BRE/Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Evidence - Thursday 24th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:25 [Music]

00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:32 hearing well today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from dr debbie smith

00:00:37 smith and then we should move on to other witnesses

00:00:39 witnesses after her so could i ask dr swiss to come back in please

00:00:53 good morning doctor stress good morning right ready to continue yes thank you thank you very much yes yes good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel dr smith good morning to you

00:01:05 panel dr smith good morning to you and i'd like now to turn please to some internal correspondence in february 2008 bre

00:01:13 bre 3011323 please

00:01:23 and i'd like to look at page one second email down 19th february 2008 from uh julie bregular to a number of people uh including you as you can see there yes

00:01:35 as you can see there yes you're the last named recipient on the list and the subject is kingspan meeting today

00:01:41 today see that

00:01:42 see that and if you go down to the second paragraph of the email it says just wanted to write down the action points and deadlines agreed to make sure we have a record of our discussions with

00:01:53 we have a record of our discussions with them let me know whether you want to amend any of the points or clarify issues i will incorporate your comments and i will forward the main points over to kingspan for their records and then if you look at item three

00:02:06 and then if you look at item three please on page two towards the top of your screen there's a title facade testing to bs8414 and then it says this debbie to clarify

00:02:18 and then it says this debbie to clarify with sarah colwell and team as to how a staged testing program could be completed to enable kingspan to maximize resources on facade testing testing schedule of six tests already

00:02:29 testing schedule of six tests already committed ideally testing configurations chosen should be helping to find worst case scenarios and give kingspan as much flexibility as possible with the state

00:02:40 flexibility as possible with the state of knowledge also with the new standard at the moment now is the reference there to the new standard a reference to bs841 part 2

00:02:51 standard a reference to bs841 part 2 which had been published in 2005. i'm not sure um

00:02:58 i mean if it's referring to the 2005 standard then it wasn't actually a new standard um

00:03:06 um so what was i can't be i can't be certain what what julie's referring to there it may be but i can't i can't be definitive about that right why were the test configurations to be

00:03:17 why were the test configurations to be chosen for or perhaps with kingspan ideally to be helping to find worst case scenarios

00:03:28 i don't know what was the purpose yeah i don't know exactly

00:03:32 exactly i mean presumably it looks as though this was a discussion around certification um looking at the people that were present

00:03:45 present um

00:03:46 um do you remember anything about this i don't remember this indeed reading through the email no i'm reading from the email can you help help me understand what the context to it is well because clearly this is for you to

00:03:58 well because clearly this is for you to do

00:03:59 do can you help what did it mean when it said that kingspan

00:04:04 kingspan was to be given as much flexibility as possible with the state of knowledge what was that about i can't remember what that would have been um it's an odd turn of phrase

00:04:17 been um it's an odd turn of phrase um yeah what did you unders you received this email yeah i don't recall at the time i mean what what the discussion was about i mean clearly they were planning to do

00:04:28 a number of tests

00:04:32 presumably for different types of systems

00:04:36 systems they would have all needed to have been scheduled as it's saying and booked in [Music]

00:04:44 [Music] i don't know if any of them were to be render type systems even which obviously had different requirements in terms of rig time what i'm really seeking to understand is

00:04:57 what i'm really seeking to understand is the underlying policy of the bre in

00:05:01 in uh in carrying out these functions helping to find worst-case scenarios giving king span as much flexibility as possible with the state of knowledge what was what was the bre up to

00:05:13 what was what was the bre up to yeah with its client yeah it wasn't for us to find the worst case scenarios because we wouldn't know necessarily what they were going to be testing

00:05:23 testing that's for the customer to bring forward the configurations that they wish to test um

00:05:33 um [Music]

00:05:34 [Music] well

00:05:36 well we can read the email for ourselves i think you've answered my question so far as you're able to let's see your reply please top of page one and this comes back from you same day to julie bregular and

00:05:49 from you same day to julie bregular and the other recipients of the email

00:05:54 and copy to yourself i think um in the way one sometimes does and if you look at the second paragraph it says this oh sorry first paragraph it says this first of all i've spoken with sarah

00:06:05 first of all i've spoken with sarah about bullet point two uh under item one look at that that's about cavity barrier work in relation to item three i've spoken with sarah and there is no reason

00:06:16 spoken with sarah and there is no reason why we can't sit down with kingspan and draw up a matrix of combinations that are used in their systems and work with them

00:06:24 them to design a progressive program of testing assuming the system's passed the test however there would be a cost involved in doing this as it would require some effort now let's just break that up first of

00:06:36 now let's just break that up first of all a matrix of combinations and combinations of what

00:06:44 i don't recall i mean i mean i can only assume it's a combination of the different sort of components yeah components what

00:06:54 what uh well with the requirements of independence and impartiality which we've

00:07:00 we've seen at least twice now in your 2014 policy document but perhaps as they stood in 2008 not be reasons why you shouldn't be

00:07:12 not be reasons why you shouldn't be collaborating with your client on the matrix of combinations of components in a test and in a progressive program of testing yeah i mean i i don't recall this and obviously

00:07:23 mean i i don't recall this and obviously i wouldn't have been directly involved in doing this because

00:07:29 that was not my my area of um of knowledge

00:07:32 knowledge but i suppose this could have been akin to the sort of work that does go on in relation to for example fire resistance testing where

00:07:45 where the direct field of application is such that it's necessary to if if manufacturers and customers want to

00:07:56 manufacturers and customers want to extend the scope of the application they have to basically carry out tests that will cover that scope of application that they they wish

00:08:07 scope of application that they they wish to pursue and you know it's commonly done for example with fire doors and partitions um well sorry i'm so sorry to cut it across

00:08:17 across i do apologize but do you know that this that reaction to fire and field of application was actually the topic under discussion here or not well i don't know

00:08:28 discussion here or not well i don't know for certain no but i'm that's the conclusion that i'm drawing having just seen this can you just help me then um we discussed yesterday why you were of the view that the bre was unable

00:08:42 were of the view that the bre was unable for reasons of impartiality and confidentiality to make records sufficiently to verify independently the components and configurations of full-scale tests but on the other hand we see here

00:08:54 on the other hand we see here that it was acceptable to assist and

00:08:59 and sit down with the client and design a matrix of combinations of components with them can you explain how those two sit together so i i don't think that's quite what i said yesterday

00:09:12 i did say that the test report contains a detailed description that our engineers have

00:09:20 recorded excuse me during the construction of the rig and then that is what is included in the bs8414

00:09:29 bs8414 test reports in the text

00:09:32 text so there is a detailed description of the components that we'll put onto the ring let me try it again because i don't want to misrepresent your evidence i think i did put it to you yesterday i asked you why there was any whether

00:09:43 asked you why there was any whether there was any good reason why the bre and the client wishing products test couldn't co-partner or jointly build the rig and ensure that it

00:09:54 jointly build the rig and ensure that it was consistent with the list of components and the diagrams the drawings for the for the rig do you remember that yes yes and your answer was the reason and again

00:10:06 and your answer was the reason and again i'm paraphrasing correct me if i'm wrong your reason was that that would um in some way undermine confidentiality because of the risk of giving advice yes and that was in the context of being

00:10:20 yes and that was in the context of being involved in doing the actual installation on the system where inadvertently there might be the transfer of one person's proprietary knowledge and information to another indeed so we

00:10:32 indeed so we i think we're agreed about what you told us yesterday now can you explain how what you told us yesterday as we've just discussed is consistent with the proposal to quote sitting down with

00:10:43 proposal to quote sitting down with kingspan and drawing up a matrix of combinations used in their systems and work with them to design a progressive program of testing how are those two concepts consistent with each other well

00:10:54 concepts consistent with each other well i say i can't be definitive about the context of this and what this means having just seen this this morning however

00:11:03 my impression sitting here now is that it seems that this is probably relating to something similar and the process that he's gone through

00:11:15 that he's gone through with customers in defining a field of application and an extended field of application for their particular systems now

00:11:27 for their particular systems now in so doing you are not telling the customers what the systems are that they need to test they are coming to you and saying this is what we want to do

00:11:38 saying this is what we want to do and then the engineers so in the case of fire doors for example we'll say well you won't get that field of application with what you're proposing to do you know you need to basically

