BRE Evidence - Wednesday 24th February 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:11 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today where i'm here as usual with my fellow panel members

00:00:19 members miss uh estefan and mr akbar good morning good morning everyone and today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr clark

00:00:31 hearing evidence from mr clark of uh formerly of the bre so i'm going just to check that mr clark is able to see us and hear us are you there mr clark i can see him here you say yes i can

00:00:43 i can see him here you say yes i can good thank you very much well the arrangements will be the same as they were yesterday um we better begin with a little bit of housekeeping can you please confirm that you don't have anyone else

00:00:56 confirm that you don't have anyone else in the room with you i can confirm i don't have anyone

00:01:01 anyone thank you can you confirm also that you don't have any uh papals or other materials with you i can confirm i don't thank you and can you

00:01:11 you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and you don't you don't have any other electronic devices with you that are capable of giving you messages

00:01:21 messages i can confirm that yes very good thank you

00:01:25 you well as i say that the arrangements will be the same as they were yesterday we'll have a break during the morning round about quarter past 11 and um also during the course of the

00:01:38 and um also during the course of the afternoon is there anything you'd like to raise

00:01:42 to raise uh with me before you carry on giving your evidence uh no there isn't sir thank you very much all right good thank you so in that case i'll invite mr millet to put some more questions to you

00:01:53 put some more questions to you yes mr millet thank you very much mr chairman

00:01:57 chairman good morning and good morning to the members of the panel as well good morning mr clark good morning um can i please go back to

00:02:08 good morning um can i please go back to three zeroes three two three seven two

00:02:26 the re 3032372 this is the first page of the delivery notes

00:02:33 notes we looked at yesterday together mr clark and can we go to page three in that list

00:02:43 this is the fgf delivery note if we could expand it please so it fills the screen

00:02:54 thank you this is the fgf delivery note uh dated the 14th of april 2014 as you can see from the right hand side of the document yes yes

00:03:05 right hand side of the document yes yes yes and it says description underneath that natura

00:03:14 3070 times 1250 times eight millimeter ruby sheet original quantity six

00:03:25 ruby sheet original quantity six see that yes i see that and underneath that natura n154 cream white 3130 times 1280 times 12 millimeters sheet quantity

00:03:37 times 12 millimeters sheet quantity original quantity 5. see that yes and then there's an opal product below that and then at the very bottom there's a signature and i think you

00:03:48 there's a signature and i think you confirmed that that's your signature i did yes yes and would you have signed that document do you think on or about the 14th of april 2014 um yes we thought so

00:04:01 um yes we thought so if that's the delivery date yes and where would you have signed it in your office or in the burn hall or somewhere else um as i had a forklift license it may have

00:04:13 as i had a forklift license it may have been that i'd offloaded it myself and signed for it in the burn hall did you when you did that did you check what you were signing for um no it's was usual practice that

00:04:27 um no it's was usual practice that the material will be offloaded and placed by the work error of the client

00:04:34 client and then the delivery note usually would be just left with the materials

00:04:40 and what would happen to the delivery note after that um obviously as on this occasion it would be requested back from the client

00:04:51 back from the client so ultimately the materials were the client's property so it was for them to check

00:04:56 check what they had and then we would if um request the delivery note from them when they'd finished with it uh well this is a count this looks like a counterfoil

00:05:07 a counterfoil torn off from a book of standard delivery notes doesn't it yes most delivery notes would come with like three parts which one would go with the

00:05:18 three parts which one would go with the client and one would go back with the driver and there'd be a spare potentially back for the office or something back to the office back to your office now back to the um fgf's office

00:05:29 now back to the um fgf's office this signed version uh on the blue sheet blue counterfoil was that kept by bre somewhere

00:05:36 somewhere um it would have gone into the file yes would have gone into the file at what point would it have gone into the file

00:05:47 once the client had checked that they were happy with what was on the package and we at some point we'd probably say to them can we take all your delivery notes that you have

00:06:02 was there any did you have any ability to check

00:06:06 to check this document after delivery of the materials identified in it against what was going up on the rig

00:06:18 against what was going up on the rig either before or after the test um

00:06:24 yes there was a a chance to do that i would say yes and how would you go about that um normally what what i would do would

00:06:37 um normally what what i would do would go down to the client and say can you get one of the boards of each and prop it against the wall or something where i could see the um the batch

00:06:49 where i could see the um the batch number

00:06:50 number and production details and then i'd photograph it they put them back on the on the palette and

00:06:57 and um and i'd go back to my office and download the photographs

00:07:04 now you uh told us yesterday about a conversation you had with mr roper

00:07:13 roper about the ruby panels on the rig and we covered that yesterday and based on

00:07:20 on your recollection of that conversation at paragraph 269 of your statement of page 66 which i'm not going to go back to and my question is this

00:07:31 question is this when mr roper told you that the mali eternity ruby panels were used because of a shortage of white panels did you go and check the delivery notes you signed

00:07:42 notes you signed to see what it was that had been delivered

00:07:46 delivered um no i would say not why was that um because i had no reason to it's just a

00:07:54 a to my understanding it was the same panel but just in a different color right he didn't indicate at any point that he was using eight millimeter boards my

00:08:06 using eight millimeter boards my assumption was they were all a pack of 12 millimeters and and that's why the question didn't come up but you had signed the delivery note which was just seen identifying the ruby eternity panels as

00:08:19 identifying the ruby eternity panels as eight millimeters yes uh yes i did but um what you need to understand is that that palette could be offloaded the

00:08:30 that palette could be offloaded the panels could be at the bottom these panels are two-person handling requirement and it wasn't common practice for bre to

00:08:42 and it wasn't common practice for bre to offload

00:08:43 offload and manhandle clients material in that way

00:08:47 way when you signed the delivery note for the ruby eight millimeter panels did you make any inquiries as to why those panels have been ordered and what their proposed use was um no

00:09:01 proposed use was um no why not um because i had didn't i didn't check the delivery note to say

00:09:08 to say oh hang on this is you've got an eight and two and a twelve two twelves why is that it would have been

00:09:14 been the driver would have turned up we would have offloaded it signed the delivery note put the material by the test facility for the client and gone about our the rest of the work we

00:09:26 gone about our the rest of the work we had to do in that day was there no system in place at the bre whereby somebody would look would assemble the delivery notes identify what had been delivered and check against what was going up on

00:09:37 and check against what was going up on the rig

00:09:38 the rig um not in that formal i know because ultimately the as i said just now the material is the client's material

00:09:48 yes but it's being used in your test um it is yes but as i say we yes and it was sorry not to overspeak yes and it

00:10:01 it was sorry not to overspeak yes and it was it was invariable practice of the bre when producing a test report or a classification report to state with precision exactly what had gone up onto the rig wasn't it uh yes yes and therefore would

00:10:14 wasn't it uh yes yes and therefore would it have not been the practice of the bre at the time to identify

00:10:19 identify precisely what the rig was comprised of in those reports by reference to the delivery notes identifying the materials um yes i agree yes yes and and

00:10:31 yes i agree yes yes and and in this case this was an oversight that the the distinction between the 8 and 12 wasn't made and i think i admitted that yesterday yes i'm just trying to work out

00:10:44 yes i'm just trying to work out how that lapse could have come about

00:10:48 can you tell us um as i say the what you need to understand is that the the burn hall was a very busy place we would have

00:11:01 a very busy place we would have something in the order of maybe 10 people in

00:11:04 people in on any one day we could have four or five deliveries from drivers directly to the hall we could have stuff coming in from goods in we could

00:11:16 stuff coming in from goods in we could have people testing preparing so it was a very busy place and it wasn't the position that we were there

00:11:26 there every single minute checking everything that the client did um minute to minute it was a very fluid and dynamic hall you told us yesterday that

00:11:39 hall you told us yesterday that an indeed is in your statement as i've said

00:11:42 said that you had a specific conversation with mr roper about why there was a ruby uh a band of marley attorney ruby colored panels there

00:11:54 panels there though you did have a specific conversation about it given that you had a specific conversation about it can you explain why

00:12:01 why you neither checked the delivery note you signed only the previous month a few weeks before

00:12:09 before uh nor identify the band of uh mali alternate ruby panels in either of your

00:12:15 of your reports um the short answer is no i can't you see the suggestion i feel bound to make to you is that you knew very well uh not only as you accept that the

00:12:28 uh not only as you accept that the ruby panels were present but they were eight millimeters um no until it was pointed out to me that that was there um and then subsequently checked

00:12:41 there um and then subsequently checked the delivery note it was um wasn't discovered and and i'm not wanting to push blame onto other people but the process at bre was

00:12:53 but the process at bre was that these test reports and the file was checked by other people three other people had seen this and again nobody else had spotted that and

00:13:04 nobody else had spotted that and um and as i said had i seen that i would have immediately stopped the test

00:13:14 was it your practice i think you confirmed it was uh invariably to take photographs of the components of a rig and if possible they're packaging yes yes is there a photograph

00:13:28 yes is there a photograph of the ruby electronic panels um i i can't recall seeing one no again another departure well this this

00:13:40 again another departure well this this would have been if this was done

00:13:45 while i was out of the office then it would

00:13:48 would probably i would have done it as they were putting the system together so if i wasn't there one of the problems was that

00:13:56 was that i wasn't always able to rely on people to do things if i wasn't there um it's it's something i was aware of um so

00:14:08 um so you see what i'm trying to continue so what you need to understand is that the

00:14:15 the system goes up in in layers essentially so if say for example they um had come in on the monday to start the construction

00:14:26 the construction on the monday they would have probably got most of the metal frame up um on the tuesday we probably got the the shielding boards and the insulation

00:14:37 the shielding boards and the insulation up

00:14:37 up and on the wednesday they would have put the rain screen up onto the wall um and two of those days were the days i wasn't in the office

00:14:50 you haven't been able though have you in all your researches such as they are to have identified the precise two days that you were out of the office on your course

00:15:01 course uh and check it against uh the progress of the construction of the rig during those two days um i have yes i think um the letter was sent to

00:15:10 sent to say that was confirmed that i was on the first aid course for the uh tuesday and wednesdays certainly we have the dates you were on the course but what is it that tells you that it was during those critical two days

00:15:23 it was during those critical two days that the rig was erected so the the practice would be that we would say to the clients that

00:15:34 the clients that we need to have the rig completed by at least one clear day before the test so the

00:15:45 the test so the rig would have needed to be handed over on the wednesday as i think i think the test was on a friday morning so they would have completed the rig by wednesday afternoon

00:15:56 wednesday afternoon we would have instrumented it on thursday morning and tested thursday throughout the day on thursday

00:16:03 thursday and tested on friday morning

00:16:07 so that's that's the way i would have seen it was going yes uh my question was um have you actually checked what you say would have happened against any contemporaneous documents

00:16:19 contemporaneous documents um i don't think there's anything that says that was the exact timings but um having done this for a number of years that was

00:16:26 that was very very common practice and i can't see why it would have been different on this day

00:16:31 this day now given you sign for the eight millimeter marley attorney ruby panels uh when you looked up having had the

00:16:42 uh when you looked up having had the conversation specifically about those panels with mr roper and asked him why they were there and didn't you notice uh that there was no

00:16:51 no indent in the facade where those panels were

00:16:55 were but they were at least flush and in fact had an overhang um no the only the only comment that we made was either

00:17:06 made was either the the difference between the color and the potential reaction to fire classification they may have and some comment about how it was wasn't a very

00:17:17 comment about how it was wasn't a very good build it was very poorly put together i thought you see um if there was nothing behind the eight millimeter uh ribbon

00:17:29 the eight millimeter uh ribbon of ruby panels at the second level thermocouples and at the top of the rig then there would have been a differential wouldn't that between the 12

00:17:38 12 millimeter panels white ones and the eight millimeter ruby ones by four millimeters wouldn't there um

00:17:52 there would but as i said to you yesterday you can't see that from the floor

00:17:57 floor unless you go up on access platform you can't

00:18:00 can't you wouldn't be able to see that from that

00:18:03 that from that distance you would have noticed surely that there was a four millimeter indent going in where the mali attorney ruby

00:18:14 going in where the mali attorney ruby panels were um

00:18:19 i think had had i had reason to go up there then probably yes but if if i'm in a position where

00:18:27 where i'm running around getting the test ready for the next day um it's something that obviously wasn't seen at the time and i because i

00:18:39 wasn't seen at the time and i because i wasn't aware that there was this differential thickness between the panels

00:18:44 panels it wasn't a question that would have come to my mind well somebody at the bre if not you would have noticed that there would have been this four millimeter indent had there been nothing behind the eight

00:18:55 had there been nothing behind the eight millimeter panel somebody would have noticed that and brought it to your attention

00:18:59 attention is that not right um i think they would have done but nobody did um there was can i just interrupt for a second it just occurs to me that um

00:19:11 second it just occurs to me that um mr clark has said that uh the instrumentation would have been fitted on the thursday is that right mr clark um that was the usual practice yes and would it be necessary for someone to

00:19:22 and would it be necessary for someone to be up at that level in order to fit the instrumentation um there would have been but in that case it more than likely at that stage wasn't me

00:19:33 me all right thank you yeah i'm sorry mr miller who would it have been um we had a an apprentice which who was quite new so he was working with

00:19:45 who was quite new so he was working with my colleague i think on this project was a gentleman called simon barrow

00:19:54 sorry was your colleague simon barry or was that the name of the apprentice no the the apprentice was harry grenodos and the

00:20:01 and the um i think the person we were using at that time was a gentleman called simon barrow

00:20:06 barrow who worked in the um fire resistance hall

00:20:09 hall and uh you any reason to think that either of those people would not have reported to you the fact that there was something uh behind the eight millimeter ruby panels

