
01:37:57 uh and uh you say there um the responsibility for comparing drawings and the test specimen is delivered to the BRE
01:38:07 the BRE uh was usually the responsibility of the test officer and a senior staff member who would sign off the final test report. If errors and emissions were spotted, these would usually be rectified through the reissue of amended
01:38:18 rectified through the reissue of amended drawings with the original drawings held on file. It has been known for drawings to be issued by the client post test which would subsequently be checked as part of the report drafting and sign off process.
01:38:29 process. See that?
01:38:30 See that? Yes.
01:38:31 Yes. Uh
01:38:41 I seem to have lost you. Um Uh yes, I've lost my image of the everybody, but I have the document. Um my question is um how um
01:38:54 my question is um how um how would that check uh well the visual inspection that's carried out um would that be carried out by the project officer or officer in charge? Um
01:39:04 Um by the project officer. So the officer in charge just for clarity would only be there during the test itself. So it was a role that was um given
01:39:16 So it was a role that was um given during the test just to be clear. Uh and you say that uh well if we can go to paragraph 41 of your statement please.
01:39:31 Uh we you can see that you refer to the test officer there. Uh that's the project officer is it? Uh yes. Yes. Right. Uh and then you um you say also
01:39:44 Right. Uh and then you um you say also uh that a senior staff member who signed off the final report would also make this comparison. Would that person be relying on the photos? Um
01:39:53 Um to a certain extent and the drawing. Yes, both really. Yes. Uh can we go to paragraph 50 of your statement please? Page 11,
01:40:08 you say a test file was also required to be prepared and maintained in respect of each test. Would that be an electronic copy or a hard copy? Um,
01:40:19 Um, it depended what the material was. I think I say in there some of the things for example large data sets of um thermouple data would be kept electronically. Um predominantly all of
01:40:32 electronically. Um predominantly all of the pictures and the photographs and any drawings would be printed off um and put into a paper file. Um that would also include the risk assessment
01:40:44 would also include the risk assessment method statement and MSDS sheets and that type of thing for the materials. But
01:40:51 But majority of the things would go in there. Yes. I see. And where would those files be kept? Um dayto-day they would be
01:41:03 kept? Um dayto-day they would be uh on my desk predominantly um and then they once they were complete they would be passed up to the um senior staff member.
01:41:13 member. Right.
01:41:16 Right. So just summarizing your your evidence uh at paragraph 50 can we just be clear that the test file was required to include uh first of all drawings of the system. Yes.
01:41:27 system. Yes. Yes. delivery notes of materials received by the BRE for the test system. Yes.
01:41:33 Yes. Um where we could get hold of them. Um what you need to appreciate is that we took the materials on behalf of the client. We weren't in control of them.
01:41:45 client. We weren't in control of them. So they would be delivered. If we could get a copy of the delivery note, we would try to take it, but it wasn't always the case that we would always take it. Um, ultimately the the
01:41:57 take it. Um, ultimately the the materials are the client's materials. What about notes taken by the test officer detailing the construction of the test system? That would be on the test file, would
01:42:08 That would be on the test file, would it?
01:42:08 it? It would be. Yes, it should be. Yeah. Right.
01:42:11 Right. Some of these, don't forget, would have been done electronically as well. So, they would be in in a filing system on the the network drives. I see. and um photographic evidence of
01:42:23 I see. and um photographic evidence of construction of the test system and the materials and components used in that construction those will also be on the test file would they? Yes. Um what tended to happen was that they would be stored centrally on a on
01:42:35 they would be stored centrally on a on the IT system first
01:42:39 first um and then in preparation when the the test had been completed and the um file was put together with the first draft of
01:42:50 was put together with the first draft of the report then they would be printed off but they wouldn't be kept they wouldn't be printed off as a matter of course.
01:42:55 course. No but they'd be kept on the test file. So go back and review it later they'd be there. They would. Yes. Yes. Uh and then um there would also be would there a
01:43:06 there would also be would there a systems and components photo collection sheet. Is that right? Uh yes. Yes. Not not always in a sheet but um but yeah there would be they
01:43:18 but um but yeah there would be they would be taken as a a series of pictures. Yes. And that would be to ensure photographs of the relevant and important components were taken. Yes. Yes.
01:43:31 Yes. Yes. Are those the updated documents that you drafted in 2013? Um 2013. Yes, I think so. By which I mean the cladding test data
01:43:43 By which I mean the cladding test data file and report preparation sheet. Yes. Yes.
01:43:46 Yes. Yes. Yes.
01:43:47 Yes. Just to be clear, we they wouldn't necessarily always be put into that format, but that was a basis to say this is what you need to collect. So they may have just been a series of photographs.
01:43:58 have just been a series of photographs. they wouldn't necessarily have always been put directly onto a sheet in that regard.
01:44:02 regard. I see. And would responsibility for completing uh those sheets or those that checklist uh also rest with the officer in charge as you describe that person?
01:44:13 in charge as you describe that person? Um no, the project officer really project officer, right? But just just to be clear, so the the officer in charge for health and safety, it had always been the thing at BR that you would have
01:44:26 been the thing at BR that you would have designated people who were in control of certain things during the test. So that there was a defined uh role for each person. An officer in charge is specifically for the test only, not for
01:44:39 specifically for the test only, not for the preparation of the um information. So that that person may only necessarily come in on the day of the test. They wouldn't be there
01:44:50 wouldn't be there at other points. I follow that. Um, can I show you BRE 5 um 40 BR 40 5769 please at page 302.
01:45:14 Uh this is a document entitled procedures for undertaking BSA414 tests parts one and two tests and it was exhibited to your your statement. So I'm
01:45:25 exhibited to your your statement. So I'm assuming you're familiar with it and yes I think I've pulled it together and and it sets out a checklist uh of uh actions which can be undertaken by anyone but need I think to be signed off
01:45:37 anyone but need I think to be signed off by the person identified. Is that is that correct in general as a description? Yes. Yes.
01:45:45 Yes. Yes. And you can see to is test officer, OIC officer in charge, so is safety officer. So can we see clearly the distinction there between the test officer and the officer in charge? Yes. Yes.
01:45:55 Yes. Yes. Yes. I see. Um is this the does this document date to uh that exercise in 2013?
01:46:03 2013? You did.
01:46:05 You did. Um sorry, could you remind me of which exercise you're talking about? Did you compile this document in 2013? Oh, I I compiled this document. Yes, it was. Yes.
01:46:14 was. Yes. And did it formalize what was already common practice within the BRE or was this a a new start? Um, no. It formalized what was common practice? Yes. I see. And and we can looking at the
01:46:26 I see. And and we can looking at the document. If we scroll a little bit uh further down, we can see to under task to cameras and CCTV setup. And then uh
01:46:37 to cameras and CCTV setup. And then uh we can see who's responsible for what. Uh and uh we can see the safety actions prior to countdown are all the safety officer. Uh and then at logger start becomes the test officer and the officer
01:46:49 becomes the test officer and the officer in charge and the logger system starts countdown clock starts all cameras etc. And if we scroll down a little bit further, please can we just move through the document on the screen
01:47:03 uh we can see uh that on this page page 303
01:47:09 303 uh
01:47:12 uh the to the OIC take test notes and the to the test office takes test photos.
01:47:21 Uh and then uh underneath that after the test
01:47:27 test uh you'd go over the page to page 304 which I think is the last page of the document
01:47:34 document and there's nothing there. Okay. The the new test observations there's a sheet for test observations. Would that normally be filled in? Um yes. Yes. What one initially we would
01:47:46 Um yes. Yes. What one initially we would we were handwriting them and I think towards the end I was typing them in on on an iPad but um yeah essentially that right
01:47:54 right who would be responsible normally for filling in the test observations sheet would be the to the officer in charge the OIC
01:48:02 the OIC the test officer can I just ask you some general questions about ISO 901 was the B ever during your time ever
01:48:13 was the B ever during your time ever accredited uh to ISO 901? Um I think it's always been accredited as far as I'm aware. Um it wasn't something I was involved with, but I
01:48:24 something I was involved with, but I think they would have been. I'd be very surprised if they weren't. Do you recall whether there were any regular internal audits under the opaces of ISO 901?