00:11:51 know you need to basically look at

00:11:52 look at bring forward other systems and then we can look and we can tell you what that would enable you to do

00:12:01 do so

00:12:02 so and and that's all laid down in um in standards in the fire resistance area it's you know their extended field of application standards that are published um

00:12:13 um there are en standards um that sort of govern the rules and the principles for all of that so sitting here now and looking at this

00:12:24 sitting here now and looking at this my impression is that this is probably relating to something similar that's your impression yes it is what's your recollection well i don't i i don't recall this specifically is it your

00:12:35 recall this specifically is it your impression because that's the that is the only thing to which you uh

00:12:42 the only thing that you can think of that would be allowed

00:12:46 in other words are you are you using that sitting there now as an excuse for this

00:12:51 this the field of application exception to the advice it's not an excuse that's all i can assume that this could relate to

00:13:00 relate to can we look at your witness statement please

00:13:03 please we'll come back to this document if we need to in a moment but let's look at your statement bre405624 please page 20. and let's look together a paragraph 72

00:13:15 and here's the question what advice or guidance if any does or should the bre give to test sponsors in respect of the design and installation of test rigs

00:13:27 the design and installation of test rigs for bs8414 testing now i'll i'll read it to you yes bre does not and should not give any advice or guidance to test sponsors in relation to

00:13:39 guidance to test sponsors in relation to the design specification procurement or installation of a cladding system test specimen beyond making the requirements of the standard known to the sponsor

00:13:50 known to the sponsor in the case of testing contracts bre is not involved in designing selecting installing or sampling materials for use in a test specimen

00:14:01 in a test specimen it is entirely the responsibility of the test sponsor to design select install and supply the products to be tested this is important in order to maintain the independence and impartiality of the

00:14:13 the independence and impartiality of the test laboratory as required by the standard bsen iso eiec 17025 general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

00:14:25 laboratories against which bre is accredited by

00:14:29 by ucas

00:14:30 ucas yes

00:14:32 yes now

00:14:35 there's uh that's pretty clear isn't it yes it is and i stand by that and you stand by that

00:14:41 that then when we look back at the email exchange which we've just looked at um

00:14:47 um in that exchange in february 2008 there's no reason we have it back on the screen yes let's have that back please

00:14:59 looking at that second paragraph is that not a proposal to give

00:15:06 to give advice or be involved in designing or selecting at least or sampling materials for use in a test

00:15:17 materials for use in a test no

00:15:18 no why is it it's not why is that there is nothing there that talks about the sampling there is nothing there that's talking about design in the context of where you put fixings how you put

00:15:30 where you put fixings how you put fixings and so on because that competence just did not exist within bre to undertake that will help me please you know our engineers or our fire

00:15:42 or our fire scientists were not um architects they were not designers they were not structural engineers and you know it would not be possible it just it just wouldn't

00:15:53 it just it just wouldn't so let's just analyze your words a little bit more carefully there is no reason why that's clear we can't sit down with kingspan

00:16:05 we can't sit down with kingspan now what was that about what was what would sitting down with kingspan

00:16:10 kingspan apart from the obvious physical position of the participants what would that involve

00:16:15 involve well one i can only assume sitting here now and reading this now that that that relates to some kind of meeting round the table meeting collaboration well a meeting collaboration no it

00:16:27 well a meeting collaboration no it doesn't mean it's collaboration i don't agree with you on that well would you accept discussion yes yes all right i think there's a big difference between you know routinely sitting down with a customer

00:16:39 customer whoever it might be which was not uncommon and having a discussion with them about you know accessibility to test rigs scheduling their work

00:16:50 scheduling their work so on and so forth and that's not the same as collaborating in in my understanding anyway sitting down with kingspan discussing with kingspan and then the next bit and

00:17:02 with kingspan and then the next bit and draw up a matrix of combinations that are used in their systems just pause there what was that about what would be involved in discussions

00:17:13 what would be involved in discussions with kingspan about drawing up a matrix of combinations so you would expect a customer to come to a meeting with

00:17:22 with a list of the types of systems that they were looking to test who would be the drawing up who would do the drawing up of the matrix a combination well they would come with their

00:17:34 would come with their different options that they were they were looking at to test and you would discuss those options this was the proposal was it to sit down with kingspan and discuss well

00:17:45 sit down with kingspan and discuss well i say i can't remember this first hand so i can't say what the proposal was but reading this now that this is what i am reading from this they would come to the table they would say these are the

00:17:58 table they would say these are the different systems that we are thinking of testing this is the scope of the certificate that we're looking to have at the end

00:18:09 at the end and then the people that are expert in these in these areas would say well you're not going to get that scope of application with what you're proposing or you potentially could

00:18:20 or you potentially could applying

00:18:22 applying field of application rules and then it would be up to them to decide if that was adequate or whether they actually needed to go away and and i'm sorry i'm bringing having difficulty

00:18:33 i'm sorry i'm bringing having difficulty in understanding these references to fields of application because as i understood each bs 8414 test was relevant

00:18:42 relevant to the specific combination of materials and structures that were applied in that test so it has a very very limited field of application and is not capable

00:18:55 field of application and is not capable of extending being extended is that right well so the types of extensions that are

00:19:04 are potentially permissible are if you tested for example a system

00:19:12 a system with its relevant components whatever and an insulation thickness of let's say 100 millimeters and then you did a test with an insulation thickness of

00:19:23 with an insulation thickness of millimeters then in principle you can and you they both pass they both get you know the same

00:19:31 same classification then

00:19:34 then you can say well okay the field of application can be extended so that you can use any insulation thickness

00:19:42 thickness between the 100 and the 300. that's not consistent with that's not consistent with the

00:19:48 with the principle underlying bs 8414 is it which is that you have to test a specific system and that the test is good for that system alone it is good for that

00:19:59 that system alone it is good for that system alone but i say that it's that's applying the same extended application rules and principles there are that are applied elsewhere in the in the fire area

00:20:10 area because you could say the same about fire resistance you can say the same about reaction to fire that may or may not be

00:20:16 not be correct in relation to other types of testing

00:20:19 testing but

00:20:21 but from the evidence that we've been hearing i had reached the conclusion that it's critical in a sense to understanding the nature of the a414 and

00:20:32 understanding the nature of the a414 and br135 testing method that it relates only to the specific configuration of the

00:20:43 to the specific configuration of the sample tested and cannot be extrapolated to any system with different products of any kind or or a different structure of any kind

00:20:54 or a different structure of any kind well it can't be unless there is test evidence to support that and

00:20:59 and actually there is i i can't actually remember anybody doing that type of work in a systematic way but in principle you could do that so if everything else

00:21:11 you could do that so if everything else about the system was identical and you did two tests with just one variation within that test then and you got the obviously you

00:21:23 then and you got the obviously you passed the test you got the classification then

00:21:27 then you could in principle cover that whole range of systems between provided that all of the component parts and the ventilation cavities and the

00:21:40 and the ventilation cavities and the cavity barriers are are the same well that sounds to me very much like a desktop study um

00:21:50 um well it's it's it's not a desktop study in the sense that it is based on test results and test evidence yes but it's applying existing test

00:22:01 yes but it's applying existing test results

00:22:02 results obtained from different systems to a third untested system yes it is it is yes thank you well i'm grateful to you for clarifying my understanding on that i'm sorry to

00:22:14 understanding on that i'm sorry to interrupt your line of questions no that's quite all right um i i i i'm very puzzled i have to say dr smith by this can we go back to page three uh page two please um and i want to put two things to you

00:22:27 um and i want to put two things to you first of all um item three there says facade testing to bs8414 i'm sorry to prolong this i don't think i tended to spend quite so long in this but

00:22:37 but uh

00:22:38 uh you

00:22:38 you you've introduced the concept of reaction to fire and extended applications what is there in that paragraph under the heading facade testing to bs8414

00:22:50 the heading facade testing to bs8414 that suggests to the reader of which you were one that this was anything to do either with resistance to fire

00:23:01 either with resistance to fire or

00:23:02 or with extended fields of application what is there in the words there that would indicate that well i'm giving you my impression and understanding of reading this because i

00:23:13 understanding of reading this because i don't recall it first hand secondly

00:23:17 secondly can i ask you please to look at cel403364

00:23:30 and now this is the third edition i know we've jumped forward a few years but i just want to because you gave some evidence about this uh if we go please to

00:23:41 uh if we go please to in this document page

00:23:49 might as well take appendix a if we can find it

00:23:52 find it page 22.

