BRE Evidence - Wednesday 3rd March 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:20:09 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr

00:20:14 from mr baker this afternoon so i'm going to check first that mr baker can see me and hear me clearly there mr baker yes i can hear you i'll see you thank you very much and you ready to

00:20:25 thank you very much and you ready to carry on yes good thank you well ms grange when you're ready i think we can continue yes thank you yes mr baker now i'm continuing with the k15 story now the

00:20:37 continuing with the k15 story now the kingspan k15 story and staying on the subject of kingspan's test to 8414 part 1 in may 2005 i want to move now to the classification

00:20:49 i want to move now to the classification of that test system to br 135 which happened 10 years later in september 2015. yes yes now um when did you become aware

00:21:00 yes now um when did you become aware that no br 135 classification report had been issued uh for the 2005 uh test did you know that right from the

00:21:11 test did you know that right from the right from the get-go right from may 0.05

00:21:14 0.05 well i wasn't um uh involved in the original test but as once i was aware of that test i was then aware that um no classification was issued for it yes

00:21:27 no classification was issued for it yes and when you became aware of the absence of a bo135 classification report what was your understanding about why there was no such report for that system um

00:21:38 report for that system um well as i said earlier in my evidence side

00:21:42 side my understanding was it was only ever tested

00:21:45 tested um as an indicative system although the test was a full test it was only tested as an indicative system and therefore wouldn't really be

00:21:57 and therefore wouldn't really be applicable for a bo135 yeah now can we go um to bre three zeroes

00:22:04 zeroes one one four four six please

00:22:09 and i want to look at the end of page one

00:22:20 bre three zeros one one four four six

00:22:28 this is an email um from alan macklin of kingspan to a bre global enquiries email address at the end of um page one we can see that there at the bottom yeah

00:22:40 bottom yeah do you have that yeah and it's on the 8th of july 2008 uh this is this email and we can see he says there good afternoon and if we go on to page

00:22:52 good afternoon and if we go on to page two

00:22:55 two he says that um would it be possible to obtain written confirmation of successful completion of the above test carried out in 2005 for issuing to prospective clients

00:23:06 prospective clients we are reluctant to issue the entire test report so a letter from yourselves would be of great benefit the test reference was 220-876

00:23:17 reference was 220-876 dated the 8th of december 2005 and then he says i greatly appreciate your earliest response and that request is passed to you if we move up to the next email in the chain

00:23:30 next email in the chain at 1542 on page one we can see that um someone called simone mcintyre

00:23:41 mcintyre has passed this on to you the same day do you see that yeah and the subject so i should have noted the subject was bs 8414 part 1 2002 test on kingspan called mk15

00:23:55 2002 test on kingspan called mk15 and then if we move up to the top of page 1 we can see that you forward this to sarah colwell and you say see request from kingspan below um

00:24:10 now can you help us with what happened at that time when they requested or when they raid this request confirmation of successful completion of the above test

00:24:21 the above test um but to be quite honest i don't recall that

00:24:24 that those communications at all

00:24:30 but i would have sent it on to sarah knowing that she was um involved in in those tests at that time uh sort of under on the understanding that sarah would deal with it

00:24:43 that sarah would deal with it as appropriate yeah and if we can now move forward to what happened in 2015 if we bring up bre four zeros five zero seven

00:24:53 seven one and again we look at the start at the bottom of page one we can see right at the very bottom that adam heath of kingspan has contacted reader

00:25:06 of kingspan has contacted reader goldstate yeah yeah website yeah at the bre and he's uh said thanks for the prompt response on a slightly related topic

00:25:17 on a slightly related topic it's come up in discussions recently that we never commissioned the classification report for our bs 8414 part one test attached for reference this test was

00:25:28 attached for reference this test was originally completed in 2005 and he says he has three questions if we just go to those on the next page can a classification report be issued for this test how much

00:25:39 for this test how much will it cost and then he asks about the time scale for delivery and he says at the end any guidance you can offer here would be much appreciated and then um if we go up to the next

00:25:51 and then um if we go up to the next email in the chain on page one we can see that miss goldstate says um

00:26:01 to you 8th of september 2015 dear tony please be so kind to advice regarding our client request below regards veda

00:26:12 regards veda so it would appear that she is seeking an opinion from you as to whether or not she should be preparing this classification report is is that

00:26:21 is that correct yes well it's not something that at that time um veda would have been involved with specifically although i know she became

00:26:32 specifically although i know she became involved

00:26:32 involved later on yeah um yeah she i think she's just asking for advice on it yeah and why would she be coming to you at that point do you know

00:26:43 at that point do you know um well i think veda is was aware that i had involvement with bs8414 tests for for some time yeah i see

00:26:55 um and then um we can see the advice you gave at the top of this page in fact i'm going to pick that up in another email if we bring up now

00:27:08 bre405773 at page 557

00:27:17 what we can see in the second half of this page

00:27:21 this page is that what vida does is she sends an email to stephen howard yeah

00:27:27 yeah um saying good morning stephen please can you check the quotation for kings van insulation but also please see below tony notes and what she's done is she's cut and paste your email into this one so just looking

00:27:40 your email into this one so just looking at that here um you can see she you've said this is not a straightforward one in theory we could issue a classification document

00:27:52 classification document however i can understand why one was not issued for this test as it seems like an indicative type test bs 8414 on br135 is a system

00:28:03 type test bs 8414 on br135 is a system test

00:28:03 test and classification system and from what i can see from this report there is no external weather protection system

00:28:11 system included eg render system or rain screen cladding

00:28:16 cladding whilst they have a cement board over cladding i doubt this would be considered a complete system data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past and then you say i suggest

00:28:28 in the past and then you say i suggest this question should be passed by steve howard

00:28:31 howard and or debbie smith before a response is sent

00:28:34 sent regards tony so that's the advice that you

00:28:37 you uh gave and you've already explained to us i think earlier why you felt that this wasn't a complete cladding system um and you've explained

00:28:49 cladding system um and you've explained it here that it didn't have an external weather protection system included render system or rain screen cladding that's right yes yes that was that was my how i considered the system yeah

00:29:00 considered the system yeah yeah and you didn't consider that the cement particle board was representative of a real world external cladding panel yes exactly yeah yeah and in that final line we see

00:29:14 yeah and in that final line we see you said sorry final line of that um second paragraph you've said data such as this

00:29:20 as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past

00:29:24 the past can you just help us as to exactly what you meant by that when you wrote this it goes back to our earlier um discussions uh in regarding the uh

00:29:37 that king spain were using this to um

00:29:45 to um cover a number of different systems uh that had not been tested yeah so can i be clear that you were thinking back to the confusion in the market that you'd observed

00:29:57 in the market that you'd observed earlier that we looked at in your emails this morning yeah yeah it's it's very similar um scenario yeah were you also thinking of the content of the bba certificate

00:30:08 the bba certificate for k15 yes it's all of those bits mixed up together really yeah was it normal in your experience for clients to come

00:30:19 clients to come and ask for a classification report a decade

00:30:22 decade after the test and having been selling that product for that decade no very unusual circumstance did you have any suspicions about why

00:30:33 did you have any suspicions about why kingspan would now want a classification report after so long

00:30:39 long no i didn't really con consider it further than some of my comments in the in the email did you think that the passage of time in and of itself

00:30:50 in and of itself was concerning i appreciate you've not said that in the email but was that something that was concerning you at the time

00:30:57 time no not specifically because a test report is a is a statement a fact of the system tested at that time i had no sort of reason to believe that

00:31:08 i had no sort of reason to believe that anything

00:31:09 anything had changed were you aware of guidance that recommended that tests ought to be rerun after five years because of the risk that the product might have changed in

00:31:20 that the product might have changed in the intervening years um

00:31:26 i'm aware of the ftsg guidance but that in my view that's not recommending retesting

00:31:34 retesting every five years it's a review of the report

00:31:37 report i see why did you suggest to miss goldstate that she should pass this question by debbie smith or stephen howard why why did you refer it to those two

00:31:49 why did you refer it to those two particular individuals um well twofold really one i wasn't directly involved in cladding uh at that point

00:32:01 cladding uh at that point um and secondly i felt it needed oversight from somebody higher up the uh up the chain yeah but you were a co-author of br135

00:32:13 yeah but you were a co-author of br135 third edition were you not someone within the organization that had particular knowledge and expertise in this area

00:32:24 knowledge and expertise in this area yes but within my email i'd given my i'd stated my concerns i see yes in terms of stephen howard what was

