Evidence from Phil Clark of BRE regarding the February 2014 Celotex BS 8414 fire test that was terminated early, test data provision, and discussions around re-testing.
00:00:11 welcome back everyone we're now able to continue taking evidence from mr clark mr clark are you there and can you hear me and see me i can hear you and see you say yes i can
00:00:22 i can hear you and see you say yes i can good thank you very much are you ready to carry on i am a day jesus good thank you very much well then mr miller when you're ready
00:00:28 ready thank you very much mr chairman mr clark i was going to show you and i would like to show you the transcript of day 71 please page 73.
00:00:57 uh and at line two on that page you can see
00:01:01 see uh the question and answers the question is me and the answer is coming from mr ropa this is his evidence question at line two when you say he joked that celetex could use a six millimeter cement particle
00:01:13 use a six millimeter cement particle board
00:01:13 board i'm just trying to understand why you thought what he was saying was a joke was it because actually you knew you all knew that the use of six millimeter cement particle board that kingspan had used was a joke
00:01:25 that kingspan had used was a joke answer unrealistic yes question unrealistic well i don't want to call it a phrase perhaps but a cheat question answer um manipulation of the test details yeah it's i express those views to phil
00:01:38 it's i express those views to phil question you went in any doubt were you about phil clark's attitude to the reliability of the kingspan test using cement particleboard answer no now do you agree looking at that
00:01:50 now do you agree looking at that evidence of mr ropa to the inquiry that you did suggest following a kingspan example as a joke for the reasons that mr roper says he understood it um no was the suggestion of
00:02:02 um no was the suggestion of incorporating six millimeter cement particle
00:02:05 particle board or any cement particle board or particle board a joke um not in no i would say no
00:02:21 and then you say you uh don't remember this are you saying you diff you definitely didn't say this or are you saying you don't recall it one way or the other it's very unlikely that i would have
00:02:35 it's very unlikely that i would have ever joked about another um client's work in that way it's it's not what i do it's not right so i would i would totally say i didn't say
00:02:46 would i would totally say i didn't say that
00:02:47 that right and i think this is just an individual potential feather in their nests to support an argument they had
00:02:58 feathering their nests to support an argument what do you mean um saying that so-and-so said this so therefore he must have known or whatever it's like um it's not what i do i don't joke like
00:03:10 it's not what i do i don't joke like that about other people's clients confidential information i understand that i understand that you're trying your best to assist us with your recollection but i don't think it's necessary for you to comment
00:03:21 think it's necessary for you to comment on
00:03:22 on the evidence okay that's fine that is mr raper's evidence and i think i i i take it from what you're saying is that you don't agree with his recollection no
00:03:33 don't agree with his recollection no and that you deny to you that you said what he says you said yes now can i then turn to the report for the february 2014 test and i'd like to start a page 100 at page
00:03:46 and i'd like to start a page 100 at page 35 of your statement page paragraph 145 paragraph 145 on page 35 and you say there in answer
00:03:59 and you say there in answer to the to a question at q7a um is it correct that no report was produced if not please identify the relevant report or reports if it is correct please explain why no
00:04:10 if it is correct please explain why no report was produced and yours you say as far as i recall no formal report was issued following this test it was not unusual for the test sponsor to be asked
00:04:21 unusual for the test sponsor to be asked if they wanted a formal report or not and it is my understanding that in this case no formal report was requested was requested now you say it's not unusual or wasn't unusual for test sponsors to
00:04:33 or wasn't unusual for test sponsors to be asked
00:04:34 be asked if they wanted to report did you actually ask celetex
00:04:40 um i think i possibly did but i can't remember in which way or whether it was done by somebody else i can't remember asking them directly if we go to page 47
00:04:52 asking them directly if we go to page 47 of your statement please let's look together at paragraph 196
00:05:04 the question you're answering there question 8m is did you or any other representative of the bre write to celetex in respect of this test and or provide to seller takes any test data
00:05:14 data and at paragraph 196 you say i cannot recall whether this test data and or any related information was provided to celetex following this test having reviewed the test files and the
00:05:26 having reviewed the test files and the documents disclosed by bre to the inquiry
00:05:29 inquiry i do not believe i have seen any evidence that any such information was given to celetex now let's just look at some of the contemporaneous documents together can we go to
00:05:40 together can we go to cel 50842 please can i just point something out before you move in the previous um paragraph i think in the paragraph below there was something where i do say
00:05:52 where i do say that some data was sent
00:05:56 in was it paragraph 147 i think
00:06:04 well let's have a look at that
00:06:11 um i understand that the data test data and photographs oh no sorry that's mine you want me to look at paragraph 147 do you 146 sorry
00:06:22 you 146 sorry i thought
00:06:25 oh yes it says about a secured pdf being sent
00:06:30 sent yes um
00:06:33 are you able where you're sitting to manipulate the screen because i was on i was on page 100 and i was on paragraph 196 and i was wondering how you could no i'm not touching anything
00:06:44 no i'm not touching anything have you got a photographic memory of your statement no i just saw mister something there i just saw it as you were talking what did you say it says i believe that mr howard considered this request so
00:06:56 mr howard considered this request so um although no formal report was requested i believe the test sponsor celetex did request a copy of the data recorded during the test i believe that mr howard considered the requests
00:07:07 mr howard considered the requests and that ultimately a data was released in the form of a secure pdf document
00:07:17 i'm asking you is he about paragraph 196 yes so how could you remember to go back to 140
00:07:26 to 140 i just noticed that that is there and it's in context with what you are just about to ask me i think so sorry i put you off your train i wasn't sure how you were about to ask me that um i i
00:07:38 me that um i i i'm looking at paragraph 196 and was about to show you a document and then you said look at look at paragraph 146 do you remember whether it was paragraph
00:07:50 do you remember whether it was paragraph 146 or any other number that you wanted to go to
00:07:54 to go to it was 146 sorry this one
00:08:03 we were looking at 145 and it's possible that mr clark did what i did which was to read ahead into paragraph 146
00:08:12 146 while you were speaking and therefore it was fresh in his mind lisa i i had no difficulty remembering that that's exactly what i did abstract yes well i was seeking to just explore the witness uh what he did do but carry on
00:08:25 uh what he did do but carry on i'll put you off your train um cel 50842
00:08:35 this is an email sent by mr roper to dr patel and mr cooper of ifc on the 17th of february 2014
00:08:44 2014 in which he says please find attached preliminary data of our test on friday
00:08:51 and we can see the attachment to that it's that cel 50843 and that's the document he attaches
00:09:01 you can just see that please
00:09:06 this is the thermocouple data for the february test isn't it um it is a version of it but that is an unprocessed raw
00:09:18 an unprocessed raw set of data unapproved and not issued by the bre
00:09:26 uh not issued by the bre no it was it was something we would have print he could have printed to take away with him for his own reference but
00:09:38 with him for his own reference but um it's because of the the system it all of the graphs would be broken down into their component parts and they would be titled and headed
00:09:49 and headed and the project number and all of that will be put on there so this isn't data that has been produced officially through bre channels
00:10:01 officially through bre channels let's just take another stages my question was is this the thermocouple data from the february test um well let me ask you what is it it is the
00:10:15 whole data set from what i would say is an 8414 test but because it's not labeled as to who the
00:10:26 the sponsor is um i could not say if it was from that test or not right um well this is the document that mr roper attached to his email to
00:10:38 that mr roper attached to his email to dr patel and mr cooper of ifc on the 17th of february in the email i've just shown you okay uh did you send this
00:10:49 okay uh did you send this document to mr robert no he would have probably been given that on the day by whom i me that looks like that's my
00:11:00 by whom i me that looks like that's my writing
00:11:01 writing that was another question i had that's you're right i see uh
00:11:08 and what point would you have given him this document on the day um it was customary to um
00:11:20 it was customary to um once everything had settled down we would process the data just to give them a
00:11:24 a a very vague understanding of how things had
00:11:28 had panned out in terms of what was going on but it would be caveated that it isn't official and it was subject to
00:11:40 isn't official and it was subject to change
00:11:42 change for an example is if you look at the um orange and blue and purple without actually sitting and looking at the data how do i know where those
00:11:53 the data how do i know where those channels are it's very without having the spreadsheet in front of me there's nothing to say that
00:11:58 that test has passed or failed you say it would be caveated that it isn't official can you just show me where it says that
00:12:06 says that um no verbally so talk us through what happened then was there a conversation you had with mr roper during which you gave him this document
00:12:16 document yes um it started a long time ago so even at the period where dr sarah caldwell was um in charge of the testing and would be
00:12:27 um in charge of the testing and would be client facing more than i was um that we would print the data in its raw form on the day and we would
00:12:38 in its raw form on the day and we would show that to the client um and it would be
00:12:43 be we would say to them look this is this is what we've we've got you need to understand that this is raw data it's subject to change um it's
00:12:54 it's subject to change um it's we need to check that every level um is in the right place and we would from that we would do something like the order of six or seven thermocouple data plots for each level
00:13:08 data plots for each level um and then the fact that they've sent it
00:13:12 it on is not what they're supposed to do
00:13:19 when you told or when you gave this document to mr roper what did you say um as i said
00:13:30 what did you say um as i said this is this is the data from today's test this is an indication only this is for your records only and it's not official so they shouldn't
00:13:41 and it's not official so they shouldn't have been sending it out and to use that as an argument to an external
00:13:48 external um consultancy which i think is ifc from karina patel um is is not what the data is
00:13:54 is there for uh
00:13:59 did you keep a record of the fact that you'd given this document to mr rocker uh no no a review of the test files uh would not reveal
00:14:10 reveal the fact that you had done is that right no no
00:14:13 no no that'd be a plot very similar to that but um there was literally a piece of paper printed off from the raw data
00:14:25 when you did your witness statement can you tell us why you didn't refer to this document
00:14:31 document and the circumstances in which mr robert had come by it because i wasn't aware he had taken it away with him
00:14:41 they normally don't take the client doesn't normally take it away with him it wasn't
00:14:46 it wasn't i don't think it was given him to take away maybe he picked up at the end of the meeting i wasn't aware and didn't remember it was given to him well you're not showing this document uh
00:14:57 well you're not showing this document uh when you were preparing your witness statement
00:14:59 statement no i haven't seen that before
00:15:04 uh is it right then that this when you gave mr raper this document on the day and caveat isn't the way you say you did that was a as you i think explained a normal part of bre practice
00:15:17 normal part of bre practice yes it was yes yes would you ever follow up
00:15:21 up with clients such as celetex just to recall the fact that you've given them this raw data um we didn't generally give them the paperwork i'm surprised he took it away
00:15:33 paperwork i'm surprised he took it away with him
00:15:34 with him maybe he maybe he took it because his he needed to report back to his management i think so maybe we would said to him right here's a copy you can take
00:15:45 right here's a copy you can take with the usual caveats um and he would have been able to use that to
00:15:52 to prove to his his hierarchy of what happened
00:15:56 happened um that's the only purpose he would have had that for it was never and should never have been given to ifc in that regard you never provided him with any clear
00:16:07 you never provided him with any clear terms of confidentiality or any rules about what you couldn't couldn't do with the document did you um it's in the terms that they sign up
00:16:18 um it's in the terms that they sign up to i think in the bre terms and additions i think such a long time ago i couldn't remember if it says that but ultimately it's their data but the problem he has there
00:16:32 but the problem he has there is as i say if somebody showed me that you showed it to me now the only reason i would believe you that is the seller text test is because you told me that's what the data is coming from there's nothing on that data
00:16:45 coming from there's nothing on that data to show me when it was taken who it was taken for what the test was what the anything at all in there it could be
00:16:54 could be any random data from any 8414 test so if ifc have relied on that as a data set then i think a bit foolish to be honest
00:17:06 to be honest well did you tell mr roper when you handed him this document that he had to keep it strictly within celetex
00:17:14 celetex and not consult anybody outside celetex on what it meant um yes i would have done yes would have done but did you um i can't recall