00:24:08 uh and i'd like to go further into the document please at page 27

00:24:14 27 and this appears in we looked at this before in your evidence it appears in two parts

00:24:19 two parts uh first in appendix and secondly in appendix b and we examined it together but i want to go back to it please in light of your evidence just now you'll see the three bullet points on the left-hand side there do you see

00:24:31 on the left-hand side there do you see those yes under performance of the system and then under that it says classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the

00:24:43 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 cover the end use application now first of all

00:24:55 end use application now first of all this is about reaction to fire that's what bs8414 and br135 are about yes

00:25:02 yes um

00:25:03 um well it sits between reaction to fire and fire resistance i think which is why there was an interest when it was developed as a standard between both the fire assistance and the reaction to fire

00:25:16 fire assistance and the reaction to fire committees i mean it's not it's not purely reaction to fire but anyway well because it's it you know the structural loading is [Music]

00:25:26 [Music] influences the outcome of the results

00:25:32 whether it is or it isn't the classification under 135

00:25:38 under 135 which is something referred to certainly by 2013

00:25:43 by 2013 in approved document b yes

00:25:48 as an alternative route compliance can only apply as it says here to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report is that correct or not

00:26:00 yes the what's written here is correct yes and there are no exceptions to it that we can see there not in not in br135

00:26:16 and so the idea that you could take a system to which the classification report applies and then

00:26:25 a pine on or devise a broader app scope of application would be wholly outside the classification under the r135 wouldn't it um well obviously when that was being

00:26:37 um well obviously when that was being talked about it wasn't this version of br135

00:26:42 br135 no but you accepted in your evidence i think on monday when i put this to you that even though this paragraph did not appear

00:26:49 appear in the 2003 second edition nonetheless the principle expressed by this paragraph applied and was known

00:26:55 was known by everybody at the bre at least to apply that was your advantage yes to my knowledge that that's what is put into the classification report so so please help

00:27:06 so so please help explain to us how it comes about that there could be any scope for extended applications of the results beyond the system tested

00:27:17 of the results beyond the system tested well i mean i think that there was probably discussions going on at the time around what i have just um explained to you in the context of

00:27:28 in the context of extended application however that said as i as i've just said i'm not aware of people doing systematic work in that way to extend the scope actually

00:27:41 the scope actually of their systems that's good i may be wrong on that i mean you'd have to let's get back to the email then please that we were on uh this morning where we started which

00:27:52 uh this morning where we started which is bre three zeroes one one three two three i'm sorry dr smith to have uh

00:27:58 uh take you on something of a journey away from it but let's look at page one again

00:28:05 second paragraph

00:28:09 uh we've covered the word sit down with kingspan and draw up a matrix of combinations that are used in their systems and then we see the phrase work with them to design a progressive program of testing

00:28:20 program of testing now just explain please why working with kingspan to design a progressive program of testing is not

00:28:28 is not the giving advice or guidance to test sponsors in the relation to the design specification procurement or installation of a cladding test specimen as cited by you as forbidden in

00:28:39 as cited by you as forbidden in paragraph 72 of your witnesses i mean to me this is um i think this is just about the work and the scheduling and and the devising of

00:28:50 the scheduling and and the devising of the the you know the most appropriate way to carry out the test as i say you know if they were considering potentially testing some render systems and so on that they're on the rigs for a

00:29:02 and so on that they're on the rigs for a significant period of time um i don't recall this at the time and

00:29:09 it's very difficult to to put this into context with just this email in isolation well dr smith i'm going to put it to you one more time that the language used by

00:29:21 one more time that the language used by you in this sec in the second paragraph in this email is it consistent and only consistent with a collaborative exercise whereby you are sitting down with the client

00:29:32 you are sitting down with the client co-working together to design a progressive program of testing

00:29:37 testing completely at odds with the policy of the bre that you set out in your statement well i i don't recall that ever happening and i'm you know i'm not aware of that and i stand by what i put

00:29:49 aware of that and i stand by what i put in my witness statement i can understand how you you are reading it in that way but i don't think that was what was going on at bre at the time some people reading that email might

00:30:01 some people reading that email might think that here was the bre cozying up to its clients for financial gain do you have a comment on that no i don't believe that to be the case would you have been prepared to adopt this collaborative approach in relation to

00:30:12 collaborative approach in relation to other manufacturers no i don't believe we adopted a collaborative approach with any of our customers you disagree with the premise of my question notwithstanding the plain words of this i do your own email i do

00:30:26 let's go to bre 3011329 which is a little bit later in the correspondence on this topic from julie bregular to you and others

00:30:37 from julie bregular to you and others uh if we go uh please uh to uh the top of page two and i'm so sorry can we go back to the beginning it's my fault entirely i just want to show you the

00:30:49 want to show you the context this is an email from julie bregular

00:30:51 bregular to a number of people including you dr smith

00:30:56 smith so you're a direct recipient of this email not a not just copied forward kingspan meeting today and uh here is the beginning of the email just to remind you where we are

00:31:07 email just to remind you where we are with kingspan having sent a status report to them today they do not seem to have a good overview as to what was provided to them so far slightly worrying below i have marked which actions we've completed and where

00:31:19 which actions we've completed and where we are with outstanding bits of work this week we need to work through the attached table would would like to be able to compile status by end of this week and forward information to kingspan beginning of next week

00:31:31 next week uh and then i think i don't need the next paragraph uh if we then go please to page two we can see item three facade testing to be s8414

00:31:44 facade testing to be s8414 and under that there's the bullet point we've been studying uh before that was on page two of the original email we looked at earlier this morning

00:31:52 morning and then in red

00:31:55 it looks like julie bregular's text

00:31:59 text as an edition thanks debbie for clarifying with sarah and team that this is possible suggested to kingspan that i could set up a meeting for us all to find out how we are going to go about this

00:32:09 this they will provide dates and i will try to liaise with you to find the best way forward slightly worried that testing is ongoing now we might miss the chance to influence

00:32:18 influence in any major way so timing will be crucial debbie if you think this could be dealt with via correspondence even better please let me know how best to proceed now could you you tell us about the

00:32:29 now could you you tell us about the discussions that you had with sarah colwell and team to clarify that this was possible i don't i don't i can't recollect this and i'm not really aware that there was

00:32:41 and i'm not really aware that there was a that this was pursued well um who was on the team who was on sarah's team you clarified something with sarah and t

00:32:52 you clarified something with sarah and t yes i i don't know who um who was who sarah would have discussed this with did either you or to your knowledge sarah colwell from what you could see

00:33:02 could see give any consideration to matters of impartiality or the need not to give advice during these discussions well as i say i can't recollect any time when

00:33:14 recollect any time when um bre has provided advice within within that context and i also can't recollect that this work actually went forwards

00:33:25 went forwards what did you understand julie bregular to mean by slightly worried that testing is ongoing now and here and here are the words m we might miss the chance to influence in any major way what did you understand

00:33:37 in any major way what did you understand her to mean by that i don't know what i understood that to mean at the time and if testing was already underway then you know they were already bringing what they wanted to test to the to the

00:33:48 what they wanted to test to the to the table and doing the work in any case what was the bre's interest in influencing the testing program whether in a major way or at all yeah i mean i don't think we would have been particularly in influencing it as i say

00:34:01 particularly in influencing it as i say the only context that i can offer that this might have been relating to would have been related to field of application because this is

00:34:12 this is um

00:34:14 um as i said earlier judging from the recipients etc about certification of products and and systems

00:34:26 rather than just testing and classification

00:34:36 right

00:34:39 did you

00:34:42 not go back to her and ask her what she meant by miss the chance to influence in any major way

00:34:52 major way i don't recall i may have had a discussion with i i don't know i don't recall did you ever discuss with either meredith the field of application for k-15 no i didn't i i didn't really know either as far as i