01:48:37 of ISO 901? specifically involving fire testing. Your area of activity? Not not for 9,0001? No. No. I'd never been audited for 9,0001. No.
01:48:48 been audited for 9,0001. No. Right. Have you ever been audited for any other under any other standard? Um 17025 which is the laboratory and testing
01:48:57 testing um standard. I see.
01:49:00 I see. Um but that that would be through UKCAST United Kingdom accredititations. service.
01:49:07 service. And what about external audits? Do you know whether the BE was ever the subject of external audits uh pursuant to ISO 901?
01:49:18 901? Um it it wasn't my remit, so I wouldn't know. I can't answer that question, I'm afraid.
01:49:24 afraid. Right. Did Did you ever have any dealings with any external auditors who were sent in to audit your activities under ISA 90001? Not 9,0001. No, never. No.
01:49:37 As with organizations, you'd sort of see emails going through that. I think they were 14,0001, 9,0001, but it was never directly towards me. No. Were you ever asked any questions uh or
01:49:49 Were you ever asked any questions uh or asked to do any tasks to support any audit internal or external under ISA 911?
01:49:57 911? Um, not that I can recall. No. No. Never. Were were any of your systems that you established such as the checklist that we've seen uh um done pursuant to any recommendation or
01:50:08 pursuant to any recommendation or requirement under ISO 90001? Um
01:50:13 Um I think I recall having a conversation with um Michael Pratt at some point um about getting them formally onto the system, but I can't remember what
01:50:25 system, but I can't remember what happened with that. Right. Who is Michael Pratt? Um he was the compliance manager I think compliance. Yeah. Um I want to turn now to the topic of
01:50:38 Um I want to turn now to the topic of Celotex which is a a very big topic which will almost certainly occupy sort of the rest of the day um if not most of the rest of the day. Um and I want to start with the February 2014 test for of
01:50:53 start with the February 2014 test for of RS5000.
01:50:54 RS5000. Yes. And to begin uh with your involvement before the test uh can we go please to B 40384
01:51:12 B 40384. This is an email of the 4th of June 2013 where we see your colleague Tony Baker forwarding you an email from John Roer
01:51:23 forwarding you an email from John Roer as Celotex in which he inquired uh about availability to carry out a BS8414 test in the August of that year. You see that?
01:51:32 that? I do. Yes. If you look at the second email down, you can see uh that uh um Jonathan Roer uh says to Tony Baker in the first main
01:51:47 uh says to Tony Baker in the first main paragraph which starts Tony in the third line. He says, "All I can advise currently is that it will be a two a part two test consisting of a standard raincreen cladding buildup with tresper
01:51:58 raincreen cladding buildup with tresper cladding fixed to an envelope railing and helping hand system. Uh now we can see what gets on gets sent on to you from the top of the page. We
01:52:10 on to you from the top of the page. We can scroll up to that on the same day. Hi Phil, see below Cotex are looking for a date. Was this your first involvement with Celotex in
01:52:21 your first involvement with Celotex in the context of BSA414 testing? Um, as far as I'm aware, yes. Yes. I wasn't involved in anything else before this as far as I was aware. Can we go to BRE 403453,
01:52:34 Can we go to BRE 403453, please?
01:52:42 And uh, let's look at the email halfway down on that page. page one sent at 8:38 in the morning by Steven Howard uh to Kelvin Annal and to you on the 8th of
01:52:54 Kelvin Annal and to you on the 8th of November 2013 so some months later and you can see that Steven Howard says another cladding system we have kingspan insulation in a week commencing the 18th November to do the build polite nudge
01:53:06 November to do the build polite nudge still need to get a date a date for the day of the test set they're after a test slot again a frame system the kingpan insulation need to be out of the veral before they come in confidentially. Can you let me have a start date, please? Uh
01:53:22 you let me have a start date, please? Uh and uh your reply at the top of that page we can see uh to him on the 11th of November. You say, "I've left a message with Mr. Raer about the time scales and given Kingspan's time scales, it looks like uh
01:53:34 Kingspan's time scales, it looks like uh that they will not be able to come in until early December. I'll let you know a date." Um when you say you'd left Mr. Red a message, was that a voicemail? Um, I would
01:53:46 Um, I would probably think it was. Yes. I mean, we've seen no email correspondence about that in particular. So, we've assumed it's a voicemail. Can you confirm? Um, I can't recall. Um,
01:53:59 Um, I can't recall. Um, I would say probably yes, as there's no email to with it. Did you often communicate with Mr. Raper by telephone? Um,
01:54:10 telephone? Um, I think what I tried to do was if it was the first time we'd spoken to the client and I or it was the first time the client had been introduced to me, I
01:54:21 client had been introduced to me, I would make it my task to talk to them directly on the phone as opposed to through email just to sort of introduce myself um let them know what they're expecting etc etc because I was
01:54:34 expecting etc etc because I was primarily the main contact. It's it's different when you speak to somebody on the phone as it is if you just send them a random email um for for two reasons. A people might not necessarily read the
01:54:45 people might not necessarily read the email, but it's a bit more polite to have a face to face a telephone conversation. Can we go to BRE 405401, please?
01:55:03 This is uh an email uh from Jonathan Roer to you. If you look at the bottom of the screen, 10th of December, 2013, uh he says, "Phil, as discussed, find
01:55:16 uh he says, "Phil, as discussed, find attached drawings for review. I will get hold of our installers and request the information from them. If you could come back, this would likely start on site dates, I'd be obliged.
01:55:30 start on site dates, I'd be obliged. Uh
01:55:32 Uh and then
01:55:34 and then uh you can see that um do you remember what had been discussed? Um
01:55:45 was it was this after the the previous email guys? Well, he says Phil as discussed find attached drawings for review. Do you remember a discussion with him about the
01:55:56 remember a discussion with him about the drawings?
01:55:57 drawings? not about the drawings visibly. I think that probably along the lines of what I said earlier, it would be a preliminary discussion to say, "Look, the hall is here. This is what we'd expect from you
01:56:09 here. This is what we'd expect from you um when you come to site." And I think later on there's probably an email where I ask for certain things in terms of what they need to provide before they come to site. So, it probably be along
01:56:20 come to site. So, it probably be along the lines of the same as that email. I see. So you'd asked him for drawings and he was saying here they are essentially. Is that right? Um
01:56:31 Um yeah what what we tended to try and do was one of the issues we'd had in the past is that people would um have designed their system and then it wouldn't necessarily fit on the test
01:56:43 wouldn't necessarily fit on the test rig. So what we would try to do is to make sure that we had at least some drawings even though we're preliminary to sort of say look these are the bits you need to um understand this isn't
01:56:55 you need to um understand this isn't going to fit on for this reason or you've not met that criteria and and that's primarily why he would have sent them.
01:57:03 them. Can we go to B4's 5410 please?
01:57:13 This is an email uh to you from Jonathan Roer on the 8th of January 2014. Uh and he asks you to confirm the dimensions required to meet the standard.
01:57:24 standard. And we can see your response of BR 403501
01:57:28 403501 please.