00:17:25 um i can't recall exactly giving him that information but that was generally the gist of what we would say um now let's get back to the document please cel 50843
00:17:36 please cel 50843 this is uh
00:17:42 this is the document we were looking at and at the top of the page you can see some manuscript i think you said that was yours
00:17:47 was yours all right here's to be my writing yes right what does it signify so um as you're looking at it so number one to five is the
00:17:59 so number one to five is the so it's a plan view of the test facility and the numbering refers to the numbering of the thermocouple channels so if you see um
00:18:11 so if you see um where it says level one ext1 so number one is on the wing sorry the main wall
00:18:18 main wall furthest to the left and number eight is on the wing wall so it's the channel numbering
00:18:26 right
00:18:35 now if we go back to mr roper's email of the 17th of february 2014 at cel50842
00:18:48 please i just want to continue with what he says there in the second paragraph do you see he says i've spoken to phil this morning but he sees no reason why a classification report cannot be issued
00:18:59 classification report cannot be issued as it is in his opinion that extending the test to the full duration of 30 minutes
00:19:04 minutes rather than stopping at 25 mins would have made
00:19:07 have made little difference and as shown attached we meet the performance criteria of br135
00:19:12 br135 and not exceeding 600 degrees within the first 15 mins depending on how phil's peers at the bre received this it may be useful if we could set aside a date in the diary in which you could dial in to discuss
00:19:23 in which you could dial in to discuss your view from the test
00:19:27 do you recall speaking to mr roper on the morning of the 17th of february 2014
00:19:36 um the answer to questions i do not recall
00:19:41 recall no um and that is definitely something i would never say
00:19:48 say um because you cannot extend the duration of a test that you have stopped at 25 minutes that's a physical and not physically possibly that it doesn't work like that this is something
00:20:00 doesn't work like that this is something he's made up himself are you saying that mr roper invented the content of the conversation that he's recorded in this paragraph i've just read to you uh yes really
00:20:14 uh yes really yes you can't carry on a test that has been stopped it's been stopped it doesn't doesn't work like that let's just break it down he says i've spoken to phil this morning
00:20:26 spoken to phil this morning and he sees no reason why a classification report cannot be issued i'm just pausing that did you tell him that no so yeah and you're definite about that are you
00:20:36 are you definite yes without a doubt you're saying
00:20:40 saying he has concocted that uh statement attributed to you yes right and he goes on the test was stopped
00:20:51 stopped you don't carry on
00:20:54 once the test has stopped it stopped well let's go on to see what he says as it is in his opinion that extending the test to the full duration of 30 minutes
00:21:04 minutes rather than stopping at 25 minutes would have made little difference he's pausing that did you tell him that um no because i'd
00:21:15 um no because i'd never we never had this conversation so by definition i couldn't have told him that no
00:21:21 that no you're saying he's concocted that is that right yes next part of the sentence um and are shown attached we meet the performance criteria of br135 and not
00:21:33 performance criteria of br135 and not exceeding 600 group degrees within the first 15 minutes again did you say that no and again do you say that mr reporter has concocted that uh yes because br135 isn't just
00:21:46 uh yes because br135 isn't just temperature it's got other criteria that you have to meet
00:21:51 meet yes but uh the one of the criteria in br135
00:21:56 br135 is that it shouldn't exceed 600 degrees within the first 15 minutes yeah but it doesn't say we have met one of the criteria of the r135
00:22:06 the r135 well of course as you know mr roper is was
00:22:09 was not an expert as you were and he is passing on to those who are the gist of what he says you told him yes are you prepared to give him the
00:22:22 yes are you prepared to give him the benefit at least of that doubt um um
00:22:27 um um sorry could you repeat your last question given the benefits of sorry he's not an expert he's passing on the gist of what you as an expert told him to those he has retained as experts are you not prepared to give him
00:22:39 experts are you not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that at least that's how he understood it um i would if the conversation had taken place
00:22:47 place but the conversation never took place it was not my remit to discuss whether or not something had passed or met the criteria of br 135
00:23:00 or met the criteria of br 135 and my
00:23:03 and my clear definition would be no the test stopped at 30 minutes you didn't even meet the first at 25 minutes so you didn't even meet the first
00:23:13 first criteria which you require to undertake the test
00:23:17 the test and bs8414 part two i think at that point stated that you had to in order to um undertake a classification of the r135
00:23:29 undertake a classification of the r135 you had to test the system for an hour if it was still burning
00:23:36 burning so you couldn't even extend it to 30 minutes so he's he's totally made that up right when was the first time you saw this email
00:23:44 email uh just now um of course this email i was put to mr roper in his evidence in early november uh and therefore was put into the public
00:23:55 and therefore was put into the public domain uh
00:23:57 domain uh and attributes to your conversation you've had three months in which to uh tell the inquiry that you not only don't recall this but regard what he is saying in this email
00:24:08 what he is saying in this email as a pack of lies can you explain why this is the first time we're hearing that from you um because nobody has brought you to my intention until now
00:24:22 are you not following mr rapper's evidence
00:24:26 evidence um not all the time no no i've got a day job to do
00:24:30 job to do i saw some of it but i didn't want to see every single part of it no
00:24:39 this email was not i think i think referred to in your statement was it no because i until today i've not seen it no that's why yes yes i see and and had i
00:24:50 yes yes i see and and had i had i seen it i would have expelled exactly what i've said to you just now it's um it's it's not correct here we go um
00:25:03 5808
00:25:10 this is an email you sent to stephen howard on the 19th of february 2014 so just two days after the email of the 17th of february
00:25:21 17th of february we've seen from mr raper and you see that
00:25:25 that you say there and this is internal uh can you um you've attached at the data and you say steve attached is the data for the celetex test for you to look at
00:25:36 for the celetex test for you to look at i've also included a still of the system at the time the crib was extinguished with the
00:25:40 with the complete panel superimposed to show where the flames are in comparison to the panels and panel joints see that yes
00:25:54 now the ex the attachments i'm not sure we need to go to them but for people want to there are bre four zeros five
00:26:01 five eight zero nine that's the full test data and
00:26:05 data and bre four zero five eight one zero is the photograph i don't think it's necessary to go to that do you remember attaching the full test data and a photograph i do yes and that would have been
00:26:18 i do yes and that would have been fully processed data not the raw form what was the point of your sending this data to mr howard um i think he
00:26:30 um i think he had asked me how it performed um in in a conversation and i said i'd forward in forward him on the test data and
00:26:42 forward him on the test data and my basis for terminating
00:26:48 given the early termination why was there any need for him to see the data um because ultimately although the termination's there
00:26:59 there some on occasions he would want to understand what had gone on um and ultimately because the decision to issue a br135 or not
00:27:11 the decision to issue a br135 or not fell with him he would need to see the data as well and because he obviously wasn't there he would need some explanation as to why he would then subsequently say
00:27:22 as to why he would then subsequently say we can't issue all vr135 for this that rather tells us that at least at this time you were contemplating having or starting to have a conversation internally at the re
00:27:35 a conversation internally at the re about whether or not the february 2014 celetex test could be the subject of a br135 classification um every test has that conversation it's
00:27:47 um every test has that conversation it's not not unique to kingspan that's very celetex at all it's um it's part of the process of what the test is therefore yes so just because the test had to be
00:27:58 just because the test had to be terminated didn't mean it was full stop did it
00:28:01 did it um not in terms of because because it's not my decision to make whether the 135 is issued or not um that was mr howard's decision so he
00:28:13 um that was mr howard's decision so he has to have that information for enabled to enable him to make that right haven't yet been made uh on the 17th of february when you had the conversation when mr
00:28:24 when you had the conversation when mr roper says you've had the conversation with him
00:28:27 with him no that that decision was hadn't been made by that point at all so it's possible that you could have had a conversation with mr roper about the fact that no decision had yet been made about whether to classify uh or to produce a bo135 criteria report
00:28:42 uh or to produce a bo135 criteria report um
00:28:45 um a conversation could have been had i don't recall having a conversation and had he asked me i would cut well it's it's not my place to say but i would
00:28:55 would i would precaution the fact that it would ever get a classification for the fact it didn't even meet two of the minimum criteria 30 minutes was the purpose of your email
00:29:10 30 minutes was the purpose of your email uh to set up a discussion with mr howard to consider whether any reliance could be placed on the test
00:29:17 um
00:29:21 i think he i think he must have asked something along the lines of how did it perform
00:29:27 perform um because he'd been speaking to john roper in the early stages and obviously he had a um an interest and that was the easiest way to um
00:29:39 and that was the easiest way to um show how the system had performed by giving them the data and what i classed as the decision to terminate the test
00:29:50 i'm sorry i'll impress you on my question again please uh was the purpose of your email to set up a discussion with mr howard to consider whether any reliance could be placed on the test on the test data
00:30:02 be placed on the test on the test data uh when you say reliance how do you mean by reliance anything could be done with it um no not not to be done with it it was
00:30:13 no not not to be done with it it was just to show that the test had failed and and that's his is the only basis he has
00:30:19 has other than being there and watching or watching the video back you say at the end of the email i'm happy to come to you i'm happy to come to you
00:30:30 i'm happy to come to you to discuss uh do you remember whether there was a discussion with mr howard about this test data um i can't recall now
00:30:42 just to be clear when you sent him the data for the celetex test for him to look at
00:30:47 look at just just tell us in simple terms what precisely the purpose of him looking at it was
00:30:54 it was um because he could see
00:30:59 the how the system had performed in terms of whether it passed or failed um there was a remark about whether in
00:31:10 um there was a remark about whether in fact it had passed or failed uh that could only be answered by him looking at the data um no because the test has failed by the fact it hasn't
00:31:21 has failed by the fact it hasn't actually been undertaken for the full duration yes so when your last answer and you said and asked my question how the system had performed in terms of whether it passed or failed
00:31:33 or failed was that the question that mr howard had to answer based on the data uh ultimately yes because that decision comes from him my decision is to terminate the test my decision isn't to
00:31:44 decision isn't to determine whether or not the system had failed yes and if it was the decision uh of mr howard
00:31:51 howard to decide whether or not the test had uh passed or failed at the time that mr roger sent his email on the 17th that decision had not yet been made had it uh no i hadn't no and it was a question
00:32:04 uh no i hadn't no and it was a question that needed to be answered wasn't it um yes it was yes without a doubt therefore isn't it entirely possible that you could you would have communicated at least that fact to him namely
00:32:13 namely the fact that it had been terminated did not preclude uh the possibility that it had passed um
00:32:24 no it can't pass if it can't pass why is mr howard deciding whether it had cast or failed so ultimately the decision
00:32:37 to terminate the test came from me mr the way it worked at bra is that mr howard would communicate to the client directly that the
00:32:48 to the client directly that the system had part had passed or failed and in this
00:32:52 in this instance he would have and should have phoned up mr roper and said the test had been terminated at 25 minutes so therefore it didn't meet the first criteria
00:33:04 first criteria that you continued the test for the full duration so it would it's failed on that i've looked at the data
00:33:11 data and if any of the channels were outside the required um thresholds then he would have said and also these thermocouples have
00:33:23 and also these thermocouples have breached the requirement and therefore it wouldn't have passed on that basis and but he wouldn't be able to make that decision having not seen the data to ask him just to make a
00:33:33 to make a phone call off the bat without any information would be unfair on him you don't in this email say to stephen howard uh well here's the
00:33:44 say to stephen howard uh well here's the data
00:33:44 data but i terminated the test at 25 minutes so
00:33:47 so it's going to be a fail why didn't you given that assistance or directions that's not my decision to make we don't see you actually referring to the fact that you terminated the test
00:33:59 the fact that you terminated the test at 25 minutes at all in this email i may have already had the conversation with him
00:34:03 him he may have come down earlier just because
00:34:08 because we did talk to each other just because it might be a may have been a continuation of a conversation that was had earlier in the day he may have come down to the hall and said can you pass for me on the data so i can