00:32:35 yes in terms of stephen howard what was the rationale for passing it on to him was it simply because he was senior to you

00:32:41 you uh was stephen stephen howard was the uh business group manager um looking after

00:32:48 after amongst other things but uh bs8414 testing at that time right and having given your comments did you hear

00:32:56 you hear back from miss garbsite or anyone else as to what the decision had been and whether to classify to br 135 no i didn't hear anything further did

00:33:07 no i didn't hear anything further did you ever discuss your concerns with stephen howard um no no all with debbie smith no so you don't recall any discussions

00:33:19 no so you don't recall any discussions at all

00:33:20 at all uh following you sending that email no there was no response back to me about it

00:33:26 it did you ever discover what had happened subsequently and whether a br 135 classification report had been issued yes i have yeah i subsequently was told that one had been issued yet

00:33:39 was told that one had been issued yet and and how soon after this were you told that

00:33:45 well sometime later i think i don't recall exactly and did you find that surprising when you learned that

00:33:57 surprising yes but it was explained to me that it was felt that as the test had been

00:34:03 been conducted fully in accordance with the s8414

00:34:08 s8414 and it wasn't really for bre to make a judgment just as whether the system was marketable as a cladding system that was

00:34:20 marketable as a cladding system that was the reasoning that was um that one was issued and and you know i understood those uh those reasons so i had you know i took no further action on it

00:34:32 no further action on it you say it was surprising yes and but that that

00:34:35 that that this was explained to me you say um who was it who explained that to you

00:34:42 um i think it was dr debbie smith at that time

00:34:47 that time right so did you raise the matter with her when you found out that i think it it just came up in conversation at another stage um as a general conversation right and did you express any concerns

00:34:59 right and did you express any concerns when you heard that news about that step no the view was put to me quite succinctly and i i understood that approach and you know i was i was fine with that really so

00:35:11 was i was fine with that really so would you have expected those taking the decision to have discussed the matter with

00:35:16 with philip clark who carried out the 8414 test

00:35:20 test in 2005.

00:35:24 no i don't think so it was clear that the system has tested had passed so there was no risk nothing uh in respect of the

00:35:35 nothing uh in respect of the technical aspects of the test or and the results

00:35:38 results were within the scope of br135 it was just a discussion as to whether the system could be considered as a system

00:35:49 could be considered as a system and when the position was explained to you and the justification was provided for

00:35:54 for giving the 135 report did you agree with those reasons

00:36:02 um

00:36:09 yes i guess i

00:36:14 say i i accepted those reasons that they you know it was justifiable reasons for doing so

00:36:20 doing so uh on the basis that we or bre or not um not policing the market and it's not uh not for us to determine

00:36:31 not for us to determine what um is a a market or a system in in in effect so on that basis um it was yeah it was justifiable i i

00:36:44 it was yeah it was justifiable i i appreciate you accepted those reasons um but what did you think at the time were the counter arguments in favor of not issuing a br135 classification report

00:37:02 well i didn't i didn't at that time once once it was explained to me i didn't really have a counter argument other than what i had previously uh expressed which was my my opinion yeah

00:37:15 which was my my opinion yeah did you think that it was uh technically appropriate for under 8414 itself to be issuing a classification report for a system which wasn't a complete

00:37:26 for a system which wasn't a complete cladding system well as i say it it was explained to me that it's not for us to determine what's what's a complete complaining system and what isn't

00:37:37 isn't so on that basis um it's it was justifiable to issue yeah let's look at your um third witness statement uh

00:37:49 statement uh this is bre three zeros 35303 and look at page one

00:38:05 and look at page one and um we haven't looked at these paragraphs yet although we have been discussing this uh topic from time to time if we look at paragraph four [Music]

00:38:16 [Music] um i want to pick up what you say in paragraph four and then read on so you say in respect to bs 8414 tests specifically an indicative test would apply to systems installed that are non-compliant

00:38:28 systems installed that are non-compliant with the standard for example due to the positional requirements of joints or other

00:38:33 other dimensional tolerances not being satisfied

00:38:36 satisfied and or early extinguishment of the fuel source

00:38:39 source timber crib these differences would always be in the full knowledge of the client

00:38:44 client test sponsor and then you say paragraph five in contrast bre's clients i

00:38:50 i test sponsors often use the term indicative where they wish to test a product that is not at full production stage or a product that is not typical of a product or system that is to be

00:39:02 of a product or system that is to be placed on the market this test would generally be for [Music]

00:39:08 [Music] research or development purposes and then you say as explained in paragraph 16 of my second witness statement test sponsors sometimes engage a test house such as the bre to carry out what

00:39:19 house such as the bre to carry out what are colloquially known as indicative tests or tests on indicative systems for their own purposes this means that the sponsor has no intention of installing that particular

00:39:30 intention of installing that particular cladding system on a building but instead wants to see how a component within a system or a type of system performs in order to assist with their product development and then you say at paragraph six in

00:39:42 and then you say at paragraph six in circumstances where bre conducts testing described by its clients as indicative ie per paragraph five above the client may not require a full test report and may instead request only test

00:39:53 report and may instead request only test data and or observations to be provided or request no further information or data from the test house at all notwithstanding this the test laboratory ibre would still conduct the test

00:40:05 ibre would still conduct the test fully in accordance with the test method in the applicable part of bs 8414 and would still utilize all the standard quality systems and procedures as would otherwise be required pursuant to a full

00:40:16 otherwise be required pursuant to a full test

00:40:17 test in this respect the test would not be termed as an indicative test from bre's perspective although the term indicative may still be used in discussions and communications with the client especially where this is their

00:40:29 especially where this is their recognized terminology so you've helpfully described the ways in which people have referred to indicative tests and and you've drawn this distinction here

00:40:41 and you've drawn this distinction here between what the bre might consider an indicative test one where the full 8414 test standard has not been adhered to

00:40:50 to and then an indicative test as described by test sponsors where there may be testing a research and development product and they've got no intention of using it

00:41:00 using it yes that's a clear distinction you're drawing yes that's correct now um in the first case um a bre defined indicative test where

00:41:13 a bre defined indicative test where there has been a deviation from the test standard

00:41:16 standard is it right that the bre would not ordinarily provide a test report

00:41:23 um

00:41:26 we would

00:41:29 if the test was not conducted fully in accordance with bsa414 or whatever standard we're testing to then we would issue um

00:41:42 a a short form report or a letter report and test data yeah um

00:41:52 it would we wouldn't necessarily we wouldn't normally issue a full report and you said not normally are there any circumstances in which the full requirements of the test standard have

00:42:03 requirements of the test standard have not been complied with but a report will nevertheless be supplied to the sponsor

00:42:11 there may be circumstances where we do that be

00:42:15 that be relatively rare um i would guess um but the

00:42:18 the the test report itself would clearly state that it was an indicative test and it would uh it would be clear within the text i could talk why it was indicative yeah

00:42:30 why it was indicative yeah and in that second category that you were describing there where according to the test sponsors terminal terminology they consider it to be indicative such that it includes components not

00:42:42 such that it includes components not typical of a system on the market

00:42:47 what would be the bre procedure in those circumstances would a full test report still be issued

00:42:57 um

00:43:01 i

00:43:04 not normally not normally

00:43:09 i see and and i think you said to us earlier on today that that your procedures have now changed within the bre in relation to these indicative tests

00:43:22 in relation to these indicative tests um can you just explain to us exactly how they've changed do you always caveat reports now whether they're indicative in the first category or the second category

00:43:38 well to be honest it's not always we're not always aware in the in the first category if it's a an indicative just sorry indicative system we're not

00:43:50 sorry indicative system we're not not necessarily aware that that is the situation

00:43:54 situation i think you mean in the second category you know the manufacturer yeah yeah um it's only if the manufacturer declares to us that you know this is uh

00:44:05 know this is uh yeah and if you were aware of that sorry if you

00:44:09 if you if you were made aware that the manufacturer considered it an indicative test because it was on a research and development product or was on an incomplete system as far as they

00:44:20 on an incomplete system as far as they were concerned what would happen now about that test report

00:44:29 well that would be the test report would be clearly identified in terms of the way that the client has declared that

00:44:37 that that system to us yeah

00:44:41 if if now a br135 classification report were being written for the 2005 test are you saying that it would make clear

00:44:52 clear that bre's understanding was that that cladding board was not a representative cutting board

00:45:00 i think if we were to do the same again yes the term the the report would be um somewhat different