01:57:34 on the 10th of January 2014. You say, "Jonathan, I have marked up your drawing and I hope the information helps. You are correct about the widths and the height in that they need to be increased. If you need any other info or
01:57:45 increased. If you need any other info or clarification, I'm happy to help." Uh, was this sort of request common that you would be asked to mark up a test
01:57:57 you would be asked to mark up a test sponsor's drawings? Um,
01:58:02 Um, like I said earlier, one of the things is that you get a designer who designs a rig a a a system, there are certain
01:58:13 rig a a a system, there are certain things in the way it's fitted onto the wall that you have to take into account. For example, if in the standard it says you have to have six meters clear height of the um the hearth. I've had systems
01:58:26 of the um the hearth. I've had systems where they've only done about five meters. So, we'd have to go back to them and say, "Look, if you don't build it to the right height, you're not going to be in compliance with the test standard." Um, so we would, it would, it was really
01:58:39 Um, so we would, it would, it was really just to say, you've covered all of the bits that mean that when once you built the system, it will a it will go on the rig and b it, it will also meet the criteria of the test. And so, it wasn't
01:58:50 criteria of the test. And so, it wasn't wasn't unusual. I see. So just two purposes then in your assisting. One to make sure that it had been built so it would go on the rig but the other was
01:59:03 it would go on the rig but the other was uh so that it would um uh you said something else and it's not gone onto the transcript. It would comply with this with the with the criteria I think is what you
01:59:15 the criteria I think is what you of the test standard. Yes. Yes. Standard. Just just for clarification, we weren't there saying don't use this material, don't do that. I wouldn't make that grap that big. You need to move
01:59:26 that grap that big. You need to move your cavity barriers. That's not what we were doing. It was primarily to show that all of the bits that you need to have a test sample that complies with
01:59:37 have a test sample that complies with the requirements of the test standard is met.
01:59:42 met. I follow. Can we look at the markup that you sent to to Jonathan Rover on that day? It's an SF uh 652.
01:59:58 These have not been disclosed by the B, but by Simco Sm52.
02:00:07 And first, are these the markups that you sent back to Jonathan Roper on that date? Uh yes, I recognize those and that is my writing. Uh and you can see it is your writing.
02:00:19 Uh and you can see it is your writing. That was my next question. Uh and and uh if you look at uh the uh writing at the very top panel
02:00:30 uh writing at the very top panel something on center line. Can you just decide
02:00:34 decide panel joint that says on center line? What were you seeking to um identify from those words in that place?
02:00:45 place? Um on the in the test standard there's a requirement for a joint on the center line of the main wall. Um and it was to say that when you build
02:00:58 Um and it was to say that when you build this system that you have to have that in place
02:01:01 in place and then the words on the right hand side of the drawing barrier may impact with 5 meter temperature measurements move up.
02:01:11 move up. What was that? What were you seeking to impart there? Um
02:01:17 Um we had had in the past um an issue where because the test standard is quite strict in where you put the thermouples
02:01:29 put the thermouples um
02:01:31 um if if they put it at exactly 5 mters it means that we will be drilling holes through the cavity barrier. Um and obviously that's not um something you'd
02:01:42 obviously that's not um something you'd want to do. So it was a suggestion move up or move down so that we didn't drill loads of holes in it essentially. Is this an example of uh what you told
02:01:53 Is this an example of uh what you told us before namely showing that the the test sample advising essentially that the test sample complied with the requirements of the test standard? Uh yes. Yes.
02:02:07 Uh yes. Yes. So can we take it from this that to that extent at least you were advising Celletex
02:02:14 Celletex uh on
02:02:16 uh on how to build the rig so that the criteria of BR135 would be met. Um not a BR135 no
02:02:28 Um not a BR135 no different standard of FBS8414. Right. Okay. Within that standard there are certain things. So if you scroll down for example if you don't mind um I've drawn
02:02:39 example if you don't mind um I've drawn so in their initial drawing where the half is they've drawn it without the return see where the 2 meter mark is 2,000 mm and then the bit below it says
02:02:51 2,000 mm and then the bit below it says return to be 260 plus 0 minus 100 that is a requirement in the BS8414 standard
02:03:02 standard for that whereas they left that out in their drawing. Um, and had they built it in that then it would be non-compliant with the requirements of 8414. And what requirement in BS8414 were you
02:03:14 And what requirement in BS8414 were you seeking to advise them to meet by the words barrier may impact the 5 mm or 5 meter temperature measurements move up? Um, no it was to say to them that we
02:03:27 Um, no it was to say to them that we have to instrument at that point. If you put your barrier there, we are going to likely to drill lots of holes in it, which potentially would make the
02:03:38 in it, which potentially would make the barrier ineffective. Um, and we don't want to obviously damage stuff that stuff that is critical to the test. No, no more than that.
02:03:49 no more than that. Did you get the impression at this time January 14 that Celotex were relying on the B for technical knowledge about how to approach a BS8414 test?
02:04:01 to approach a BS8414 test? Um
02:04:03 Um yes, but not just uh they they weren't unique at all. No. Um it it's quite a it's quite a um if you've not looked
02:04:14 it's quite a um if you've not looked into it, it's quite an interesting test and and not everybody you the designers using their CAD they can design stuff to a building and they'll they'll do it very well but this has got specific
02:04:27 very well but this has got specific characteristics that it has to have as part of the test and that's all we were saying is that you have to meet this. So to that extent at least sensex you say were relying on the B technical advice.
02:04:39 were relying on the B technical advice. Yes. Yes. But um they were not unique. What you need to understand is if I'd have not said that and they got and they came and built it
02:04:51 and they came and built it um then they'd be going why didn't you tell us that? So it's incumbent on us to say that you have to have this these in here. Um, and we do this at the early stage before they've built it and
02:05:02 stage before they've built it and finished so that we're not having to undo what they've done. Let's turn to the February 2014 test itself.
02:05:13 itself. That was carried out on the 14th of February 2014. And uh, if we can go please to page 36 of your witness statement. We can see
02:05:24 of your witness statement. We can see paragraph 148 there. see what you say.
02:05:35 You you deal with the exchanges in early January with Mr. Roer and uh but that's in paragraph 149. But in 148 um in answer to the question what
02:05:48 in 148 um in answer to the question what components made up the tested system in this occasion uh it is said to the best of my recollection the system consisted of the following working from the rear
02:05:59 of the following working from the rear of the system you could set you set out the uh you set out the components two layers of fireline plaster board fixed to a Simco lightweight steel supporting frame a magnesium oxide sheathing system
02:06:10 frame a magnesium oxide sheathing system attached to the front of the lightweight steel frameex installation board. I think it should be insulation board. So, it's a typographical area. Vertical closed mineral fiber type fire
02:06:22 Vertical closed mineral fiber type fire barriers. Horizontal intumescent open state and mineral fiber fire barriers manufactured by Lamaththerm and a Maria alternate nur decorative facade fixed to the aluminium fixed to aluminium rails
02:06:33 the aluminium fixed to aluminium rails carrier rails which were mechanically fixed to the sheathing board. Now, uh, you say you you provide that list, uh, and you say that that is to
02:06:44 list, uh, and you say that that is to the best of my recollection at the beginning of the paragraph. Um, are you suggesting that you've made this list entirely from memory? Um,
02:06:58 I I can't recall to be honest. Um, pro I doubt it seeing as I've said manufactured by Lamir. was why is that? Is that because you
02:07:10 was why is that? Is that because you wouldn't you'd never remember the particular manufacturer? No. Yeah. No. Exactly. Yeah. Well, that's my question. Did you look at any BR records uh to recall this
02:07:21 at any BR records uh to recall this information? Um
02:07:24 Um only what I was sent by the inquiry. Well, is what you were sent by the inquiry or was what you were sent by the inquiry sufficient for you to be able to
02:07:35 inquiry sufficient for you to be able to compile this list? Um I recall there were some I think I said it in the next con the next um paragraph down 149. I think that CB113
02:07:48 I think that CB113 um 01 was possibly something I had to hand. That was a drawing through section drawing I think maybe. Right. I think we may have lost you just
02:07:59 Right. I think we may have lost you just a little bit. Um sound quality just then. Um, do you want to repeat what I said? Uh, yes. Could you please? Yeah. So, I think the initial drawing
02:08:12 Yeah. So, I think the initial drawing that may have been sent may have had some of that information on um and some of the drawings that I had may have had some of that information on. Possibly
02:08:23 some of that information on. Possibly I use that um to clarify the points.