00:35:04 didn't really know either as far as i can recollect did you ever discuss with kingspan

00:35:07 kingspan anybody else at kingspan the field of application for k-15 um not that i can recall no no

00:35:19 had you read any bba certificate for k-15 at any time before june 2017

00:35:25 june 2017 um

00:35:27 um don't recall having done so no

00:35:34 why is the bre here at this time february 2008

00:35:40 2008 wishing to influence the testing at all

00:35:47 yeah i don't know what that what that relates to i mean as i say this was a certification project

00:35:55 project so i too i think would have been slightly worried that testing was ongoing because for certification you need to have an audit trail back to the um

00:36:05 um [Music]

00:36:07 [Music] the products that are incorporated within

00:36:09 within the systems so if testing was ongoing and it hadn't been

00:36:15 been subject to appropriate audits or whatever that that would have been an issue

00:36:20 issue um

00:36:21 um [Music]

00:36:22 [Music] in fairness to you i should ask you if you gave to the top of page one who the individuals are other than you paul sims and roger sadgrove and david richardson what was their role

00:36:34 richardson what was their role so they worked in the construction division at bre and certainly i think both paul sims and

00:36:46 certainly i think both paul sims and roger sadgrove were

00:36:49 construction experts but also i think at the time working in the certification area

00:37:01 and i think david richardson was their line manager but i'm not entirely sure about that

00:37:11 yes and looking at item one kingspan kbs certificate ireland paul and roger to review current status of document nothing to do with testing all about certification

00:37:22 all about certification yes

00:37:23 yes it is but obviously in order to prepare a certificate it's their responsibility to have all of the um to to validate all of the information that they're relying upon yeah and and

00:37:35 that they're relying upon yeah and and they need test evidence and so on and so forth

00:37:39 forth in order to be able to do that and in fact they're a whole of item one is about certificates and whole of item too is about certificates isn't it um yes yes so this was a good reason for this email to go to them wasn't there

00:37:50 this email to go to them wasn't there yes and a good reason for right for this to come to you because of the item three fact testing it appears so yes yes thank you let's go back to the bba certificate question then uh um i just asked you

00:38:01 question then uh um i just asked you about when you first saw it let's go to bre 3011803 please

00:38:10 uh and let's go straight to the second email in the chain on the page it's from mark stevens of kingspan offsite to sarah colwell 17th of november 2008

00:38:21 to sarah colwell 17th of november 2008 and you could see from the top email on the page that it came to you

00:38:25 to you under the uh the heading uh well under the flag it could be discussed on wednesday before i respond now at that date uh and you can see that he attaches i

00:38:36 and you can see that he attaches i should say the latest version of kingspan's k15 bba certificate you could see that from the first line of mark stevens's email yes uh yes and he says to sarah colwell i'd be interested in

00:38:47 to sarah colwell i'd be interested in your comments on section seven in particular with regards to use on buildings with upper floors but over 18 meters above ground level clearly if this is a route to approval for us i'd be quite pleased if not i need to

00:38:58 be quite pleased if not i need to understand the reasons why not from an outside body perspective so i'm better able to communicate the issues and have the message understood you see that yes i do yes

00:39:08 i do yes at that stage have you ever met or communicated with mark stevens of kingspan offside i don't think i have no i don't don't think i've ever met him right as we can see from the top email i've just shown you

00:39:19 i've just shown you uh it's clear that sarah colwell sends it to you the same day and asks for a discussion on wednesday do you remember receiving that email at all i don't know do you remember any discussion with sarah

00:39:30 remember any discussion with sarah colwell about it no i don't not first hand you don't now tony baker told the inquiry and again for our reference it's day 100 page 55 lines 3-13 that he remembered concerns

00:39:42 lines 3-13 that he remembered concerns in the bre about the kingspan labc certificate as well as the bba certificate do you remember him having concerns about those documents um not specifically no

00:39:54 um not specifically no had you read well when you opened this email

00:39:58 email did you look at the attachment that mark stevens had sent sarah colwell um i'm not sure i would have done um at that particular moment in time again as we already covered you know

00:40:10 already covered you know the um attachments to emails i would

00:40:14 i would um only sort of discuss them with people if they brought a particular issue to me that they had a concern about i mean

00:40:22 i mean you can't read voluminous quantities of everything you just have to rely on what is brought to you and um and and discussed isn't this a good

00:40:33 and and discussed isn't this a good example of that sarah colwell receiving a message from potentially but i'd well let me just kind of just finish the question please thank you um isn't this a good example of that here is mark

00:40:44 a good example of that here is mark stevens of an existing client of bre sending sarah colwell a document and asking for specific technical advice on it she sends this to you because she wants

00:40:56 she sends this to you because she wants your assistance before she responds is there any reason at all why you wouldn't have opened the attachment and looked at the bba certificate that mr stevens had sent her

00:41:05 sent her yeah i mean the reasons may be that you know i was dealing with other things at the time so you know

00:41:12 you know there were very many things going on at bre

00:41:15 bre um

00:41:16 um in the areas that i was responsible for aside from um

00:41:21 um bs8414

00:41:22 bs8414 um so you know unless people actually come to you and say there's a particular issue i need to discuss with this in relation to that and explain their concerns to you i mean you the

00:41:34 concerns to you i mean you the i did not have capacity to read absolutely everything that landed in my in my inbox but you've told us your your way of working and you just said unless people actually come to you

00:41:46 said unless people actually come to you and say there's a particular issue i need to discuss with you this was one wasn't it so can we proceed it appears so yes so can we can we proceed therefore on the basis that although you don't remember it now

00:41:57 although you don't remember it now at the time when you received this email you opened the attachment that sarah colbert had received from kingspan can we proceed on that basis

00:42:08 well i don't recollect it specifically but um

00:42:12 but um i received the email thank you

00:42:19 let's look at the certificate um which was attached it's bre 3011804 [Music]

00:42:27 and you can see from the first uh page that

00:42:32 that uh it relates to k-15 yes

00:42:36 yes and

00:42:37 and i wonder if this might trigger a recollection uh product scope and summary of certificate this certificate relates to cool therm k-15 range screen insulation board a rigid phenolic board with foil

00:42:48 board a rigid phenolic board with foil composite facings for use as an external and thermal insulation on new and existing steel frame or masonry walls the board is used in domestic and non-domestic buildings in conjunction

00:43:00 non-domestic buildings in conjunction with masonry or weather-type ventilated cladding systems and there's a uh an image i think a computer-generated image of what looks like a steel frame system is that right

00:43:11 system is that right um

00:43:12 um yes probably yes it's a bit difficult you can certainly see the the reference in the text to new and existing steel frame or masonry walls

00:43:21 walls and if you scroll down to the bottom and you can see that in the gray box there there's a date of issue first issue 27th of october 2008 yes uh yes yes yes

00:43:32 yes yes yes now in mark stevens email uh he had specifically asked for sarah colwell's comments on section seven yes we saw that yes yes so let's go to

00:43:43 yes we saw that yes yes so let's go to that that's at page five towards the bottom of the page and at 7.1 the heading is behavior in relation to fire yes

00:43:53 yes and you can see that the certificate gives some details there of the test that was carried out under bsa414 part 1 on a system incorporating k15 yes yes yes

00:44:05 incorporating k15 yes yes yes and at the very end of that paragraph of the text the certificate says this uh the product meets the criteria stated within br

00:44:15 within br e135

00:44:17 e135 yes

00:44:19 yes uh yes yeah the last line yes now first do you agree that br 135 as it then stood which was the 2003 second edition

00:44:31 which was the 2003 second edition uh related to systems and not products absolutely yes and therefore that statement there is incorrect correct yeah did you notice that at the time

00:44:42 yeah did you notice that at the time um

00:44:42 um i don't recall i mean i'm assuming that i had a discussion with sarah about this and she would have um

00:44:51 um pointed out what her concerns were um

00:44:54 um and i mean that may very well have been what her concern was i i don't recall do you remember what her concerns were that she pointed out no no i don't i don't know what to say you can also see that there's only one

00:45:07 you can also see that there's only one test and it's done under the 2002 part 1 version of bsa414 relating to masonry yes