00:45:07 different to what was actually issued yes and when you say somewhat different can you help us as to exactly in what way it would be different now um well i'm not sure that we would

00:45:19 um well i'm not sure that we would actually term it as an indicative test but but there would be some commentary within the within the report that um that states that we

00:45:29 that we you know that this the system has tested um i'm not sure that we could say was not of a type to be installed on the

00:45:40 was not of a type to be installed on the building

00:45:41 building but something around that that would make it clear that uh it was a an r d or uh uh a system not to you know a non-commercial system let's put it

00:45:53 a non-commercial system let's put it that way yeah thank you that's helpful um mr baker i asked you at the very beginning of your evidence a little bit about br135 third edition um and in particular

00:46:07 third edition um and in particular we're interested in whether it was deliberate to make clearer in that that the classification report only applies to the system as tested can i just take you to a couple of passages in it

00:46:18 of passages in it if we can bring it up cel50584

00:46:35 so this is the third edition of br135 which you co-authored with sarah colwell and if we can look within it uh page 27

00:46:46 and if we can look within it uh page 27 within annex a

00:46:52 so this is the performance criteria for the 8414 part one in annex a can you see it's a halfway down that page there's a paragraph that begins the classification applies only to the

00:47:04 classification applies only to the system

00:47:05 system now we can have it we have it clearly on the left yes the classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover

00:47:16 the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check that the classification documents

00:47:27 classification documents cover the end use application and then we have identical language at page 33 in annex b

00:47:38 at page 33 in annex b for dealing with eight four one four part two

00:47:43 part two yes on it's here on the right hand side after the bullets can you see it there the top of that page yes

00:47:51 page yes classification applies only two and can you help us was that a well it clearly was deliberate because if the words are in there but we're interested to know whether there was um

00:48:03 whether there was um kind of detailed consideration given at the time of drafting this third edition to the need to be clearer in this edition

00:48:12 edition that uh the classification only applied to the system as tested

00:48:20 as tested yes i think um the the predecessor to this

00:48:24 this um document wasn't quite as clear uh as it could have been so we uh we inserted those those clauses just to clarify that situation in fact we we

00:48:37 clarify that situation in fact we we actually

00:48:37 actually put that that wording in the classification report as well yes yes and was that also done because of a concern that the

00:48:48 done because of a concern that the industry the construction industry wasn't fully appreciating that the classification only applied to the system as tested

00:49:01 yeah that had certainly um we'd become aware of that um although i personally i think if the

00:49:12 although i personally i think if the if the industry had thought about it a bit more they would have been aware anyway

00:49:16 anyway but clearly there what the message wasn't getting through um previously so we we felt that it was prudent to put that sort of wording in in the

00:49:27 in the um bo135 yes and does that in part link back to some of the

00:49:33 of the emails and exchanges we've seen over the k15 product this morning that the concerns that you had yes

00:49:44 that the concerns that you had yes i now want to move uh to a different topic which is your involvement with the celetex testing of rs 5000 in 2014 and if we can just pick up

00:49:55 in 2014 and if we can just pick up um your involvement uh pre-testing this starts in november 2012. if we can go to bre

00:50:03 go to bre four zeros 5775 at page one two seven

00:50:16 so in the top email on the 27th of november

00:50:19 november 2012 mr howard forwarded to you an email from paul evans at celetex and he just says yours

00:50:31 and he just says yours can you see that yes and then we can see below

00:50:35 below the email that he sent you from paul evans

00:50:38 evans uh where he said um hi stephen carroll so stephen howard and carol

00:50:46 carol rock that's someone else at the bre is that right yes yes trust you're both well not sure who direct to direct this inquiry so i've copied you both in i would be interested in obtaining a

00:50:57 i would be interested in obtaining a quotation to test our products so they can be used in buildings about 18 meters in height

00:51:02 in height and he says i believe the relevant standards are 8414 and br135 um and then he says is someone from the bre able to visit celetex for a meeting

00:51:13 bre able to visit celetex for a meeting so we can fully understand the requirements time scales and costings for this approval and and so mr howard simply forwarded this

00:51:23 this to you did you understand uh him to be suggesting that you should meet with celetex

00:51:29 celetex for the purposes of such a meeting yes it was it was uh steve's um uh short hand

00:51:38 hand was saying basically can can i deal with it yes yeah and would you regularly carry out visits to potential clients to discuss their testing requirements was that a

00:51:49 their testing requirements was that a common thing that occurred not common not regular but um uh it happens on occasion so clients come to us at bre or yeah yeah

00:52:01 or yeah yeah and if we look at your first witness statement um now uh bre-40574 at page 11 and if we look at paragraph 45

00:52:15 we can see that you tell us there that in december 2012 you had a meeting with rob warren and paul evans of celetex at their offices in hadley and you say i do not have any notes or

00:52:26 and you say i do not have any notes or minutes of this meeting but to my recollection there was a general discussion regarding test principles and methods of bs 8414 and br135

00:52:37 and methods of bs 8414 and br135 you see that there yes now um can you remember what you discussed at that meeting in december 2012 with representatives of celetex um

00:52:51 i think well i do recall having some discussion over um particularly relating to um the

00:53:01 um the the requirement to test a number of systems

00:53:05 systems i think their their original um thoughts uh similar to our earlier uh comments that uh they felt that if if they did one test they would um they would be for coverall

00:53:18 they would um they would be for coverall but

00:53:19 but um uh during that meeting i made it uh fairly clear to them that uh you know a number of tests would be required to cover a number of different systems yeah

00:53:31 a number of different systems yeah yeah we know that you say you don't have any notes or minutes of the meeting were you required to keep notes of meetings like that was that something that was said to you that you ought to

00:53:43 that was said to you that you ought to keep notes of such meetings um

00:53:49 i don't think it was a specific requirement yes i'm aware that perhaps i should do but i'm never very good at speaking and writing at the same time i'm afraid sir

00:54:02 um if we can go um we've got some celetex notes of that meeting cel402544 these are notes taken by paul evans at

00:54:13 these are notes taken by paul evans at the meeting

00:54:19 so these are his handwritten notes you can see at the very top it says the 15th of december 2012 and it says tony baker bre

00:54:27 bre and if we look at point three on that first page he's recorded bre most popular system is rendered

00:54:39 most popular system is rendered a few for rain screen cladding and then just to the right hand side then he's written rain screen systems and then aluminium do you see that yes

00:54:52 and then aluminium do you see that yes do you recall discussing specific types of

00:54:57 of rain screen cladding materials in that meeting with celetex no i don't recall talking about specifics

00:55:05 specifics i think they might just be sort of uh uh additional notes that uh mr warren was making in terms of um his his thoughts on the

00:55:16 in terms of um his his thoughts on the discussion but um no i i don't think i had sufficient knowledge of the systems market at that stage to actually start

00:55:27 at that stage to actually start discussing um specific system types and i don't i wouldn't do anyway to be quite honest right so you can't remember saying something about the most popular system being a rendered system

00:55:39 being a rendered system in terms of those that were being tested well it is it's quite possible that i i made some comments about the types of systems that we were typically testing at that time

00:55:50 typically testing at that time in terms of rendered systems and some some brain screening trading systems but that's very generically as opposed to

00:55:58 to giving detail right yeah and if we go to the next page about halfway down page two

00:56:08 we can see there's a note it's just above the halfway point we can see it says tony baker keep a watch on any potential partners

00:56:20 right we see that there yeah now um mr evans explained in his oral evidence for the for the transcript we don't need to go to it's day 71

00:56:31 to it's day 71 page is 99 to 100. he said that you advised celetex to watch out for potential partnering opportunities uh is that right did you say that to

00:56:43 uh is that right did you say that to them

00:56:43 them well i i i think i suggested that they might need to partnership with other organizations because i got the feeling during the meeting that they

00:56:54 feeling during the meeting that they were struggling to understand the the totality of of the system uh they you know in fact they're

00:57:03 they're an insulation manufacturer and don't uh you know don't manufacture a complete system

00:57:10 system so i think as part of the meeting i probably suggested they probably need to look at

00:57:15 look at partnership with other companies um to be able to

00:57:22 come up with suitable systems for testing

00:57:28 testing was that based on your understanding following

00:57:31 following for example some of the kingspan testing that combustible insulations were unlikely to pass without good support from other elements of the cladding system including the external cladding boards

00:57:46 um no i wouldn't say that that's that's the reasoning behind the discussion it is more that as an insulation manufacturer they haven't got the