02:08:34 We don't see in paragraph 148 any reference to any document. Um and that's why I'm asking you these questions where you got this information from. Did you refresh your memory from documents when you made this statement
02:08:46 documents when you made this statement or is is this a list that you recall at the time?
02:08:50 the time? Um,
02:08:51 Um, the time you did your statement, I think initially what I did was I dictated it as I remembered it and then maybe I may have just checked through from a drawing but I to be honest I
02:09:03 from a drawing but I to be honest I can't recall. I see. Um,
02:09:14 can you explain why you didn't provide copies of the documents from what from which you got this information when you provided your statement?
02:09:25 when you provided your statement? Um, I believe they are. I'd be very surprised if they're not in there. Um
02:09:32 Um so so everything that you had was what was issued to me by the inquiry. So um I I see.
02:09:40 I I see. Yeah. Unfortunately I'm as I say at the time I was no longer a B employee so I was reliant on what was being sent to me.
02:09:49 me. Are you when you did this statement were you satisfied that the documents you were sent had come from a proper set of records for this test? Um,
02:10:00 Um, as far as I could see, yes. Yes. There was nothing that alerted you to the fact that these documents were incomplete or that the SOAP, the statement of practice we saw earlier was somehow uh incomplete respect of this
02:10:13 somehow uh incomplete respect of this test.
02:10:14 test. Um, no, I don't think so. No, I think there's some um some documents which were scanned in by BR of the test file. Um, and you can
02:10:26 by BR of the test file. Um, and you can actually see where the punch holes are have been picked up by this the scanning process and my understanding was that they were the
02:10:37 they were the um paper that had been taken out of the test file and scanned in. Now you said earlier on in an answer that uh you had prepared this statement from documents or this part of it at least from documents sent to you by the
02:10:49 least from documents sent to you by the inquiry. That's not right, is it? In fact, the documents were provided to you by the BR or their solicitors. Weren't they?
02:10:56 they? Um I'm if that's what you say. I can't recall. I I understood they came from the inquiry. I was issued packer stuff maybe. I'm not certain who they came
02:11:07 maybe. I'm not certain who they came from.
02:11:10 from. Understanding from Sorry, Mr. Could you repeat the question?
02:11:14 question? Where did you get your understanding that the documents you used to compile this paragraph had come from the inquiry?
02:11:20 inquiry? Um, that was just my understanding. It didn't say who they necessarily came from. I thought they'd been disclosed from the inquiry. The record they didn't. They came from the B.
02:11:31 B. Right. Okay. I stand corrected. Let's move on then to the testing. Can we go to BR 405425, please?
02:11:50 Um uh this is an email appointment subject senateex cladding test location burn will start 14th February 2014 at
02:12:01 burn will start 14th February 2014 at 11:00 ending 3:00 same day and uh if you um look down the document you can see that there are some required attendees
02:12:15 uh and optional attendees see that uh and um you there's a message guys I would like to undertake the cladding test for wall four facilitates
02:12:26 cladding test for wall four facilitates with your assistance there is a very real possibility the system may fail so full PPE will be needed roles roles as usual me as safety officer
02:12:39 usual me as safety officer Tom as officer in charge of firefighting backup Leia as client liaison supervision Simon firefighting Steve Steve and Paul, this is for information only and to agree the availability of Simon. Thanks, Phil.
02:12:51 Simon. Thanks, Phil. Remember that you said that I'm showing you that?
02:12:54 you that? Yes.
02:12:54 Yes. And showed you that you said there was a very real possibility that the system may fail, so full PPE will be needed. What led you to think that that test might well fail?
02:13:05 might well fail? Um,
02:13:07 Um, it was the first test they'd ever done. Um
02:13:12 Um so what we tended to do is if there was no um history of how a system will perform we would on the side of caution.
02:13:24 perform we would on the side of caution. Um so that was to basically say look I I'm not certain what it's going to do. there is a likelihood that it may fail because it's a development product and has never been put through this system
02:13:37 has never been put through this system just to make sure that people had their PPE with them because the the you don't want to be doing this when it's failing. You want to make sure everybody's got everything with them before
02:13:50 I see. So, uh the fact that this was a first time test was your pessimism. Yes. Yeah. We having done it for such a period of time it's it's you can not
02:14:03 period of time it's it's you can not always guarantee but you should air on the side of caution as a first test they maybe in a development stage where it wouldn't perform as well as they expected. So it's just an air of
02:14:15 expected. So it's just an air of caution. Yes. Was it your was it your experience at that time early 14 you've been there almost 10 years doing this that sponsors would keep testing until they found a system or modification of a
02:14:26 they found a system or modification of a system that would pass. Um yes they could do yes there have been incidents where that had been the case. Yes. Now because this email sets out the
02:14:38 Yes. Now because this email sets out the roles and it suggests that you were going to be the safety officer and Tom Lennon as the officer in charge but in your statement uh you say that that this particular test was conducted under your
02:14:50 particular test was conducted under your own oversight. That's done paragraph 152 of page 37. Yes.
02:14:56 Yes. Uh
02:14:57 Uh is that right? Was it under your oversight or or were you going to be the safety officer or Yes. Now, those those roles were sort of fairly fluid. Um, I tended to take the
02:15:09 fairly fluid. Um, I tended to take the officer in charge role because I was predominantly the person who took the notes. Um, I think on the day we decided to swap the roles over.
02:15:20 to swap the roles over. So, that you became officer in charge. Yes. Yes.
02:15:24 Yes. Yes. Who became safety officer? Tom. Tom Lennon. Yes. Um, if we go to paragraph 147 of your statement, please page 35.
02:15:36 Um you see uh you say at the start of that paragraph under the answer to the question at what stage was the test terminated? Why was it terminated? I believe the test was
02:15:47 it terminated? I believe the test was terminated due to excessive flaming on the outer decorative facade of the system which spread rapidly over the surface and burned over the top of the system.
02:15:56 system. Then you go on to say uh a little bit lower down the paragraph um the reason the test was terminated in this case would have been on the grounds of safety due to the rapid nature of the
02:16:07 of safety due to the rapid nature of the fire growth and no clear sign that the fire was reducing in size the decision was taken to terminate the test. Uh is it right that the decision to
02:16:19 Uh is it right that the decision to terminate the test was taken on the grounds of safety and not or not simply because over topping the rig would have prevented classification to BR135.
02:16:30 prevented classification to BR135. Um yes um you get to a stage where you know if it's going to get any better or not and the the decision was it wasn't going to get any better. So there was it
02:16:42 going to get any better. So there was it it was it was better to stop it there as the officer in charge. Was that your decision?
02:16:48 decision? Um
02:16:51 Um it was
02:16:54 it was um because uh from a testing point of view, I'd seen everything I needed to see to um so there was no more to be gained in terms of the test. Um it
02:17:07 gained in terms of the test. Um it wasn't that Tom Lennon said, "Right, you have to shut it down because it's dangerous. Um so I I took the decision that there was no no need to carry on.
02:17:19 no need to carry on. What had you seen that you needed to which meant that there was no more to be gained?
02:17:25 gained? Um that the external um nura turnip boards had pulled away from the cavity barrier. Um the cavity
02:17:36 the cavity barrier. Um the cavity barrier was was no longer effective. um most of the second u and the upper layers of um board had fallen away and
02:17:48 layers of um board had fallen away and it had exposed the the core of the uh the the main surface face of the insulation um and it was clear that there the fire was becoming out of
02:17:59 there the fire was becoming out of control
02:18:00 control right now I'm afraid we lost you again just a little bit your sound dropped away very briefly you said something before you said uh the cavity barrier was no longer effective. What was that?