00:45:14 yes did it did it not twig with you that in fact

00:45:17 fact uh kingspan or rather behave was

00:45:21 was uh

00:45:22 uh stating

00:45:23 stating that the product was for use not only with masonry wall constructions but also structural steel frames okay well it may may well have done i but i don't recall the details of any discussion with sarah

00:45:34 the details of any discussion with sarah over it but we may very well have spotted that i don't know if we look at the very end of page five and go to page six you can see uh clause seven point or section seven point two the product is classified as class

00:45:45 the product is classified as class naught or lay risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and if we turn the page england and wales

00:45:56 we turn the page england and wales approved document b 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5 and 12.6

00:46:03 12.6 volume 2 see also diagram 40. now i don't think we need to go back to it we can if you like but in 2008 we were look we were you were using the 2006

00:46:15 2006 uh edition of proof document b which dealt with external services for buildings with a story over 18 meters yes

00:46:23 yes what would be the relevance of a classification to class naught for an insulation product such as k-15

00:46:38 sorry i'm not following where it says that classo it's at the foot of the book yeah you're right foot of page five

00:46:49 and also top of page six foot of page five the product product is classified as class naught yes yes and therefore may be used in accordance with if we flip back to page six

00:47:02 flip back to page six approve document b et cetera et cetera there's a reference to 12.6 there and diagram 40. yes yes yes and of course you know i think yes 6 and diagram 40 are about external

00:47:14 yes 6 and diagram 40 are about external surfaces absolutely yes or walls of walls depending uh and class naughty's class naught now my question again what was the relevance of a

00:47:25 what was the relevance of a classification to class naught of an insulation product such as k-15 well within this context here

00:47:33 here it wasn't relevant no and k-15 would never be used as an external surface on a building would it you know it shouldn't be no well you don't put insulation no it shouldn't phenolic insulation is the external

00:47:45 phenolic insulation is the external product

00:47:47 do you agree on its face that the clear implication of this wording was that k15 was suitable for use above 18 meters

00:47:58 i suppose taken with the bs8414 result that is what um they were seeking to achieve yes

00:48:11 just looking at what i've read to you do you agree that this section of this certificate could very easily create the wholly misleading impression that k-15 could be used above 18 meters in a generic sense in other words on any

00:48:22 in a generic sense in other words on any building above 18 meters um potentially yeah did you pick that up at the time i'm not sure i i don't recall whether we did or not it would have been quite a moment to realize that that is what k15

00:48:34 moment to realize that that is what k15 was claiming through the bba for its product wouldn't it you have no recollection of that i don't have a recollection of that i mean i i do know i mean obviously we that there were concerns and i think that it was at

00:48:47 were concerns and i think that it was at this sort of time but i mean i would defer to sarah's recollections on that that she actually gave presentations and so on

00:48:58 on to bba

00:49:00 to bba around

00:49:03 the application and use of br135

00:49:08 but at the end of the day i mean we can only express concerns and could only express concerns

00:49:17 concerns to

00:49:18 to organizations such as bba and and others but we had no authority

00:49:26 authority [Music]

00:49:28 [Music] at the end of the day you know the what the content of their certificates is is theirs and you know it's for them to satisfy themselves that what they are including within the certificate is

00:49:41 including within the certificate is is correct and valid so you know you can make a representation to him you can explain you know what flag that flag of concern which um

00:49:52 flag that flag of concern which um i suspect probably is what happened as a consequence of of the

00:49:58 of the contact from sarah um

00:50:02 um but the way that they respond to that is beyond our our control well that's a statement of uh

00:50:11 uh as of your belief what i want to know is did you have a conversation with sarah colwell at the time about these deep manifest i put it to you manifest defects in this bba certificate i don't

00:50:22 defects in this bba certificate i don't recall

00:50:22 recall i can't now sarah caldwell told us day two three three page 25-33 she met with george lee about section 7.1 of the certificate on the 22nd of december

00:50:33 december 2008. she told us that she discussed that

00:50:37 that with him didn't turn the page and didn't follow up with the bba at any time after that and my question for you dr smith is what if anything did you know about that meeting

00:50:48 meeting um

00:50:50 um i don't recall i mean if you say that that and that is what happened then that would have been the um outcome of the discussion that i had with sarah inevitably

00:51:01 with sarah inevitably because you saw the email where she was saying can we discuss this so right piecing the bits of the jigsaw together as presented um

00:51:12 um it appears that we would have had a meeting and then she would she went and spoke to bba about the concerns that we had

00:51:20 had observed well no she didn't that's the point

00:51:23 point i thought you said she did talk to him about

00:51:26 about 7.1 she didn't follow up with the bpa i thought you said she met with george lee

00:51:32 lee well

00:51:34 well sorry we can look at the transcript ourselves dr smith i'm putting to you the gist of her evidence what let me ask you in a slightly different way then can you remember either you or sarah colwell following up

00:51:47 either you or sarah colwell following up with the bba at any time after having seen the certificate and pointing out to them the errors in it

00:51:54 it um not to follow it up beyond that no no

00:51:59 no is it right that you had a reasonably cordial working relationship with the bva

00:52:06 bva um

00:52:09 you had people you could talk to there if you wanted to well not not particularly no i mean we i think there were one or two points of contact with bba but we didn't have a relationship with bba at all

00:52:23 relationship with bba at all right

00:52:26 so you don't know anything about

00:52:30 the bba contacting sarah colwell for particular advice about the contents of certificates i think they did contact her from time to time but it wasn't a regular

00:52:42 but it wasn't a regular relationship and you know there was no um you know there wasn't regular meetings or anything like that it was a very ad hoc

00:52:52 hoc um

00:52:53 um relationship and i think they got the vast majority of their fire input from elsewhere not from bre um

00:53:03 um the bre was at garston wasn't it yes it was yes the bba was also yes in fact it was opposite the bre wasn't it well it occupies a building at bre so

00:53:14 it well it occupies a building at bre so it's a private building that's locked just like you know an office adjacent to this building i mean it's it's a separate entity yes but but not difficult if you wanted to knock on the

00:53:26 difficult if you wanted to knock on the door and gain admission and talk to somebody

00:53:28 somebody about a potentially misleading and extremely dangerous certificate for example which was circulating in the public domain

00:53:36 well i mean in terms of proximity they were close by but i say there was no no working relationship as such it was just ad hoc

00:53:47 just ad hoc now can i ask you then to stick with page six and look at uh paragraph 7.3

00:53:56 it says uh

00:54:02 this that in

00:54:04 that in buildings with the floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder and

00:54:11 and when you

00:54:12 when you i i'm making allowances for your recollection dr smith of course but when you looked at the certificate assuming you read it did were you not struck by that clause

00:54:24 um not particularly i don't think i would have been why why

00:54:31 what's the concern is it something you've ever seen before um

00:54:36 um go back to the manufacturer and seek advice where you're dealing with a building with a floor more than 18 meters yeah i don't think it's that unusual in these types of certificates from bba right so you

00:54:47 so you is your evidence that you'd seen those that kind of statement in a bba certificate before this one um i can't i can't be

00:54:58 this one um i can't i can't be definitive about that but it's not as i sit here today it's not something that is unique i think to this certificate

00:55:08 and go back to your statement please page 1a page 29 paragraph 107

00:55:17 you say there

00:55:24 in the fourth line bre has no subsequent role of response or responsibility in relation to any performance claims which the test sponsor may make for the products or systems which they sell into the market such claims effectively being

00:55:36 the market such claims effectively being policed by trading standards as the market surveillance authority in the uk yes was there anything at the time that precluded the bre in some way from notifying trading standards about

00:55:47 notifying trading standards about misleading or inaccurate performance claims whether in the manufacturer's performance claims or whether in a bba certificate itself um

00:55:58 um i mean that this would typically be the route that you would go with a manufacturer i'm not sure we would have ever considered approaching trading sorry

00:56:10 considered approaching trading sorry trading standards in relation to bba certificates or whatever as i say you know you draw it to people's attention and then allow them to

00:56:23 attention and then allow them to carry out their work

00:56:26 accordingly looking at the evidence and whatever that they have available to them um

00:56:33 them um i mean the fact that the point here really sorry is that um [Music]

00:56:37 [Music] you know bre is not the policeman of of the industry i mean we we didn't have the resources or or the capacity to to do that