00:20:20 eight millimeter ruby panels um

00:20:20 um [Music]

00:20:24 i think they may not necessarily have understood if they even if they had seen it

00:20:30 would you not have expected simon barrow to have reported to you that unlike everywhere else on the rig there were two places on the rig namely behind the

00:20:41 on the rig namely behind the thermocouples and at the top layer whereas

00:20:43 whereas there was an extra layer of magnesium oxide over topped with an eight millimeter ruby board um i would have expected them to point it out to me yes yes why did can you explain why they didn't

00:20:55 why did can you explain why they didn't um

00:20:57 um as i say maybe they didn't they didn't see the significance of it um i can't answer for other people no i don't know that you can answer for other people because and they were answerable to you

00:21:09 and they were answerable to you you were responsible so did you not supervise them and ask for a report at least an oral report

00:21:16 report as to how the rig uh build has gone and whether there was anything that you that you should have brought to your attention um i may have done but um it would be

00:21:27 i may have done but um it would be at the how did everything go yesterday was everything okay um and if they say no then i wish to a certain extent trusted them to have

00:21:38 to a certain extent trusted them to have used their judgment yes you see at this point

00:21:41 point through this two-day absence you say uh during which the bill you say was what the rig you say was built um at this point you know you're going to be signing

00:21:52 to be signing unless it's a complete failure of course uh a test

00:21:55 uh a test report and a classification report which identifies with precision the components of the rig and my question really is well why are you not at least curious enough to have a full report given to you as to

00:22:06 to have a full report given to you as to precisely what has gone on to that test ring

00:22:10 um i i think in in a way that we said yesterday we were probably too trusting in what the client has told us is going up

00:22:21 client has told us is going up i think

00:22:25 yes you said in your evidence just this morning that this was a very poorly put together rig did that not concern you um not necessarily

00:22:36 um not necessarily it's the the client ultimately is the person who puts together their rig if they're if they're not controlling the quality

00:22:47 if they're not controlling the quality of the

00:22:48 of the the construction from their subcontractors then that's down to them

00:22:57 given that the the s8414 test um if it's passed uh it is only a test result at which

00:23:08 a test result at which can be used for a cladding structure which is exactly the same as that tested were you not concerned that this was a very poorly put together rig

00:23:19 very poorly put together rig um i think i did comment that it didn't look very neat coming back to the eight millimeters point uh i'm going to i feel bad to put you this you knew that the marley attorney ruby colored

00:23:31 that the marley attorney ruby colored boards are eight millimeters because you signed for the delivery report and knowing that fact unless you had known that there was something behind the eight millimeters you would have noticed that there was a four millimeter indent

00:23:42 four millimeter indent at those two layers on the rig um you you mistake signing for a delivery note with actually

00:23:53 note with actually going through the packaging and checking everything is there as i stated earlier once that is on we we signed for it because we're clearly the person there and on the day it just happened to be me it

00:24:05 on the day it just happened to be me it could have been any other person in the hall

00:24:07 hall and to a certain extent even people who weren't working on the cladding would sign for that and it was for the client to check

00:24:18 and it was for the client to check their material it wasn't my job to check that in

00:24:21 that in um and as i said earlier it was missed that that was an eight mill so as i didn't know it was an eight mil at the time i didn't think well hang on why they got

00:24:32 i didn't think well hang on why they got an eight mil because my understanding was the whole system was 12 mil overall not not with this eight mil ruby colored

00:24:41 colored board now let's move to after the test um mr roper says in his evidence and this is day 71 page one two eight lines four we need to go to it

00:24:52 go to it but after the second test generally there's a period of two or three weeks where the rig is deconstructed that's right isn't it i think um we normally tried to get them to do it very quickly but i think for some reason he

00:25:03 quickly but i think for some reason he couldn't get simcoe to come back straight away and although you were away at a first aid courses you told us while the rig was being installed um you

00:25:14 while the rig was being installed um you would have seen it being dismantled yes um

00:25:20 again i i can't recall um what i think you're under the impression that i was there all the time and this is all i

00:25:31 there all the time and this is all i ever did

00:25:31 ever did and it wasn't all i ever did i was running

00:25:35 running on other projects we were working i think at the time on some other projects for the government um and i work with other colleagues so i may have been there but i don't recall being there

00:25:46 being there how many how many rigs does the burn hall accommodate uh four and therefore um one of those four

00:25:54 four uh was the ceretex rig yes it was yes yes so the other three may have had other people on there um at the time i think you know around that sort of time we were doing

00:26:05 around that sort of time we were doing other projects for the mhclg um so there was a lot going on in the hall and i wasn't

00:26:15 i wasn't specifically concentrating just on one project

00:26:19 project um so

00:26:25 um so uh let's look at ceo50950 please

00:26:41 uh this is a photograph uh sent by patrick or patch jones of simcoe

00:26:52 patch jones of simcoe to mr roper and mr james was responsible for the strip down of the rig now we can see from this photograph that it was clearly taken during the strip down because we

00:27:04 taken during the strip down because we could see the fire damage yes yes and there's an email date of the 19th of may 2014 even though the test was on the 2nd of

00:27:16 even though the test was on the 2nd of may um

00:27:17 may um whereby patch jones sends mr roper this photograph and the reference for that email is cel 50947

00:27:28 reference for that email is cel 50947 better just have that there so you can have that confirmed to you ceo50947 please

00:27:41 that that's all it is patch jones 19th of may 2014 to john ruper bre john regards patch and although the attachment isn't identified in the email take it from me that this photograph was

00:27:53 take it from me that this photograph was what was sent so we so we can know that the date of the

00:27:58 the photograph was at some point before the 19th or on the 19th of may no later than the 19th of may at any rate

00:28:05 any rate now go back to the photograph please

00:28:10 cel50950

00:28:14 we can see uh the uh white balls there the magnesium oxide boards clearly visible at the level two thermocouple layer

00:28:23 layer level and the top of the ring yes yes yes

00:28:27 yes um and we can see that uh they are barely burnt yes yes i can see that um are you saying that you

00:28:35 that you never saw the rig in this state no i think the the photograph that was subsequently put in the report the two boards to the left on the

00:28:48 the two boards to the left on the lower layer had been removed and my understanding is that the looks like a partial board which is on the right hand side and the section at the top was all that

00:28:59 and the section at the top was all that was in place you can clearly see from this photograph uh the silver celestex insulation material between the lower and the upper white

00:29:10 between the lower and the upper white bands can't you indeed you can yes so you accept that if you had been standing there looking at the rig at the moment this photograph was taken you would have seen the magnesium oxide layers at the level

00:29:21 the magnesium oxide layers at the level two thermocouples and the top of the rig uh over the insulation without a doubt yes it's without a doubt yeah but you're saying

00:29:33 yeah but you're saying you never saw that no so to to clarify and i think i sort of said yesterday in terms of building the rig what we would do is we would

00:29:43 would we would take drawings of the damage on the outer facade from ground level showing where the damage was

00:29:54 damage was done where the board had broken or split or whatever and then we would say to the client

00:30:01 client or the contractor right we're finished now can you take the facade off and let us know when you've done that so we wouldn't sit there and watch them take it down

00:30:12 take it down um so it obviously just happened to be that whoever went down to take the photograph which ultimately went into the report just happened to go down

00:30:23 just happened to go down after this photograph was taken while those other four bits of board were still on the on the rig

00:30:33 so so had it been left any longer then then this

00:30:37 then this would have never been identified

00:30:41 um let's go to uh bre

00:30:45 405 5548 please pre four zero is five five four eight

00:30:58 now this is an email uh from

00:31:02 uh

00:31:08 yes i'm sorry i'm so sorry that's the first page of the email run um i'd like page six of this uh document please

00:31:18 please and here is an email second email down on the 15th of may 2014. commencement is okay

00:31:25 okay is that is it supposed to be like that at the bottom with all that green and quite right it doesn't uh

00:31:34 and indeed it's like that on our system um so uh

00:31:42 i i think in fact uh i i all i need from this uh is is is the passage in the text we can see okay uh well in fact we can't see it

00:31:53 okay uh well in fact we can't see it actually you can see the first sentence and but use roper sends you an email on the 15th of may

00:32:00 may and he says and i'll see if we can get a better copy of this to be fair um i've spoken to cinco who are struggling uh to carry out a strip down of the rig thursday or friday next week uh if i instruct patch and stall it to

00:32:11 uh if i instruct patch and stall it to strip down on monday without me attending would this be okay and we can prevent as much as possible our capacitors being in the hall at that time

00:32:18 time also would it be possible for you to something a couple of images once the guys have removed the facade so we have something on file which shows insulation now the critical words are are omitted

00:32:31 now the critical words are are omitted i'm afraid because of the green smudge but they are below and above fire break

00:32:40 take it from me that the the email says something on file which shows insulation below and above fire break and let's proceed on that basis during the course of the day we'll get a

00:32:51 during the course of the day we'll get a better version of this and be able to show

00:32:53 show you that that's fine i'm happy if that's what it says yes okay well thank you and then um we can see your reply uh on the 15th of may to john roper hi john this would be okay

00:33:06 to john roper hi john this would be okay and i will put a camera up and get some good photos for the system coming down i have also asked our other client not to be on site on monday until after lunch to allow you time to get your system back to a state where your ip is

00:33:17 system back to a state where your ip is not compromised i hope that's okay and if you could confirm simcoe's attendance i will let our reception know to expect them

00:33:24 them did you take any such photographs um

00:33:32 i i probably would have instructed somebody to i can't recall

00:33:40 you would have instructed someone to do you say that i will put a camera up and get some good photos rather indicates to mr robert that you're going to be the photographer was that not

00:33:48 that not no i mean i will do it or i will ask the apprentice to do it i didn't okay uh so you say you probably would have instructed somebody to you can't recall

00:34:01 instructed somebody to you can't recall um were such photographs taken um they would have been taken as part of the um requirement for the test report yes but

00:34:11 yes but as i said earlier we tended to do them in

00:34:14 in um in batches so so as the as the external rain screen came off

00:34:21 off the pictures would be taken um prior to that

00:34:24 that and then we would take the insulation layer um

00:34:28 layer um after that and then we would then take the cement particle board so they would be done in in a specific way but they wouldn't be like

00:34:36 like every single time somebody took a board off we would take a photograph they would be done yes so there would be photographs of what was underneath the external rain screen once it came up from there indeed yes yes

00:34:47 yes yes where are those photographs have you seen them um i haven't seen them known given that this was the process that you would have you say undertaken either yourself or through somebody else

00:34:58 either yourself or through somebody else but on your instruction can you account for the absence of those photographs um when i say i haven't seen them they weren't

00:35:06 weren't given to me as part of this exercise i don't think um one of the the problems and i think i said yesterday was as aft straight after the the fire at the

00:35:18 straight after the the fire at the grenfell tower um for some reason all of the um data pertaining to all the whole of the cladding was locked

00:35:29 all the whole of the cladding was locked down and i understand moved into another area on the bre server so from there i've never from that day i've never had access to anything other than what i was provided by the re or the inquiry

00:35:42 provided by the re or the inquiry at the time there you were asked by mr roper to take photographs and you said you you would or you would arrange for those photographs to be taken and you've explained the process

00:35:53 explained the process why didn't you um take steps to ensure that the photographs that you tended to be taking were taken and then you looked at them um i think they they must be honest on the bre system i

00:36:05 the bre system i as i say i've i haven't had access to that since 2017 and

00:36:12 2017 and uh as far as i am aware i wasn't provided them as part of the exercise for this

00:36:16 for this inquiry could you not check at the time to make sure uh that you had in your hands the photographs that mr roger wanted um i can't recall i more than likely did

00:36:29 um i can't recall i more than likely did um but i can't recall but we'll come later to photographs that found their way into the draft report um uh let's go back to mr raper's evidence

00:36:40 evidence can we go please today 71 at page one two eight

00:36:54 two eight the transcript for day 71 page 128 and the evidence of mr roper and i want to uh show you line one uh

00:37:08 uh show you line one uh uh the

00:37:12 uh the question did you think that they had not referred to attend their draft because they'd not been told about it or because phil clark had kept it secret or some other reason now just pausing there that's a question relating to

00:37:23 relating to something later on and his answer was this

00:37:26 this so after the second test generally there's a period of two or three weeks where the rig is deconstructed jamie as jamie hayes who wasn't present at the second test came down to the bre with me and spoke to phil clark

00:37:37 with me and spoke to phil clark and we looked at it during deconstruction and it was filmed clark's view

00:37:41 view that the six mil magnesium oxide wouldn't have made any difference and the reason for the test passing was the increase in the cladding panel from eight mil to 12 mil so i can only assume that he omitted that detail because of his

00:37:52 that detail because of his view on that day and that was his evidence uh to the inquiry when asked let me show you what he says in his witness statement please this is cel3010154

00:38:06 please this is cel3010154 page 22.

00:38:17 uh and it's paragraph 67 on that page uh and um he says in that paragraph i'll read the whole paragraph to you uh at a visit to the rig after the

00:38:28 uh at a visit to the rig after the second test i recall a conversation between pc that's phil clark at the bre and jr that's john roper where when asked by jr pc agreed that the rig had passed the second test so

00:38:40 the rig had passed the second test so easily that he suspected that it would have passed even without the additional material just using the thicker cladding now just pausing that the additional material is or includes the six millimeter layer

00:38:52 is or includes the six millimeter layer of magnesium oxide it goes on my recollection of the conversation is that it was led by jr and pc's opinion in this regard was expressed in agreement with jr we

00:39:03 was expressed in agreement with jr we were on the second floor in an office looking down at the second test rig we all got on well with pc he was telling us about what it was like to work at the bre including that they had dealt with the burning of cows when the mad cow

00:39:15 burning of cows when the mad cow outbreak occurred

00:39:19 uh do you recall this conversation um no i don't

00:39:26 do you deny it happened or do you simply not recall one way or the other um i

00:39:34 um i don't ever remember meeting mr um jamie hayes after the first test to such an extent that

00:39:45 the first test to such an extent that um a bit like mr evans i had to go back and re-watch the video to actually even find out who he was

00:39:54 and i can't recall ever meeting him other than at that first test um the other thing is that in that statement there are at least

00:40:06 in that statement there are at least three things which are incorrect um let's identify this then um could you bring us the of course paragraph 65 on page 22.