02:18:12 was no longer effective. What was that? Um that the board had pulled away and distorted and that cav cavity barrier was no longer effective. Thank you. Um now, uh can I then ask you
02:18:23 Thank you. Um now, uh can I then ask you about conversations after the test had been completed or had been terminated? Um can we go to page 41 of this witness statement, please?
02:18:38 Uh you can see uh that uh at that page question 8A asks this in relation to any test to BS8414 on a system incorporating
02:18:50 test to BS8414 on a system incorporating RS5000 on the 14th of February 2014. Was the B asked by the test sponsor for any advice for advice as to any aspect of the BS8414 testing process? If so was
02:19:01 the BS8414 testing process? If so was any guidance or advice provided? What was the nature of any such advice? By whom? By and to whom was it provided? Sorry, it's a long question. Your answer
02:19:12 Sorry, it's a long question. Your answer uh starts at paragraph 172. Uh and you say, I have set out uh full details of all exchanges between BR and Cotex prior to the test on 14th of
02:19:24 Cotex prior to the test on 14th of February 2014 to the best of my rec knowledge and recollection above. Uh and uh if you uh go down a little bit further into paragraph 173,
02:19:38 further into paragraph 173, you say, "For my own part, no guidance would have been given as to how or in which way a BS8414 test could be passed."
02:19:49 test could be passed." Now you say no guidance would have been given. Uh, is that a statement of your general practice or is it a statement specifically in relation to the 14th of February seller text test?
02:20:01 February seller text test? Um, general practice. Now, we're going to look at the videos. Uh, can we go to the video footage from
02:20:13 Uh, can we go to the video footage from the head camera that you were wearing? I should just ask you, can you confirm you were wearing a head camera during the weren't you? Confirm that. Yes. Yes. Now, I I I perhaps ought to give a trigger warning at this point um because
02:20:26 trigger warning at this point um because we will see um in the background some live fire on a a test rig um as part of this video. So, if that image um is
02:20:37 this video. So, if that image um is going to be upsetting to anybody watching this, then that is that is something they will see. So, they should stop watching. Um BR 405659,
02:20:48 stop watching. Um BR 405659, please. And I'm going to ask the operator to play the video from um 01.20 to 01.38.
02:20:58 And what I want to ask you about starts at 01.24.
02:21:03 at 01.24. And we can play it again a second time if we need to. Mr.
02:21:14 If you were to look at the disposal system, is it planning panels ination or combination of both those things?
02:21:24 things? Um
02:21:27 with a lot of these systems is just making sure that you got some substrate for the barrier to push against.
02:21:37 We we believe this conversation was between Jamie Hayes of Celotex and you and much of it is of course indistinct. Let's um have the transcript of that uh
02:21:50 Let's um have the transcript of that uh conversation uh please uh at INQ3014137
02:21:57 at page two
02:22:03 and I know it's an indistinct audio Mr. Clark. We can play it again if need be.
02:22:12 No, that's um that is something completely different. Let me try again. INQ30 is 14137.
02:22:32 That's it. Uh now, uh that is not a brilliantly legible
02:22:39 legible version of this. I'm struggling to read it. So, yes. Yes, I know. Um I wonder if we've got a better one. We may do.
02:22:48 there. That's that's clear. Now, let's go halfway down page two, please.
02:22:56 Um, and this is the transcript of the audio of that conversation. And can I just ask you to confirm that you've seen this before and have seen the audio and had a had an opportunity to check one against the other?
02:23:08 against the other? Um, I have. Yes, as far away. Yes. Uh now we can see halfway down page two where there's the first mention of male speaker 4.
02:23:20 speaker 4. Can you see that? Uh it says cause of the failure. Do you see that? Yes, I do. Uh that that is Mr. Hayes
02:23:33 Uh that that is Mr. Hayes and he asks you for your view about the cause of the failure of the system. He says, "If you were to look at the cause of the failure with a view to the parts of the system, is it the cladding panel, the combustibility of the
02:23:44 panel, the combustibility of the insulation, or a combination of both those things?" And we and we see a reply, male speaker one.
02:23:55 one. Uh um the problem you have with a lot of these systems is just making sure that you've got some substrate for the barrier to push against. And as soon as you lose that, then you've got an exposed core potentially. Um, and
02:24:07 exposed core potentially. Um, and obviously that's got its own inherent surface spread of flame. And if that's more than the barrier can cope with, then I don't know interrupted. Uh,
02:24:19 Uh, it is that is that your reply to Mr. Um, that sounds Yes, that sounds coherent for what I would say. Yes, I would say. C can we then go back to the video BR
02:24:31 can we then go back to the video BR 405659
02:24:33 405659 and play from 0.2 2 sorry 02.58 uh to the end and the quote or the section I want to ask you about starts at 03.02
02:24:48 play from 0.58 the end but this is particularly from 0 uh not 3.02 not to
02:25:00 I don't think the panel itself actually contributed much obviously. I think it's just the fact that it it just broke away and you basically lost your push against
02:25:12 and you basically lost your push against the barrier. Um, but there isn't a if it's cement based, you're obviously burning away all of the polymers and all the stuff that binds it together and it just becomes trial and falls down.
02:25:34 It's full. It was collapsed now right the way up. There was nothing in place to give the barrier position.
02:25:48 system which 99% of them are very similar to that method drops away and got nothing to bounce against. So you're always going to have the same
02:25:59 So you're always going to have the same issue.
02:26:02 issue. Now um
02:26:05 Now um I think you would have caught some of that at least. Um I think I understand what said. Yes. Now can we go to the transcript then? Uh INQ the same transcript page three
02:26:18 the same transcript page three and on page three let's look at the final passage from male speaker one
02:26:27 which is you say and tell me if it isn't. We believe it is. You say I don't think the panel itself contributed much from what I've seen. I think it's just the fact that it distorted it distorted
02:26:40 the fact that it distorted it distorted and broke away and you've basically lost your what you've got to push against the barrier. Um, but there isn't a if it's cement base, you're obviously burning away all the polymers and all the stuff that binds it together and inaudible or
02:26:53 that binds it together and inaudible or it falls down. It's fallen. It's collapsed now right the way up. So there is there's nothing in place to stop the barrier to give the barrier anything to push against.
02:27:05 Now, did you think at the time that these comments um on the relative contribution of different parts of the system
02:27:17 of different parts of the system uh to the overall failure were the sorts of things that BR should be advising a client?
02:27:25 client? Um
02:27:27 Um I don't know if you could see but in the video there's a structure which they're all standing next to um which is to as I
02:27:38 all standing next to um which is to as I was I was watching it was to the left which meant that the um the clients from Celletex didn't have a direct view of the test rig.
02:27:49 the test rig. Um, so what I was trying to put across was what I could see from where I was. Um, and that was my what I saw was that
02:28:01 Um, and that was my what I saw was that the the board pulled away and gave such a a large gap that the intent barrier would have never have fired off. Um, so yeah, I don't think see anything wrong
02:28:13 yeah, I don't think see anything wrong with saying that. It was it was fact-based and um it was imparting the information that I had seen firsthand. Yes.