00:57:57 manufacturer they haven't got the expertise in the in putting a complete system together

00:58:05 and we were we'd had other discussions with

00:58:09 with uh or i'm not sure whether it was external or internal that it to enable particularly the rain screen um industry

00:58:22 particularly the rain screen um industry that they needed to do partnerships because each element it seems was actually provided by a different company right to sort of have a complete build-up

00:58:32 build-up you needed multiple companies to be involved i see yeah and and then just the final question on this document mr evans is notes you can see above the

00:58:43 mr evans is notes you can see above the solid line there's a heading considerations and we can see it says considerations outer substrate insulation cavities drainage and ventilation and fixings

00:58:54 drainage and ventilation and fixings um were those matters that you raised that they needed to go away and consider i think it was just just sort of going through a general sort of a typical build-up

00:59:04 build-up that they're the sort of elements that they would need to be looking at uh as for a full system yeah as i said uh you know in my previous comment as in insulation

00:59:17 previous comment as in insulation manufacturer they were not experts in uh what made up a complete system yeah now following um that meeting um

00:59:29 now following um that meeting um we know that you had another meeting this time with jonathan roper in march 2013. is that right yeah so as i've seen that from my notes

00:59:40 yeah so as i've seen that from my notes i don't actually recall that meeting to be quite honest yes we've seen some correspondence where the meeting is set up yeah for the transcript that's cel402082

00:59:51 yeah for the transcript that's cel402082 but we don't have um any record of what was discussed at the meeting either from the bre or celetex can you recall even in general terms what you discussed

01:00:02 even in general terms what you discussed with mr roper at that time i don't unfortunately i don't don't recall the meeting as say from from the email trails obviously there was a meeting set

01:00:14 trails obviously there was a meeting set up and i've got no reason to believe it didn't happen right i do wonder whether it was just a simple case of um

01:00:24 mr roper coming down to bre perhaps just to see the test rigs

01:00:31 yeah now um if we can go to cel40s1185 we can see an email from mr robert on the 3rd of may 2013

01:00:48 this is an email from john jonathan roper to you this is the 3rd of may 2013 and he alludes to that the fact that there's been a meeting

01:01:00 there's been a meeting before that so you can see he says hi tony hope you're well thanks again for your time a couple of months ago when i came down to discuss celetex and above 18 meters bar

01:01:11 above 18 meters bar testing um so we can see that that appears to be referring to the meeting you were just referring to yes yes i guess so yeah

01:01:22 guess so yeah and he goes on to ask about which part of bs 8414 would cover particular applications um if you look in the third paragraph third main paragraph he says we've discovered that

01:01:33 paragraph he says we've discovered that many of our lost opportunities in the past regarding above 18 meters have involved a steel frame system frame as the inner leaf with a brick outer face

01:01:44 outer face this construction is common up to a certain level with the remaining stories constructed with a rain screen cladding system on steel frame

01:01:55 now had you explained um in your meetings with celetex including at that march meeting that the bre was unable to provide advice

01:02:06 bre was unable to provide advice if acting in its role as a test house

01:02:12 um i'm sure i would have done um but i i don't recall specifically um yeah it's sort of a general um general commentary in any meetings

01:02:25 um general commentary in any meetings where

01:02:25 where if a client starts asking about specifics that we would say i'm sorry we can't help you with the specific design of your product right yeah

01:02:36 yeah um and if we can go to um cel40s one three four three this is your reply of the same

01:02:46 day

01:02:50 we can see this at the top there this is you back to mr roper and you can say we can see that you say hi jonathan i'm well thanks this type of system would come under the scope

01:03:01 system would come under the scope of bs8414 part 2 and a classification to br135 annex b it could be argued that with the brick external face there wouldn't be any external thread of

01:03:12 external thread of spread of flame but in line with adb b4 section

01:03:16 section 12.5 you also need to consider the cavities

01:03:19 cavities and hence the potentially combustible insulation materials and then you say different authorities may have different views on the applicability of the tests on this type of system but bottom line

01:03:32 on this type of system but bottom line if you've lost business by not having the classification then the investment is probably worthwhile um this is advice isn't it you're giving him advice on under what part of 841 for this type

01:03:46 on under what part of 841 for this type of system would come and more advice about external spread of flame and you need to consider cavities in the combustible insulation materials under

01:03:57 insulation materials under adb that is that is a form of advice isn't it

01:04:03 it's a form of advice in terms of um the test standards and the um and the building regulations or adb and

01:04:16 and the building regulations or adb and specifically um but yes i i wouldn't uh that i that to me wouldn't be outside of the uh confidentiality or

01:04:27 of the uh confidentiality or impartiality rules is just advice on uh regulations and standards right yeah if we go now to cel

01:04:38 yeah if we go now to cel 50617 there's a further email from mr roper

01:04:41 roper of the 21st of june 2013.

01:04:48 yes and and this is another email back to you

01:04:52 to you a month later um and he says i want to look in particular what he says in the second paragraph he says i could do the quick catch-up over the phone next week also regarding

01:05:04 over the phone next week also regarding the purpose of this test and you can see the subject is br135 testing from the subject says i'm skeptical having sat down with sotech about how a particular competitor

01:05:15 sotech about how a particular competitor of ours has passed vr135 my understanding is that the purpose of this test is to determine the behavior of the

01:05:21 of the flame and therefore the performance of the insulation within the cavity between an external facade and the inner face would preventing the flame entering the cavity altogether be

01:05:33 flame entering the cavity altogether be acceptable when considering the design of our specimens now did you respond to this email

01:05:46 i don't recall doing so we haven't been able to find an email response but he is asking for a quick catch up over the phone about these issues do you recall

01:05:57 issues do you recall discussing these topics with mr oprah on the phone after on or after june 2013 no i don't recall that

01:06:10 i i would say that he's starting to err on the side of the areas that we couldn't advise on yes quite

01:06:18 quite um so do you remember speaking to mr room and saying i'm afraid what you're asking for is advice and and we're just we're a test house we're not

01:06:29 we're just we're a test house we're not a consultant to you and we have independence and impartiality obligations we can't give you this advice do you remember having that conversation with me i don't remember having a conversation about this email at all

01:06:42 do you remember discussing with him how a particular competitor of ours has passed the r135 we understand from other witnesses that

01:06:54 we understand from other witnesses that that's referring to kingspan do you remember having discussions with him about

01:06:58 about how kingspan had managed to pass br 135. no absolutely not i would definitely not be discussing anything about another client with with a client

01:07:13 and do you remember ever having a discussion with him about trying to prevent the flame from entering the cavity altogether when considering how the specimen was designed

01:07:25 no as i i don't recall having uh excuse me having a discussion with him about this email at all

01:07:36 with him about this email at all if we go on now to bre 403477 page two

01:07:44 this is now november 13 and what happens is mr howard forwards another email to you from mr roper

01:07:55 so we can see um that email um from john roper to stephen howard and he says uh steve as discussed

01:08:08 and he says uh steve as discussed earlier found below a list of requirements that ideally we would like to get out of the test report and you can see

01:08:18 in you know it goes on i understand that all of these will not be possible but broadening the scope as much as possible is critical to us and then he goes on

01:08:34 and if we look at the third point he says at three most importantly is the cladding panel scope

01:08:40 scope we are looking to test a fibre cement eternity panel but as discussed we'd like as much scope as possible if the bre won't accept a variation of panels used on one rig

01:08:51 panels used on one rig then we would like some suggestions on how we can cover as much of the most commonly used systems as possible trespa malia turn it rock panel acn panels terracotta etc

01:09:02 terracotta etc if you could come back to me on this with generic details too would be much appreciated so mr rope is looking for more advice in particular on how they can get the most out of the scope

01:09:14 they can get the most out of the scope of the test to cover as many cladding panels as possible

01:09:19 possible do you see that and then if we look at the top of page one we can see

01:09:31 that um

01:09:38 so i think we if we go to the sorry the next email up um

01:09:44 from mr roper's email yeah so we can see that at 1429 at the bottom of that page on the 18th of november 2013 stephen howard forwards

01:09:56 november 2013 stephen howard forwards this to you and to sarah colwell um and he adds he says this if i was trespa marley rock panel i would be coming up with generic offerings dot dot dot

01:10:08 offerings dot dot dot until that day comes if ever any comments

01:10:15 and um now given what you've said about bre's inability to give advice on design why was mr howard asking for your

01:10:27 why was mr howard asking for your comments on this can you help us um

01:10:36 no i i don't really know i can't recall to be quite honest this is this was a period where i had actually sort of taken on other responsibilities