00:34:20 can you pass for me on the data so i can have a look um and it it wasn't a an email correspondence in that regard saying oh this has passed i'll send you the data in that regard we may have discussed it
00:34:32 in that regard we may have discussed it face to face earlier in the day if you discussed it earlier in the day and told them you terminated the test why didn't your email just say please write to the client to tell them that it's a fail because the test was
00:34:43 it's a fail because the test was terminated early because that's not my decision to make but it's his decision to make based on what you're providing with him
00:34:52 on the position i am he's a senior member of staff it's not my job to tell him what he should and shouldn't say we will
00:35:03 we will it's right isn't it that in the end of course no classification report was issued for the february test was it that's
00:35:09 that's correct yes and can you remember how and when you confirmed to mr roper that the test had failed
00:35:18 um [Music]
00:35:21 [Music] no is there an email or any kind of communication between you and him about it not from me you know i think if any like
00:35:33 not from me you know i think if any like i said earlier i think any decision would have come from stephen howard
00:35:38 let's turn to the may 2014 test then and i'd like to examine with you discussions before the test in your statement
00:35:46 statement at paragraph 200 at the bottom of page 48
00:35:49 48 we could just go to that please
00:36:02 you say
00:36:07 and i i should just read you the question
00:36:11 question before i show you what you say in response it's question ap that that uh is as follows as far as you are aware what discussions and or correspondence between the bre
00:36:22 and or correspondence between the bre and the celetex followed the test on 14th february 2014 what was the nature of any such communication please identify all relevant individuals by name
00:36:31 name and give full details of the nature and content of any meetings calls or correspondence please describe your own part in any such discussions and then you say following the test on 14th february 2014
00:36:42 following the test on 14th february 2014 i believe i had discussions with mr raper about undertaking a further test with a changed outer decorative layer my question at this point is do you mean immediately after the test
00:36:53 immediately after the test when you say following the test
00:36:56 not immediately after the test probably several days a week or so after that not not the next day no um we haven't seen any
00:37:07 no um we haven't seen any uh documented discussion did they take place by telephone um potentially yes i i can't recall to be honest right
00:37:21 i can't recall to be honest right how are you how well do you recall the fact that it wasn't immediately after the test that as you say
00:37:30 people say later because my understanding was that the test was undertaken in may so this is february march of
00:37:40 march of may so it was quite a while before um and
00:37:43 and uh at that point they hadn't even decided if they were going to retest i don't think did you in fact further conversations with mr roger sorry can you say that again i'm so
00:37:54 sorry can you say that again i'm so sorry did you did you in fact have further conversations with mr rocker after the 14th of february test
00:38:01 test um i must have done him somewhere or another because they then commissioned a second test
00:38:09 let's look at bre four zeros five four three two please
00:38:22 this is an email uh from you to mr roper on the 28th of february 2014. property to stephen howard and you say uh hi john with reference to our conversation
00:38:33 conversation it is possible that we could make a wall our wall two available for early to mid april 2014 and suggested there may be a cost implication which from memory may be around two and
00:38:44 which from memory may be around two and a half thousand pounds 2.5 k if you think this may be of interest please let me know and i will confirm costs
00:38:50 costs and time scales
00:38:54 you recall that conversation um i don't recall exactly what was said on the conversation but um i think what happened was they initially my understanding was that
00:39:08 they initially my understanding was that they were only planning on doing one test
00:39:12 test and they then came back saying that they wanted to do a second test and this is what
00:39:18 what two weeks later um but we only had a wall which was um already blocked up for a part one test
00:39:29 for a part one test and the 2 500 pounds is to have that removed
00:39:33 removed so they can get on that wall quicker
00:39:38 without any delay uh did mr raper explain to you that celetex were keen to re-test quickly
00:39:49 celetex were keen to re-test quickly um i can't remember in those terms but from the fact that they could have been my assumption yes
00:39:58 they were happy weren't they in the end to pay the extra costs to enable that test to happen in april uh they did pay the cost chess yes and uh if we go to cel 50869
00:40:12 and uh if we go to cel 50869 we will see a signed copy of a quotation
00:40:22 and here it is 14th of march 2014 this is the bre's quotation to celetex jonathan ropa
00:40:33 and it says dear jonathan with reference to your discussion with phil clark we are pleased to offer our services to carry out the work described in this letter
00:40:42 letter including all costs for labour materials expenses but excluding vat scope of works conversion of psa for one for part one test frame to bs 84144 part two configuration costs
00:40:53 to bs 84144 part two configuration costs two and a half thousand pounds plus excluding vat we'll begin the work on receipt of your acceptance of this offer uh did you see this document at the time um
00:41:05 i didn't might have even written it myself but don't know who was it signed by
00:41:09 by well if you go to page two it's signed by stephen howard um then probably no now be aware that uh celetex had accepted
00:41:20 be aware that uh celetex had accepted the cost implications of the scheduling of its test um i would have been because it would have been my role to then work
00:41:31 it would have been my role to then work with the
00:41:31 with the contractors to get the system with the wall removed so i would aware yes and so is it right one of the cost implications would have been the adaptation of one of the rigs by removing the block work
00:41:43 removing the block work to enable an sfs system to be used that is correct yes yes let's look at bre 40 3532 please moving on to the story
00:41:55 this is an email from mr roper on the 24th of march 2014.
00:42:07 stephen howard subject quotation and there are attachments and it attaches the signed quotation we've just been looking at and in fact what we've looked at does actually carry this to
00:42:18 this to roper's signature on page three i didn't show you that but it it does and now this was sent to stephen howe but you can see that he says this steve find attached sign quotation for conversion of one of our rigs to
00:42:29 conversion of one of our rigs to accommodate bs 84142 testing could you please ask phil clark to give me a call to discuss testing or fall on his direct line
00:42:39 line do you remember having a conversation with mr roper about this time as this email
00:42:44 email asks for um
00:42:50 not no i don't you don't
00:42:56 you don't deny that you had a conversation i don't deny i don't don't remember
00:43:01 remember if it would be if he had it would have been potentially on how long would it take to get the rig out and when can our guys start potentially no more than that let's look at mr rocker's statement
00:43:15 ceo3010052 at page 13.
00:43:21 and i'd like to look at paragraph 5.31 with you please
00:43:34 and mr roper says following our internal discussions i saw some advice from ifc and the bre i spoke to phil about thickening the
00:43:45 i spoke to phil about thickening the cladding panel to 12 millimeters i believe we also spoke about the option of strengthening the fire barrier level with a two-panel solution because it appeared from the february test that the cladding panel had cracked and
00:43:57 that the cladding panel had cracked and fallen away which enabled the fire to jump around the fire barrier at level two
00:44:01 two i do not think that phil suggested anything specific in this regard do you agree with mr roca's recollection as he states it there um
00:44:14 no you don't agree with it do you agree let's take it in stages well let me ask you which part do you not agree with um that he had the discussion about
00:44:28 um that he had the discussion about thickening the panel after the test um and the two panel option
00:44:41 i cracked some foreign engines um basically all of it right now again is this that you can't
00:44:52 right now again is this that you can't recall
00:44:53 recall or do you positively deny ever having had such a conversation um i don't think i ever had such a conversation
00:45:05 think i ever had such a conversation you don't think you did can you say the best of my recollection i have never had a conversation along the lines you suggested there
00:45:20 did mr roper mention to you the idea of using a layer of magnesium oxide to you at the level two thermocouples
00:45:31 to you at the level two thermocouples not that i'm aware of no no no no we haven't had we had didn't have a conversation along those lines no are you ruling that out and saying you deny it or is it that you can't yes i
00:45:43 deny it or is it that you can't yes i deny yes yes right
00:46:00 so let me say that we're absolutely clear
00:46:03 clear it's your evidence to the inquiry is it that
00:46:07 that the evidence in paragraph 531 of mr roper's statement as we see here that is not accord with your recollection uh indeed just so that's correct are you
00:46:18 uh indeed just so that's correct are you saying
00:46:20 saying that he's lying when he says this um i would say he was lying yes i i can cannot recall of having that conversation yes i i just want to be very clear about
00:46:32 yes i i just want to be very clear about this because it may be important uh there's a difference as we've established between having absolutely no recollection of something and positively positively denying that it happened are you simply saying you have no
00:46:44 are you simply saying you have no recollection of this conversation in those two respects in particular or are you positively saying that they never happened it never happened
00:46:55 happened i would i would say it never happened i'd go
00:46:58 i'd go yeah it's like yeah i would say it never happened
00:47:03 happened now let's look at your witness statement and moving on a bit i want to ask you about delivery notes at page 70 of your statement
00:47:14 at page 70 of your statement paragraph 289
00:47:22 uh you say and i'll show you which where the
00:47:25 the paragraph starts and then i'll get back to the question you're answering you say i recall that most of the materials in particular the rs 5000 were the same for both tests as no additional materials were delivered between the two
00:47:36 materials were delivered between the two tests
00:47:37 tests this excludes the rain screen board for which a new supply was obtained it is my understanding that there were supply issues with rain screen board a delivery note from the f from fgf would be
00:47:49 i think that's the um 21st of april 2014 details the items supplied uh if we just go back to the question the question is that question 10r so that
00:48:02 is that question 10r so that got that clear in your mind we just scroll up a little bit to that above paragraph 287 we'll see the question there
00:48:10 there in what way as far as you understood it the tested system on second of may 2014 differ from that tested on 14th february 2014
00:48:17 2014 how are any such differences recorded when and by whom uh now having shown you what you've said there uh
00:48:24 there uh you you say uh
00:48:28 that there are no additional materials delivered between the two tests apart from the rain screen cladding board let's look at some and contemporaneous documents now at cel 401982 please
00:48:47 this is an email second email down from you to john roper on the 31st of march 2014
00:48:58 march 2014 and you say hi john i hope you're well uh and you then say uh i understand you've tried to contact me regards a start date for the install of your
00:49:09 a start date for the install of your next system i'm happy to say we are okay at this end uh are happy for things to proceed as planned the wall has been removed and the area will be ready for your arrival
00:49:20 will be ready for your arrival i put you on our wall one which has the wing on the left hand side please could you let me know about when you are expecting any deliveries and i will arrange for the safe storage of the items i will also need the rams etc present so
00:49:31 i will also need the rams etc present so they are current for the new install
00:49:35 and then if you go over the page it just finishes by saying if you need further info about the test wall
00:49:45 wall please let me know and he responds in the top email on page 1982 on this on the 10th of march and says
00:49:57 on this on the 10th of march and says i'm well thank you i'm in the process of arranging deliveries for the latter part of this week early next week the guys from simcoe will be arriving monday morning with the steel frame etc i will arrange for a scissor lift to arrive friday this week i'll send the
00:50:08 arrive friday this week i'll send the rams etc over today now he refers that as you could see simcoe bringing the steel frame with them
00:50:15 them that wasn't delivered but turned up prior to the test with the contractors assembling that rig is that right um i i don't recall if that's what he said
00:50:27 i i don't recall if that's what he said then probably yes my understanding was that they reused a lot of the stuff from the previous war
00:50:36 right let's go to bre
00:50:41 three zeros three two three seven two
00:50:54 three zeros three two three seven two this is a manuscript document which appears to be a set of delivery notes in respect to both the february and the may tests and i wonder if you could help me
00:51:05 tests and i wonder if you could help me with this and if we go to page one up on the screen recognize this document
00:51:12 document that appears to be a hundred notes by one of my colleagues saying where the thermocouples was spaced out yes who's that colleague um i think that's
00:51:23 who's that colleague um i think that's tom my colleague tom lennon's writing then you have to ask him before and if we go to page two we can see a delivery note for samples
00:51:34 we can see a delivery note for samples you see that um yes that's from siderise yes that's right that's a sample of one pallet three boxes uh and you could
00:51:45 one pallet three boxes uh and you could see the date it was picked up fourth of april 2014. yes now presumably these were being delivered
00:51:54 delivered for the second test clearly um it appears that is the case yes
00:52:02 page three if we go to that
00:52:09 you know if you could have that expanded i think this is the delivery note from fgf that you refer to in your statement isn't it