00:40:24 of course paragraph 65 on page 22. so um

00:40:29 the first one would be if from from my point of view is if i didn't even know who jamie hayes was so i don't understand why i would have

00:40:40 so i don't understand why i would have had had a conversation that he alleges with somebody i didn't even know who he was if i was trying to keep something secret um the it was

00:40:51 um the it was at that time very rare that we took people

00:40:54 people upstairs and where he says we were on the second floor of the office looking down on the test rig well we didn't have an office on there

00:41:06 we didn't have an office on there and the building is only a single story building so i don't understand where he thinks he was on a second store floor looking down a test rig

00:41:18 floor looking down a test rig and the the only room that you could see that from was um was a tea room not an office um the only thing he's got right there

00:41:30 um the only thing he's got right there is that i may have mentioned at not necessarily to him might be mean in the first test about the mad cow and he's just remembered that and used it as a prop to keep this

00:41:43 used it as a prop to keep this argument up

00:41:46 do you deny ever having a conversation with mr roper after the test uh about the use of a magnesium oxide

00:41:57 uh about the use of a magnesium oxide panel

00:41:58 panel at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig yes i do yes categorically do you say that mr raper is lying about this conversation or is it that you simply

00:42:09 or is it that you simply can't remember um i would say he was lying i i cannot ever remember

00:42:16 remember meeting um jamie hayes other than at the first test

00:42:24 you can't remember meeting him um but do you deny meeting him um as much as not remembering there's a denial yes i do deny

00:42:36 denial yes i do deny see that's the difference so i say again it's not it's not the same can you swear you never met him on on that day i would i would swear i

00:42:47 on on that day i would i would swear i never met him no i i hadn't absolutely no recollection of that conversation or meeting him mr miller i think we just better clarify one thing

00:42:56 one thing because the has referred more than once to meeting and having a conversation with mr hayes i think i'm right in saying that what is referred to in that paragraph is a conversation with mr roper

00:43:11 indeed so mr clark what mr roper is saying in that paragraph of his statement is that you had a conversation with him mr roper not on after the second test

00:43:25 not on after the second test at the uh the bre burn hall just want to clarify that yes yes again i i don't ever recall and i deny that that

00:43:36 don't ever recall and i deny that that conversation took place right thank you uh mr chairman uh to be to be fair to the witness as uh mr roper's evidence his oral evidence was that mr hayes was present uh during such a conversation

00:43:50 uh during such a conversation so we have that evidence let me just put it to you then squarely on the basis of mr roper's evidence day 71 page 98 please

00:44:21 uh at 9 19.

00:44:26 uh he's asked the question do you recall having a conversation with phil clark about the use of six millimeter magnesium oxide in those two locations on the rig answer yes a question do you remember

00:44:39 answer yes a question do you remember when those conversations were uh answer initially when we were talking to the bre about retesting at the beginning of the page uh and then

00:44:51 at the beginning of the page uh and then he goes on following the meeting with jamie paul and rob i think i put a phone call into phil to suggest that we were looking to retest we've taken on board obviously what we'd learned from the first test and we were looking to increase the cladding panel

00:45:03 looking to increase the cladding panel to 12 mil

00:45:03 to 12 mil and use magnesium oxide at the fire barrier level too what about the top of the rig i don't know whether i mentioned to him about the top of the ring or not then i asked him at the line 11 looking back on it are you in any doubt

00:45:15 back on it are you in any doubt that at least as at the date of the test phil clark was well aware the rig included a six millimeter magnesium oxide panel at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig yes you say you say yes

00:45:28 yes you say you say yes are you in any doubt oh sorry no you're not in any doubt at all not only don't know

00:45:36 now i put that to you do you accept that evidence

00:45:41 evidence no you say that mr roper is is lying or that just that his recollection is faulty

00:45:47 faulty um i

00:45:50 um i have absolutely no recollection of that conversation ever happening so i would say he is um both lying and his recollection is faulty

00:46:02 i'm not sure it could be both but never mind now um can we go to your head cam footage please

00:46:10 please uh at bre five

00:46:22 and i'm going to do rather the same exercise as we did together mr clark with the february test we're going to look at some of the extracts from the

00:46:29 from the the head cam of the uh may test and compare it with with a transcript yes yes yes can i just ask you before um we get into

00:46:40 can i just ask you before um we get into the detail um was the use of a head cam standard operating procedure at the bre at this time um it wasn't standard

00:46:51 um it wasn't standard operating procedure but i thought it was prudent to do it um and i think you'll sort of we'll look at it

00:47:01 it when we visit the kingspan test because one of the problems we had was if we were in a position where a decision

00:47:09 decision was made um we had had incidents where clients had then subsequently questioned something and i just thought this was a

00:47:20 something and i just thought this was a useful

00:47:21 useful a a useful a memoir for myself and also it just was a useful thing to have so

00:47:29 have so it wasn't standard operation procedure but it was something i had personally

00:47:36 adopted

00:47:41 i see and why have you personally adopted it um there were on occasions where if a test for example was

00:47:53 if a test for example was in a position where the fire growth was quite rapid it wasn't always easy to type and watch at the same time

00:48:04 type and watch at the same time so it gave me the ability to view what i was seeing in real time as i was making notes as well so

00:48:12 well so it gave me a um almost like a head-on view of what i was seeing as things were happening so this is really a a personal record for

00:48:24 this is really a a personal record for you yourself um no it was always put on onto the um file as as far as where we so we would download all of the video from the fixed tests and all of the

00:48:35 from the fixed tests and all of the video from these helmet cameras would go on there as well and there there would always be a a file which said um did identify which wall the view was and there would also

00:48:47 wall the view was and there would also be a head

00:48:47 be a head file a head camera file on the on the system

00:48:53 now let's go to the footage it's

00:48:57 bre-405700

00:49:00 which is the first extract we need to look at together and i'd like to have played these um the uh extract from

00:49:12 um the uh extract from 04.10 and listen up for the quote or the statement that starts five seconds later at zero four point fifteen and it'll run to zero four point thirty

00:49:23 and it'll run to zero four point thirty five

00:49:24 five can we please play that and have the audio up as loud as possible operator

00:49:31 operator the advantage you have as well it seems strange but you can see how that flaming synthesis now the board's there because you're losing a lot of the energy behind it

00:49:41 it the other thing as well is something that's quite big behind the board because it extends away

00:50:00 now let's look at the transcript of that please at inq3014218 but page three

00:50:22 uh and again i take it you've had an opportunity to cross-check this transcript uh with the video footage mr clark yes i have indeed yes and can you confirm you are male speaker one

00:50:35 you are male speaker one um yes from the advantage you have is yes i would exactly let's look at that uh you could just about hear it on the audio this is

00:50:46 just about hear it on the audio this is very clear from the transcript you say the advantage you have as well it seems strange but see how that flame seems to have ceased now that the board is there

00:50:55 is there because you're losing a lot of the energy from behind it the other thing as well is it's something that's quite big behind the board

00:51:02 board because it extends the flame vents it's not inaudible the board away

00:51:10 now you've provided some comments on this uh and we'll come to those but i just want to ask you some questions about this first if i may please um can we look at mr roper's statement at cel 30 is one two

00:51:23 roper's statement at cel 30 is one two three double zero

00:51:30 and i'd like to look at paragraph 4.2

00:51:34 on

00:51:39 in that statement please uh at um paragraph

00:51:42 paragraph page three this is a this is a statement uh of mr ropers which i should just tell you

00:51:49 you um he provided to the inquiry uh after he'd given oral evidence to the inquiry in november and it's a statement uh that you can see from page six if you just go to that so

00:52:01 from page six if you just go to that so everyone can see it dated the 14th of january of this year 2021

00:52:10 and if we go back to page 3 please we'll see paragraph 4.2

00:52:24 uh and he says in regard to bre uh four zeros five five seven double zero

00:52:31 zero it is my view that the statement made by mr clark at paragraph 17 the penultimate paragraph of male speaker one which is what i showed you is a reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide board

00:52:42 magnesium oxide board this is because he refers to the advantage you have as well it seems strange

00:52:46 strange but see how that flame seems to have ceased now that the board is there clearly whatever is being referred to it was not installed on the rig of the first test but is present for this second test as a result given the context this leads

00:52:58 as a result given the context this leads me to conclude that this was a reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide board now i just want before i put this further to you just explain his

00:53:09 further to you just explain his references in his statement um bre four zero is five seven zero zero is the video and the transcript is i is the one we've just been looking at i n q three zeros one two

00:53:21 n q three zeros one two one four two one eight and just for the record

00:53:24 record um the next video we're going to look at bre four zeros five seven zero one has an associated transcript at inq three zero one four two one nine and the third one third video clip bre

00:53:38 and the third one third video clip bre four zeros five seven zero two is the video with the transcript associated with it at imq3014220 now i've read all that into the record

00:53:50 now i've read all that into the record so that people can can see that for themselves i've shown you paragraph 4.2 there on the screen and he says that the he understands that the comment about

00:54:01 the comment about now that the board is there um refers to something that wasn't present at the first text first test and in its context uh his conclusion uh looking back on the

00:54:13 conclusion uh looking back on the conversation that he would which he was present was that that was a reference to the magnesium oxide layer do you agree no i don't agree

00:54:32 let's go back to the transcript then so you can think about it before you answer

00:54:39 answer inq30 is 14218.

00:55:00 are you um do you want me to answer the question sorry yes i'd answer last time inviting you to tell us why you don't agree with what mr roper has told us in his second witness statement by way

00:55:12 in his second witness statement by way of his conclusion well right because i was talking about the small

00:55:18 the small amount of flaming which was still visible between the um on the the video you can see there the lower

00:55:27 lower white board and the sec the ball above it

00:55:31 it and how that flame was dying down so i don't see how he can um get that from

00:55:43 um get that from that layer where the board magnesium board was an extra one and a half two meters above where the flame was that i was talking about well what is the something that's quite

00:55:55 well what is the something that's quite big behind the board what's that a reference to a flaming that was

00:56:00 that was this was a um a way of explaining how um flame lengths changed when it got behind the board but obviously if you've lost the board in front of it then that energy

00:56:11 in front of it then that energy um is dissipated to the local environment as opposed to heating up the material which still has the board in front of it so that was the discussion there was no way to do with

00:56:24 discussion there was no way to do with that layer where the um ruby board was because

00:56:29 because the fire wasn't even at that level

00:56:34 so you say do you that

00:56:38 the reference to the something that's quite big

00:56:42 quite big behind the board is a reference to flaming vents or flame lengths yes

00:56:50 and to be clear we have seen a letter from your solicitors bre solicitors uh which is a bre three zeros three five four

00:56:57 four nine for the record we've seen which has comments on the transcript but cutting straight to the point you're telling us are you but what you were saying was that there's something

00:57:08 were saying was that there's something that's quite big behind the board refers to flames does it yes so if you could bring is it possible if you just bring the steel over the video back uh yes uh let's bring the video back

00:57:20 uh yes uh let's bring the video back then i'm sorry to interrupt again but can you just clarify for my benefit mr clark can we have the transcript back up on the screen please

00:57:36 thank you very much you can see in the second line the words now that the board is there

00:57:43 is there what when you refer to the board can you just make it clear what you're referring to

00:57:49 to um yes sir that's the rain screen facade board that is still visible um maybe it's uh probably not the most

00:58:00 um maybe it's uh probably not the most eloquent

00:58:01 eloquent conversation i've ever had but um so it's

00:58:04 it's referring to the the range green water and why did you say now that the board is there can you recall

00:58:14 um i don't know it was just just speaking um a general conversation

00:58:25 um a general conversation yes all right thank you very much yes i'm sorry mr military um yes thank you mr chairman uh well let's then go um forward um

00:58:37 um forward um bre sorry would you like me to just explain the still of the videos i think that's what we're going to quickly do

00:58:51 to quickly do you're quite right uh yes the well it's a video i'm not sure we've got the still of it

00:58:55 of it i know it if it's paused that's fine right will you tell us where you want to pause

00:58:59 pause um the video is bre five seven double zero we can start it at the beginning but you tell us where we want to pause and then tell us what you'd like to

00:59:10 you'd like to do show us on it please and i should have i'm afraid my fault i

00:59:21 and i should have i'm afraid my fault i should have given a trigger warning earlier on that there is there are flames probably smoke

00:59:30 give

00:59:43 so if you can go back about two three frames

00:59:47 frames so we can see the whole of the rig

00:59:53 there that's perfect yes i'm sorry

01:00:12 stop

01:00:16 that's fine so if you can see the lower board which is um still intact but is split right down the middle um

01:00:26 middle um there's the board above it where it's clearly fallen away and to the right there's a bit of residual flaming and then round to the left just where my

01:00:38 and then round to the left just where my helmet starts there's some more flaming on the wing wall so i was talking about that area there um and how the flame had died down where the board

01:00:50 the flame had died down where the board was no longer in place but was still burning where the board was

01:00:57 board was still in place on the wing wall and as you can see that is in the region of 1.2 meters away from the lower edge of the ruby board so