00:56:48 do that um as we if we became aware of things then you know you could make a direct approach to bba and say look i think there might be an issue with this you you need to

00:57:00 an issue with this you you need to understand [Music]

00:57:02 [Music] and then it would be left with them to make their decision as to what they wanted to do about that why was it resource intensive to send an email to the relevant

00:57:13 the relevant trading standards officer enclosing the bba certificate and identifying the three or four ways in which this uh bba certificate was manifestly wrong and

00:57:25 manifestly wrong and if used by kingspan manifestly misleading why was that resource intensive well no the whole point of um looking at all certificates and so on would be resource in intensive but i'm only asking you

00:57:37 in intensive but i'm only asking you about this one well yes and i mean i don't know i mean i'm not sure it was an option that we considered at the time and it didn't happen obviously did you consider that the vre was in some way precluded from notifying the

00:57:49 some way precluded from notifying the bba that their certificate was inaccurate and misleading no and i i say sat here right now i thought that had happened did you consider that the bre was in

00:58:00 did you consider that the bre was in some way precluded from native fine kingspan that their bba certificate they were using to sell k-15 was inaccurate and misleading no and again i i i don't know i haven't seen the email

00:58:12 i don't know i haven't seen the email trails and so on um but presumably sarah responded to the email that you showed earlier did you consider that you thereafter after november 2008 ought to be treating

00:58:25 after november 2008 ought to be treating your client kingspan with a very considerable degree of skepticism

00:58:31 well i think we did you think you think you did yes in what way um in in all ways i say we'd had a very um

00:58:46 we considered all of the insulation industry to be needed to be treated carefully and skeptically

00:59:00 but you still continued to sit down with them work with them and take their money in the same way that you do with any customer it doesn't mean that you can't work with somebody if you're applying the right rules and

00:59:12 you're applying the right rules and principles around the work that you undertake

00:59:15 undertake and i mean it was my my belief that we were acting properly and appropriately and independently and impartially in every piece of work

00:59:26 and impartially in every piece of work that we undertook and

00:59:29 and obviously if you undertake a test for somebody then of course i go they've got to pay for it i mean that's you can't you can't afford to do testing for free for people and

00:59:41 for free for people and actually if you did i mean that would demonstrate a lack of impartiality anyway

00:59:46 anyway so i mean the whole thing is

00:59:51 is bound up with those principles and i have no evidence or belief that bre deviated from those principles can we just go back to steve mr steven's email please

01:00:03 back to steve mr steven's email please which is at bre 3011803

01:00:10 where what he asks for is sarah colwell's view in the second line in particular with regards to use on buildings with upper floors over 18 meters ground level

01:00:22 meters ground level clearly if this is a route to approval for us i would be quite pleased

01:00:29 now

01:00:32 i showed you clause 7.3 the provision that said for buildings over 18 meters seek the advice of the manufacturer

01:00:47 what do you know was the bre's answer to the question about whether that was a route to approval have you got a response from sarah to

01:00:58 have you got a response from sarah to mr stevens well um that's why i'm asking you you see

01:01:04 you see do you know about the documents dr smith i mean do you know from your own knowledge sitting there no that's what i'm after okay if there was a document i'd be putting it to you okay

01:01:15 document i'd be putting it to you okay so i don't know this works right you don't no um do you accept there's a general proposition that the bre ought to have gone back to kingspan and told them

01:01:26 and told them that merely getting kingspan's approval

01:01:30 approval was not a route to approval covered by approved document b

01:01:38 um yeah i mean i don't know what happened as a consequence of this email so i can't i can't really comment let's go to 2009 please bre 403313

01:01:52 is another series of internal emails from mate 2009 now i i'm i'm sorry to say it's very it's a fairly long chain but i don't think we need to look at all of it we

01:02:03 think we need to look at all of it we can certainly look at more of it that i intend to show you if you like but can we start on page three and we find there an email of the 11th of may 2009 from

01:02:14 an email of the 11th of may 2009 from sarah colwell to you and john raybould at 10 50 in the morning

01:02:20 morning copying in stephen baker and stephen howard and tony baker yes yes yes who is john ray bold um john ray bold is

01:02:32 um john ray bold is the manager of the bre northeast facility up in middlesborough right

01:02:47 now in the opening paragraph of her email she says this john i see from your sales report that you've met with weatherbiz and kingspan but unfortunately you have not contacted either myself or tony to provide any feedback as we are currently working

01:02:59 feedback as we are currently working with both parties it would be most helpful as we need to look like a joined up group

01:03:05 up group and then in the third and fourth paragraph she says this

01:03:10 this we know kingspan have a number of finishes they would like to be included in their scope but they do not have the resource for 20 bsa414 tests please let me know whether you can next be in the office so we can sit down and agree your

01:03:21 office so we can sit down and agree your sales plan for this area so we have some effective two-way communication and keep the activity focused now first of all uh

01:03:32 now first of all uh uh the reference to the word sales plan there in the last paragraph what was what was that what was being sold

01:03:40 sales plan um

01:03:44 um so part of john's role was business development um

01:03:50 um so he would be selling um the services and that he had available to him up in the arena feast which might be

01:04:01 which might be some included things such as sandwich panel

01:04:05 panel testing for rpcb approval and um also intumescent coatings um

01:04:16 intumescent coatings um the steel preparation areas up there they didn't actually do testing of intumescent coatings out there but

01:04:23 there but um the preparation for for testing yes thank you now let's um you've note the words in the third paragraph

01:04:31 paragraph that kingspan have a number of finishes that they'd like to be included in their scope but not do not have the resource for 20 bsa414 tests then if we go up to page two of the email chain

01:04:43 page two of the email chain we can see john rayball's response on the 11th of may same day back to sarah colwell and stephen howard copied to you subject whether being kingspan yes

01:04:55 subject whether being kingspan yes and

01:04:58 if you look at the second paragraph under the heading weatherby

01:05:04 he writes as follows uh no mention of panel lock i briefly discussed his teaming with panna block

01:05:15 and then the next paragraph his big question was having tested his 50 millimeter system in an 8414 test which then allows him to use this system with kingspan phenolic

01:05:26 use this system with kingspan phenolic within for heights from zero to over 18 meters he wants to know how he can apply a thicker insulation to lower buildings i.e schools this is because zurich will only accept non-combustible products and

01:05:38 only accept non-combustible products and the 8414 appears to pass the phenolic as a non-combustible material my post-meeting words

01:05:47 and then do we suggest an eight

01:05:50 an eight sorry a one one eight one or some other test

01:05:54 test they're just pausing is that is that is one one eight one um an lp

01:05:59 an lp c test yeah it's an lps lps

01:06:04 lps the loss prevention standard used by certification standard yes yes i see and that's because of zurich presumably yes i would assume so

01:06:15 yes i would assume so now then he goes on kingspan although king spanner testing in the near future mark said this is another project specific so i've agreed with mark that i will come back to him in a

01:06:26 mark that i will come back to him in a few weeks after discussing internally he will be out of the office in dubai for next week

01:06:32 next week for the next week now pausing there that's a reference i think to mark stevens of kingspan off-site is it um i don't know it could be but it i think there are a number of people called mark that work at kingspan uh

01:06:44 called mark that work at kingspan uh that maybe may very well be uh now it goes on the guidelines i want to ask you all are and then there's some questions if we test thick and thin insulation with no other changes can we accept any

01:06:55 other changes can we accept any insulation thickness within that range can we decide what cavity space would be the worst so that they can carry out the thick and thin test with the worst cavity we know that we know that fire seals are critical both type and

01:07:08 seals are critical both type and position so initially we are unsure as to what to offer as any guidance read differing floor heights i would like to give some more definite options we know that spontaneous ignition of the insulation above a firebrick is critical

01:07:19 insulation above a firebrick is critical to its success or failure so is there any way we can access the 20 to 30 outer systems in a more technical manner we know it's either fire breaking through the outer barrier or the radiative heat coming through and igniting the

01:07:30 coming through and igniting the insulation surface so we could carry out some small scale sorting tests using both resistance type tests but adding some heat flux meters to try to better understand which