00:52:15 isn't it it is yes and that is my signature those are the cladding panels yes uh yes and uh as you say you can see the delivery date in the middle of the page
00:52:26 middle of the page under delivered 14th of april 2014. that is correct yes
00:52:34 and then skipping forward very slightly can we go to page six please
00:52:42 this is a uh delivery note on celitex paper which
00:52:53 paper which shows two packs i think 24 sheets you can see 24 pieces of our of it looks like um looks like fr
00:53:04 of our of it looks like um looks like fr 5 000 in fact exactly 5001. fr 5 100 fr 5 100 yes and uh and if you go
00:53:17 uh and if you go down the page
00:53:22 that's sorry i should stick on that page for the moment uh if that state that's delivered on the 7th of april 2014 isn't it um yes and that appears to be my signature as well yes and just above description you can
00:53:34 yes and just above description you can see um there are special instructions you see that uh yes and that says uh two packs 24 sheets fr 5 100 and 24 sheets 12 and a half
00:53:47 fr 5 100 and 24 sheets 12 and a half millimeter naf wall board please send best quality boards as these are for testing and again
00:53:53 again that's your signature isn't it yes yes
00:53:59 and again clearly from the date this is for the may test not for that yes i agree yes
00:54:09 then do you accept that it isn't right to say that no deliveries were made except for the new planning panels um yes that is an incorrect statement in my
00:54:18 my thing um these this is the first time i've seen
00:54:23 i've seen this and the um what was the previous ones i think the only one i can recall seeing is the fgf one that's a page
00:54:35 a page three which is one you refer to in your statement
00:54:38 statement let's see that again yes we call that one delivery notes when you were preparing your statement so we say again we weren't showing these other delivery notes when you were
00:54:50 other delivery notes when you were preparing your statement no i wasn't no uh
00:54:57 it's right i think isn't it that the only
00:55:00 only thing any object not accounted for between mr roper's email and these delivery notes is the magnesium oxide that was used uh yes yes and let's just look at
00:55:13 uh yes yes and let's just look at there's a delivery note for the magnesium oxide board i thought
00:55:18 from it came from um
00:55:22 i think it's referenced in in my statement we're going to look at that but
00:55:25 but that's fine okay correct um ceo four zero is one nine eight five
00:55:38 uh can i just actually before you move on what i would say is the the fgf and the one i think you're about to show
00:55:46 to show i did actually request if there were any other delivery notes from bre and that's all they issued me so i don't know where those other delivery notes came from and they as you say they weren't issued to me
00:55:58 say they weren't issued to me well they came from bre's disclosure so far as i know so okay they didn't come to me well there it is um
00:56:07 um ceo401985
00:56:09 ceo401985 this is a quote quotation from uh euro form products dated the 31st of march 2014
00:56:20 march 2014 and uh the delivery addresses celetex in ipswich
00:56:25 ipswich and invoice the same and you can see what
00:56:28 what is identified there is the quantity and the product underneath that
00:56:37 and you can see there is 15 boards versaliner 12 times 1200 millimeters times 24 100 millimeters uh and then
00:56:49 100 millimeters uh and then another barcelona underneath that and then
00:56:53 then a third entry versus sila 252 white you see that i do indeed yes yes this is an invoice isn't it this is
00:57:07 this is an invoice isn't it this is cash invoice yes did i if i called it a quotation that's that's my mistake
00:57:13 that's correct it's an invoice uh and it shows doesn't it six millimeters and 12 millimeters of magnesium oxide because that is what the versaliner product is it does yes that's correct now we can
00:57:25 it does yes that's correct now we can see the delivery address is celetex um let's um look at cel401981 next please note the date of the
00:57:40 next please note the date of the document i'll just show you as i said was the 31st of march this is an email from john roper uh to wayne smith at sig uh on this on the 31st of march
00:57:53 on this on the 31st of march are sig the company who supplied the barcelona is that correct well i i'm saying that you might be able to help help me all right okay that's sig yeah sig
00:58:04 all right okay that's sig yeah sig search sharepoint insurance yes um uh wayne has discussed can you please arrange and send over an invoice 15 versa guard 12 millimeter boards and
00:58:15 15 versa guard 12 millimeter boards and six versa guard six millimeter boards for delivery to bre on for monday 7th of april now we've seen the the cash invoice
00:58:26 now we've seen the the cash invoice which says the delivery address would be ipswich
00:58:31 but in fact the request as we've seen here
00:58:34 here from this email was for delivery to the bre
00:58:37 bre on the 7th of april uh now both mr roper and mr hayes told the inquiry that
00:58:48 told the inquiry that these goods the versa guard 12 millimeter boards and six millimeter boards were delivered uh and they assumed signed for to the bre
00:58:59 bre that's uh mr roper's evidence of day 91 uh sorry maybe it should be 91 page 78 at lines 10 to 15
00:59:10 91 page 78 at lines 10 to 15 and mr hayes day 94 page 143-144 uh turning back to the delivery notes
00:59:22 uh turning back to the delivery notes then
00:59:23 then can we just look at those at bre three zeros three two three seven two page five
00:59:52 uh this is the only delivery note for magnesium oxide i i can see the celatex one steps there
01:00:05 there yes but that's the that's dated january 2014 so that that looks like it was for the february test yes yes but we've we've seen from what i've just shown you the euro
01:00:17 from what i've just shown you the euro form invoice uh that new material including six millimeter boards was ordered by celetex my first question on this then is do you accept
01:00:28 on this then is do you accept looking at the documents we've got so far is that it isn't the case um that the may test was done on a rig comprised solely of
01:00:39 was done on a rig comprised solely of materials left over from the february test um yes you're correct that was my understanding at the time of writing that that was my recollection but now i've seen these delivery notes then
01:00:52 now i've seen these delivery notes then you're correct yes
01:00:55 can you explain how the delivery of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide material isn't on your fire um well i can't actually see the sig
01:01:06 um well i can't actually see the sig uniform delivery note no i'll show you well i showed you the quote the invoice it's in my um witness pack
01:01:18 it's in my um witness pack the evidence that i've issued
01:01:22 it's a green form signed by my colleague tom lennon surprisingly so it's the inquiry has it but but interestingly
01:01:33 interestingly from my recollection on the delivery notes it doesn't show the six magnesium oxide board my recollection is there was only two items on there
01:01:42 on there for 12 mil and the s the liner paint or whatever is the ceiling paint
01:01:51 i i haven't seen an invoice sorry a delivery note which shows six million six millimeter magnesium oxide board so what i'm saying is that the delivery
01:02:02 so what i'm saying is that the delivery delivery note i don't think reflects the invoice that they had i'm not sure what document you're referring to i think is my problem because
01:02:13 because i've we've not seen a green form signed with the six millimeters of magnesium oxide in april 2014 signed for by the bre
01:02:23 bre with a 12 mil a 12 ml only yes that's right
01:02:27 right certainly yes yes what i'm after really is the document that shows that the the six millimeter magnesium oxide was delivered into the bre uh in april 2014. so my knowledge it
01:02:38 uh in april 2014. so my knowledge it never was
01:02:39 never was i could never i can't recall it being delivered right so can you explain therefore how the delivery of the six millimeters material which was clearly ordered from
01:02:50 material which was clearly ordered from euro form
01:02:51 euro form uh by mr ropa is not documented in your file
01:03:00 um it could have been that the contractor accepted it um it wasn't unusual for a driver to turn up um and say
01:03:11 a driver to turn up um and say is this so and so i've got a delivery for celetex and the driver the installer would take it off
01:03:19 it off um particularly if it was only six boards they wouldn't necessarily need a forklift fork truck um but
01:03:28 um but i cannot recall it ever being delivered to the hall um and
01:03:36 um and if it had it would be it should have been on that delivery note that the that we signed for by my colleague tom lennon i don't know why it's not the only version we've got let's go back to page five
01:03:49 we've got let's go back to page five then
01:03:49 then of bre
01:03:53 bre3032372 we have got a delivery note on a green form
01:04:00 form uh well then if that's the green form you're talking about but that that is the only
01:04:04 the only um magnesium oxide uh we have delivery load for magnesium oxide that we have plasterboard
01:04:14 are you looking you may be looking at something different to me but the one in front of me says 12 millimeter plasterboard no you're quite right page four is what i'm after um i'm you're absolutely right correct me i'm looking
01:04:26 me i'm looking page four before that's the jack that's january
01:04:30 january what we don't have uh is a delivery note for any six millimeter magnesium oxide into the bre uh in april in accordance with mr
01:04:41 uh in april in accordance with mr broker's request that it be delivered there
01:04:44 there yes i'm just trying to understand why that is
01:04:47 that is um i can't account for that no idea
01:04:53 i think from what you were telling us just before we got distracted back onto the document uh was uh that it was possible for drivers to deliver small amounts of boards
01:05:01 boards into the bre facility um at the request of a client right is that right
01:05:08 right um that is right yes yes was there no system in place for ensuring that every single
01:05:14 single piece of material that crossed the bre's threshold
01:05:17 threshold destined for a test was documented um the
01:05:24 um the the problem was that we had security guards on the main gate and because of the um proximity of the burn hall they would basically say
01:05:35 basically say it needs to go over there and point towards the hall so we would get materials turning up and as you can see the delivery notes sometimes were signed by other people so it may have
01:05:47 signed by other people so it may have been signed by somebody else and then the delivery note would have been put
01:05:52 been put with the boards in the hall so um if it wasn't collected by one of us it may have got lost right so i think your answer to my question is
01:06:03 your answer to my question is uh no there was no system in place for ensuring that every single piece of material
01:06:08 material across the bre's threshold destined for a test was documented um if it went through the goods in system then it should have been yes
01:06:19 then it should have been yes if it came directly to the burn hall then
01:06:22 then i would say no so there was say in other words the system that you had in place uh was not good enough to make sure that every single material destined for a test would be accounted for in documentary form
01:06:33 accounted for in documentary form that is correct yeah the the security guards would circumvent the system sometimes and and people being people they would oblige
01:06:40 oblige um as opposed to annoying that the lorry driver and would offload it yes
01:06:47 yes so does that mean it was possible for a test sponsor to sneak a piece of kit uh past the bre and get it onto the rig without the bre knowing
01:06:57 knowing um yes yes we we weren't there all the time um some of these systems could take a week a week and a half i've had one that took almost three weeks to complete
01:07:10 that took almost three weeks to complete we weren't there 24 7 we didn't have a security guard on the door um so yes you're right they couldn't
01:07:17 couldn't so does that mean that when you conducted a test you weren't always absolutely sure what the precise makeup and composition of the rig you were testing was um
01:07:29 of the rig you were testing was um i wouldn't say necessarily no but that if you've got somebody who's going out of the way to deceive then there was a possibility they could do that
01:07:38 that if that was their intention right but but you issued and we'll come to these later on but you issue classification reports and test reports um which stated uh without qualification
01:07:51 um which stated uh without qualification uh uh what the makeup of the test rig was in each case yes uh yes yes did you not have a system of making sure that when you wrote those test data
01:08:01 test data reports and classification reports you verified you were able to verify the precise makeup of the rig by some sort of check system against
01:08:13 by some sort of check system against the materials that have been delivered to the bre and put up on the rig um yeah that would be in in part of the process of taking photographs of the
01:08:25 photographs of the materials that were there and to my mind i can can't recall them ever saying oh by the way you've got a
01:08:36 ever saying oh by the way you've got a six mil magnesium oxide board that you need to be aware of um so no i understand that but i mean my question is they made us may not have said it um
01:08:48 said it um but you clearly didn't have a system or verifying precisely what it was on each occasion
01:08:54 occasion that you were testing because um
01:08:59 because it was possible for clients to sneak material past the guards to get it onto the rig without you knowing um yes i think the reliance very much was on the honesty of the client yeah you're
01:09:10 on the honesty of the client yeah you're correct
01:09:11 correct not to do that yes
01:09:15 and ultimately and as it says is that the client is relying is it's to the client to prepare the test rig we're not there to police
01:09:26 police necessarily every nth degree of what they're doing there there's a large element of trust in everything we do
01:09:37 element of trust in everything we do can you explain then why it was that mr roper he was setting out to sneak the six millimeter magnesium oxide past the bre without them noticing euro form to deliver it to the
01:09:49 noticing euro form to deliver it to the bre
01:09:52 um [Music]
01:09:56 no no no um i i as i said i i can't i wasn't there all the time um i can't recall the delivery and
01:10:07 um i can't recall the delivery and i think at that point in time there were other people working in the halls um so it could have been signed by anybody from vre staff um
01:10:19 so yes i can't account for that no