01:01:08 from the lower edge of the ruby board so it's

01:01:08 it's the conversation is in no way to do with the magnesium oxide board

01:01:16 why did you say now that the board is there

01:01:20 there um i think um it was just a poor poor discussion really now there was no reference in in the word now

01:01:33 just a general conversation with a misuse of a word i suppose right let's go on to the next video then bre-405701

01:01:52 the next video then bre-405701 let's play from the beginning to 30 seconds in

01:02:18 uh

01:02:27 nothing in the standard that said you actually have to test the barrier in terms of

01:02:44 i think you could hear that quite clearly but if we need to replay it we can

01:02:48 can can we please go to inq 3014219 page 2 which is the transcript

01:03:06 uh and you could see male speaker one and again that's you isn't it uh yes uh you say uh to try it out it's done all right in terms of going up to that second height isn't it

01:03:17 going up to that second height isn't it nothing in the standard that says you actually have to test the barrier in terms

01:03:20 terms of um that level so if it's not got there

01:03:23 there then an advantage now

01:03:28 do you accept that that's a fair transcription of what you could be heard saying on the audio um i do yes yes and let's go to mr roper's second statement again cel three zero is one

01:03:39 statement again cel three zero is one two three double zero page four and i'm just going to show you what he says at paragraph 4.6 and 4.7

01:03:52 he says in relation to this audio i understand this is paragraph 4.6 i understand his references to that second height and level to refer to the level two fire barrier

01:04:04 to refer to the level two fire barrier and his assessment that the fire had not reached the point on the rig of which the six millimeter magnesium oxide board was present do you agree with that uh yes

01:04:16 paragraph 4.7 i interpreted this as an indication from mr clark that he considered that the six millimeter magnesium oxide board had not made an impact on the test and had it not been present on the rig the result of the test would have been the same

01:04:28 the same do you agree with that um no why not um because i was talking about um the barrier how had hadn't affected the

01:04:40 the barrier how had hadn't affected the barrier from what i could see

01:04:47 so i think this refers back to the um first test where the board that sat over the intumescent barrier had pulled away

01:04:59 had pulled away um and it was basically saying look it didn't even get to that level so it didn't even impact on that i think we yeah so it was that

01:05:12 i think we yeah so it was that just while we're on this point do you accept that uh you are giving advice uh as we go through the test the sort of running commentary about how the test is going from your professional

01:05:23 professional viewpoint to your class i don't understand how advice in what way you're giving them the benefit of your professional opinions about how the test is going for example by saying that there's

01:05:35 for example by saying that there's nothing in the standard that says you've actually got to test the barrier um it was a general conversation post test um not advice

01:05:48 post test um not advice no all right and let's go to the uh last of those video clips please bre 4-0 is 5702

01:05:57 now the audio quality i'm afraid is not very good but let's play from 30 seconds to 50 seconds and the quote i want to ask you about the section i want to ask you about is at 36 seconds so six seconds into the

01:06:10 is at 36 seconds so six seconds into the clip

01:06:11 clip let me please show you that

01:06:49 now let's look at the transcript of that

01:06:58 inq3014220

01:07:13 and if we go please to page two

01:07:21 let's look at the first comment by mail speaker

01:07:25 speaker two uh uh

01:07:28 two uh uh and it says and and mail speaker too i should say is uh is mr

01:07:36 uh is mr mr roper that's correct yes uh and we can see he's gesturing to towards the rig we saw that and he says you can see behind that rose-colored panel

01:07:47 panel that the insulation below the barrier and above the barrier or inaudible charred in audible other side of the barrier and then you say yeah yeah same you've

01:08:00 and then you say yeah yeah same you've got

01:08:00 got managed to ignite it um i think through the second gap actually on this board without the ball really doing much but he's only at the side etc um

01:08:11 etc um can you remember why mr roper was drawing your attention to the rose-colored panel um i think he was concerned about how the inchemescent had fired off so he

01:08:25 how the inchemescent had fired off so he was talking primarily about the barrier the fire break at that point and he then obviously says how it's charred above and below the barrier which to a certain

01:08:37 and below the barrier which to a certain extent would be an indication of how well it performed at that level um that other than that no there's we were talking about the intermediate fire barrier as far as i

01:08:48 intermediate fire barrier as far as i was concerned are you sure he wasn't commenting on the effect of the six millimeter magnesium oxide barrier

01:08:56 no we were talking about the fire barrier

01:08:59 barrier as far as i was concerned and let's go back to the video and play from naught 1.30 to 0.2

01:09:11 1.30 to 0.2 the quota i want to ask you about is at 0.149

01:09:15 0.149 can we please play that

01:09:32 is

01:09:46 um

01:09:55 no not very clear i accept but um let's look at the the transcript if we stay on this transcript please and go to halfway down page

01:10:05 down page two you can see male speaker

01:10:16 male speaker uh

01:10:21 male speaker one that's you uh uh and you say uh yeah yeah so those have been been effective pretty good but it shows in a way that if you can keep that there then the

01:10:32 that if you can keep that there then the barriers are quite effective hopefully with that intumescent fiber you've got that gap slightly smaller and obviously the your board does your board doesn't appear to have deformed in any way

01:10:42 any way in inaudible so hopefully that's um and then mail speaker too that's mr uh wrote but like i say it's a shame commercially mail speaker one that's you yeah potentially potentially one other thing

01:10:54 potentially potentially one other thing is about having the ball flaming

01:10:58 flaming now it was again was the board not deforming a reference to the

01:11:04 to the magnesium oxide board no it was a reference to how the um 12 millimeter board had performed overall um the fact that the

01:11:18 performed overall um the fact that the second board up was still um primarily still in place on the wing um i think on the first test that had fallen away and distorted very badly

01:11:27 badly and in the first test the board at the barrier level had distorted badly so it was a reference to that specifically

01:11:39 you may come to it but that comment there has actually missed out some of some important pieces as well which

01:11:51 which mr ropa hasn't picked up on his statement

01:11:55 statement okay we'll come we will come back to that in a moment um can i just put to you what mr roper says about this in his second statement cel three zero one two three double zero page five

01:12:09 page five uh to paragraph 4.8 to 4.9 this is mr roper 4.8 i'll just show you that

01:12:17 that uh he says in regard to bre four zero seven five seven zero two a key indirect reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide board is paragraph three where i direct the conversation towards

01:12:29 where i direct the conversation towards that rose-colored panel whilst this will be explored further in section d the reason i referred to that panel was because the six millimeter magnesium oxide board was located behind the raised colored rig colored panels on the rig

01:12:42 colored rig colored panels on the rig and then at nine he says from paragraph eight

01:12:45 eight the conversation focuses almost exclusively on the six millimeter magnesium oxide board in particular mr clark says and we can see the quote that i've um put to you then the last sentence he

01:12:56 um put to you then the last sentence he says

01:12:57 says um the six millimeter magnesium oxide board sat behind the rose-colored panel so it was not clearly visible from the ground and you'll notice that he has uh highlighted the word appear

01:13:10 he has uh highlighted the word appear in bold there but he says it at the end there

01:13:15 there that the six millimeter magnesium oxide sat behind the rose colored panel etc now if that's if he's wrong do you accept that do first of all do you accept what he says in paragraph 4.8

01:13:30 you accept what he says in paragraph 4.8 that he directed us towards the magnesium oxide board or the road sorry the roads colored panel yet i accepted um directed to the rose color panel but the

01:13:42 the conversation was a continuation of the conversation about how the fire barrier performed

01:13:51 why was he pointing at the rose-colored panel

01:13:55 panel particularly at that point during the test um because that's where the fire engine fire barrier sat the fire hadn't gone up that far yet had it no exactly how it's right

01:14:08 it no exactly how it's right and you were having a conversation with him about the performance of the um uh the rain screen so to speak uh lower down the road where the fire had attacked it yes

01:14:19 had attacked it yes uh yes yes and one of the things with the intumescent um is that if the flame has gone up the back of the panel

01:14:30 panel um what it does is it as it reacts it fills in the gap um so we were talking about to my my understanding of that conversation we were talking about how that gap had been

01:14:41 were talking about how that gap had been filled um and the fact that none of the boards had distorted meant that that was effective in that area would and hopefully would be effective in that area and the child levels would show that

01:14:55 can we just go back to the text piece then

01:14:59 at uh inq3014220 the text of the transcript

01:15:11 the text of the transcript uh in the first reference i showed you the top of that page male speaker two mr mr ropa he points to the rose-colored panel

01:15:19 panel but doesn't say anything about the intumescence does he

01:15:26 sorry which paragraph paragraph down mail speaker too you can see behind that

01:15:33 i think sorry my fault you need the top of the page all right

01:15:40 he doesn't he doesn't actually say anything about the intimacy strips there does he

01:15:45 does he um he says above the barrier charred either side of the barrier he's not saying look at the rose-colored panels isn't it interesting how the intumescent strips have worked

01:15:59 um no but that was the conversation we were having earlier about how they yeah and in the next part you don't uh

01:16:10 and in the next part you don't uh say anything which would indicate that you're talking about the intumescent barriers

01:16:15 barriers do you no because i think that conversation then moves on and i'm talking about the wing wall there

01:16:26 yes and then so i'm not talking about the

01:16:29 the rose color barrier so the next section for some reason i've moved on to a different section and i'm talking about how

01:16:37 about how it's caught on the wing wall and only gone up two and a half meters on the wing wall i think that's um and then we start talking about how

01:16:47 about how it's not burned across so so that has come away from the discussion of the rose-colored barrier i see that can we then go to your solicitor's

01:17:00 that can we then go to your solicitor's letter at bre3035419 i think this is what you wanted to refer to when you said that there were other comments

01:17:11 comments uh and tell me if that's wrong but page six i think is where you deal with this uh transcript uh and uh you're you've got some corrections

01:17:22 uh you're you've got some corrections there and some comments uh you say uh that there's a correction

01:17:35 right where mr roper says it's a shame we put calcium silica behind it you say that's not currently recorded in the transcript it can be heard clearly from the

01:17:44 from the audio and your comment is that you consider that this comment assist to explain what mr roger was like to talk about in the subsequent partially audible comments comment currently recorded as it's a

01:17:55 comment currently recorded as it's a shame and commercially and also potentially mr repper's comment of paragraph 13 inaudible we were being over cautious to the gimbal the clerk understands that the potential cost of using calcium silicate for the sheathing board

01:18:07 for the sheathing board may make the system less commercially competitive to one which used cheaper magnesium oxide board or cement particle board as the sheathing board so are you saying that this is actually a reference to the sheaving board and

01:18:19 a reference to the sheaving board and not the magnesium oxide board yes standing and having that conversation the way he was looking and um said that it to my mind

01:18:31 said that it to my mind it made him meant he was talking about the the sheathing more yes but in fact it's correct isn't it that uh bre have recorded the shooting board as

01:18:39 as being magnesium oxide um it is yes but i think

01:18:43 think um in my first draft there was um something that later got corrected

01:18:50 corrected where it was calcium silicate board i think um

01:18:55 think um at some point we may have had a conversation that thought that was that was it

01:19:05 and why would he be saying that it was a shame they'd use calcium silicate instead of magnesium oxide as a sheathing board when in fact the sheathing board was we know magnesium oxide

01:19:17 we know magnesium oxide um

01:19:20 like anything in a conversation you'll you'll have a conversation with somebody and you

01:19:25 and you you sometimes occasionally misspeak um and reading that um maybe he misspoke um but at the time and listening back to it

01:19:37 but at the time and listening back to it my understanding was um

01:19:39 um [Music]

01:19:42 [Music] that's what he was saying is that it's a shame we put it behind it as in the insulation um because it's it's to us it's not very commercial isn't it a reference to the magnesium

01:19:53 isn't it a reference to the magnesium oxide layer behind the uh behind the panels i don't understand how that would be not commercial

01:20:01 mr chairman i know the time it's 11 20. this is

01:20:05 this is i haven't quite finished this um exercise but i'm not far from the end but uh it's probably as wise to have a break now if that's convenient to you i think that would be sensible yes now

01:20:16 i think that would be sensible yes now i've had a little message suggesting that we may need to break for a little longer than usual for technical reasons um mr what i'm going to say is we'll take the break now i'm going to say that we'll come back at

01:20:28 i'm going to say that we'll come back at 11 35 but

01:20:30 11 35 but you and everyone else listening should be aware that we might have to put that back a little depending on uh the resolution of the technical issues so we'll get back to you either at 11 35 or as soon as we can

01:20:42 either at 11 35 or as soon as we can after that okay so thank you very much please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence during the break indeed thank you yes all right thank you very much

01:35:17 welcome back everyone we're going to continue now uh hearing from mr clark hello mr clark are you there can you see me and hear me all right

01:35:26 all right i'm here sir yes i can see you and hear you good thank you very much then when you're ready mr millet yes thank you mr chairman uh can we then go to the video and play

01:35:39 then go to the video and play from three uh minutes to the end this is the video we had before

01:35:55 it's the same reference bre four zeroes five

01:35:59 five five bre all zeros five seven oh three

01:36:16 sometimes if you you want to get things done

01:36:20 done but if you guys don't want to spend talking unfortunately do in every single iteration of it so sometimes changing two things at the same time

01:37:26 you're gonna just knock that down in a couple of minutes are you gonna knock that down in a couple of minutes you're just gonna let them know they can have the

01:37:38 let me just get a photo actually

01:38:00 oh

01:38:14 okay

01:38:19 right i think that was a good deal longer than we needed but i don't think it matters can we go to the transcript please for the piece i want to ask you about inq two two 3014220

01:38:30 inq two two 3014220 page two please

01:38:41 and um this uh at the bottom of that page

01:38:46 page you can see male speaker one

01:38:52 that's you i think um and you say uh

01:39:00 as then you might find that the barrier is actually fired up and it's been effective