01:07:41 to try to better understand which systems are prone to letting a lot of heat through this would help us group the outer systems into say three groups and through those three into full scale tests to hopefully confirm our guidelines

01:07:52 guidelines this is as far as my defining guidelines went as i really need to talk to people at base to consider more sorting options now what were those defining guidelines what were they

01:08:07 i don't know i mean this

01:08:12 i mean i don't understand what john's talking about in a lot of this did you go back and ask him um we may very well have done or sarah may very well have done um

01:08:23 um i mean john was not um an expert

01:08:28 an expert in the matters that of course sarah and others were um

01:08:32 um i don't want to be unfair to you you do actually respond to this email and then i'm going to show you the response in a moment

01:08:37 moment so park my question if we can i will come back to it but looking at what he is proposing there

01:08:45 there he's proposing some guidelines

01:08:50 you can't tell us what the purpose of those guidelines was not sat here looking at that now in isolation and who is the we that that you would understand in the in the first bullet point if we

01:09:01 in the in the first bullet point if we test thick and thin um i presume he's talking about bre yes and are these attempts on the part of bre to put in place some sort of field application parameters for kingspan it

01:09:13 application parameters for kingspan it looks as if that is the case i mean that okay i hadn't seen this but this is what i was sort of alluding to earlier now just looking at it would it be fair to um say that john

01:09:24 would it be fair to um say that john raybould here is trying to understand how to arrange test rigs for kingspan in a way that would give those tests the best chance of success

01:09:35 those tests the best chance of success for example by pre-testing uh some of the uh components by small-scale tests yeah i don't know what he's trying to do to be honest right i mean we know that

01:09:47 to be honest right i mean we know that there's no there's no correlation from one to the other so right

01:09:52 right the usefulness of it no i can't comment right and there's a post-meeting note yeah

01:10:00 yeah there's a post-meeting note i'm not siding with either party at the moment but two things are for sure one kingspan have 30 different systems of which they know they will have to test 10 to 20 to get them all through

01:10:11 get them all through but would like to do it as cost-effective as possible this is still a lot of money to spend two kingspan is of the opinion that we are not coordinating this package of

01:10:22 are not coordinating this package of work

01:10:23 work and that they are being left floundering without any real guidance other than keep testing and then we will offer application guidance and then if we turn the page please to page three

01:10:34 page three i did suggest to mark that i would coordinate pull together these activities of the package program like i did in the old resistance package without stopping the existing direct contact between various parties

01:10:46 contact between various parties now first of all siding with either party

01:10:49 party um

01:10:51 um in in what did you understand he was not deciding what was the division and i don't know what parties he's referring to well maybe he was referring to kingspan on the one hand and bre on the other is

01:11:03 on the one hand and bre on the other is that is that a the way you might have understood it at the time doing the best you can

01:11:10 i don't know i mean i don't know why he would side with kingspan or or bre i mean he was a bre employee so

01:11:21 employee so it's very odd right

01:11:25 right looking at uh paragraph two at the bottom of page two again under the post-meeting note he says that uh

01:11:33 that uh kingspan

01:11:35 kingspan was of the opinion that the bre we are not coordinating this package of work and they're being left floundering without any real guidance other than keep testing then we will offer application guidance

01:11:46 offer application guidance on what basis was king span do you know being offered application guidance

01:11:53 or might be well again i think this relates to um they hadn't been offered any but it would relate to the field of application and the potential to extend

01:12:06 application and the potential to extend the field of application but again and we've been through this before the there isn't a field of application for an eight four one four test meeting criteria to one three five is there there wasn't at the time no no

01:12:18 there wasn't at the time no no and it looks as if and help me would it be right to take from paragraph two there that kingspan at least were complaining uh that the bre wasn't coordinating the package and giving

01:12:30 coordinating the package and giving guidance

01:12:31 guidance correct yeah so their expectation was that the bre would do do you know if that is the case can you explain how it was that that kingspan was able to have

01:12:42 was that that kingspan was able to have that expectation um

01:12:45 um i don't know but i mean in some ways it's reassuring because it means they weren't they weren't getting what they had understood to be getting and that there was potentially some miscommunication that would have

01:12:57 some miscommunication that would have been going on let's go up to the bottom of page one and your response email on the 11th of may

01:13:03 may so same day a little bit later in the day in the afternoon and you respond to john raybould

01:13:10 raybould sarah colwell and stephen howard copied tony baker and norman mcdonald john you say i'm not going to answer the technical points except to say that phenolic is not non-combustible and never will be bs8414

01:13:23 non-combustible and never will be bs8414 can't pass anything as non-combustible as this is a defined class in the building regulations adb table a6 which makes no reference to bs8414 i'm happy to contribute to discussions on

01:13:34 happy to contribute to discussions on the technical issues but would suggest a short focused meeting would be most the most cost effective approach now i think you're correcting there what john raybull had written in the third paragraph of his email on page two where

01:13:46 paragraph of his email on page two where he said that and i think entirely wrongly as you say 8414 appears to pass the phenolic as a non-combustible material yes um it appears so yes what other technical

01:13:57 appears so yes what other technical issues did you want to contribute to the discussions on um i don't recall that i mean it's um it was probably to um discuss that in more detail with him

01:14:08 more detail with him right

01:14:09 right now

01:14:10 now i just want to show you the entirety of your response before i ask the question but if you can look back at page one please

01:14:17 please uh

01:14:18 uh and then there's a a bold italicized underlined paragraph or sentence which says this in terms of a future work program we must

01:14:30 terms of a future work program we must not follow the same project management approach that was used for the previous package of work for kingspan for the fire resistance tests etc as this has been an unmitigated disaster see that yes i do

01:14:42 see that yes i do um

01:14:43 um what was the one what was the unmitigated disaster i don't recall i mean reading the next bit it says they've not paid for some of the work

01:14:54 they've not paid for some of the work so

01:14:55 so but i don't know right it's an unmet unmitigated commercial disaster for kings for a bre rather than an unmitigated technical disaster well it that may have been wrapped up in it i don't i i don't know you don't know no i

01:15:06 don't i i don't know you don't know no i don't recall right

01:15:08 right what we don't see here and you can please do read the rest of that page and over to page two

01:15:18 and i summarize that the the the topic here is about contracts and money um it appears so yes yes what we don't see in your response is a

01:15:29 what we don't see in your response is a question back to ron john raybald saying what are you doing we are we can't provide application guidance from testing to bs8414 up to 135 because that would compromise

01:15:40 up to 135 because that would compromise our impartiality and independence enshrined in our in our protocols but you don't see that and my question is why not well i mean i could have written a lengthy response in relation to every

01:15:52 a lengthy response in relation to every single point that he'd raised but as i say

01:15:57 as i say early on in the response i'm not going to answer to all the technical points you know that's being left for others to have that discussion in relation to bs8414 and i can only assume that that

01:16:10 bs8414 and i can only assume that that the way i'm reading that now that's that's what that

01:16:15 that was my my approach

01:16:19 mr chairman i'm not quite as far ahead as i would like to have been by this time but i am very close to being where i wanted to be this is an opportunity i think for a

01:16:30 this is an opportunity i think for a break

01:16:31 break well then we ought to take it in yes yes we'll take a break at that point therefore dr smith will resume piece of 25 to 12. yes and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while

01:16:42 talk to anyone about your evidence while you're outside thank you very much

01:16:54 thank you for doing it 25 to 12 please

01:36:12 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:36:26 all right dr smith should we have to keep going yes thank you thank you yes thank you mr chairman dr smith i want to turn to a different topic slightly different topic which is the kingspan abc certificate can we

01:36:39 the kingspan abc certificate can we start please with bre three zeros one two two two five two

01:36:49 and this is another internal exchange of emails

01:36:53 emails slightly later in may 2009 and if you look at the second email down on the page you can see that this is an email from john ray bold to tony baker sarah colwell and stephen howard copy to you

01:37:05 colwell and stephen howard copy to you clouding test labc assessments is the subject hi folks it says i've managed to get an labc certificate from hertfordshire that says that the kingsman k15 insulation can be used in a

01:37:16 kingsman k15 insulation can be used in a mixture of insulation thicknesses masonry or steel frame substrates a minimum cavity gap of 50 millimeters with a range of range green claddings i'm sure that this would have been sent to us officially by kingspan when mark stevens gets back from the middle east i