02:28:24 Yes. I know it's a difficult line to draw sometimes and and I appreciate that, but but was there not an obvious risk to you at the time that this would be taken by Senate as advice about the need for there to be something for the barrier to
02:28:36 there to be something for the barrier to push against? Um
02:28:40 Um no, I wouldn't have said so. I mean, if you're educating your client about precisely what has happened during the test as it happens, is is that not going
02:28:52 test as it happens, is is that not going to be taken as at least the basis for advice about how to improve the system the next time? Um, no, because we were talking about what
02:29:03 no, because we were talking about what happened there and then and um and
02:29:09 as I say, they couldn't see directly where it was and from from the angle that I was, you could see that the barrier had had distorted such an extent that it had essentially made the um
02:29:20 that it had essentially made the um sorry, the board had distorted that it made the barrier um redundant essentially. So, no, I don't think there was anything wrong with that. It's not given advice as to how to construct the
02:29:32 given advice as to how to construct the system.
02:29:33 system. Did you turn the head camera off at that point?
02:29:36 point? Um, I did. Yes. Did the conversation continue afterwards? Um,
02:29:42 Um, I don't recall necessarily. The the reason it was turned off is because we used to just get hours of dribble if if I forgot to turn it off. So, I'd I'd get to a stage where I
02:29:53 So, I'd I'd get to a stage where I thought, "Right, let's turn it off because it's just wasted video pulling up the the network drive." Do you recall whether the conversation continued after you turned the headcam
02:30:04 continued after you turned the headcam off?
02:30:05 off? Um, I don't recall. No. There's one more thing to pick up from this video. Uh, if we could play the video again, this time from 0 2.35 to 0
02:30:19 video again, this time from 0 2.35 to 0 2.46. 46. And the quote or part of it I want to ask you about is at 02.39.
02:30:27 Just play that. Then I'll show you the transcript.
02:30:46 something. Yeah.
02:30:51 Never done it before.
02:30:54 Now, let's go to the transcript. That was pretty audible, I think. But the transcript anyway. Uh, INQ30 is 14137, page two.
02:31:11 Uh,
02:31:19 and on page
02:31:24 uh on page two
02:31:29 uh in the very last part of the penultimate passage, male speaker one, which starts Yeah, that might break off unless it's welded.
02:31:42 unless it's welded. Well, let's let's just look at the whole thing. You say, "Yeah, that might break off unless it's welded. You've obviously got you've got obvious sorry, you you've got the obviously inherent surface
02:31:53 got the obviously inherent surface spread of flame on the on the material. Um, so it stays in place. So, if you've got a 100 mil, you've got to burn through all of that before it just disappears. So, sometimes you're in a
02:32:04 disappears. So, sometimes you're in a situation where if it if all the material goes away and you take it away from the heat source, then that's brilliant. if it stays in place and it's burning, burning, burning, and it's just pushing out the system really. And then
02:32:15 pushing out the system really. And then you say, um, something I've seen worse. And just looking at all of that, um, that's advice, isn't it? Um, advice to do what?
02:32:26 Um, advice to do what? Well, it's it's it's a benefit of your experience that you're imparting to the client, isn't it? Um, no. It's a fact that um I'm parting in in the way it's
02:32:38 that um I'm parting in in the way it's the way that these materials behave. So, it's not advice. So, if I was saying that if you're advising you to do something, then there would be some action that you would take. So, I advise
02:32:51 action that you would take. So, I advise you to go and get me a glass of water. But that's not what this is. This is not advice. is passing on information as to what was seen and and how things behave
02:33:04 seen and and how things behave with with respect it's not is it it's you're you're giving Celotex uh the benefit of your your general knowledge and experience and expertise. You're you're telling Celotex what what
02:33:15 You're you're telling Celotex what what always happens in every situation, aren't you? That's that's the gist of what you're I I would uh I would say probably not. No.
02:33:26 No. Well, you say so sometimes you're in a situation where and you go on to explain. Well, that sometimes is the benefit of your advice. It's not what happened on this occasion. You're giving advice.
02:33:37 You're giving advice. No, that is I think that's what's happened in this occasion. Yes. What I was saying was that the material had burned on the surface. Um, and if you get to a situation where it's burned all the way through, then you've got nothing more to burn. That's I don't see how
02:33:49 more to burn. That's I don't see how this is what I'm advising them. It's it's Yeah. I don't see it as advice. No. When you say I've seen worse,
02:34:00 When you say I've seen worse, um that is again the benefit of your professional experience. It's not it's not a report of what happened. It's your judgment.
02:34:09 judgment. Um it is but then I don't go to clarify by saying I've seen worse and this did this this did that this. So, it's a a general statement post- test talking to
02:34:22 general statement post- test talking to a client who it's the first time they'd ever seen a full-scale test. Um, and they're they're always in a position where they want to understand how they
02:34:34 where they want to understand how they perform to a certain extent. So, um, no more than no more than that. And same again on page three, first comment at the end of sentence. You look at that page three. Um you say for a
02:34:47 at that page three. Um you say for a first attempt it's not bad actually if you've never done it before. And again same same point it's as you imparting to a client who wants wants to get their bearings the benefit of your professional expertise and experience.
02:34:59 professional expertise and experience. No. Um,
02:35:02 No. Um, yes, I would say that there's always that, but it's it's one of these things that you you can say something to that regard.
02:35:14 can say something to that regard. They're always going to want to know how their system has performed. To say not bad for a first attempt isn't advising them in any way, shape, or form, I don't think.
02:35:26 think. Well, it it it it's giving, as I say, we can characterize it number of ways. It's not specific advice about what to do next time, but it's a comfort uh which would encourage them uh that the degree
02:35:37 would encourage them uh that the degree of failure in your experience wasn't so bad.
02:35:41 bad. You accept that at least? Uh yes, I accept that. Yes. Yeah. And that's that's why I said it is it's what you need to understand is if you're in a position where you're developing a product, you need to have some benchmark
02:35:53 product, you need to have some benchmark to a certain extent. And if if I'd have turned around and said, "Well, I can't tell you anything." Well, nobody ever learns anything. Um, and ultimately we're there to drive
02:36:04 and ultimately we're there to drive safety. And if my advice drives safety, then I'm I'm happy to give it. But I don't think that is I don't think that is advice. That was Yeah,
02:36:15 Yeah, I'm I'm just seeking to explore really to what extent it's it's it's true to say that you gave no guidance and would have given no guidance. And I'm s I was just suggesting to you that although
02:36:26 just suggesting to you that although this isn't guidance about how to pass, it's nonetheless guidance in a broad sense.
02:36:31 sense. Um
02:36:37 it's
02:36:40 yeah it's like anything isn't it? It's open to interpretation is it's I wouldn't class as guidance. is it's imparting
02:36:49 imparting a degree of information to the client which doesn't give away other people's IP doesn't tell them what to do but gives them they they need to understand
02:37:01 gives them they they need to understand how their system is performing um and if they've got no benchmark the only benchmark they have is what comes from me
02:37:11 from me um
02:37:13 um so yeah I yeah I hope that sense in your statement you covered at paragraphs 192 to 194 the comment about the rain screen having collapsed and I
02:37:25 the rain screen having collapsed and I think when you prepared your statement you had reviewed the video for this test yes
02:37:29 yes I think so yes you you as I say you referred to the comment about the rain screen having collapsed so that there was nothing for the cavity barrier to push against but you didn't mention the other comments about how whether the cladding had
02:37:41 about how whether the cladding had contributed or whether there was this was frequently a My question is why is that? Um I thought I had
02:37:55 it it was it wasn't a deliberate emission if that's what you're trying to say. But it was I I thought I had covered the whole of that transcript. I to be honest I've looked at so many videos and written so many transcripts
02:38:07 videos and written so many transcripts um
02:38:09 um it it may have got missed out. Let's go to paragraph uh paragraph 201 of your of your statement on page 49 please.