01:10:24 now i want to turn to the your involvement in the may 2014 mr chairman um i'm sure this isn't becoming a habit but um
01:10:34 but um it's a it's a long topic that i won't finish before the afternoon break so this is as good a moment as any all right well you put it very persuasively uh mr millet uh we'll take a break
01:10:45 a break early um what's it not it's just it's after 3 10. should we say until 3 30 that's about right isn't it um right mr clark we'll have our
01:10:57 um right mr clark we'll have our afternoon break early we'll have it now we'll come back half past three please
01:11:03 no talking about your evidence over the break
01:11:06 break all right thank you very much thank you very much
01:29:33 welcome back everyone we can continue taking evidence from mr clark mr clark you are there are you you can see me and hear me i'm here say yes i can see you and hear you
01:29:44 here say yes i can see you and hear you thank you very much and and you're ready to carry on i hope indeed i am yes good thank you yes mr millet when you're ready mr chairman thank you very much mr clark hello again i i just want to make a correction
01:29:55 make a correction uh of a reference in the in the transcript if i may page 134 of the rolling transcript line 25 i refer to mr roper's evidence at day
01:30:05 at day 91 uh it was day 71 and the same mr hayes i referred to day 94 uh whereas in fact it was uh 74 uh of course day 94 was yesterday um now
01:30:18 uh of course day 94 was yesterday um now i want to um go on please uh to your involvement in the may 2014 test itself um can i ask you please
01:30:29 test itself um can i ask you please first to go to page 62 of your witness statement to look at page look at paragraph 256
01:30:51 uh now this is an answer to the question at q10a who had overall sight of this test
01:30:57 test and your evidence is it is my recollection that i had oversight of this particular test and that at the time i was working under the overall direction of stephen howard of bre were you the project officer
01:31:09 of bre were you the project officer or the officer in charge of the may 2014 test
01:31:13 test um both both and as such it's right isn't it i think from your earlier evidence that you would have been responsible for ensuring uh that the standard operating procedures were followed
01:31:24 procedures were followed ah yes that's correct can we look at the uh pro forma standard operating procedure document this is a bre-405773 at page three
01:31:43 now it's it's a page three the document you can see is entitled cladding test data file and report preparations sheet uh and uh did i think this dates from may 2013
01:31:55 did i think this dates from may 2013 isn't it i think that's correct yes yeah we can see that from page two of the um of the uh email chain uh immediately um above it i mean we can
01:32:07 uh immediately um above it i mean we can see that from the bottom of the previous page
01:32:10 page uh as an email from you to tony baker 15th of may 2013. yes yes yes um now and the checklist if we go to page three
01:32:21 we go to page three uh includes you can you see uh receiving client specifications that's the second item downstairs yes uh and also uh if you look a little bit lower down
01:32:32 lower down the list there four items down undertaken component check and obtain samples yes uh yes yes is there any reason to think that this checklist would not have been
01:32:43 that this checklist would not have been completed for the may 2014 test um in reality i don't think we signed and every single sheet it was
01:32:54 sheet it was initially it was put forward as a protocol to follow but we didn't necessarily sign and date every sheet um as we went it was
01:33:05 a document to follow now you see we can't find a completed uh test data file and report and report preparation sheets such as this in your disclosure for the
01:33:18 such as this in your disclosure for the may 2014 test am i right that there actually wasn't one yeah uis right would that be normal or would that be abnormal um that would be normal what was the
01:33:31 um that would be normal what was the point of having a detailed standard operating procedure documents such as this introduced only a year before which you didn't use um it was proposed
01:33:46 um it was proposed at the time that we were trying to sort of improve the way things were done and i'm looking to try and do things a little bit more electronically and i pulled together these sheets i
01:33:58 and i pulled together these sheets i think
01:33:59 think if i recall correctly in order to aid that
01:34:02 that um and they were they were essentially more of an a memoir than a a sheet that we would follow right um did you use this
01:34:14 right um did you use this as an aid memoir on this occasion um not
01:34:21 um not by directly printing it out no said no did you undertake a component check
01:34:31 on that test i think i possibly did yes how did you go about that um [Music]
01:34:40 [Music] this is it's one of the things that's been
01:34:44 been playing on my mind in terms of their photographic evidence of all of the component parts um one of the things that's
01:34:57 um one of the things that's worried me as to i i can't recall seeing the
01:35:00 the um the
01:35:04 um the insulation and the final decorative rain street screen go on and i think that probably happened while i was on my first aid course so that would have and should have been
01:35:15 so that would have and should have been done by whoever was deputizing for me when i was out of the office who was that um i can't recall but i think it would have been um stephen
01:35:28 think it would have been um stephen howard
01:35:29 howard now we know from celetex that no updated drawings were prepared in advance of the may test
01:35:36 may test so what specifications were you working from when
01:35:40 from when uh building the rig um i wasn't building the rig when simcoe for building rig right what uh specifications were being
01:35:53 right what uh specifications were being worked on then my understanding was they were using the same
01:35:59 same drawings that were issued for the um the february 14 test but it can't have been the same because
01:36:07 because as you knew a different system was being tested
01:36:10 tested um yes if you i think there's an email that comes further on which you may ask which um they reissued the new drawings
01:36:21 um they reissued the new drawings after the test i'm going to come to that my question is did you see any updated or revised drawings ahead of the may test no no
01:36:33 ahead of the may test no no did it not frankly strange that you hadn't
01:36:36 hadn't no because to all intensive persons they were repeating the same test why would they be repeating the same test as the first oh sorry not not repeating the same test the only difference was the um the changed outer
01:36:48 difference was the um the changed outer sheet
01:36:51 did you see any drawings which reflected exact revision um i can't recall i didn't know no they would have been and they should have been issued
01:37:02 have been issued to simcoe so simcoe it was usual that the contractor would turn up without with their own drawings to construct the rig and the
01:37:14 drawings to construct the rig and the person who constructed the first rig was the same person who constructed the second rig mr clark looking at the sap the standard operating procedure the second item i showed you on the list
01:37:26 the second item i showed you on the list was receive client system specifications yes would it therefore be surprising to you
01:37:34 you even though that document wasn't followed to the letter would it not have been surprising to you not to have received the client system specifications for the may test
01:37:44 may test given that it was different from the february test um not always i think i've said in one of my other paragraphs that it wasn't unusual
01:37:54 unusual for a client to issue drawings after the test
01:37:58 test had taken place so it wasn't unusual no right did you ever see any revised drawings
01:38:06 drawings which applied to the may test after the may test
01:38:11 may test um not directly after i think there's an email from paul evans which attaches some updated drawings we'll come to those yes yes um
01:38:23 we'll come to those yes yes um at any rate you accepted you didn't see any updated or revised drawings for the mate test before the may test um i may have done i am aware there are
01:38:35 um i may have done i am aware there are about
01:38:35 about um four versions or five versions of the test drawings so there may have been a package in there but i haven't seen them in preparation from this statement so
01:38:47 statement so i can't confirm well we we know for a fact that no updated drawings were prepared in advance of the main test that that that that is clear from the evidence we've seen so far
01:38:58 evidence we've seen so far so would you take it from me that you couldn't have seen any updated revised tests drawing i think i think that was my understanding yes and my question is did that not strike
01:39:09 and my question is did that not strike you as surprising that you had not been provided before the test with revised drawings um no because we were already in um we already had a set of drawings from
01:39:21 we already had a set of drawings from the previous test mr clark were going around in circles that doesn't make any sense because the previous test wasn't going to be the same system as tested the new system was different
01:39:33 tested the new system was different but given that the new system was different given that your sap required that you received client system specifications did it not strike you surprising that you never received any updated drawings from your client before the test
01:39:45 client before the test no why is that because to my understanding was it was an exact repeat except for the change of one item
01:39:58 repeat except for the change of one item which was the external range screen board
01:40:02 board and everything else was exactly the same why would that excuse not providing an updated drawing even if just to show that change detail so that you had a record um
01:40:17 because the construct the the drawings were issued to the contractor putting the system together
01:40:28 together um and it just wasn't unusual for us not to to get the final drawings ahead of the tests it was it wasn't unusual
01:40:39 unusual so mr minutes forgive me of interrupting mr clark just help me with this wasn't it essential for the bre to know exactly the composition of the system being tested
01:40:50 composition of the system being tested um yes we did sir other than that there was my understanding was there was only one change to be made well that's what you expected
01:41:01 to be made well that's what you expected but what you needed am i am i not right in thinking that one thing that you needed to know was the actual composition of the system that was put into the test
01:41:13 was put into the test um we did yes but we didn't we didn't need that on the day of the test right so my next question is how did you determine definitively
01:41:24 is how did you determine definitively that the rain screen cladding on this test
01:41:27 test was what you had been led to believe it would be
01:41:32 would be [Music]
01:41:34 [Music] i understand your question and and the answer is
01:41:38 answer is um from checking the delivery notes and and checking and measuring on site um so yeah i understand where you're coming from but it wasn't common practice to insisted to have them
01:41:51 common practice to insisted to have them at the beginning maybe it should have been but it wasn't so when did you uh when did you obtain this
01:41:59 this information in on a definitive basis um i think they were issued just before the second draft of the test report
01:42:13 second draft of the test report i think there's an email which pertains to that right based on what examination of the uh test rig after the fire no they so they're issued by the client so
01:42:24 by the client so um they came from um celetex via simcoe or simcoe via celitex you're not talking about the drawings drawing yes just so that's correct all right yes all right thank you mr miller
01:42:36 right yes all right thank you mr miller yes mr chairman um that's drawings we're going to come back to the drawings and we will certainly look at those july emails later the photographs were photographs of each component layer
01:42:47 photographs of each component layer taken
01:42:47 taken as this list requires and i say this list it's gone from the screen the report preparation sheet however grass taken
01:42:57 as far as i was aware yes they were yes
01:43:02 so as far as you were aware have you i've seen a package of photographs that show them yes i think they're in my witness statement this is the photographs you are
01:43:13 this is the photographs you are referring to yes yes uh and uh what about samples um yeah the list says undertake component check and obtain
01:43:25 component check and obtain samples did the bre receive any samples ahead of the may test so that i think i think that list refers to does it refer to lps as well
01:43:37 refers to does it refer to lps as well 1582 from there so if it does that is a requirement for that
01:43:44 that certification that there's no requirement for 8414 to take samples so the answer is no we didn't take samples
01:43:56 answer is no we didn't take samples right um can we go to page 65 of your statement please a paragraph 267
01:44:07 statement please a paragraph 267 uh you say in 267 uh and this is an answer to the following question at 10 h what if any checks were carried out by the bre during the installation of the test tree or thereafter but prior to
01:44:18 the test tree or thereafter but prior to the start of the test who is responsible for carrying out any such checks and your answer is the test file indicates that the checks carried out by bre involved identifying and
01:44:29 bre involved identifying and photographing the components and the structure as it was installed having reviewed the test file it would appear that photographs were only taken prior to the external decorative arrangement being applied
01:44:41 arrangement being applied i do not know the reason for this i believe it may i may have been away possibly on a first aid course during the strip down in particular now we looked at that evidence uh this morning when you were correcting it about the timing of the first aid course
01:44:56 when you say that you checked the test file
01:45:00 file having reviewed the test file uh were you provided with access to the full file mr clark um i was given access to the printed copy um
01:45:14 printed copy um as much as possible yes the paper copy which i think had been scanned in by bre right
01:45:25 if you go to the next paragraph in your statement 268
01:45:35 i'll come back to 267 in a moment you say in terms of how these checks were carried out it would be usual for me to ask
01:45:42 me to ask the test sponsor or contractor to identify all of the component parts to describe where in the system they were used once all of the components were identified i would photograph them either individually or with the box in