01:10:47 sort of taken on other responsibilities um

01:10:48 um and stephen howard had started taking over the responsibility of

01:10:55 of bsa414 from a managerial point of view um so i think he's he's just looking for a bit of um advice and understanding in terms of the

01:11:08 advice and understanding in terms of the you know

01:11:09 you know what it is that um mr roper is asking

01:11:15 yeah i don't think he's he's not actually saying that that's what he was going to be telling um celestex no i i appreciate that but um he's not

01:11:29 no i i appreciate that but um he's not saying clearly i can't give any advice but i'd be interested in your comments anyway is he he seems to be forwarding this because

01:11:40 he seems to be forwarding this because well we've asked mr howard about this but what was your understanding that he was proposing to engage with celetex over these issues

01:11:50 um yeah i don't i can't really say what uh what stephen howard's intentions were

01:11:58 were to be quite honest um is the reality that bre

01:12:02 that bre did on occasions provide comments to manufacturers in the form of advice which did stray into these kind of design issues

01:12:13 no i don't believe so we would occasionally have discussions with manufacturers in terms of

01:12:22 terms of defining a scope of testing which would then allow um

01:12:30 assuming they achieved the results that they needed to achieve would then allow them to have assessments to cover a wider scope yeah that's we're not saying this is how to

01:12:43 that's we're not saying this is how to design your system with in the first instance we have to understand what systems they they have in the market

01:12:52 market uh it's like a matrix system in effect they tell us the full scope of their marketable systems and then from that

01:13:03 marketable systems and then from that we would determine um a test we would determine as best we could sometimes it's not possible but we'd try to determine a a test plan

01:13:15 but we'd try to determine a a test plan um to cover those variables um but not without having to test every different

01:13:24 different iteration yes so you're advising on how they can do one test and get the maximum out of that test because you may be able to what issue desktop

01:13:35 you may be able to what issue desktop for other

01:13:36 for other arrangements well yeah just taking your point there advising them from one test i don't think we would ever be in a position to say you test one do one test and you could

01:13:48 you test one do one test and you could do this scope uh it would probably be multiple tests yes

01:13:53 yes um but that that would then hopefully allow them to have a desktop study to cover um a wider range yes so just to be clear you can recall

01:14:04 yes so just to be clear you can recall instances

01:14:04 instances can you where you said to manufacturers well if we do these multiple tests we will then be able to give you a scope of application an assessment which would cover a broader range

01:14:16 broader range of systems yes yes that yes and that's that's

01:14:19 that's fairly typical um arrangement for multiple types of different um products in the fire industry right yeah now we can see that

01:14:31 industry right yeah now we can see that you reply to this email we've got it right in the middle of this page here uh 18 november 2013 you say i'm about to write to clg is that the

01:14:42 i'm about to write to clg is that the department for communities and local government yes yes you say i'm about to write to clg

01:14:48 clg on behalf of trespa regarding cladding tests

01:14:52 tests it's best we wait to see what comes back before making any comment now trespa or cladding manufacturers yes uh a board manufacturer board manufacturer cladding board manufacturer

01:15:04 manufacturer cladding board manufacturer yes yeah

01:15:06 yes yeah um can you help us as to why you were writing

01:15:09 writing to the dclg or clg on trespass behalf at that time um well the question had been raised as to what

01:15:22 um what boards of the trespass what what they would be considered as in terms of the way that the um

01:15:33 in terms of the way that the um the building or the adb is written um um includes and excludes um some components and there was some discussion over what

01:15:45 discussion over what um what trespa or what the the cladding board would be uh deemed as under that under that scope right so you were writing on behalf of trespa

01:15:59 so you were writing on behalf of trespa to the clg asking what for clarification over how their cladding panels would be viewed yes yes right now involvement with the february and

01:16:11 now involvement with the february and may 2014 tests now the celetex rs 5000 tests i want to turn to that if we can go to in your first witness

01:16:22 if we can go to in your first witness statement

01:16:23 statement um to page 10 and look at paragraph 39 that's bre-405774

01:16:33 you're being asked about the test report for the test that incorporated our

01:16:40 our rs 5000 that was carried out on the 2nd of may 2014 and we can see at paragraph 39 you say this as i explained below i had some preliminary discussions with

01:16:51 i had some preliminary discussions with celetex in 2012 2013 regarding bs8414 testing

01:16:56 testing however by the time the testing was conducted

01:16:59 conducted my responsibilities had changed within bre and

01:17:03 bre and as such any subsequent involvement i had with celetex and bs 8414 was confined to authorizing test report 295369

01:17:14 295369 yeah so is it right and does it follow from that that you were not actively involved with either the february or the may 2014 tests beyond

01:17:26 or the may 2014 tests beyond authorizing the 8414 report from the second may 2014 test that's correct

01:17:32 correct i had no involvement with those tests at all apart from the authorizing of the second test report were you there when those tests were carried out were you in the burn hall

01:17:45 carried out were you in the burn hall no so you didn't witness those tests no did you see the rig being constructed or the rig being dismantled no so um

01:17:57 no so um looking now at your involvement with the um authorizing that 8414 report um

01:18:07 if we can go to um bre405775 at page 158

01:18:22 and i want to look at the second email down yes we can see that on the 1st of august 2014 at 8 36 in the morning you

01:18:34 at 8 36 in the morning you email phil clark subject seller text report and you say i've got the celetex report now i will have a look today

01:18:44 and then we can see at the top of that page that phil clark responds back to you within 10 minutes um and he says tony i have

01:18:57 um and he says tony i have updated the final draft to include a diagram showing the fire breaks the final version for signing version 4 electronic is in the following file and then he

01:19:09 is in the following file and then he gives

01:19:09 gives a link to an s drive there with the test report and then he says any problems i'm happy to help resolve um

01:19:22 resolve um so we can see that and then um we don't need to turn to it but you say in your first statement to paragraph 53 on page 13 that there may have been you say up to four revisions of this

01:19:35 you say up to four revisions of this test report

01:19:38 did you ever discover how many versions there had been prior to you authorizing it

01:19:47 [Music] um

01:19:50 um no i don't don't think so i i think on the

01:19:53 the uh the one that i looked at

01:19:57 um the final one i looked at um i think it had

01:20:00 it had i can't recall exactly a v4 or v5 on written on there which would indicate that there was been through five revisions four or five revisions

01:20:11 revisions yeah and what all of the previous revisions and previous versions were they

01:20:17 they on file and and there for you to look at if you wanted to

01:20:23 um

01:20:27 yes probably but i don't i don't recall whether i did or whether they were to be quite honest should they have been was it the bre's practice

01:20:36 practice to have all the previous drafts available to the authorizer of the report so that they could review it as necessary yes normally they would be

01:20:52 do you have any memory of reviewing any of the previous versions when you came to authorize this version for

01:21:03 i don't have any memory of doing so that doesn't mean that i didn't i just don't okay but you can't remember being interested to see what had changed and looking to earlier

01:21:15 what had changed and looking to earlier drafts before you came to the final one uh no but a typical sort of scenario if i'm doing an authorization it

01:21:26 it i would the last or the the previous to the last one in effect so if i'm looking at version four then i would look back at version three as well

01:21:37 version three as well just to see to ensure that updates have been made from from that version to the latest version do you have a memory of doing that with this test report we're going to take you

01:21:48 this test report we're going to take you to version four in a moment so you'll be able to see it yeah as i say i don't i don't physically recall doing so that doesn't mean that i didn't if we can go to bre-405851

01:22:01 can go to bre-405851 this is the the draft that was sent to you by mr clarke

01:22:14 there we've got um you can see it's dated the 2nd of june 2014 it says issue 1 and then at the bottom of this page

01:22:25 of this page we can see it somebody's written b4 for signing

01:22:31 signing and then underneath that there's some red

01:22:35 red writing i think it's we've got your initials is that right tb yes that that's my writing the the red writing is mine yes and um you've put the date the first

01:22:47 yes and um you've put the date the first of august 2014 and you've also put see pages 5 7

01:22:50 pages 5 7 8 and eleven to thirteen is that use signaling where in the report you've made handwritten annotations yes yes and was that the bre's practice

01:23:01 yes yes and was that the bre's practice at the time um for you to do any changes in handwriting on was this on a pdf version of the report yes

01:23:13 uh well this would be a printed version that had been printed it had been printed out and i would have gone through it in paper form right so you go through the hard copy you make