01:39:03 effective but if you look at inaudible you see it's charred all the way through that level and it's you've child the wall it's been pretty hot up there really good to see what it looks like when they take it down it's the trouble

01:39:14 when they take it down it's the trouble in a way

01:39:15 in a way sometimes if you want to get things done but with the view with the view i don't want to then spend an audible fortune

01:39:22 fortune doing every single iteration of it so sometimes changing two things at the same time doesn't always give you uh an advantage but obviously for the cost

01:39:33 an advantage but obviously for the cost of tests certainly to see build ups just to see what happens

01:39:39 now why were you talking about changing two things at the same time

01:39:45 um this is the scientific principle that if you change two key items um two two

01:39:56 items um two two key variables um you don't know which one has had a positive effect so what i was saying is that this shows why you only change one which would be the thickness of the panel

01:40:08 would be the thickness of the panel um and by changing two you don't get you don't

01:40:11 don't always get what you think you're going to get because then you don't know which ones

01:40:14 ones has had the effect what were the two things

01:40:18 things that were being changed to which you were referring there now what i didn't say that

01:40:23 say that that you changed two things i said i meant

01:40:26 meant this is why you don't change two things at once

01:40:30 at once you say so sometimes changing two things at the same time doesn't always give you an advantage what were the two things that were being changed

01:40:40 i wasn't talking about two things that had been changed i was saying that this is why you you don't change two things my understanding was only one thing had been changed why did you say so sometimes changing

01:40:51 why did you say so sometimes changing two things at the same time doesn't always give you an advantage um because it doesn't i think i think this

01:41:02 because it doesn't i think i think this in light of what we know now then it it implies that i was of the un understanding two things were changed but that is a basic scientific principle

01:41:14 but that is a basic scientific principle that changing two things in a in an experiment or a test is not advisable well if you hadn't thought that two things had changed what was the

01:41:25 that two things had changed what was the point of

01:41:26 point of mentioning changing two things um i think we it was it's this thing about

01:41:35 about um

01:41:39 the problem is when clients do things they want to get as much as they can out of a test and sometimes they would say can we do this and do that and do this and

01:41:48 and um and the advice would always be no you change one thing you see how that has an effect and then you you move on from there and it was just a like one of the things you probably have

01:42:00 like one of the things you probably have to remember is to my mind this was only the second test that james europa uh sorry jonathan roper had ever seen it was a conversation between myself and somebody who having a

01:42:13 between myself and somebody who having a bit more experience i was just trying to sort of say look scientifically you don't you don't change two things at once because you don't know what's had an impact and um that was the conversation why would you

01:42:25 that was the conversation why would you have needed to say anything about changing two things at once if you thought that only one thing had been changed namely the thickness of the marley eternic white panels acting as the rain screen um because it's i'm not saying two

01:42:37 um because it's i'm not saying two things would change i'm saying the scientific principle is that you don't change two things at once mr

01:42:44 once mr forgive me if i come in at this point mr clark just help me with this it looks as though there had been some discussion about two things that might be changed do you know what those two things were

01:42:57 do you know what those two things were um no it's not a reference to that service

01:43:00 service um it's

01:43:03 um it's the conversation is the fact that clients try to get as much as they can for their money out of a test and they would

01:43:12 would given the chance change five things to to suit themselves and to get as many answers as they can but that to a certain extent doesn't give you necessarily the answers you

01:43:24 give you necessarily the answers you want

01:43:25 want and the scientific principle and what you need to understand is my background has always been the science side of it as well as the testing and as a very my the comment for that was to a young

01:43:39 my the comment for that was to a young person who's very inexperienced i do understand the principle and um and that was that was the thing it was simply a a statement of principle and nothing else yes exactly so that's okay thank you

01:43:51 yes exactly so that's okay thank you very much yes yes mr millet mr clark why would the statement of principle that you don't change two things

01:43:59 things be applicable or relevant if you had thought at the time that only one thing had been changed because it's a a scientific principle

01:44:11 because it's a a scientific principle you don't change two things at once says it's yeah

01:44:15 it's yeah but e equals m c squared is also a scientific principle but it wouldn't be relevant

01:44:18 relevant why was this principle relevant um [Music]

01:44:25 just a general conversation between a client and myself post test and it's just something that came into my head nothing more than that what was in your head i have to suggest to you is your knowledge that in fact

01:44:37 to you is your knowledge that in fact two things had been changed and the scientific principle you were imparting to your client here uh reflected that um no i disagree you disagree it

01:44:50 no i disagree you disagree it it's it's easy to say that in hindsight because you know what was there but in in

01:44:54 in in the post-test conversation you talk about what comes into your head and if i've always been one of these people who have been

01:45:04 have been very keen to share knowledge with people and

01:45:08 and i just thought it was something that would be useful to say had i known so many years later it'll be twisted in that way then um maybe i would have thought twice

01:45:20 um maybe i would have thought twice about what i said but um that wasn't the context of the conversation and that wasn't what i meant and this whatever else it was

01:45:30 was was certainly advice you were giving to your client wasn't it it was the important

01:45:34 important principle no it's not advice what is it then um it's um science i would say

01:45:45 it's um science i would say and and imparting a little bit of knowledge advice to that would be yeah no it's not i i i refuse that you don't think that that's giving a science lesson to mr

01:45:57 science lesson to mr broker about um there's nothing in the um sorry you don't think that's the giving of advice to mr roper about the application of the double change

01:46:08 the application of the double change principle

01:46:10 um no it right there's nothing in in any of the standards that say you can't have a general conversation with your client at the end of the test i'm going to put

01:46:22 at the end of the test i'm going to put it

01:46:23 it i'm going to put a few swirly mr clark uh the the reason you said sometimes changing two things at the same time that was not just the imparting of a scientific principle but was a clear

01:46:35 but was a clear reflection of the fact that you knew that two things had been changed the thickening of the outer panel and the installation of the six millimeter magnesium oxide layer behind the two places on the

01:46:46 oxide layer behind the two places on the rig

01:46:48 rig no no that's i'm sure i've had that conversation with other people as well and no i i very few that

01:47:05 can we go to page 66 of your witness statement i'm so sorry i'm so sorry i need to put mr roper's version of this to you um uh forgive me um can we go back to mr roper's second

01:47:16 um can we go back to mr roper's second witness statement deal three zeroes one two three double zero page five and look at paragraph four eleven

01:47:38 uh you you can see that he says that in paragraph 12 mr tarks then says it's been pretty hot up there really good to see what it looks like when they take it down

01:47:49 when they take it down this was a reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide board every other relevant component could be seen clearly apart from that board pausing there do you accept that

01:48:00 pausing there do you accept that no this was

01:48:03 you know it was to do with my my understanding was that he had already discussed about how the insulation layer was charged and he

01:48:14 insulation layer was charged and he wanted to see what it looked like below and above the barrier so that was my understanding of what he said there

01:48:23 and then he goes on mr clark further states towards the end of the same paragraph so sometimes changing two things at the same time doesn't always give you an advantage the principal two things that were changed

01:48:34 principal two things that were changed between the first test and second and the two things i understood him to be referring to were the thicker cladding panels 12 millimeters instead of eight millimeters and the additional six millimeter layer of magnesium oxide ball now i've already put this to you but for

01:48:46 i've already put this to you but for completeness mr clark do you accept what mr roper says there no i don't now can we then go to your statement please page 66 and look together at paragraph 273

01:49:03 you are answering a question at 10k as follows as you can see on the screen were you present during the test who else from the bre was present if you were present what if any

01:49:14 if you were present what if any discussions do you recall taking place during the course of the test between which individuals and in two seven three you say

01:49:26 three you say in the third line i do recall having a conversation with jonathan roper and another person whose name i cannot recall

01:49:32 recall at the end of the test and commenting on the comparative performance of the system when compared to the previous system um uh now you don't mention

01:49:45 um uh now you don't mention say what those comments were in your statement uh what i thought i did

01:49:52 when you go on to say will you note but uh

01:49:56 uh what was the con tell us what was the content of that conversation um it's what you've just seen i see

01:50:07 and that again would be advice wouldn't it you'd be giving them your professional opinion about the differences between the february test and the may test um no i don't agree

01:50:20 um no i don't agree what was the point of the conversation that you refer to then about the comparative performances of each of the

01:50:27 the tests um there were some references about the comparative performance but um i'd that's not given advice the advices

01:50:38 i'd that's not given advice the advices that you refer to would be how you what you need to do to pass a test what we're talking about is statement of fact the direct comparison between two tests which

01:50:51 two tests which for the same client which are directly comparable there's no advice in that is there any professional judgment brought to bear when you were making the comparison um no no saying

01:51:04 um no no saying saying the borders has distorted and fallen away um and saying a board hasn't distorted and falling away is stating to two facts

01:51:21 two facts yes we go over the page shall we i mean you say at the bottom uh there having reviewed the test footage

01:51:28 footage and the head camera footage i note that i made turn the page a comment about the decorative facing along the lines of there's nothing stopping you making a decorative finish and i clarified that saying something

01:51:39 and i clarified that saying something like brick slips that's advice isn't it um it was it was a current continuation of the conversation where mr roper had said it didn't look very

01:51:51 mr roper had said it didn't look very pretty

01:51:52 pretty yes yes

01:51:57 um potentially in that that piece probably was yes but i would say the rest wasn't right um i'm going to turn them to um

01:52:09 um i'm going to turn them to um back to a topic we covered a little bit earlier before we started looking at the the audio and the video which was subsequent conversations with celebtex about the magnesium oxide board

01:52:21 about the magnesium oxide board um just to finish that off mr hayes said in his evidence that he witnessed the conversation between you and mr roper about the magnesium oxide board after this test and i want to show

01:52:32 board after this test and i want to show you what he says please tell me how about day 74 page

01:52:42 146.

01:52:52 and

01:52:57 i asked him at line one on that page and so far as you know was phil clark aware that six millimeters of magnesium oxide was to be used in this test in the way you've described answer yes how do you know that answer

01:53:09 answer yes how do you know that answer this is at line six because of the conversation that i heard between john and phil clark but also in a more general sense the burn hall was a facility which had three test rigs

01:53:19 test rigs and then a couple of offices attached to it and i think that phil ran it was based there so his main office was in the same building and i think that they did lots of tests of different types and i think he would have been constantly because of the layout of it

01:53:30 layout of it he would have been constantly walking past that rig and looking at it every single day from its initial day one of construction to his last day of dismantling

01:53:39 uh now uh that's the reason he gives um particularly the conversation i heard between john and phil clark specifically and is he wrong about that do you think

01:53:50 do you think um as i said earlier i have absolutely no

01:53:53 no recollection of meeting jamie hayes other than at the first test right actually he recalls uh witnessing the conversation uh as you see as you can see that he

01:54:05 uh as you see as you can see that he says there in his evidence yes um but again that statement has um we have four rigs in the in the um so that's that's incorrect um he's

01:54:18 so that's that's incorrect um he's making assumptions that um from meeting me once and i would say everything in there is

01:54:29 and i would say everything in there is his

01:54:29 his assumption and interpretation which are incorrect i wasn't in the in the lab every single day i didn't walk past every single rig every day i was working in on other projects away

01:54:41 i was working in on other projects away i was writing test reports so everything there i think from him is supposition from his on his part well uh looking at what he says at line six to

01:54:53 looking at what he says at line six to eight he says because of the conversation i heard between john and phil tarr

01:54:57 phil tarr just just focusing on that do you say that he's misremembered something uh or that he's making it up um i would say he's making it up why would you say he's making it up um

01:55:08 why would you say he's making it up um as i said earlier i have absolutely no recollection of him ever coming to the bern hall

01:55:14 bern hall other than at the first test why would he make it up um because it suits their argument why would mr roper make it up because it suits their argument

01:55:26 suits their argument what argument um that bre knew so it was okay

01:55:36 i i don't understand why an organization which has clearly lied to its own internal employees

01:55:47 employees would tell a third party who doesn't work with that organization about um a deception that they're intended to undertake when there's no

01:55:58 intended to undertake when there's no benefit for me what is the benefit for me for hiding this absolutely none at all and it's clear i've

01:56:09 it's clear i've watched evidence that that this was a systematic deception and they've kept it to themselves and a very very limited number of people

01:56:20 and a very very limited number of people and i would be the last person you would want to tell something like that because i wouldn't let it go i wouldn't it's not not my nature

01:56:31 nature at all now both mr hayes and mr roper have said uh very clearly

01:56:45 have said uh very clearly that you knew about the presence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide and we've heard your evidence about all of that but do you accept at least this much

01:56:55 much that you personally and bre more generally

01:56:59 generally had very clearly the means to knowledge of the existence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide on that rig um yes i agree i i i think it's a

01:57:11 um yes i agree i i i think it's a failing that um as i said yesterday has has played on my mind

01:57:17 mind ever since it was drawn to my attention and um

01:57:20 and um and i i think what has happened and i i can't see what was in their mind but i think they've taken that advantage that i wasn't in the office that they were hoping to get it up on

01:57:31 that they were hoping to get it up on the rig and taken down before it was spotted um and that's my my take on it let's look at some evidence then moving on in time can we go to cel403177

01:57:52 moving on in time can we go to cel403177 um this is a report draft report sent by you on the 19th of june 2014.