01:45:53 either individually or with the box in which they were supplied if details of the item were printed on the box for example if it was not possible to get a scale for the item it was usual for the item to be photographed with a ruler to enable the size of the
01:46:04 with a ruler to enable the size of the item to be confirmed wherever possible the item would also be photographed once it had been installed onto the system there was a standard set of operating procedures which de-sell the items to be recorded
01:46:14 recorded then you say pages four two four four three one are an example of this process additional photographs of the components would also be printed off and put onto the project file is the project file the same as the test file
01:46:26 test file yes it is and can you just help me um if you had access as you say to the full test file when uh preparing your statement why do you uh
01:46:40 preparing your statement why do you uh in why in this paragraph do you describe what would normally occur instead of simply providing the evidence of what checks were actually carried out as the test file shows
01:46:52 as the test file shows um it was the question what tests
01:46:59 um maybe i've misinterpreted the the question maybe i sh as you say maybe
01:47:06 maybe have answered it directly um
01:47:14 yes sorry karen well did you understand my question i did yes yes yes
01:47:21 yes i think i've been too general there yes you're right i should have answered what was checked what was what was checked well um
01:47:30 so what we've got here is not a description of what was in the test file but what you say the normal practice would have shown had the normal practice been followed i've probably been to a general now yes
01:47:42 i've probably been to a general now yes why why didn't you just explain what checks
01:47:46 checks the test file showed in answer to the question can you uh can you show me the answer again well i just read it out at length play the whole of paragraph 268 um no no that's it that's fine no i
01:47:57 um no no that's it that's fine no i think
01:47:59 think maybe uh your writer was being too generalized there um maybe i've mis-answered the question yes but why it's a simple question what checks were carried out during the installation of the test rig
01:48:10 installation of the test rig you had the test front view as you said you chose to answer it in this would have way why um i can't explain why no it's just at the
01:48:22 i can't explain why no it's just at the time of writing it seemed the way the right way to answer it
01:48:29 from the test file can you say that each of the things you say you would have expected to find in paragraph 268
01:48:38 268 you did find in the test file um yes as far as in the way yes yeah apart from the fact i couldn't explain why there was no photographs of the external screen going
01:48:49 photographs of the external screen going up that's the only thing i can't explain but everything else is there as far as i'm all there you see you say in the third line of 268 once all of the components were identified i would photograph them either individually or with the box
01:49:03 and then where possible the item would also be photographed once it had been installed on the system now the test file that you reviewed presumably did not show the photographs or have on it the
01:49:14 the photographs or have on it the photographs of each of the components on the rig
01:49:18 the rig um i think it does you think it does i think it does yes yes did it follow that there are photographs in the test file that show uh the presence of the six millimeters
01:49:29 the presence of the six millimeters magnesium oxide layer at the um thermocouple this is the the thing that's been wrecking my brain and and that's why i mentioned it in there
01:49:40 mentioned it in there is because i can't account for that um and having and the evidence you read in this morning with the fact that i was actually out of the office
01:49:51 the office for two of the days when the construction was going ahead um it's appears to me that those photographs weren't taken by who whoever was deputizing for me um
01:50:03 who whoever was deputizing for me um and that's why they're not there are you speculating about this or is it something you've actually investigated and got to the bottom of in terms of who should have taken them and didn't
01:50:14 should have taken them and didn't in terms of why there are no photographs on the test file of the magnesium oxide layer um yes there are two of them there are not of the magnesium oxide layer but there
01:50:25 of the magnesium oxide layer but there are of the overall test rig i think so they would have been taken the day of the test once it had been fully instrumented so there
01:50:37 there are so but i know i can't i'm i'm not yeah i'm speculating that that's probably what happened um i can't account for it because um
01:50:48 um i can't account for it because um i don't think i was in the office when that layer was put up now going back to paragraph 267 you say in the second sentence just go back to
01:50:59 in the second sentence just go back to that please uh you say the second sentence having reviewed the test file it would appear that photographs were only taken prior to the external decorative arrangement being applied i do not know
01:51:10 arrangement being applied i do not know the reason for this um i believe i may have been away well you may have been away mr clark but did you not investigate the reason for this you mean before as i wrote this um
01:51:24 you mean before as i wrote this um well let me let's take it in stages when did you first become aware that uh the photographs on the file were only taken before the external decorative arrangement had been applied
01:51:35 arrangement had been applied um when i was issued the test file as well part of the submission
01:51:43 as part of the submission for you to do your witness statement yes that's correct
01:51:47 correct you noticed it then i did did you not at that stage uh ask
01:51:55 anybody at the bre or your uh your solicitors to investigate the reason why the photographs on the file were only those taken before the external decorative arrangement had been
01:52:07 external decorative arrangement had been applied
01:52:09 applied um no i didn't i don't think that would be a question they would ever be able to ask
01:52:14 ask answer right i suppose the question could have been to bre could you
01:52:20 could you search the system and see if there are any
01:52:23 any um but to be honest i don't know
01:52:27 whether they would have been able to identify them particularly did you not look at the test file after the test
01:52:36 the test um
01:52:39 yes i would have done yes when was the first time that you looked at the test file after the test um it would have been when i did the first draft of the test report i think in late
01:52:52 of the test report i think in late june yes did you not notice at that stage that the photographs in the test file were only those taken before the external decorative
01:53:03 before the external decorative arrangement had been applied um i don't specifically recall that the the thing is they're not they're not
01:53:14 thing is they're not they're not relevant
01:53:15 relevant necessarily for the um final report because we always take the outer layer so my concern was that there
01:53:26 outer layer so my concern was that there was nothing showing it going up in stages um what you need to remember is that we what we would say to the client is we would ask them to
01:53:38 would ask them to um put
01:53:41 um put each individual layer in and then they would call us when that component was finished so say for example if they put in the metals frame up they would take a picture of that when they put the
01:53:52 when they put the the board at the back we put that on and then when they put the insulation on we take a picture of that so i would have expected whoever was deputizing for me while i was out to take some photographs of the outer screen
01:54:06 some photographs of the outer screen going on
01:54:07 going on but the fact that we've taken them on the day of the test sort of gave us the information we need um but we should have had a few more i
01:54:18 um but we should have had a few more i think
01:54:19 think but i think from the last answer you've given us is that you would expect there to be is this right you'd expect there to be on the test file photographs showing
01:54:26 showing the application of each of the component elements
01:54:29 elements layer by layer of the test room that should be yes yes and when you first review the test file in l in
01:54:37 in l in late june 2014 after the um up to the test late may after the test
01:54:43 test did you not notice um that such photographs were missing from the test file
01:54:48 file um it doesn't come to mind that i did know
01:54:53 know how carefully did you review the test file at that stage um
01:54:59 well enough to draft the report but um right yes not well enough to notice that the photographs that you would normally expect to be there were not there um
01:55:12 i i did but i can't recall what the action was i may have pointed out i can't call right let's look at the photographs uh well let's look at what i'm going to ask you with the photographs bre 3030675 please
01:55:37 uh now uh are these the photographs that you're referring to in your statement um that appears to be yes that is a
01:55:49 um that appears to be yes that is a set of photographs yes so that one there particularly would have been taken possibly on the day before the test
01:56:05 so that would have been an indication as to where the thermocouples were put yes
01:56:11 well you say that if we look down we can see in fact there are if you go to page four
01:56:23 there are if you go to page four there are some photographs um but the thermocouples uh level two thermocouples and the top of the rig uh were as yet
01:56:35 and the top of the rig uh were as yet uncovered weren't they um they go in after the system is completed
01:56:41 completed uh yes uh and the magnesium oxide that we know was later there was not yet on the rig at that stage no so that's the
01:56:49 the what we would call the sheathing board layer going in there
01:56:54 so yes now in your statement at page 69
01:57:09 uh i'm going to take this quite quickly i just want to show you paragraphs 284 and 285 on page 69. um again in answering the question what informational documents were made available to you
01:57:20 available to you and tony baker in in 284 you say what would have been on the test file as opposed to saying what was on the test file
01:57:29 file or what was available to you yes uh yes yes
01:57:38 well you say each test or project would have a test file each project would have an accompanying electronic project file etcetera etcetera which and you explain what would be on that file that included state data safety
01:57:50 file that included state data safety safety data sheets and risk assessments etc etc
01:57:53 etc etc files would have included items as shown in and you give examples and then at paragraph
01:58:04 285 you say that that would have been available to mr baker again you haven't answered the question uh what was available to you you've asked the question what would have been available to you and again why did you do that
01:58:15 do that i think that's the difference between was and would that's just the way i wrote it um it should have been
01:58:22 have been if i if if i rewrote it again i would have
01:58:25 have probably said that as you say the project
01:58:29 project file was available well just help me with this did you understand the question what information what were maple documents were made available to you
01:58:42 were made available to you that's asking you what you had yes uh yes yes why did you answer it what you would have had as opposed actually to investigating what you in fact did have
01:58:55 investigating what you in fact did have um
01:58:55 um [Music]
01:58:59 i think probably at the time i was being too general again um it's just the way i wrote the sentences
01:59:07 sentences yeah maybe i missed slightly misinterpreted how i should have written the question how could you misinterpret again it's the same point how could you misinterpret a very simple question
01:59:16 question what was available to you um well i think that that sentence makes it clear it was that's what was available should have said was as supposed to would have been
01:59:28 well uh
01:59:32 are you saying this is just misdrafting or or are you actually saying that this is actually evidence of what you would have expected to find but not what not evidence of what you actually did find in an investigation that you undertook in order to answer
01:59:43 that you undertook in order to answer the question no no that's what i did find a surprising way that's why the references to the pages i think is there none of those items that you refer to
01:59:55 none of those items that you refer to actually relate to the may test today sorry say again none of the items you refer to at pages one eight five eight one five eight two five eight three two five nine six and page two fifty two two six one actually relate to the may
02:00:07 two six one actually relate to the may 2014 test at all so they're not um i'd be surprised if they don't
02:00:14 right uh well let's look um can we go to uh uh well i i'm wrong i think in relation to 581 and 582 but the rest of the documents don't let
02:00:25 but the rest of the documents don't let me see if i can put this to you can we go to bre
02:00:28 go to bre four zeros five seven six nine page five eight three
02:00:34 so the first two do five bit one and five eight two do relate to the may test but five 583-596 let's have a look at that
02:00:45 this is a uh is this the document you were referring to there um that is a site safety induction form yes yes it's dated the 28th if you look
02:00:56 yes yes it's dated the 28th if you look uh
02:00:56 uh it's dated the 28th of january 2014 isn't it
02:01:00 isn't it um yes and do you agree with me that this is the contractor straight client management sheet health and safety method statement powered access license and health and safety product data sheet
02:01:11 safety product data sheet for mali attorney panels and celetex insulation for the february test um it appears to be yes but we wouldn't necessarily always re-induct somebody if
02:01:23 necessarily always re-induct somebody if they'd already been in the hall we don't have the same for the may test do we um
02:01:30 i'm not certain no but as i say it was
02:01:35 it was common practice so if if a contractor hadn't only just come to site they would have this induction if they then came back to site they
02:01:46 if they then came back to site they wouldn't necessarily have to have a no because it was a short period of time and the difference between january and may was long enough not to them require
02:01:57 may was long enough not to them require them to have it let's look at bre four zeros five seven six nine pages 250 to debate just to 250 to 62 absolutely sorry 250 to 261.