01:23:25 through the hard copy you make handwritten annotations and then what it just gets handed back to

01:23:32 together within any other documents that phil sent to me as a full file to phil clark yeah so it goes back to mr clark and were you aware of who else within the bre

01:23:44 aware of who else within the bre had been reviewing this draft prior to it coming to you yes i know stephen howard had reviewed this a number of times before i had and did you know that at the time that you were doing your authorization

01:23:56 you were doing your authorization yes yes

01:24:00 now if we go to page eight of this report

01:24:03 report and i want to look at the changes you're suggesting on this page

01:24:10 if we look at the top half of the page we can see that you're obviously paying attention to ensure that the text identified the right figures

01:24:22 identified the right figures because you've changed the figure references yes at the top that's the first change you've gone from ten to nine yeah and you've obviously found a number of places where it just says error

01:24:34 of places where it just says error reference source not found and you put those figures in yes yes and you also appear to have taken care to ensure that the temperatures recorded in this table below

01:24:45 recorded in this table below match the temperatures in the thermocouple grass is that correct that's correct yes so you're sometimes flagging that it doesn't tie up with say figure 12

01:24:57 it doesn't tie up with say figure 12 13 or 14 and you've highlighted some changes yes that's correct yes and there's some blue pen on this um page

01:25:08 there's some blue pen on this um page can you help us would that blue pen have been there when you reviewed no i think that's um phil clark's writing he's probably written that in in relation to my

01:25:19 relation to my comments yes when he's got this back this is him writing some notes in response to your comments yes yes yeah and if we look

01:25:31 yes yeah and if we look um at page six we can also see there

01:25:39 you've made some um minor changes to section 3.2 the description of the products you see that so you've looked at the

01:25:50 you see that so you've looked at the list of components and you've made some tiny suggestions there

01:25:57 but you haven't commented uh on the fact that only one type of mali eternity board was identified in this list that's the 12 millimeter

01:26:08 list that's the 12 millimeter marley eternity decorative rain screen board as the very last bullet point there

01:26:14 there can you see that yes

01:26:17 now that's despite the fact that if we turn to page 13

01:26:29 we know that this is a page that you've looked at because you've amended the figure

01:26:35 figure in red pen from two to three we can see from this photo can't we that there were plainly different colors of cladding panel yes yes and those ruby boards at the top of

01:26:48 yes and those ruby boards at the top of the rig

01:26:49 the rig are very clear in this this photograph yes

01:26:53 yes yes and they also appear if we could look at pages 26 and 27.

01:27:06 that's a photograph of the test as it's happening

01:27:09 happening and if we look at 20 that's 26 and 27 we can see the ruby boards uh clearly there

01:27:17 there after the crib has been extinguished yes yes but but you haven't queried in that component list if we can go back to that component list

01:27:29 component list on page six despite those photographs

01:27:35 no i haven't commented um 12 millimeter marley attorney natural decorative rain scheme ball can you help us as to why not well i think i asked phil

01:27:46 as to why not well i think i asked phil verbally

01:27:47 verbally um at that or it might have been at the an earlier stage i don't know um why they were different colors and i'm i'm fairly sure it was relating

01:28:00 and i'm i'm fairly sure it was relating to this test report it might have been a different report i don't know but that i've commented verbally regarding different colors and phil's told me that it was only because

01:28:12 told me that it was only because that's that's all that were available in the

01:28:15 the in the thickness

01:28:18 i see so you have a recollection of specifically querying the different colored

01:28:25 colored boards with phil clark yes and can you remember what it was you were querying about those boards just why they were different colors

01:28:37 just why they were different colors and what did he tell you that they were all the same board just different colors because that's all they could um they could get in time for the test

01:28:48 they could get in time for the test and did he tell you that there was anything else at the location of that ruby board no

01:28:56 no did he refer to any magnesium oxide on the test rig apart from the shading board now

01:29:09 now just looking at paragraph 65 of your first statement on page 16

01:29:22 you you're talking about here what what what approving an 8414 test report involves

01:29:28 involves and you say that it approving it involves a final review of the draft report

01:29:33 report against the information available in the project file and ensuring as far as possible that it is an

01:29:40 is an accurate representation of the product description that the test data has been presented correctly and that there are no typographical errors in the report

01:29:51 typographical errors in the report yes now did you check the test file when you were authorizing this report

01:30:04 i would have done but not a detailed check

01:30:08 because you've told us there that it would involve a review against the information available in the project file that's the same as the test file yes

01:30:17 file yes yes and do you have any recollection of checking the delivery notes for the product

01:30:24 product no i don't have a recollection of that

01:30:28 so even though you know there are different colored boards you didn't think

01:30:33 think to check what the delivery notes told you about those boards no but is it right that you did have access to those delivery notes if you'd

01:30:44 access to those delivery notes if you'd wanted to do that check if if they were in the file then i would have had access to them how could you check that the product description was accurate without checking the delivery notes

01:31:00 um well i've the fact that this um that the report draft report had already been through

01:31:10 through a number of different iterations i had clearly incorrectly made the assumption that it was a fairly accurate uh description uh

01:31:21 uh description uh i i checked it uh maybe too casually in this respect yeah so you think you were relying on the fact that it had gone through other

01:31:32 the fact that it had gone through other people before you yes yes yes

01:31:37 um can we look at a the delivery note for the marley attorney um this is a bre 3032372 at page three

01:32:04 if we can just blow this up a little more this is the delivery note it's dated you can see on the right top right hand side dated the 14th of april 2014 and then we have the description

01:32:15 2014 and then we have the description the product description and we can see here from the first line that it's describing an eight millimeter ruby natura product yes

01:32:28 yes and then some cream white and another form of natura plus 12 millimeter products below that

01:32:40 products below that yes yes so if you'd checked that delivery note you would have appreciated that the ruby panels were a different thickness wouldn't you

01:32:52 yes

01:32:59 now turning back to the report if we go back to bre 40s 5851 page 29.

01:33:13 actually just sorry just before i ask you about that figure which we'll do in a moment

01:33:17 a moment um would you have expected those that were working on the report before you that's mr clark and mr howard would you have expected both of them to have checked

01:33:29 expected both of them to have checked the delivery notes against the product description

01:33:40 i would expect if somebody had to have checked that process probably um at the original drafting of the the report it's so that that level

01:33:53 but you wouldn't have expected that to have been checked when the report was reviewed

01:34:01 not to that bit much detail why not wasn't that a very important part of the report

01:34:08 report reporting accurately on the product descriptions

01:34:14 yes it is um

01:34:21 i had no reason to believe that uh anything other than what was written in the in the report description was um

01:34:34 that was different

01:34:38 and when you had this conversation with mr clark verbally about why there were different colors did you ask him about why that whether those different colors had different fire performance or whether there was

01:34:51 fire performance or whether there was any reason to think that they might be so different that they needed describing differently in the test report uh no i don't recall that thought going

01:35:02 uh no i don't recall that thought going through my head

01:35:06 now if we go back to the report bre 40 5851 at 29.

01:35:17 this is a photograph which is here at figure 18

01:35:22 figure 18 in this draft report that you review but it becomes figure 19 in the issued report due to the rearrangement of figures that you suggested

01:35:31 suggested what did you think the whiteboard was at the top of the rig when you reviewed the report

01:35:41 to be honest i don't know i i don't know that i

01:35:44 that i even sort of took it in that it was there

01:35:50 if we could keep that on the page and bring up

01:35:53 bring up figure 16 which appears just two pages earlier in the report which is page 27 if we could put page 27 side by side with this

01:36:22 so here we can see figure 16 and then figure 18. didn't it occur to you when you were looking through these figures that the board in this area had been red

01:36:36 that the board in this area had been red but now was white in the figures showing the dismantling of the rig

01:36:44 um it should have done but uh clearly it didn't that should have alerted you to the fact that this was a different board or there was an additional board in those areas

01:36:56 additional board in those areas shouldn't it it should have done yes and there was nothing in the list of components which could explain what that was was there yeah

01:37:07 was there yeah can we agree that that was a very basic error in the checking of the report

01:37:13 uh yes in hindsight yes it is yes and can you help us as to how that error could have occurred

01:37:23 um

01:37:28 no i can't i'm afraid i don't know how it made a fundamental emission uh error such as that

01:37:39 emission uh error such as that did you ever have any discussions with any of your colleagues including mr clark

01:37:43 clark about those white boards as shown in this photograph no as i say i don't i don't think i even

01:37:54 no as i say i don't i don't think i even recognize that that that whiteboard was there