01:58:04 undercover of this email which you now see

01:58:08 see to mr roper draft report for comment if you say john please find it attach the draft report for comment only this is not the final version and as such is liable to change and has not been through the bre quality system

01:58:19 not been through the bre quality system if you have any changes you wish to include please let me know and i will endeavor to include them in the final version why did it take so long to issue a draft

01:58:32 um i have no idea well i mean it was your draft

01:58:39 draft um the test took place on the 2nd of may and here's a draft coming on the 19th of june can you explain

01:58:46 explain the lapse of some six weeks or so between the test and the draft report um as i said i this wasn't my only project i worked on um

01:58:56 um i was running probably something in the order of

01:58:59 order of well i was running four test walls i was also working on

01:59:06 other projects as well which took my time i had other test reports which i had to complete and conclude so it was just generally that's how long

01:59:18 so it was just generally that's how long things took um can we go to uh cl four zeroes one three five zero please

01:59:33 and you can see this is an email from john rope to uh

01:59:40 uh i think you need to scroll down i'm sorry to the lower

01:59:50 yes we have to go to the bottom of page one and over to the top of page two and you can see it's an email from john roper to you as i say first of july 2014 copied to paul evans

02:00:01 first of july 2014 copied to paul evans and jamie hayes test report comments phil it says and then if you go over the page to page two it says as discussed please find attached our first draft comments for our br 135 test report

02:00:16 just focusing on that you could see he says as discussed do you remember a discussion before this date with mr roper um i don't directly know

02:00:32 do you remember therefore you don't remember what you discussed no no now mr roper attached three photographs to this email

02:00:46 and i just want to show you the rest of the email he says annotations are highlighted throughout the document and we will send through the revised drawings to replace figures four five and six once we receive updated

02:00:57 and six once we receive updated details from simcoe this week as previously discussed could you also replace figure 18 with the attached photographs as we want to show a close-up of the condition of our insulation below and above fire break with the

02:01:09 below and above fire break with the intumescent fired off if you feel you also have a suitable photograph then please include and then the last paragraph is about um about the drawings

02:01:20 about the drawings now the photographs are at cel 4 0's 1353 1354 and 1355

02:01:31 1354 and 1355 i would just have those up very briefly

02:01:38 uh that's the first one i'll show you the second one 1354

02:01:45 1354 and then the third one 1355 i know i've shown you those quickly but can you confirm uh that none of those show the six millimeter magnesium oxide layer

02:01:56 millimeter magnesium oxide layer uh yes confirm that yes now let's look at the draft report with the comments um which sorry let's look at the draft report first of all that you sent mr

02:02:08 report first of all that you sent mr ropa

02:02:09 ropa on the 19th of june uh cel40 is one three five two we're going back in time here is the draft and you can see

02:02:21 draft and you can see uh it carries the number report number 295369

02:02:26 295369 issue one uh and the date is the second of june 2014. do you know why it took from the second of june

02:02:36 of june to the 19th of june for you to send this document to mr robert um no as i said i was very very busy um if we go to page 35

02:02:48 um if we go to page 35 let's see that page you'll see a photograph on it as figure 80

02:02:56 and the title to figure 18 is photographs showing the condition of the cladding system post test insulation layer this is a picture of the rig being dismantled isn't it it is yes

02:03:08 dismantled isn't it it is yes it appears to be a continuation of the one you showed this morning where i explained that those three boards had been removed it was clearly taken not long after that

02:03:19 it was clearly taken not long after that probably

02:03:20 probably half an hour or so maybe

02:03:24 this shows on the right hand side isn't it a layer of white material on the top of the insulation just above the level 2 thermocouples um it does indeed yes

02:03:35 um it does indeed yes did you look at this photograph when you were compiling the report um yeah i must have done because i would have put it in yes so you chose this photograph did you

02:03:48 yes so you chose this photograph did you yes i did

02:03:49 yes i did yes did you study it um

02:03:55 not specifically in terms of if you mean i would have looked at it yes and and decided it showed everything that it needed to show indeed yes did you

02:04:06 it needed to show indeed yes did you wonder

02:04:07 wonder what the whiteboard was at the single white ball on the right of the rig at the second layer and the white ribbon of board around the top of the rig um shorter answers no i didn't no

02:04:21 um shorter answers no i didn't no did you not notice that during the test at those two layers there was a rose-colored ruby colored uh panel over there um

02:04:32 colored uh panel over there um no i didn't no i didn't didn't no um you accept from our earlier exchanges at least

02:04:39 at least i'm going to put to you that you ought to accept the fact that you knew during the test

02:04:44 the test uh that there was a set of ruby-colored panels at those two locations on the rig during the test yes yes without the doubt yes there's that

02:04:54 that and here is a photograph you studied for the purposes of putting into the report which shows that now those two locations you can see a white layer are you saying you didn't notice that no i didn't notice it not not to the

02:05:06 not to the the to make me question what it was there was just a photograph that i looked at i thought this is sensi this is suitable ideally i would have preferred it without those boards in there because it

02:05:18 without those boards in there because it to my mind it was not fully deconstructed but um my recollection of the rig at the time wasn't such that i it dawned on me that there was a should

02:05:30 it dawned on me that there was a should have been a pink board and there's no no a whiteboard well you see let's just backtrack a little bit you'd had a specific conversation with mr roper about why

02:05:41 about why there was a rose-colored ruby-colored board in those locations and giving you the answer shortage of material yes yes you knew because you'd signed the

02:05:52 yes you knew because you'd signed the order form uh delivery form uh that there had been a delivery of marley attorney eight millimeter ruby boards and we've seen from the video that you had

02:06:03 we've seen from the video that you had had pointed out to you for whatever purpose during the test the rose-colored panels so can we take it that by the time you came to view

02:06:14 came to view this photograph for the purposes of sending it in the draft report you had in your mind the fact that there at those locations previously there had been

02:06:25 been rose-colored or ruby-colored panels um

02:06:32 in in in hindsight probably yes i would i should have picked up on it but what you need to appreciate is at any one time i could have had seven or eight projects i was working on

02:06:44 seven or eight projects i was working on on my desk to write reports for i would have potentially three or four new walls coming in at any point of time

02:06:52 of time so this wasn't my only thing i was doing day to day and to remember from a conversation six weeks prior

02:07:01 prior um when you look at it in this the light of day yes then it's true but in the day-to-day running around in the real world it's

02:07:12 running around in the real world it's it's difficult ways to remember these things

02:07:15 things so you're saying you picked the photograph but they no connection at all between the presence of the white panels on the photograph they're in exactly the same locations

02:07:24 locations as you've seen the ruby-colored panels during the test no none at all that's not credible is it really why would it not be incredible as i say

02:07:35 i say i'm working for numerous clients with various

02:07:39 various different systems we're having i could have on any day i have as i said earlier five people working on different

02:07:47 different rigs it was a very busy high-pressure job

02:07:50 job and and

02:07:53 and and to be honest with limited um staffing levels and it was it was something that was missed um

02:08:02 um sorry to say again except you should have spotted it when i did when selecting this photograph for inclusion in the draft report

02:08:09 report yes knowing what what i know now yes without no no i've already accepted that yes

02:08:16 um now mr roper's request was

02:08:27 to remove this photograph as we've seen did you look at the photograph after he'd made that request on the 1st of july and ask yourself why he wanted it removed um

02:08:41 why he wanted it removed um no because i from reading his email he he just said and add these drawings one of the things is what we don't do is

02:08:53 one of the things is what we don't do is we don't remove stuff at clients request

02:08:59 had he had he said particularly um anything

02:09:04 anything then i might have asked the question but um

02:09:08 um it's not up to him to tell me what photographs i've put in or not having received that request

02:09:16 and thought to yourself well i'm not going to do that it's not up to him to tell me

02:09:20 tell me did you not then go back to the report and study the photograph again just work out what it was he was up to um

02:09:31 um no because i had no reason to doubt that there was any um intention in having it removed

02:09:39 well you said a moment ago that it wasn't up to him to tell you what not what photographs to put in and not put in

02:09:45 in would it not have been the natural thing to go back to the report and say oh i wonder what photograph that is and then look at it and ask yourself the question well i wonder why he wants me to take that out

02:09:55 that out was that not your thought process no no no there's a pretty standard photograph that's in there i i just thought that he wanted to

02:10:06 i i just thought that he wanted to highlight the the fact how the barrier works and and to me it didn't seem relevant to put that in specifically and then take that photograph out because um so i i saw no reasoning behind

02:10:19 um so i i saw no reasoning behind his request and and it didn't make me think

02:10:22 think why has he asked that no just go back two pages if you would then please to the draft report and let's look at figure 60.

02:10:35 you presumably also selected this photograph for inclusion in the draft report

02:10:39 report i did indeed yes and you can see the rose-colored panels there in both locations yes yes yes so presumably when you were compiling the draft report you would have had figure 16 and figure

02:10:51 you would have had figure 16 and figure 18 on your desk or on screen somewhere and you would have chosen them for selection yes uh yes yes uh and during that process did it not uh occur

02:11:04 during that process did it not uh occur to you

02:11:05 to you the question i wonder why there are rose-colored panels there during the test

02:11:10 test and i wonder what those white panels are during the deconstruction um no it didn't occur to me no

02:11:20 can you explain how that could possibly be the case um it was

02:11:28 um it was um an error on my part but um no i can't no you see it doesn't really work because you actually looked at the photographs looking at figure 16

02:11:40 looking at figure 16 and decided to describe them figure 16 photographs showing the condition of the cladding system post test ruby panels present and then if we flip down please two pages to figure 18.

02:11:52 please two pages to figure 18. you you have a description at the bottom a photograph showing the condition of the cladding system post-test insulation layer yes and you would presumably intended that the reader of this report

02:12:04 the reader of this report should look at those photographs and um follow them through yes yes indeed yes can you explain why you didn't go through that same process and spot the fact that the test rig has

02:12:16 and spot the fact that the test rig has tested had ruby panels on it uh but during the deconstruction post-test there were those mysterious white panels in exactly the same place um because i had

02:12:29 um because i had no reason to think anything was untoward and it just it was a case of stick stick put the photograph in

02:12:40 photograph in um and i hadn't put two and two together in the fact that not knowing

02:12:46 knowing that it was there why would it flag anything up to me it was just to me looking at that oh they hadn't finished taking it down properly um and i just didn't spot the difference

02:12:57 um and i just didn't spot the difference between the ruby and the um and the white

02:13:04 mr clark you knew very well but those manganese magnesium oxide panels were there

02:13:08 there they sat behind the rose panel those two photographs only two photographs apart and your own draft report showed exactly that right so so if that's the case why would i leave the photograph in which is the

02:13:21 i leave the photograph in which is the is now which what you're accusing me of and surely if i was in a position where i was hiding this and i knew full well what was there i would remove it as

02:13:32 would remove it as requested which i didn't do um and yeah no i don't accept your what you say

02:13:43 don't accept your what you say and and the other thing as well with this is um no other nobody else has has said to me what are these boards here other people three other people have read this report

02:13:55 three other people have read this report in draft form in its in its entirety and nobody else has seen that either

02:14:04 and mr clark you're missing it as you would have it i'd have to put to you it's not credible and i'm suggesting to you that you put this report together knowing very well

02:14:16 this report together knowing very well and seeing it from these photographs that there was a magnesium oxide layer these two places sitting behind the rose panels because it's crystal clear from these photographs you accept it no i don't accept that

02:14:31 i will come to the removal question now

02:14:39 let's um look back please at page six of this

02:14:51 uh we can see within section 3.2 in the

02:15:06 draft

02:15:10 uh i'm so sorry it's 3.2 on page eight i apologize my my um my

02:15:18 my um my my misreference description of product figure one shows the system during construction the system prior to test is shown in figure two full details of

02:15:29 is shown in figure two full details of the system specification and installation details have been provided by the client and are summarized in the following section the system has built comprised of and you can see what's set out there

02:15:40 out there we can see there's no reference to the eight millimeter marley eternity is there um not the rose gold one no nor to the six millimeter layer of magnesium oxide bought

02:15:51 magnesium oxide bought no there isn't no what was the reason for those emissions um you can't refer to something that you don't know is there i see uh and then

02:16:03 i see uh and then well i'm sorry mr doc i'm sorry to intervene again mr minute but is it not right that you did know that the eight millimeter board was there

02:16:12 there uh no i didn't so no that was the ruby board wasn't it yes but my my understanding so that was a it was a 12 millimeter yes all right thank you very much yes

02:16:24 yes all right thank you very much yes i'm sorry just a minute

02:16:36 yes i'm just studying the list uh

02:16:45 yes uh and if you go over the page at page 7 paragraph 3.3.4

02:17:00 at page 7 paragraph 3.3.4 uh rain screen it says an array of vertical carrier rails were fixed the helping hand brackets with both l and t aluminium brackets used

02:17:11 and t aluminium brackets used a single layer of eternity board was mechanically attached to the carrier rails with self-tapping stainless steel screws and washers now that wasn't true was it that

02:17:22 that wasn't true was it that that's not the whole truth at least because in parts it was an eight millimeter uh board with a six millimeter magnesium oxide backing um my my understanding at the time was it was a single layer yes now

02:17:33 it was a single layer yes now now obviously we what we know now is then that that that line is incorrect but at the time it it was

02:17:44 it it was to my mind a 12 a single layer 12 mil uniform throughout yes i'm just taking it in stages do you accept that the statement a

02:17:55 do you accept that the statement a single layer of attorney board is false in einstein yes but at the time no as a statement do you accept that it's false

02:18:08 as a statement in what and what time frame you accept whether when it says a single layer of a turnip board that's false because it's not true in

02:18:19 that's false because it's not true in parts

02:18:20 parts it was an eight millimeter board with a six millimeter magnesium oxide backing um yeah as i said earlier that that was the assumption is from that you're taking that in

02:18:32 from that you're taking that in hindsight

02:18:33 hindsight in that my when i wrote this my understanding was it was a single uniform thickness layer throughout now we've seen the list on the previous

02:18:46 now we've seen the list on the previous page we've seen this statement here can you explain why you didn't give an accurate description of the system in this draft um