02:38:24 Uh the question you're answering is question 8 Q. On what basis did Celletex decide to arrange a further test to take place on the 2nd of May 2014? What
02:38:37 place on the 2nd of May 2014? What discussions took place between you and any Celletex employee in respect of further testing? That's the question you're addressing. And at par 201 you, you say, I am unaware of the reasoning
02:38:48 you say, I am unaware of the reasoning for Celtics commissioning a second test which was subsequently undertaken on 2nd of May 2014. And then you say, I do not know what advice may have been given by others as to how the test system might perform,
02:38:59 to how the test system might perform, including if the outer decorative pooling was changed. I do recall providing Mr. with a photograph of the Celotex installation on the wing wall which was behind the raincreen board. You exhibit some
02:39:11 raincreen board. You exhibit some photographs and then you go on to say uh after the reference to the nine photographs showing the minimal damage. It therefore may have been on the presumption that the fire was not driven by the Celotex installation component but rather by the
02:39:24 installation component but rather by the rainscreen board opening up at the fire barriers and falling away that Celtex decided to undertake a retest. This is however speculation on my part. Now in fact as we've seen from the transcript
02:39:36 fact as we've seen from the transcript you had told Cotex that the cause of the failure was the raincreen boards opening up deforming as you've now said and falling away. Uh so although you say it was speculation it had a scientific
02:39:48 was speculation it had a scientific basis nonetheless didn't it? Um yes I agree. Yes. And at page same page paragraph 202 if we just go down there please at the
02:40:00 we just go down there please at the bottom of the page uh you you say I'm not aware of Celtex being made aware of any specific and/or technical performance issues relating to the test carried out on 14th of February 2014
02:40:12 carried out on 14th of February 2014 other than to confirm the primary spread of fire on the tested system as I have explained above. Now that you've seen the transcripts and
02:40:23 Now that you've seen the transcripts and the video camera uh recording uh with you commenting and advising on the test, do you accept that that is not a wholly accurate
02:40:32 accurate summation of the facts?
02:40:55 um if you read it that way potentially. Yes. Um
02:41:01 but maybe I've misinterpreted what it was meant by um specific or technical issues relating to the performance. So maybe that's my misinterpretation but I
02:41:17 yesen I don't quite understand the question. Maybe
02:41:21 Maybe by having shown you the transcript and there are other parts of the transcript we can look at at some length no but having shown you having shown you the transcript I'm asking you I'm inviting you to accept uh that when you say I'm
02:41:32 you to accept uh that when you say I'm not aware of sellex being made aware of any specific and or technical performance issues relating to the test other than to confirm the primary spread of file on the tester system uh that is an inaccurate and incomplete summary uh
02:41:45 an inaccurate and incomplete summary uh because you were telling them a good deal else
02:41:49 deal else Um,
02:41:52 yes, you may be right. Yes, I'll concede that one.
02:41:57 that one. Thank you. Paragraph 203, you say
02:42:04 uh in answer to question Q8s, was any advice or guidance sought by sellex from the BE in respect of the performance of the system tested? If so, by and from whom, what was the nature of the advice? and you say, "I'm not aware
02:42:17 the advice? and you say, "I'm not aware that any advice was sought from BR in relation to the performance of the system tested on 14th February 2014. As I've explained above, any advice from BE could be deemed to constitute consultancy and would therefore fall
02:42:28 consultancy and would therefore fall outside the remit of its UKcast accredititation. It's therefore highly unlikely that any such advice would have been given or would have been given been as missing and had any been sought or
02:42:39 as missing and had any been sought or requested, I expect that the request would have been rejected. Now again, by having shown you even just parts of the transcripts, do you accept that that is
02:42:50 transcripts, do you accept that that is an inaccurate and incomplete summary given that we've seen what we've seen and heard of the conversations? Um,
02:43:02 so I I took that as post test. Did they phone up and ask advice post the test? Um,
02:43:15 post the test? Um, so that's why that was drafted in that way, I think. Um, so
02:43:23 so maybe I because I didn't necessarily recall what was said on the day. Um, and because I didn't I don't class that necessarily advice is that's probably why I answered that in that
02:43:35 probably why I answered that in that way. So I' I'd assumed it meant did they phone up and say pass post the test what do you advise we do? I see. So you understood the question as limited in time to the
02:43:49 the question as limited in time to the time after the test. Indeed. Yes. Yes. But do you accept that given what we've seen of what was said during the test that the summary is not accurate and complete? Um if you take the the
02:44:03 complete? Um if you take the the discussion that we had which I I class as a
02:44:07 as a um post test debrief to a certain extent um if you take that as the way you're saying as advice then then that that
02:44:19 saying as advice then then that that statement is correct but that's not the way I interpreted it. No. On that basis, would you agree that the discussions that we've looked at on the transcript and in the video go beyond what was permissible given the scope of your UKASS accredititation?
02:44:32 your UKASS accredititation? Um, I don't believe so. No. It was consultancy effectively, wasn't it?
02:44:36 it? No, I don't believe it to be. No. Giving the benefit of your experience, knowledge, and making general statements about
02:44:47 about this test in comparison with your general experience, why would that not be consultancy? um
02:44:55 because they get they get nothing to their advantage from it. They can't go back and say so and so told me this.
02:45:06 go back and say so and so told me this. It's a general statement. It's a statement made after a test to a client as part of a conversation who who is there paying to
02:45:17 there paying to um
02:45:20 um Yeah. Yeah. I can't can't answer the question other than that really. Well, they do get I'm sorry to press you, but they they do get something to their advantage, don't they? They get the experience of technician who has
02:45:32 the experience of technician who has seen loads of these tests, has done them for 10 years, uh has seen every test going and who tells them not only about the primary causes of the failure, but also that you've seen worse and it's not
02:45:43 also that you've seen worse and it's not too bad. Uh some people might pay a consultant an awful lot of money to have that comfort. No. Um, not from my experience. I to be to be
02:45:55 not from my experience. I to be to be honest, I what I said there is nothing that I've not heard from any other member of staff. Um, so I I don't think I was talking out
02:46:06 Um, so I I don't think I was talking out of turn there. Um, I wouldn't I would be I wouldn't have said it had I thought it was out of turn. And and for
02:46:17 was out of turn. And and for I'm I'm not here to defend myself, but had I thought it would be that and I thought that there was any issue with it, then
02:46:27 it, then I would have chose not to wear a helmet camera because the whole reason why that decision was made and the decision to wear that camera was my decision was
02:46:40 to wear that camera was my decision was for clarity. And if if somebody chooses to say what I said was um um consultancy and they beg to differ,
02:46:52 um consultancy and they beg to differ, then I I'm happy to be educated, but I don't think it was. And and if I had anything to hide, I wouldn't be wearing a helmet camera. No, I'm not suggesting that this was
02:47:05 No, I'm not suggesting that this was some Well, let's um let's go in light of that answer to the transcript again. Can we look at page three of the transcript, please?
02:47:24 And
02:47:28 um you can see from the third entry down on the top of that page, male speaker uh uh four
02:47:38 uh four it is actually and that's Mr. Hayes is saying I'm just wondering if you had the same insulation but the cladding panel itself was something we can't hear.
02:47:49 itself was something we can't hear. your your response to him is I don't think the panel itself contributed much from the from what I've seen. It's just that it distorted. Now what you're saying here is actually
02:48:00 Now what you're saying here is actually an answer to a question you've been asked
02:48:05 asked by male speaker for Mr. Hayes. I know he puts it in terms of amusing or wondering but but he's saying well I'm just wondering and you're answering him.
02:48:16 wondering and you're answering him. Isn't that advice? Um,
02:48:20 Um, no. It's passing on the fact of what I'd seen.