02:02:10 to 261. uh and you refer to these as well now these are photographs again just take a moment to look at them they are all photographs for the february test aren't they
02:02:21 february test aren't they um
02:02:22 um [Music]
02:02:26 they
02:02:29 yes looking at where the wing wall is they appear to be yes exactly that's not the main test um
02:02:40 they appear not to be if the if the wing wall is on your right hand side don't appear to be the incorrect one yes and what about the photographs of the may test we've got those and we'll come to them but you didn't refer to those
02:02:52 to them but you didn't refer to those when you were answering the question what information was available to you my question is did you not look at those photographs when answering this question at this part of your statement um
02:03:04 i thought i had yes
02:03:10 well you haven't we can go back to paragraph
02:03:14 paragraph 284 and 285 of your statement on page 69.
02:03:22 i think these page numbers were put in by um
02:03:27 by um the re's first set of lawyers so i don't know
02:03:31 know but i did check but maybe i just hadn't noticed they didn't refer to the right test
02:03:35 test right okay would it not have been simpler just to take them a test file whatever it was and just state the contents of it
02:03:46 contents of it it would have been yes i agree yes yes it's my interpretation of how i answered the question obviously i've been a bit too vague there i admit that yes
02:03:58 there i admit that yes now i want to look with you about your awareness of magnesium oxide now in general
02:04:11 now in general was it correct as i have a meredith told the inquiry he was from kingspan this is day 75 page 50 at lines eight to fourteen
02:04:21 fourteen would was it correct that the bre would normally go through the build up with a fine tooth comb and make sure that it was the same as the plans
02:04:32 um depends how you define a fine tooth comb
02:04:36 comb i wouldn't say we would measure every single gap or every single um not not every every single nth degree you know we would get a general overview
02:04:48 you know we would get a general overview of what was being built but the fine tooth comb is probably a bit too
02:04:55 bit too over the top i per se well it's a question of the degree mr meredith's evidence was that you had control over the burn hall and there were people reporting to you running around with
02:05:06 reporting to you running around with clipboards checking this kind of thing is how you put it would you agree um [Music]
02:05:13 [Music] no not particularly no i wasn't in charge of anybody i had no staff well whoever was in charge of whom would you agree that the staff in charge of the burn hall uh
02:05:23 hall uh supervising a test would would go through the build-up with a degree of precision
02:05:31 precision to make sure that they knew exactly what it was that was being tested um yeah that's that is there's a degree of truth in there but i wouldn't say fine tooth comb is is the right word to
02:05:42 fine tooth comb is is the right word to use all right
02:05:45 can you explain how you as you say missed the presence of a layer of magnesium oxide at the second level thermocouples and at
02:05:56 at the second level thermocouples and at the top of the rig um no i can't and this is what has been playing in my mind for a long time um
02:06:08 in my mind for a long time um the so in terms of the way things were done is we would to a certain extent we relied on the client delivering what they had said they were
02:06:20 delivering what they had said they were going to deliver
02:06:23 one of the things
02:06:29 when it was brought to my attention that i was there it was how did it get there um and this is why i
02:06:37 is why i then reviewed to sort of see where my what my movements were as that layer that was going on um so i would have returned to
02:06:50 so i would have returned to the burn hall the day before the test and would be running around instrumenting and all that sort of thing and to this day i still can't think why i missed it no i can't i can't
02:07:02 think why i missed it no i can't i can't account for that at all
02:07:07 one possibility mr clark is that you didn't miss it and what mr hayes and mr roper have told the inquiry on earth is correct and that you knew it was there i didn't
02:07:18 and that you knew it was there i didn't know it was there no no to you that you did um i refuse that no let's look at the photographs bre 3030681
02:07:39 this is a collection of photos and we'll see that they're labeled at the bottom of the page with a manuscript number
02:07:50 of the page with a manuscript number pn295369
02:07:52 pn295369 and that's the report number isn't it for the may 2014 test yes um but that isn't my writing i didn't ask you that well i think it's relevant but
02:08:04 relevant but well okay why is it well tell us whose it
02:08:07 it um i
02:08:11 um i don't recall who that is i don't recognize it why'd you say it's relevant um because when um if i printed these sheets off
02:08:22 if i printed these sheets off i would put the label on like that i would then put page one of put the page numbers and then i would sign it with my just put my signature on it
02:08:36 just put my signature on it can you confirm that these are indeed photographs of the may 2014 test they yes i would say they are looking at the coloring you say looking coloring to be clear is
02:08:47 you say looking coloring to be clear is that because we can see the distinctive mixed cladding colours indeed yes that's correct yes yes do you know who took these photographs um i don't because
02:08:58 um i don't because um other people did have access to the av um
02:09:05 the av um equipment and all the ipad that we were using
02:09:11 now do you know where these were filed or kept um
02:09:20 they should have been on the test file but um i i've not seen these i can't
02:09:27 can't can't recall well they should have been on the test file i think we could certainly agree with that i mean electronically sorry on the on the bre electronic system right but you'd say they worked
02:09:40 right but you'd say they worked um i haven't seen them since i've been requested to give evidence no did you see them when you wrote the first draft of your report no this is today is the first time i've seen them can you account
02:09:53 seen them can you account well can you explain where they were filed or where they were kept or at least why they weren't on the test fire um
02:10:04 no um one of the things you need to be aware of
02:10:07 aware of is that um post the fire at the tower um all of the systems at both paper and electronic were locked
02:10:20 both paper and electronic were locked down
02:10:21 down um at bre so i had no access to any files on any of the systems so anything i was given i was reliant on
02:10:32 so anything i was given i was reliant on vra to provide me
02:10:35 i i think
02:10:38 we understand from the bre that these photographs formed part of the test file but given what you said in your statement of paragraph 267 uh
02:10:50 of paragraph 267 uh namely that the only photographs you saw were those taken prior to the external cladding being applied do we take it that these were not on the version of the test file you saw i think
02:11:01 version of the test file you saw i think that's correct yes yes
02:11:05 so just to be clear today is the first time you've ever seen these photographs yes really can i ask you to look at the top right hand picture
02:11:17 uh that's a close-up of an edge we might be able to blow it up a little bit better without destroying the visibility of the
02:11:28 without destroying the visibility of the image hey top right sorry top right yes that's i think as as well as we're going to do um you could see a white board behind the orange cladding panel
02:11:40 orange cladding panel can't you um no not from where i'm looking no
02:11:48 unless we're looking at different pictures i'm looking at page one top right hand corner just where the blue line is coming down yes yes uh
02:11:59 yes yes uh but let me try that let me try a different one let me try the left hand side then
02:12:03 side then if you look at the top left hand uh photograph oh i can there yes definitely yes you can see there clearly a white board behind the orange cladding panel
02:12:14 board behind the orange cladding panel which is not present behind the cladding panel
02:12:16 panel below it yes uh yes now we know from mr roper that that was the six millimeter magnesium oxide layer he said that at
02:12:27 magnesium oxide layer he said that at day 71 at page one three nine line six to fourteen yes can you explain how you failed to notice that there was that uh layer
02:12:38 that there was that uh layer apparently undisclosed behind the orange panel
02:12:41 panel um for context that is something in the order of um six meters off the ground seven meters off the ground
02:12:52 off the ground um that is taken i would look to see has been taken from the access platform from the sizzle if
02:13:03 the access platform from the sizzle if the
02:13:03 the um that was used to access so i would say that's been taken from at height in close proximity and had i i'd if i didn't have a reason
02:13:14 and had i i'd if i didn't have a reason to go up there i wouldn't have gone up there
02:13:16 there and i don't think i would have had a reason to go there because the test was being instrumented by other people
02:13:23 people it would have taken a little time wouldn't it for the magnesium oxide layer to be applied in two layers across this rig first layer the level two thermocouple and the second layer at the top of the
02:13:34 and the second layer at the top of the rig would have taken a little time to do that wouldn't it um yes it would have done yes yes and you're saying you just didn't see that being applied no i wasn't in the office
02:13:45 office when it was being done somebody at the bre must have seen it being applied though mustn't they uh i think they would have been yes yes somebody should have done it but um nobody pointed it out to me well when you were
02:13:56 you were let me explore that a little bit you say you weren't in the office who was reporting to you on the build-up of this ring at that time um
02:14:07 i think i can't recall who who had deputized
02:14:11 deputized it was usual that if i was going out of the building um i would inform obviously my line manager because they they signed off my health and safety course
02:14:24 at the time we had an apprentice but he was
02:14:28 was um i think he was there for too short a time where i was happy for him to be left by himself
02:14:35 himself um and i can't recall who was deputizing i would have more than likely asked steve howard to cover while i was out how long were you
02:14:47 cover while i was out how long were you out of the office for two days two days two days is a it's a long enough time to ensure that you had a senior
02:14:59 that you had a senior and responsible person who would report to you in place not much yes yes oh i'm living out for lunch oh yes without a doubt so it would require some organization on your part wouldn't it um it would have yes yes yes can you not
02:15:11 um it would have yes yes yes can you not recall who it was that you organized to take your place um no to be honest i can't it could have been
02:15:20 been stephen howard my colleague tom lennon occasionally would deputize um if i was there if i wasn't in and i think by
02:15:31 if i wasn't in and i think by 2014 it might have been we were just getting a new burn hall manager at that point so if he was in place he may have been covering then
02:15:42 covering then i can't remember his start date but uh the honest truth is i can't remember who was deputized before me and i haven't seen anything that indicates who was whoever was deputizing
02:15:55 indicates who was whoever was deputizing for you and you say you can't recall can you think of any reason why they wouldn't have noticed these layers of magnesium oxide going up onto the right so as i said earlier it was
02:16:09 what we would ask the client to do would would be to let us know when they get to key points um i would so if say for example they
02:16:20 um i would so if say for example they were
02:16:21 were putting the the layer over the whole system we wouldn't necessarily always take a picture when they were halfway through it might be we say right we've got the
02:16:33 it might be we say right we've got the bit we want at the back we've got all the clarity barriers in place can you let us know when you finished putting the outer facade on
02:16:43 facade on and then somebody would go off and do something else and they'll come back and say we finished the facade that's you can take the photos now um so it wasn't always somebody there through the whole of the process we weren't stood there watching
02:16:55 process we weren't stood there watching every single board that goes on no but i i can just about understand that but given that there was
02:17:03 there was nobody there watching every single ball that went on was that not all the more reason to have a a reliable system of checks to make sure that you did know
02:17:14 did know what test sponsors had put on the rig um
02:17:20 yesterday's degree i agree yes yes yes which is
02:17:24 which is it for two minutes the first question
02:17:33 looking at the right hand side of the photographs
02:17:39 you can see that the bottom edge of the orange panel
02:17:46 protrudes very slightly over the top edge of the grey panel beneath it um actually the middle panel the middle