02:18:59 no not exactly but this wasn't unusual with drafts that this is why it went back to the client to just sort of make sure

02:19:06 sure we've not missed anything and this was a an initial draft for um um

02:19:17 for um um john ropers right for his name then john roper to look at um before it went to to steve howard to have a look at i think can we just go back a page then to

02:19:29 think can we just go back a page then to uh page 8 paragraph 3.2 description of product

02:19:37 you can see the list of bullet points there

02:19:42 when you sat down and drafted this what information were you using

02:19:51 um there's the drawings i think so i think

02:19:56 think possibly at the time i think the drawing still

02:19:59 still showed the because we were using the old versions of the drawings because the new ones hadn't been issued i think at the time it still said the eight millimeter

02:20:10 eight millimeter board on there so it's possibly a

02:20:14 miss typing of old information well i was going to ask you that see the eight millimeter marley eternity decorative rain screen ball is not a reference to the to the ruby is

02:20:25 is not a reference to the to the ruby is it it's a reference to the february eight millimeter white marley alternate decorative yes yes that's correct so um and you know you knew because you've had a conversation about it

02:20:37 you've had a conversation about it um that there was a different colored board at the very least but that at least had changed why were you using the february ingredients i'm not doing your best at least to set

02:20:48 i'm not doing your best at least to set out the may ingredients i think at the time i as i said i'd probably taken that from the drawings that we

02:20:59 from the drawings that we we had and it was just a

02:21:03 continuation across um of that unupdated drawing i see so can we do it like this that at least this text

02:21:14 least this text uh in draft would be you expected subject to change when you finally got the updated list of components for the may test indeed yes that's correct yes

02:21:24 now um

02:21:30 was it not obvious to you given that this draft contained no reference at all to the magnesium oxide layer but the reason that celetex wanted figure 18

02:21:41 figure 18 to be removed when they asked for it on the 1st of july was because there was something about that photograph they didn't want in the report um

02:21:53 in the report um not at the time no definitely not did you ask yourself the question why do they want to remove that photograph um no i think it it went back to the

02:22:05 um no i think it it went back to the conversation that we'd had had with jonathan about the above and below the fire baron i think i just got the impression that's what they wanted to show um as opposed to the overall

02:22:18 um as opposed to the overall um damage to the to the insulation layer so that was my only take on it

02:22:30 can we go to uh mr roper's email again please which is a cel 401

02:22:39 his first of july email i think we'll need the top of page two uh of that email run uh because he says that

02:22:49 that um in the

02:22:52 um in the third paragraph um we expect to receive the updated drawings from simcoe this week which will be checked in my absence my colleagues paul and jamie who will then forward these on to you for inclusion in the final report

02:23:06 uh did mr robert tell you why these new drawings were required

02:23:12 um my understanding at this point was they were quite keen to get the report finished because they were looking to launch the product i think

02:23:23 launch the product i think did he tell you that the nhbc had insisted that the drawings were updated following a visit that they had made to celetex on the 19th of june um he's i've never ever had a

02:23:34 um he's i've never ever had a conversation with jonathan roper about any aspect of an hbc no now as you told us before i think the drawings that you used

02:23:41 used for this draft at the very least with those same drawings that had been used for the february test yes that's correct yes it's surprisingly yes

02:23:50 yes even though you knew there'd been changes to the design yes that's correct yes yes why did you not require updated drawings to take in the fact um that instead of eight millimeter uh mali

02:24:02 that instead of eight millimeter uh mali eternity panels used being used for the most part on the rig um they were now 12 millimeters i think they they had been requested probably and and um the idea of the

02:24:15 and um the idea of the the draft report was to sort of show the client

02:24:19 client what the basis of the report would be and

02:24:22 and and um to a certain extent to show them what needed changing as well so yeah it was implicit in the in the fact that we sent it there that

02:24:33 in the fact that we sent it there that the drawings needed changing

02:24:37 now if we go to cel40320 please you can see what happens next

02:24:47 uh on the fourth of july mr evans writes to you

02:24:51 to you um copying john roper and uh he says uh uh

02:25:01 uh uh hi phil just tried to call but you are away from your phone john roper has asked me in his absence to forward you a revised drawing please see attached in place of figures four five and six of our test report could you please update the test report

02:25:13 could you please update the test report and pastor steve howard for his approval i understand that you're away from 10th july so could i please ask you to confirm back to me once this has been passed to steve this form is an important part of our pre-launch activities for us to meet a launch date of early august

02:25:26 launch date of early august uh and uh in fact it's right isn't it that the

02:25:29 that the the drawing was changed in the bre test report

02:25:32 report the next version they were yes it surprised me yes let's have the drawings let's see them um uh let's look first at let's have them both

02:25:43 let's look first at let's have them both on the screen same time cel40 is 3194 and 3201 we can display those at the same time

02:26:02 now this is drawing reference 1311 1311cb04

02:26:08 1311cb04 and i just want to identify with you the key changes uh but first of all do you remember seeing the revised drawing i recognize

02:26:20 seeing the revised drawing i recognize these drawings yes and from the the list of amendments that appears to be fourth amendment yes to be clear the original one is on the left that's from the february test and the revised

02:26:32 from the february test and the revised version is on the right of the screen that's the for the may test right and the the um you can can't see but do you accept that the key one of the key revisions

02:26:43 that the key one of the key revisions was the change from the mali eternity padding board from eight millimeters to twelve millimeters um i can't actually read any of the text

02:26:55 um i can't actually read any of the text no all right well i wonder if it could be um

02:26:58 be um blown up so that we can see the bottom left hand

02:27:01 left hand box

02:27:12 yeah i can read that now that's fine

02:27:19 and you can see on the right hand box as well

02:27:23 well um i think this is a key change actually um

02:27:26 um it's now 12 millimeters you see

02:27:31 i can see that yes yes yes and there's also i think the um addition of a 10 millimeter vertical joint introduced where the main face meets the return wing that's the um

02:27:45 face meets the return wing that's the um it's not very obvious but it's it's it's a red

02:27:49 a red screw and it's just above the red screw

02:28:02 did you yourself carry out any checks to make sure that these changes accurately reflected what have actually been built um

02:28:14 i would have done yes i think so yes what checks did you make um i think i would have done a quick um check to see if it covered

02:28:26 quick um check to see if it covered um not every single item would have been checked in terms of if every measurement was correct but as long as it covered the main items then

02:28:37 then yes what would you have done a check against

02:28:41 against um against the original drawing on what i understood to be on the rig um and what documents were you looking

02:28:52 um and what documents were you looking at

02:28:53 at uh or what material were you looking at to tell you what was on the rig um i think

02:29:04 um i think my the notes that would have been on the file which um and the the photographs

02:29:16 but not the actual rig itself um no because one of the photographs we always took was like a should have been a through test build up of the system

02:29:27 of the system normally taken at low level um i think we saw one yesterday which would had the markings where the thermocouples would go so it would normally be compared to something like that as well

02:29:38 something like that as well did you not seek to compare the revised drawing that mr evans was sending you on the fourth of july with the photographs

02:29:50 of july with the photographs in the draft report that you had sent on the 19th of june um sorry could you repeat that question yes did you not seek to compare the

02:30:02 yes did you not seek to compare the revised drawing that mr evans sent you on the fourth of july with the photographs in the draft report photographs of the rig after the test store sorry oh yeah exactly um

02:30:17 no because the the photographs the drawings are showing there are a planned view

02:30:22 view of the cut through of the system as a whole so

02:30:26 whole so it's only one layer um so it's a representative representation of the whole of the rig not not a specific part of the egg no

02:30:38 not not a specific part of the egg no so i just want to be very clear about what the sources of your understanding of what was on the rig were and you say that there were the

02:30:49 were and you say that there were the photographs yes yes yes what else um there would be a if necessary that we would consult with

02:31:00 would consult with the any

02:31:03 the any photographs any notes that we had um and and to a certain extent as well this this

02:31:11 this drawing as well did you seek to compare this newly arrived drawing which had been revised with the rest of the data that you had at the time including particularly the photographs

02:31:23 including particularly the photographs of the test rig um probably yes i thought so but to what level i can't at this rate i can't ex

02:31:31 can't ex say that i compared a with b and this and this but in a general terms yes did you not notice

02:31:38 notice uh that although as you knew there was a ring in two places of ruby-colored marley alternate eight millimeter boards probably eight millimeters in the question

02:31:49 question uh marley attorney ruby boards did you not

02:31:53 not seek to to compare the new drawing uh with the photographs which showed that and ask yourself why the drawings don't refer to the eight millimeter marley eternity

02:32:06 to the eight millimeter marley eternity ruby boards in those two locations on the rig um no because as i said earlier my understanding is that they were 12 they were 12 millimeter boards the same as the

02:32:16 the rest of the rig and that drawing is a cut through representative of the whole of the

02:32:24 of the the rig so i had no reason to question that

02:32:27 that you did have a reason you see to question it because you'd sign yourself signed a delivery order for the ruby boards which showed that they were able to meet

02:32:36 um like i said earlier you're assuming that the contents of that delivery was checked so do we take it from that answer that when you

02:32:47 when you uh looked at the test rig drawing has revised you didn't check it

02:32:54 check it uh against the materials which were delivered

02:32:58 delivered to the bre for the purposes of installation on the test ring i would probably say you're correct yes yes why is that um because

02:33:10 mistakenly i'd assume that every single board that had been delivered was the same thickness and i neglected to check

02:33:24 do you remember whether there was in fact a 10 millimeter vertical joint where the main face met the return wing in the actual ring in in which place sorry i'm asking you

02:33:37 in in which place sorry i'm asking you generally do you remember whether there was in fact a 10 millimeter vertical joint where the main face met the return wing on the actual test um i don't recall

02:33:48 on the actual test um i don't recall that no

02:33:53 it's in the report though isn't it

02:33:57 as in in the drawing of the water is it record

02:34:03 record sorry in the tech the body text of the report or

02:34:07 report or do you remember let me put it this way

02:34:10 uh well let's let let me show it to you if you please go to bre four

02:34:28 2497

02:34:33 uh and uh if you this is the august version

02:34:37 version if we go down please to page 15 i'm just scrolling down on my own version i just can't get it for you page 15.

02:34:48 uh yes that's it you can see that

02:34:57 i see what you mean now yes yes yeah exactly um this drawing shows a uh 10 millimeter vertical joint

02:35:08 shows a uh 10 millimeter vertical joint in that place yes it does yes clean judges

02:35:12 judges um

02:35:19 where well did you check that fact against the rig itself or against any other data um no because i think at the time these

02:35:30 um no because i think at the time these were issued the rig had gone long right and just say that people are looking

02:35:38 looking uh not very clear about it i'm taking this a bit too quickly perhaps but the 10

02:35:42 10 mr clark just confirmed with me sits by the reds the red vertical screw uh which points upwards in the middle of that picture yes it's between the two blue

02:35:53 picture yes it's between the two blue l-shaped sections now did did you have any concerns about the ventilation gaps in either of these tests um no no do you agree that the external

02:36:07 no no do you agree that the external surface was near to near to continuous with a second test it may test um i suppose they were butted as as almost

02:36:20 i suppose they were butted as as almost as close as you could get them yes yes i mean mr roper said in his evidence day 72 page 3 9 10 to 11 that there was a very minimal gap i would agree with that yes not 10

02:36:34 i would agree with that yes not 10 millimeters yes that's correct i would say can you account for why the test rig as built did not conform uh in this respect to the drop to the

02:36:45 in this respect to the drop to the drawing

02:36:48 um i i wasn't aware that this 10 millimeter had necessarily been added um

02:36:58 i was this what was requested by the nhbc for them to put it in so is that my correct understanding from the drawing that was sent to you

02:37:09 from the drawing that was sent to you yes

02:37:11 yes it wasn't something that stood out to me as as

02:37:14 as as an issue um

02:37:23 um and no i i didn't didn't spot it

02:37:35 now did you know that the nhbc uh had uh challenged the challenge ceretex of the validity of this test um because

02:37:48 of this test um because the report showed a lack of the vertical joint during the test affecting the ventilation and the growth of fire

02:37:56 of fire you know that i having listened to evidence i now know that but at the time i was not even aware that um solitex were in conversation with nhbc you know

02:38:07 in conversation with nhbc you know did you ever tell celetex that the lack of a vertical joint or the lack of any appreciable ventilation gap could alter the test outcome

02:38:16 outcome um no because that in my mind is airing on this it is going into the side of

02:38:27 of consultancy that is a definite consultancy because you're i see but you you draw them we now i think have a feeling for where you might

02:38:39 think have a feeling for where you might draw the line yes yes right um now let's go to the test report uh itself as issued uh cel403215

02:38:56 uh itself as issued uh cel403215 uh and this is an email from you to paul evans copying mr roper on the 8th of july 2014 and you say um

02:39:10 and you say um uh you say uh i'm so sorry this is the one in the middle of the paragraph uh you you say uh paul john just to let you know i've made your suggested

02:39:21 you know i've made your suggested changes and included the photos requested and updated the drawings uh i report is the report it is now on its way to steve who will hopefully get it issued

02:39:31 it issued while i'm away

02:39:37 now you can see in the emails just below that in the chain that after the fourth of july email from paul evans to you where he requested you to put in that photograph

02:39:48 requested you to put in that photograph there was further discussion uh and paul evans had come back to you on the 8th of july saying i'm out of the office in london today but as per our phone conversation yesterday

02:39:58 yesterday that would be the 7th of july um was just emailing to see whether the test report has now been updated and passed to steve for sign off

02:40:06 sign off thanks for your help and look forward to hearing from you do you remember discussing uh the photograph with mr evans um i don't i don't recall

02:40:20 um i don't i don't recall the conversation at all no specifically did you discuss with mr evans mr roper's request to remove the photograph that you'd included in the draft of figure 18 um the other than the email

02:40:34 um the other than the email request from jonathan roper that's the only time there's ever been any requests to remove that photograph yes and when you had this discussion with mr

02:40:43 with mr evans on the 7th of july or they're about

02:40:48 about do you remember having any discussion at all about the request to remove figure 18.