02:48:25 seen. Well, he he he he's asking you, well, what what would happen if we had the same insulation, but did something different with the cladding panel? And your response to him is, I don't think
02:48:38 your response to him is, I don't think the panel itself actually contributed much. In other words, that change won't make a difference. Is that an unfair way of characterizing that exchange? Um, when I say the term contributed much
02:48:52 Um, when I say the term contributed much um
02:48:56 that that's a distinction between the fact that the the panel itself was burning and carrying the flame up the um facade of the build of the buildup in
02:49:08 facade of the build of the buildup in the of the test rig. The thing with that is that the panels were falling to bits in their own right really. Um, and and
02:49:20 in their own right really. Um, and and they I don't think I could see that from where they were. So, I was passing on information as what I saw in the test and I don't think
02:49:30 think and that was any any more than that. Um, who was male speaker? Well, who was male speaker six? Do you know? Did you work it out? Speaker six. Was that the gentleman in
02:49:42 Speaker six. Was that the gentleman in the blue hat? Well, I don't know. You You help me. I don't know who know six right at the bottom of page three. Inaudible barrier systems which 99% of
02:49:53 Inaudible barrier systems which 99% of Right. Yeah. No, that's um Jonathan Roer.
02:49:55 Roer. Right. That's Jonathan Roer. Um
02:50:00 Um now
02:50:04 if we go to CL 30's 10052 page 12 please this is the statement of Jonathan Roer to the inquiry
02:50:17 Jonathan Roer to the inquiry and at that page I'll wait for it to come up cel 3010052
02:50:25 uh he says this at paragraph 5.29. Uh following the end of the test,
02:50:36 Uh following the end of the test, Rob Ian Cooper, Phil and I had a discussion whilst at the BRE testing center. Phil said that he had seen worse fails and suggested that Celtex might want to strengthen the outside of the
02:50:47 want to strengthen the outside of the test rig in order to counteract the cracking of the Marley Eternit panels. I told Phil that the Marley Turnit panels were also available in 12 millimeters in addition to the 8 millimeter panels used
02:50:58 addition to the 8 millimeter panels used in the test. Phil responded that he thought that thickening the panels to 12 mm might suffice. Phil also joked that Celotex could use a 6 mm cement particle board like
02:51:11 6 mm cement particle board like Kingspan, but I knew that this was not what the business wanted. Now taking this in stages if we can. Having already seen that you did indeed
02:51:22 Having already seen that you did indeed say that you'd seen worse fails. We've seen that in the in the transcript and on the video. Is Mr. Roer correct that you also had a conversation with him at the burn hall about thickening the
02:51:33 the burn hall about thickening the Marley Eternitive panels? It's not a conversation I recall. No, it's a conversation that Mr. Roer recalls. Can you say he's wrong? Um,
02:51:46 recalls. Can you say he's wrong? Um, I would say I don't recall. I don't know whether he was wrong, but I I don't recall it. I definitely um I I remember this coming up and I definitely do not
02:51:57 this coming up and I definitely do not remember joking about the Kingpan 6 mm. I'll come to that in just a moment. Just taking this in in small just in relation to the thickening of the Maria Turnlet
02:52:08 to the thickening of the Maria Turnlet panel. You say you can't recall, but do you say that Mr. Roer's recollection is faulty?
02:52:14 faulty? Um, yes, I would. So, your your evidence is that that conversation didn't happen? Um,
02:52:22 Um, is that right? Or just that you can't recall it? I can't recall it. You understand there's a difference between saying I know this didn't happen on the one hand and saying I can't remember one way or the other on the other.
02:52:32 other. Oh, and I understand the difference. Yeah. I I I can never recall that conversation taking place. No. Right. I I to to a certain extent I don't even know what thicknesses Marley
02:52:43 don't even know what thicknesses Marley Turner panels come in. I don't have enough knowledge of them to say that they do or don't or whatever thicknesses they they're available in. So if if that
02:52:54 they they're available in. So if if that conversation was had that would have been something coming from Mr. um roer because as I say I I wouldn't know the thicknesses they're available
02:53:05 know the thicknesses they're available in
02:53:06 in well his recollection is not that you actually
02:53:10 actually uh cited any thickness of any Marley attorney panel only the 6 millm cement particle board of Kingpan which you were familiar with I think from your um no I wasn't familiar with that
02:53:22 um no I wasn't familiar with that because that was what uh nine years prior
02:53:26 prior um the only is in he he may have known that but I that was nine 2005. I don't keep knowledge like that in my head.
02:53:37 that in my head. But the only reason I'm picking you up on this is that is that the thickness of the Marley attorney panel information came from him not you
02:53:46 as in the the six mill and the 12 mm. You can see that from his recollection. I told
02:53:51 I told Maria Turnip panels were also available in 12 mm
02:53:54 in 12 mm right
02:53:55 right in the test. So, um, that information came from him, not you. And therefore, the fact that you wouldn't know it is no guide, is it? Um, I suppose not. No. No. Um, he goes on to say, we've just
02:54:07 No. Um, he goes on to say, we've just seen that that he says, Phil also joked that Celotex could use the six millimeter cement particle board like Kingpan, but I knew this was not what the business wanted. again. Do you
02:54:19 the business wanted. again. Do you recall
02:54:20 recall uh telling him that you thought the that thickening the panels uh to 12 mm might suffice?
02:54:31 suffice? Um
02:54:33 Um I don't I don't recall the conversation. No.
02:54:36 No. Do do you recall joking with him that Celotex could use a a six millimeter cement particle board like Kingpack? Um definitely don't
02:54:47 like Kingpack? Um definitely don't remember that. No. Do you recall making even the just the gist of the point that they that they could do a king stand or use a cement particle board?
02:54:57 board? No, because as I said earlier that that test was undertaken in 2005. Um I've done numerous projects and numerous other things like that. And for
02:55:08 numerous other things like that. And for me to remember that it was even a six millimeter cement particle board would I've got a good memory, but it's not that good.
02:55:19 that good. You would remember that it was a cement particle board, wouldn't you? Um,
02:55:24 Um, possibly. Yes. Yes. But again, I it's not the sort of joke I would make. I think I think that's too it's to me it's being put in
02:55:35 that's too it's to me it's being put in there to um
02:55:40 to bolster an an argument that they're making. I don't I think it's put in there to feather their nest, I think. Well, never mind about that. I'm just
02:55:51 Well, never mind about that. I'm just asking for your recollection. I I don't recall. No. Uh
02:55:59 given that at the Marley Turnit was 8 mm of cement fiberboard um
02:56:07 um you wouldn't be advising him would you to use a thinner version of the same material if in fact the Kingpam test had been fiberboard um sorry can you repeat the question
02:56:18 um sorry can you repeat the question sorry
02:56:19 sorry yes I mean it isn't likely is it that that given that the Marley turn it 8 millimeters of s of cement fiber board was fiber board, you wouldn't be advising him to use a thinner version of
02:56:31 advising him to use a thinner version of the same material. My point is it's therefore likely that you you would have told him to use cement particle board like Kingspan had done. Um I wouldn't advise him to make it thinner seeing as it's just failed on a
02:56:44 thinner seeing as it's just failed on a thinner product. Can we see what Mr. Ripper said in his oral evidence at transcript day 70 page 73 please?
02:57:05 And uh if we can get to line two. Uh you can see
02:57:10 can see uh
02:57:20 uh I think that's the wrong reference. I'm afraid page 73 line two is not what I want to show you. Um
02:57:36 perhaps I can come back to that after after the break. Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the time. It's probably a convenient moment. Anyway, I was going to say, would you like to take a break now? That's what I think. That might be sensible. You can check
02:57:47 That might be sensible. You can check the reference over the adjournment. Yes.
02:57:51 Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Right. Okay. Um All right, Mr. Clark, we're going to have a break now so we can all get some lunch. We'll come back, please, at 2:00.
02:58:02 please, at 2:00. Okay.
02:58:02 Okay. And uh no talking to anyone about your evidence, please, uh over the break. All right.
02:58:08 right. No, I won't. Thank you very much. Very good. See you at 2 o'clock then. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Two o'clock, please.
02:58:14 please. Thank you.