01:37:58 there i don't know why but uh say you had a conversation with him about why the different colors so you you clearly did ask about is this

01:38:09 so you you clearly did ask about is this right the difference between the whiteboard and the ruby board yes yes and and the gray board down on the wing wall

01:38:17 wing wall you remember that do you talking about the gray board well not specifically but just generally you know we've got different colors on the system but you don't have any recollection of a

01:38:28 but you don't have any recollection of a conversation about the whiteboards in these locations no did mr clark ever say to you that those boards had had no effect on the system passing the test

01:38:40 passing the test and therefore that's why they weren't mentioned

01:38:43 mentioned in the test description in the report no absolutely not if we were aware that they were there we would have included in the detail of the report

01:38:54 included in the detail of the report irrelevant of whether they may or may not have had any different made any difference to the performance can you help us to understand how a situation has come about whereby despite being shown clearly in

01:39:07 whereby despite being shown clearly in this photograph there's no reference to these magnesium oxide boards in the test report

01:39:17 uh no i can't explain that obviously the test report has been to the client as well and they haven't highlighted the issue

01:39:26 issue um i would expect yes i would expect us to pick it up but i would also expect the client to um pick it up as well

01:39:38 well but it would seem that there there was a um

01:39:42 a concerted effort to seem to hide it from us although from that the photo i 18 there obviously it's not hidden that well and you say it would seem there was a concerted effort to seem to hide it from

01:39:54 concerted effort to seem to hide it from us

01:39:55 us what makes you say that just uh having read their um subsequent um witness statements right i wasn't actually aware of this

01:40:06 right i wasn't actually aware of this situation

01:40:08 situation until after the um uh greenfield

01:40:14 issue right mr chairman i'm midway through this topic and i've got more questions on this report but i think that's as good a break as any uh stop you because i realized it was um

01:40:26 uh stop you because i realized it was um all running on but if you think that's sensible we'll stop there yes i'll carry on with this line after you break

01:40:33 you break all right thank you very much well no um mr baker we're going to have a short break at this point 25 to 4 please and again i must ask you not to talk to

01:40:44 again i must ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it and i will see you in quarter now okay thank you

01:40:51 thank you thank you very much

01:55:27 welcome back everyone we're going to resume

01:55:30 resume the evidence of mr clark mr clark can you

01:55:33 you see me and hear me clearly baker not mr clark

01:55:37 clark baker i'm very very sorry i must read something else in the interim no problem yeah yes i'll see you thank you very much well in that case

01:55:49 thank you very much well in that case miss grange on you guys thank you yes thank you yes mr baker you told us just before the break that you did ask mr clark verbally why there were different colors on the

01:56:00 why there were different colors on the rig and you got an explanation for that why were you trusting of the answer that he gave you why not go to the file and check

01:56:11 go to the file and check for example the delivery notes so you can see for yourself what the dimensions of the product were

01:56:20 i i have no reason to disbelieve what mr clark

01:56:25 clark tells me told me um it was a simple explanation it's not something that we haven't seen in the past

01:56:34 past um so it's you know it's perfectly a perfectly reasonable response let's see can we have a look at a

01:56:45 let's see can we have a look at a photograph that was taken as the rig was being dismantled this is cel

01:56:54 3010626

01:57:08 cel3010626

01:57:12 now this is a photograph uh that mr patrick jones took uh as the rig was being dismantled uh on or around the 19th of may 2014

01:57:24 uh on or around the 19th of may 2014 um it's not a particularly clear photograph but if we zoom in can you help us with the man in the red hard hat

01:57:32 hard hat on the right can we perhaps take zoom into that

01:57:36 into that does that can you help us first of all would that be a bre employee wearing a red hard hat and a high visibility yellow jacket um

01:57:48 yellow jacket um i don't recognize him it'd be unusual to be aware of hive is in the usually contractors that are wearing hives right okay you don't recognize that face

01:57:59 right okay you don't recognize that face i know it's not that clear but no no no no no

01:58:08 yeah can we go back to the draft of the test report that you uh reviewed back to bre four zeros five eight five one

01:58:19 zeros five eight five one and i want to look at page eight now

01:58:36 yes this is the page that we did look at previously but i now want to look at the section beginning visual observations at the bottom of that page can you see there's a table one visual object observations and

01:58:48 table one visual object observations and what you've got is the time into the test and then observations of what was happening and if we can go over the page

01:58:59 we see the continuation of this table and we can see that in red pen you at the point 20 minutes and 20 seconds into the test

01:59:11 seconds into the test where mr the author has written mr clark's written flames out from back of board at 2.5 meters you have written question mark which

01:59:22 you have written question mark which board question mark do you see that yes

01:59:27 now you just note that before that say at 15 44 there's been reference to the board visible cracking

01:59:40 reference to the board visible cracking lower board 0.1 to 1.2 meters and at 2 meters then it's at 16 minutes flames visible behind

01:59:49 behind board at 1.5 meters but at 20 minutes into the test despite the use of bored singular having been used up to that point you're then querying

02:00:01 querying which board now can you help us as to why you asked for that to be clarified yes i i wasn't sure whether he meant out the back of the rig which would be potentially be burned

02:00:12 which would be potentially be burned through

02:00:14 through uh if he's talking about the plasterboard at the back of the rig test rig um that's that's the only reference the reason i'm asking that so these are visual observations um

02:00:28 so these are visual observations um what recording observations uh as you stand in front of the test rig um at the front and around you know you need to have a look at the

02:00:39 you know you need to have a look at the back as well what so when someone's taking these visual observations they're meant to walk around the rig are they yes yes so you're saying that they might have been flames coming out

02:00:51 they might have been flames coming out the back of the rig at this point yes that that was the basis of my question yes yeah because it just says flames out from back of board

02:01:02 from back of board and i just was just questioning does that mean out of the back of the board at the back of the rig or is it one of the other boards that that was the only reason i was questioning

02:01:13 the only reason i was questioning so why are you querying it there but not at 16 minutes flames visible behind board because it's behind the board not coming out right is it possible that that comment

02:01:26 right is it possible that that comment which board was in fact you referring to the different colored boards

02:01:31 boards that you can see on the rig no no no i'm fairly clear that that that's what i made that it's i'm i was just questioning whether it could be potential

02:01:42 could be potential flaming through the system as opposed to flaming behind boards right i see um and what's happened is if we go to

02:01:53 um and what's happened is if we go to the final issued version of the report that's bre four zeros two four nine seven and we look up page two of that

02:02:09 we can see that you've er authorized that fine this is the final version there's your name and if we look at that table again on page nine

02:02:20 on page nine we can see that someone's put that it's eternity board we look at page nine

02:02:29 ah sorry no i wanted to go to bre four zeroes two four nine seven

02:02:37 and page nine of that yes do you see it 20 minutes and 20 seconds yeah flame out from the back of the eternity board at 2.5 meters yes as opposed to the

02:02:50 meters yes as opposed to the plasterboard at the back of the system that that was my question yeah now i want to take you now to dr lane's phase one report that's at blas 5026

02:03:03 that's at blas 5026 at page 40.

02:03:16 and at paragraph e 0.4.5.21 at the bottom of that page this is where dr lane is considering the test

02:03:28 dr lane is considering the test reports for the rs 5000 test in may 2014 and she says there that the provision of cavity barriers is different in the photograph figure 2 in the bre

02:03:41 in the photograph figure 2 in the bre report

02:03:42 report relative to the design drawings figure 7 in the bre report and in particular she notes that additional vertical cavity barriers were installed in the test above level 1

02:03:53 test above level 1 but are not shown on the test drawings and an additional third horizontal cavity barrier was installed in the test but is not represented in the test drawing so she's

02:04:05 drawing so she's pointing out discrepancies between the diagram that appeared in the final version of the report and in and the photographs in terms of the cavity barriers both vertical and

02:04:17 the cavity barriers both vertical and horizontal do you see that okay yes and then i think you deal with this in your first statement if we can look at this bre 40 5774 at page 18.