02:40:53 18. no he never discussed i don't remember the conversation but um nobody had ever subsequent after that um email as i said ever

02:41:05 after that um email as i said ever discuss that drawing again at any time um sorry do you know can you remember whether you had made a decision by that time by 7th july not to accede

02:41:18 by that time by 7th july not to accede to mr roper's request but instead to leave figure 18 in the final report um i think in having looked at all of the versions of the report that that photograph remained in through

02:41:31 that photograph remained in through every version of the report and was never changed the only thing that changed with it was its um figure number i think it changed from

02:41:39 from 18 to 21 or something yes we'll see that in a moment but uh my question again uh had you made a decision by the time you spoke to paul evans on the 7th of

02:41:51 you spoke to paul evans on the 7th of july

02:41:52 july not to accede to mr roper's request to remove the photograph but instead to leave it in the final report

02:41:59 report um i never had any intention of removing it in the first place right well but you we saw there was a request presumably you must have seen the request and decided not to

02:42:10 seen the request and decided not to exceed to it must have made a decision yes yes in that regard yes yeah it was i had made the decision for probably from the first day it was asked to take out that it needed to be

02:42:22 asked to take out that it needed to be in there and and i saw no reason to take it out no and let's go to bre 402497 please

02:42:42 this is a copy of the report as issued dated the first of august to 2014 and again we can see the number 295 369 and this is the test

02:42:53 number 295 369 and this is the test report

02:42:54 report uh and if we look at the second page please

02:42:57 please we can see that uh you prepared it as the senior consultant dated the first of august and it was authorized just below that by tony baker yes yes that's correct yes and is it

02:43:09 yes yes that's correct yes and is it right that except for the substitution of new diagrams new drawings this isn't substantia substantively different

02:43:16 different from the draft version we looked at earlier um there were a few typographical errors i think yes

02:43:23 think yes yes um but it's just substantively the same yes yes

02:43:34 and it included the photograph we go to page 35 for this included the photograph that mr reaper had asked be removed go to page 35 we

02:43:45 had asked be removed go to page 35 we can see that it's now become figure 19 in fact

02:43:55 you go to page 35

02:43:58 there it is it's now figure 19 same photograph yes exactly the same yes when you reissued this uh draft did you have another look through the photographs

02:44:09 photographs um no because they it had been through the process of checking

02:44:17 checking up the chain through the quality system so i had no reason to right you can see if you go back to page 27

02:44:29 that there's figure 17 again the rose ruby colored panels on the test rig during the test yes yes and see those so when this was uh

02:44:40 yes and see those so when this was uh review

02:44:41 review well let me ask you was this final version reviewed by mr baker um i think the initial drafts were reviewed by stephen howard

02:44:52 howard um he would have then commented on and sent back any comments and then my understanding is that stephen howard went away on holiday um and it fell to

02:45:04 went away on holiday um and it fell to mr

02:45:05 mr mr baker to actually find off sorry to sign off the final report did you see any written comments from mr howard

02:45:15 howard about the draft um i think there was some on the file yes and

02:45:22 and any changes he suggested would have been made

02:45:27 if you have any conversation with mr howard about the draft um i don't call recall directly no do you see any notes from mr baker

02:45:38 do you see any notes from mr baker um i think on on the file summer i've seen some there are some just some minor changes i think the only the only thing that happened was um

02:45:51 there was a formatting area that mr baker picked up i think that was the only thing that had been picked up something to do with the way um word had picked up some of the

02:46:01 the figures yes that's correct did i did you have a conversation with mr baker about about the drive um not that i'm aware of because it had

02:46:13 um not that i'm aware of because it had already

02:46:14 already essentially been through stephen howard um and stephen had steve had requested him to sign it and send it out so to my extent to my understanding he

02:46:26 so to my extent to my understanding he was content with the contents and he was happy for it to go

02:46:39 and he was happy for it to go is one of the reasons that you left figure

02:46:43 figure 18 and what became figure 90 in that final

02:46:47 final version of the report that it would be difficult to justify to tony baker why you were removing it

02:46:56 [Music] no because

02:47:01 i would be surprised if there wasn't a different drawing i i no

02:47:09 no it's a it's a pretty standard picture that we were put in so i had no reason not to take it out because

02:47:17 because one of the things that you want to be able to show in the report is the overall damage to the

02:47:24 the insulation layer and had that been not in there then it didn't really give a true picture of how the insulation layer had performed so it did to a certain extent need to stay in

02:47:35 to a certain extent need to stay in there

02:47:36 there [Music]

02:47:39 [Music] can we go to page six of this report

02:47:46 please uh here we see the section section three description of system and if you read with me under 3.2 description of product

02:47:57 description of product and we can see the now familiar bullet point list of the components of the may test rig and at the bottom now you can see that it says instead of eight millimeter it says twelve millimeter marlia turn it

02:48:08 twelve millimeter marlia turn it material decorative rain screen board yes

02:48:11 yes yes indeed um was it you made that change

02:48:15 change from the draft to this final version um it more than likely would have been yes and what was the material which prompted you to make that change that you had seen um the comments and

02:48:28 um the comments and a probably the updated drawings and and checking what was on the file i think

02:48:35 think now we can see from that list that there is no reference there either to the six millimeter layer of magnesium oxide board at the level two thermocouples at the top of the rig

02:48:47 two thermocouples at the top of the rig or the

02:48:48 or the ruby colored marley alternate boards rain screen boards at the same location is there another isn't no do you accept as a fact that that list

02:49:00 do you accept as a fact that that list is materially incomplete

02:49:06 now knowing what i know that this was the board was hidden between uh behind a thinner board then yes so you're correct yes

02:49:17 yes and that it would be given that it was materially complete uh materially misleading to anybody who wanted to know what the components of the test rig were um

02:49:31 yes it would be yes yes that does presuppose though that the the boards at level two actually had any effect

02:49:41 effect um but yet you are you are right it's it's it's

02:49:44 it's it's misleading yes and that anybody seeking to use uh this test report as the basis for building a test rig

02:49:57 as the basis for building a test rig which exactly exactly replicated it in order to have a compliant

02:50:03 compliant rain screen system uh would fail uh because in replicating the the components listed in that bullet point list they were not replicating the

02:50:14 point list they were not replicating the test rig as built um

02:50:21 if if you're if you wanted to recreate the exact test then you're correct yes if they use that as their shopping list as what

02:50:29 as what what to buy um and i think the the inquiry are aware and my understanding um is that the this following the um

02:50:42 this following the um acceptance from celetex that there were material changes to the these tests that didn't comply with their

02:50:51 their um quality they undertook the test without the magnesium oxide board and my understanding is it passed and performed in exactly the

02:51:03 it passed and performed in exactly the same way as this system did and was subsequently issued a br135 that is my understanding from documents i've seen so i would i would say

02:51:14 would say while it is misleading it wouldn't lead to a failure in the way you implied

02:51:24 well i'm not putting you the question of actual failure in another test what i'm putting to you is that if a builder wished to build a

02:51:35 is that if a builder wished to build a compliant test using this bs 8414 test beating these beating the br 135 criteria

02:51:42 criteria and replicated the test but replicated the system in accordance with the components that you've listed here they would be building a system which was different

02:51:53 was different from the test

02:51:58 yes it is different for test yes but that doesn't mean that it would that it would have failed the test and i think

02:52:05 think differently you don't know my point is that in replicating the system as described they would be building a system which hadn't been tested

02:52:14 tested therefore was not covered by the test um yes in in that regard yes you're correct yes now do you accept uh that you are you

02:52:27 now do you accept uh that you are you were

02:52:27 were responsible uh for the materially misleading omissions in the in the list of components set out under paragraph 3.2

02:52:38 under paragraph 3.2 um in terms of i wrote and drafted the report then yes without a doubt but um the bre system is such that either write

02:52:50 the bre system is such that either write the report and it goes up through a quality checking system so other people have read and checked this what i have written and they have signed

02:53:01 they have signed in their own right to say what i have said is correct with those other people uh up the chain in the system have

02:53:14 up the chain in the system have checked the underlying data that you checked

02:53:17 checked i should have checked exactly the same stuff that i checked yes so in the system being operated by the bre was the peer review system

02:53:28 review system carried out by stephen baker and uh and uh uh mr howard and sorry stephen howard and

02:53:39 sorry stephen howard and mr baker yes sorry same material that you had used to draft the report um they had access to everything that was on the system yes

02:53:50 was on the system yes that is correct

02:53:56 including the delivery notes including the delivery notes and yes yes and including all the photographs we've been looking at including everything that you've shown

02:54:07 including everything that you've shown yes

02:54:12 mr roper told the inquiry in his evidence day 71 page 130 lines 10 to 14. now summarize it we can look at it if you like that it was you who made the

02:54:23 you like that it was you who made the decision not to refer to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide in the test report is that correct uh no it's not correct no

02:54:32 no and how else can you account for the fact that the test report contains no reference to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of narnia turn it ruby boards um because i've said um

02:54:45 um because i've said um you can't refer to something that you don't know is there and my understanding was that it was a 12 millimeter thickness throughout the whole of the

02:54:57 thickness throughout the whole of the range green facade and um and that's my understanding

02:55:06 i'm going to uh turn now to kingspan and that i may have some further questions on the celetex test for you mr clark uh after

02:55:17 mr clark uh after uh the short break but um let mr chairman i'm looking at my watch we've got five minutes in hand we can either come back a little earlier um

02:55:25 um at five to two or two o'clock um or we could have five minutes now i'm happy to take five minutes now well if you can use the five minutes do so

02:55:35 so very well i will now i want to turn to kingspan and start uh scrolling back a decade now to 2004. cast your mind back then to november of that year do you remember that kingspan

02:55:46 that year do you remember that kingspan carried out an indicative or naked test uh under bs8414 part one in the november of that year 2004.

02:55:55 2004. um having seen some photographs of the system i do now remember it yes and you describe this test i think a paragraph 77 of your statement

02:56:05 statement you say that your recollection is that it was carried out with no rain screen facade attached is that right that is correct yes and i have noticed recently which i hadn't noticed before that

02:56:16 noticed before that it appears to have had a um a glass fibre mesh as opposed to an aluminium foil face which was slightly different i think

02:56:30 which was slightly different i think were you present at that test do you think um

02:56:34 think um i don't specifically recall no i post given what i was doing at the time i probably was in some form or other but i don't specifically recall it now let's see if i can prompt your memory um

02:56:45 let's see if i can prompt your memory um vre 403278 please this is an email from either meredith to

02:56:56 this is an email from either meredith to you on the 3rd of november 2005.

02:57:14 i think this one is referring to the second test uh well i just want to look at the email with you

02:57:22 with you and you can see that either meredith uh refers in the blue text um that you can see that he says

02:57:38 uh i'm sorry it's just beyond halfway down the screen towards the end of the email and he says uh regards the video i have a copy of the most recent

02:57:50 a copy of the most recent test it's in blue on the screen regardless of the video i have a copy of the most recent test it's the naked indicative we did on 3rd of november 2004 that i'm looking for if you can get me a copy of this or run another copy off i would be very

02:58:02 another copy off i would be very grateful

02:58:04 grateful it seems that from this that at least he's thinking that you would know what he was talking about does that indicate that you

02:58:09 that you probably were at that test yes i think that's correct yes so when i say i didn't remember i i've got a vague recollection of what it was so i

02:58:18 was so i given what i was doing at the time the very high likelihood i was there yes what was your understanding of why kingspan were carrying out a naked test um

02:58:31 to be honest i had very little given what i was doing probably in that sort of period i was more sort of um along the lines of more technical

02:58:45 um along the lines of more technical help in terms of setting the test rig up and

02:58:48 and instrumenting it and preparing it and running it as opposed to understanding any um reasoning behind what was being done

02:59:01 done so is the answer you don't know um i don't know yes that's probably yes do you know whether indicative or naked tests were offered uh to or done by other

02:59:14 uh to or done by other manufacturers other than kingspan um i do recall doing some um sort of part scale tests for a company

02:59:25 sort of part scale tests for a company called driveit on some of their boards um i think they were looking to do a very quick comparative test

02:59:37 but it was unusual i would say unusual did kingspan seek any advice or guidance from you

02:59:43 from you or anyone else at the bre in relation to carrying out a full test um at that time i i wasn't aware because it wasn't my

02:59:55 i i wasn't aware because it wasn't my job to be having those conversations so i

02:59:58 i i don't think they did from me definitely not um i don't know from others i can't answer for them and whose job would it have been at that time to have had those conversations would be tony baker

03:00:10 would be tony baker um no tony baker wasn't involved in in that period i think primarily most things were put through dr sarah colwell

03:00:22 were put through dr sarah colwell richard colwell david hall um were the primary contacts in in that but i think probably sarah was probably the most senior

03:00:33 sarah was probably the most senior person

03:00:35 person right now we know that no test report was issued uh in relation to this november 2004 naked test you know why that was um

03:00:46 you know why that was um i think they just wanted it for the test the the uh the thermocouple data that surprised them away um mr sherman is that a convenient

03:00:57 um mr sherman is that a convenient moment

03:00:58 moment yes i think it is mr millet thank you very much uh right mr clark we're going to have a break there so we can all have some lunch

03:01:05 lunch we'll come back at two o'clock please and again

03:01:08 and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right yeah thank you sir thank you very much

03:01:39 you