02:18:00 um actually the middle panel the middle photograph is a better i think a better example of that can you see that there's an overhang it's not clear in those photographs i can't see did you notice a protrusion or overlap
02:18:11 notice a protrusion or overlap at the time of the test no i just noticed how let me show you a better photograph go to the second layer down the middle
02:18:22 go to the second layer down the middle photograph there and that shows a pretty pronounced overhang doesn't it doesn't it the orange layer overhangs the gray layer immediately below it by in fact two millimeters
02:18:34 by in fact two millimeters you can see that can't you you can from that you can see there's a darker line but
02:18:42 but that's eight and a half meters in the air you can't see that from that
02:18:48 well did you not inspect or did did you inspect uh the uh rig as completed before the test um not from high level no i don't think i possibly did
02:18:59 i possibly did you didn't notice that there was a two millimeter overhang no didn't notice that the facade was not entirely flush uh no as i say that's i think that first board is
02:19:11 board is to the base from the floor is seven meters
02:19:15 meters the top is almost eight and a half nine eight and a half meters um you need access
02:19:23 access equipment to get to that and you can't see from
02:19:27 see from the edge without leaning over the
02:19:32 barrier
02:19:36 so no it's all it's all away from what you would
02:19:39 you would normally see in um walking up the stairs etc
02:19:43 etc so it would easily be missed let's look at some more photographs bre 3030674 please
02:19:56 this is the longest set of photographs that we have do you know why the two-page set of photographs with the signature that you don't recognize
02:20:07 signature that you don't recognize it has become separated and there's a separate document from this longer set um because i think these ones are um gopro are they of the test so
02:20:21 um gopro are they of the test so i think they're taking every sort of 30 seconds maybe throughout the test and again that that isn't my writing so i don't know who prepared these when you say that isn't your writing you mean
02:20:32 you say that isn't your writing you mean the reference the reference is probably the writing and that's not my
02:20:37 did you read sorry did you want to say something and again if it was i would sign them with my name right did you review these
02:20:49 name right did you review these images whether they're photographs or stills from a gopro at the time you first reviewed the test file
02:20:56 file um i don't think i did because they're not relevant for writing the test report did you
02:21:07 looking at the previous photographs of this photograph did you did you notice that there was an orange layer um i did yes yes it's obvious it's there it is did you not wonder what it was
02:21:20 is did you not wonder what it was um my understanding was it was um yeah i did i did i think i mentioned it didn't look very nice
02:21:31 didn't look very nice but the pr isn't concerned look
02:21:35 who did you mention it too um i think we to jonathan roper i think there's a comment in post-tests of how untidy it looked and he commented
02:21:46 he commented himself did you ask him why they put a strip of orange or actually ruby
02:21:53 ruby uh malia turn it at those two places in particular on the rig um no i didn't no i mean it was odd enough for you to notice that it looked ugly why didn't
02:22:05 notice that it looked ugly why didn't you ask him what his technical function was
02:22:09 was um because my understanding at the time i i don't know if i've got this from something else
02:22:16 else but my understanding is that there was a short he had struggled to get hold of material in short notice i think that was
02:22:27 was said a text i think that around the time there was a shortage of some description i just assumed that was all he could get in the short notice he had
02:22:46 now you say in your statement and we'll come back to the the orange layer in a moment uh perhaps tomorrow but we may get to it um if you go back to paragraph
02:22:57 paragraph uh i think we've probably covered that um let's look at the question of the ruby color can we go to paragraph 252 of your statement
02:23:11 uh at page 61.
02:23:17 you say there from my review
02:23:22 page 252 for my review of photographs relating to this test including a figure 3 of the test report it appears possible that the 8 millimeter ruby board was used on the external wall of the test system the orange board near
02:23:34 of the test system the orange board near the top of figure 3. if so and i have no way of knowing for certain this was not recorded in the test report and if we go to page 66 of your witness statement to paragraph 269
02:23:50 uh you say there in answer and i'll show you the question you're answering did you have any discussions with any individual working on installation of the test drive for simcoe or for celetex as to the test any of the
02:24:01 or for celetex as to the test any of the components of the test rig or any other related matter are you aware of tony baker or any other representative of bre having any such discussion if so please send out your recollections in respect of any such discussions
02:24:15 in respect of any such discussions and you say i had a conversation with mr roper celtics about the color of the facade but i do not have a clear memory of it
02:24:24 and you and you say my recollection is correct i pointed out that there might be potential differences in the fire spread over the surface of different colored material however mr breaker assured me that celotex was aware of this
02:24:36 celotex was aware of this and had taken it into this into account specifying the material to be used i think the explanation was that there was a shortage of the particular rain screen material available at the time and this was the only material that they could source within
02:24:47 material that they could source within the time available i cannot recall any other conversations with respect to the test being taking place
02:24:53 place now uh that discussion that you recall you didn't actually record the difference
02:25:05 in material on the facade element of the test rig anywhere in the reports did you in terms of the colors do you mean well in terms of in terms of the
02:25:17 well in terms of in terms of the materials in terms of the colors and what they were the product no because the assumption was that they were the same
02:25:26 thickness throughout and there would be no
02:25:29 no no need to differentiate them in that regard well you see you say in your statement that you had had a concern that there might be potential differences in the
02:25:40 might be potential differences in the fire spread over the surface of different color material mr roper assured me you say that celetex had taken that into account when specifying the material why didn't you identify that
02:25:52 why didn't you identify that assurance at the very least in your report
02:25:56 report um because it's not something that is written into a bs8414 report it's a statement of fact it's it's not
02:26:07 it's a statement of fact it's it's not um
02:26:07 um i had a conversation with mr x about this issue that's not what the report is for
02:26:18 now what allowed you to rely on mr broker's assurance that there were there were no potential differences or or negligible potential differences
02:26:29 or or negligible potential differences in fire spread
02:26:32 um that we're reliant on what the client the client's information they provide not for the not for fire performance after all was it was that not the purpose of having this
02:26:44 was that not the purpose of having this test in the first place um yes but if there was then that would have been it was really to point out that had had
02:26:57 it was really to point out that had had it been
02:26:58 it been such that the performance of the two boards was so different that it could potentially had they not taken to account drive the system to failure that was the
02:27:09 drive the system to failure that was the reason
02:27:10 reason for it not that there was any other reasoning behind it now we've seen that the delivery note for the cladding boards uh showed on its face and we can go back
02:27:22 uh showed on its face and we can go back to them if we need to that the ruby boards
02:27:24 boards i think ruby eternity uh we're eight millimeters do you remember seeing that or do we need to get back to it um i remember seeing it but i don't recall theaters seeing it until
02:27:35 don't recall theaters seeing it until it was made clear to me that there was a difference well why did you not check to make sure that the ruby boards
02:27:47 check to make sure that the ruby boards were the same thickness as the rest of the facade boards um
02:27:55 i'm not certain why i can't answer that question it was um an error on my pouch right
02:28:06 the the i think the if i recall the text on the um delivery note isn't wholly clear if you didn't read it
02:28:19 wholly clear if you didn't read it having it straight in front of you it's quite difficult to read anyway so so that wasn't noted on the test file either
02:28:28 either is that right uh yes that's correct yes
02:28:33 although the delivery note i think was in the test file surprisingly wouldn't the thickness of the layer of um i call it rain screen
02:28:44 layer of um i call it rain screen the surface material at that point in the rig
02:28:49 the rig have made a difference potentially to the way in which the test would have performed um
02:29:00 yes potentially yes had had it been that the
02:29:03 the system had performed in a way where it had impacted on that layer then yes i agree yeah definitely so why didn't you simply write in the test reports
02:29:14 test reports and the classification report which will come to you that the rain screen element of this system comprised two parts uh one of uh one which is white
02:29:28 one of uh one which is white and one which had a thinner layer a eight millimeter layer of ruby eternity
02:29:34 eternity in two places um because i wasn't aware there was a difference well you may not have been aware there was a difference in effect but you must have known there was a no sorry sorry
02:29:46 no sorry sorry i mean i wasn't aware that there were two
02:29:49 two thicknesses of material on the rig that's why it was wasn't mentioned so you missed the thickness you didn't refer to the color because you relied on an assurance from the client that it would have made no difference fire spread and you didn't note it in
02:30:01 fire spread and you didn't note it in your report uh yeah that's correct yes yes and you didn't notice the overhang and you didn't notice the layer of magnesium oxide behind it
02:30:12 magnesium oxide behind it at any stage no your deputy didn't report that to you no yet somebody in the bre took photographs identifying the presence of
02:30:23 photographs identifying the presence of magnesium oxide they took photographs but if it was taken by
02:30:30 taken by the apprentice he may not have known the significance of it right necessarily so um not to deflect any
02:30:38 any blame on anybody else but um if he had taken that um not knowing what he was looking at he was just taking some photographs and if he'd have not turned around and
02:30:50 and if he'd have not turned around and said oh by the way i've noticed this and didn't draw it to my attention then it would have got missed this is did get missed this is quite an incredible list of emissions and and missed
02:31:02 list of emissions and and missed instances isn't it um [Music]
02:31:06 [Music] yes i probably agree with you yes yes yes
02:31:11 yes i mean mr clark isn't the reality that you knew very well that there was a six millimeter magnesium oxide layer behind it
02:31:16 it you were in charge of this test the photograph showed it were there the deputy knew it was there as they must have been it would have taken time to put up
02:31:23 put up and it was covered over by a perfectly obvious ruby-colored band in two places of
02:31:27 of a material of a different thickness surely you must have realized what was behind it
02:31:32 behind it um no i would have reported it and and and had i known it i would have stopped the test i can't see um
02:31:45 it served no purpose because if so the thing is if they were trying to hide it
02:31:52 um and i was aware of it well then why would you put something on the front of a the front of another board
02:32:01 board which had the potential to fall off during the test and expose what was behind it that just doesn't make sense well i i'm i'm not the world's cleverest
02:32:13 well i i'm i'm not the world's cleverest man but i'm not um i'm not stupid enough to put two different colored materials on knowing the dynamics of how the boards can fail and it would
02:32:25 the boards can fail and it would fall off and then you go well why is there now a whiteboard there where there was a
02:32:30 was a um an orange board earlier it just doesn't make sense
02:32:36 mr
02:32:42 um
02:32:45 yeah and it just doesn't doesn't make sense to me
02:32:50 mr mr chairman is that a convenient marriage is it convenient to you mr millett
02:32:55 millett yeah very good well i think we'll stop there for the day mr clark that's fine and um and we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow okay and again i must ask you not to
02:33:07 okay and again i must ask you not to talk to anyone at all about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break i understand yes thank you very much we'll look forward to seeing you tomorrow at 10 o'clock
02:33:18 seeing you tomorrow at 10 o'clock peace
02:33:34 you