02:04:30 bre 40 5774 at page 18. and i want to look at what you say at paragraph 75 of your

02:04:36 statement and if we just look at the first four lines of paragraph 7 75 you say in the case of test report 295369 that's the one we've been looking

02:04:47 295369 that's the one we've been looking at it is apparent that some of the drawings included in the report which had been supplied by the test sponsor did not reflect the final build for this system in certain respects

02:04:58 for this system in certain respects eg the number of vertical and horizontal fire breaks and therefore could only be used as general

02:05:05 general guidance so that's what you say in um your report now does it follow from that

02:05:12 from that that you accept dr lane's criticism that the diagram that's been included in the final report and we'll go to it in a moment doesn't match the cavity barriers shown in the photographs

02:05:24 photographs yes i do accept that now we would actually

02:05:29 actually put a comment on the drawing itself uh stating something along the lines that the fire barrier is not representative of actual insulation

02:05:42 of actual insulation did you pick up that discrepancy at the time that the cavity barriers shown in the photos did not match the cavity barriers

02:05:49 barriers shown in the final figure in the drawing um i can't recall doing so but i think had i done so i would have commented it on on in the report

02:06:03 on on in the report and when you say there that the drawings therefore can only be used as general guidance what do you mean by that

02:06:14 but they they're not fully representative of the of the actual install but the uh the text

02:06:21 text within the report should be yes and that's a serious error isn't it because the diagrams the diagrams purport to show the tested system

02:06:32 system it's vital that they accurately reflect it isn't it

02:06:37 um yes but it's it is a problem we have in in all forms of our testing that we do is getting clients to actually provide

02:06:49 getting clients to actually provide accurate drawings representing what they've actually built

02:06:57 i see but have again has the bre changed its procedures now in terms of now requiring accurate drawings represented what they've actually built in the test rig um yes we

02:07:10 in the test rig um yes we we're more insistent with clients but even then it still doesn't work sometimes so we will put commentary in the report on the drawings themselves if there's anything that's significantly

02:07:23 anything that's significantly um different right now if we can look at that final version of the report which dr lane is commenting on

02:07:31 on if we go back to bre four zeros two four nine

02:07:35 nine seven so this is the copy of the report as actually issued and authorized by you on the 1st of august 2014 and if we go first to page 12

02:07:47 and if we go first to page 12 and look at figure 2 this is the photograph that dr lane's referring to where you can see the horizontal cavity barriers in green and the vertical cavity barriers in blue

02:08:00 and the vertical cavity barriers in blue yes but if we go to figure 7 on page 17.

02:08:10 what if we blow this up what dr lane has said

02:08:14 said is that um some of the barriers that are in figure 2 are not in the drawing including vertical cavity barriers

02:08:25 vertical cavity barriers and she said one of the horizontal ones not there

02:08:28 not there yes

02:08:33 yeah it's difficult to tell because it's i can't actually read some of the the text though i accept what she's saying yes yeah it's not a very good drawing there are some labels but what she's spotted is that

02:08:44 labels but what she's spotted is that none of the vertical cavity barriers are there and one of the horizontal ones is missing yeah now we just want to ask you about where figure 7 comes from because you can take it from me that

02:08:56 because you can take it from me that that figure figure 7 does not appear in the draft version 4 of the test report which you reviewed with your red handwriting that figure's just not there

02:09:08 handwriting that figure's just not there now um if we could go back to the email that mr clark sent you

02:09:16 um when he emailed you the report if we go back to bre

02:09:24 bre four zeros five seven seven five at page one five eight

02:09:34 and if you look at the top email

02:09:39 phil clark back to you we can see he says this tony i have updated the final draft to include a diagram showing the fire breaks

02:09:49 breaks the final version for signing version 4 electronic is in the following file

02:09:56 so can you see there that he does appear to be telling you that he's inserted a diagram showing the fire breaks yes yes but

02:10:10 yes but as i've just mentioned that version 4 with your red handwriting on doesn't have that figure 7 in it now can you help us as to whether you did in fact

02:10:21 did in fact see a version with a diagram showing the fire breaks in it um i can't recall be honest

02:10:35 um phil saying they're the final version for signing v4 with a version that i was looking at was indicated as being v4 so

02:10:47 indicated as being v4 so i took it as being one of the same i hadn't noted that uh there was different drawings yes i mean shouldn't that version with the

02:10:58 the diagram showing the fire breaks have been version five which did come to you for checking with that diagram in it yes

02:11:09 uh yes it should have been updated to a different

02:11:13 different version if it was uh changed is that right would you ever have a situation whereby the author of the report would add say an additional figure after the authorization process but

02:11:25 after the authorization process but before the final report goes out did that happen at the bre um i'm not aware of it happening before

02:11:34 and should it have happened should there have been a situation whereby the author of the report could add in a diagram but that that wasn't reviewed by you

02:11:46 no i should be notified in that process

02:11:53 now you also signed the classification report

02:11:57 report it was numbered 295 255 which was the classification report for this test to br 135 that's right isn't it uh yes i believe sir

02:12:11 and we've got two issues of that uh report there was issue one dated the fourth of august 2014 an issue two dated the 11th of august 2014 and both are signed by mr jones and

02:12:23 2014 and both are signed by mr jones and by yourself yes yes yeah if we go to bre 40 5775 at page 225

02:12:34 bre 40 5775 at page 225 we can see an email from you

02:12:42 so this is an email at the top from you to debbie kent was she someone within the bre admin staff is that right yes that's correct yes it's on the 11th of august 2014

02:12:54 it's on the 11th of august 2014 and she's copying in mr howard and she says um sorry it's from you to her and you say i've corrected and up issued the classification report

02:13:05 classification report copy attached can you steve double check please

02:13:11 and there was a problem with the formatting is that right that mr roper had identified that was then corrected yeah that's correct we sometimes found that

02:13:22 that when pdf in a from a word document to a pdf document secure pdf document some of the references changed occasionally that wasn't picked up

02:13:34 occasionally that wasn't picked up before being sent out

02:13:39 right i see and then you say in the third line there um you say i've left dick's signature in so that was richard jones yes

02:13:49 yes yes yes left richard jones a signature inn but this could be changed to steve if preferred um was steve steven howard stephen howard yes

02:14:03 and had um richard jones or stephen howard actually been involved in finalizing this classification report

02:14:17 what the issue too do you mean yes i mean

02:14:21 mean what's curious is you appear to be saying that you've left richard jones's signature

02:14:25 signature in but it could be changed to stephen howard how was it appropriate simply to change the names of who appeared on this classification report sorry i didn't know whether dick

02:14:36 report sorry i didn't know whether dick or richard jones was um was in that that particular day uh because by that time he had semi-retired and was only working certain days

02:14:49 and was only working certain days right i see he wasn't in it may have been appropriate to change the the signature to steve

02:15:00 the signature to steve steve howard to uh take responsibility for the report uh for for the issue 2 report right and had stephen howard actually looked at the issue 2 report

02:15:13 at the issue 2 report before you suggested that

02:15:17 no but i'd copied stephen into that uh email so i assume that if he wished to if if dick jones wasn't around

02:15:27 around and steve then was going to put his signature in i assume that he would have then done his relevant checks i see okay mr chairman i've come to the end of my

02:15:39 mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions

02:15:40 questions um but it would probably be appropriate to have a break to see if there are other questions from elsewhere

02:15:46 elsewhere yes with witness right thank you well mr baker

02:15:50 baker uh miss grange thinks she's got to the end of her questions but we always have a

02:15:54 a a break at this stage to give her a chance to check and also to give other people who are following the uh the evidence from elsewhere the chance to suggest further questions that we ought to ask you

02:16:06 ought to ask you so we're going to have a break now um i'm going to say until 10 past four okay and then we'll see if there are any further questions for you and as before please don't talk about

02:16:18 and as before please don't talk about your evidence over the break all right and we'll see you a bit later on okay thank you thank you very much

02:30:13 well welcome back everyone uh we're now going to see whether there are any further questions for mr baker say mr baker

02:30:21 baker um are you there can you see me and hear me all right yes i'm here i can see you and hear you thank you very much from there we'll find out whether there are any more questions for you ms strange no mr

02:30:33 more questions for you ms strange no mr chairman we don't have any further questions for mr baker at this stage thank you right well mr baker um i think it only remains then for me to thank you very much indeed for

02:30:44 to thank you very much indeed for coming to give your evidence it's been really helpful to us to hear what you have to tell us and we're very grateful for your giving us the time to uh to appear before us so thank you very

02:30:55 uh to appear before us so thank you very much and

02:30:56 much and uh that's all as far as you're concerned okay

02:30:59 okay thank you thank you very much indeed goodbye

02:31:04 goodbye and i think as far as the rest of us are concerned uh that's the point at which we

02:31:09 we call the halt for the day i think ms grange is that right that's correct yes thank you and we will sit again at 10 o'clock tomorrow then please yes thank you thank you very much

02:31:33 you