01:37:29 stevens gets back from the middle east i would like to think we've tried to establish some guidelines like i was proposing so that we could at least give mark some help with his system configurations also note that this appears to give automatic acceptance for systems over 18

01:37:40 automatic acceptance for systems over 18 meters let me know how we want to move forward

01:37:44 forward now above that we can see that sarah colwell

01:37:48 colwell sends

01:37:49 sends a message to you and stephen howard the same

01:37:54 the same day seven minutes later in fact debbie steve we need to discuss this urgently regards sarah now attached to john raybould's email was labc's system approval certificate

01:38:06 was labc's system approval certificate and certificate summary for k-15 let's go to that it said it's a bre-301253

01:38:18 there it is and it's entitled labc type approval service

01:38:24 service system approval external walls of rain screen cladding incorporating kingsman cool thumb k15 insulation board my first question is when you got the email uh or got the message from sarah colwell seven minutes later did you open

01:38:36 colwell seven minutes later did you open the attachment and read this document i don't recall i mean whether i opened it right then or i don't recall when i would have opened it right the message in ray bold's

01:38:49 right the message in ray bold's email in the penultimate paragraph is that it appeared to give automatic acceptance for k-15 over 18 meters and sarah colwell wanted to discuss it with you urgently can we assume given

01:39:00 can we assume given given those two features of the correspondence sent to you that you you did or open the attachment and look at this document um

01:39:11 document um well at some point i guess i would have done yes but i don't recall when that was okay now let's um look at page two of this document bre

01:39:21 bre yes this document here on the page if we go halfway down page two under the heading requirement b safety fire safety considerations can you see

01:39:31 you see yes uh it is now at the top of your screen k15 has been tested in accordance with

01:39:37 with bsa414 part 1 2002.

01:39:42 which is self-explanatory and then

01:39:46 and then bsen 1364 part 1 1999 which is fire resistance and then bs476 parts six and seven yes yes

01:39:56 yes and it says then from the results it can be considered that as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught's classification for surface

01:40:07 naught's classification for surface spread of flame and where it says from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility that was entirely wrong wasn't it uh yes it is none of those tests could lead to a conclusion

01:40:18 those tests could lead to a conclusion that k-15 could be considered a material of limited combustibility could they no there were no circumstances in which kingspan's k-15 phenolic insulation board could ever be considered a material of limited

01:40:29 considered a material of limited combustibility could it no no did you appreciate that at the time i would have done yes it was this claim of serious concern to the bre

01:40:40 claim of serious concern to the bre um

01:40:40 um [Music]

01:40:43 well if we'd if we read this at the time and and reviewed this then yes it would have been i mean presumably it must have been some concern is it right because uh sarah colwell wanted to

01:40:55 because uh sarah colwell wanted to discuss this urgently with you and stephen howard yes she wished to discuss some aspect of this with me yes do you remember having a discussion about this document with stephen howard and or

01:41:07 document with stephen howard and or sarah i don't recall it um no i don't but i mean i can only assume that we did yes and tony baker told us day 100 page 55 lines three to fifteen that he

01:41:18 55 lines three to fifteen that he recalled concerns within the bre about the kingspan labc certificate as well as the bba certificate do you remember that does that help you um i do i do recall some issues with the labc

01:41:33 some issues with the labc certificates yes we have no record of any further correspondence on this at all can if that's right but that is all we have can you explain why that is

01:41:45 have can you explain why that is not definitively no i can't other than i mean that there was ongoing discussions between bre and labc around this time

01:41:56 between bre and labc around this time that were taking place with the ceo of bre global and the technical director so carol atkinson and philip field

01:42:10 so carol atkinson and philip field and

01:42:13 i would have referred any concerns that we had that we had identified up to them

01:42:21 to them um to have raised in their discussions that they were having um what were the ongoing discussions between bre and labc at this time that

01:42:32 between bre and labc at this time that you've just referred to so were they on this topic uh not specifically on this but in a you know they were talking about

01:42:40 about um opportunities for working more closely together at that time as i understand it what bre and the labc yes for bre to

01:42:52 what bre and the labc yes for bre to provide some degree of technical support to them um but i think in the end that didn't actually

01:43:01 actually go anywhere it didn't it didn't manifest itself in any sort of working relationship but the discussions were certainly going on around that time did the bre raise its concerns about the

01:43:13 did the bre raise its concerns about the content of this certificate that we've just seen

01:43:16 just seen with kingspan i can't be definitive but that would be my um my expectation yes well that's that may be a fair observation now we haven't seen any

01:43:29 observation now we haven't seen any communication with kingspan to take it up with them are you able to explain kingspan or labc with kingspan um okay i know i don't know what happened in relation to kingspan no

01:43:40 relation to kingspan no why is that um i i don't recall i don't recall if we would have discussed it with kingspan or not did bre raise any concerns about the content of this certificate

01:43:53 content of this certificate with trading standards um not to my knowledge no did the bre raise any concerns about this content of the certificate here with anthony bird or brian martin or

01:44:04 with anthony bird or brian martin or anybody else at the department um

01:44:07 um i think the department were probably aware of this um but you can you obviously you you can explore that directly with them uh well um that is

01:44:18 directly with them uh well um that is that is entirely something we can do but what what is the basis for your evidence that you think the department were probably aware of this would you say that

01:44:29 i think that there were as you said earlier there were concerns around um the claims that were being made in relation to

01:44:41 relation to just the insulation in isolation at that time

01:44:46 time um

01:44:47 um who had those concerns who in government had those concerns i think it was uh um an industry concern

01:44:56 concern well i'm asking about government okay well i can't i can't be specific about that um but i think you know people were aware that there were some

01:45:08 that there were some misleading um

01:45:10 um claims that were being made and i think this is probably around the time as well that advertising standards were also looking at this

01:45:21 at this can you be specific about who you mean by people

01:45:25 by people people were aware what kind of people well i say in the department at the time it would have been um probably anthony bird but he certainly was in the department

01:45:37 but he certainly was in the department at the time do you remember a specific instance

01:45:42 instance sitting here now which you can recall which could tell us that anthony bird knew that kingspan were relying on this certificate in order to sell k-15 no i can't no

01:45:56 sell k-15 no i can't no not specifically what about others in the industry

01:46:02 um

01:46:05 well in so far as i say we were contacted by the advertising standards people

01:46:12 people [Music]

01:46:14 [Music] what did you tell them i think i've i've already reported that they were asking about definitions of limited combustibility and non-combustible and

01:46:26 non-combustible and and those things which i mean they didn't mention and i said that in my statement to my recollection any particular company but i mean it's kind of when you see this written here like this

01:46:38 when you see this written here like this now i think it's

01:46:43 pretty clear that it was probably linked to

01:46:46 to to these claims these types of claims that were being made i mean did you give any consideration at the time to the fact that kingspan one of your clients for some years by now was making potentially dangerous and misinformed

01:46:59 potentially dangerous and misinformed through this certificate dangerous and misleading statements to the industry i think we did and i say i think from my recollection anyway we we did share those concerns with

01:47:11 we did share those concerns with labc

01:47:13 labc through um through other colleagues and i think the um and i'd understood as well that we were also

01:47:21 also sharing such concerns with bba

01:47:26 did you really when was that um i

01:47:30 um i i

01:47:32 i i don't know exactly when that was but um

01:47:36 um you know it was my understanding that sarah was speaking to bba on an ad hoc basis and

01:47:44 and the purpose of those discussions was to explain you know the context of br135 and the bs-8414 testing um

01:47:55 um and how it applied to a system rather than to an individual material when were those conversations well they went on i think for for um you

01:48:07 well they went on i think for for um you know a few years i'm aware that steve howard also gave presentations to bba but i can't tell you the exact dates of

01:48:18 but i can't tell you the exact dates of those

01:48:19 those the reason i'm pressing you on this dr smith is because in the earlier session this morning and i asked you about the proximity of the two

01:48:26 two organizations and the ability for you to take up the 2008 bba certificate for kingspan k15 you gave us at least the impression that that wasn't something that the bre did or as you

01:48:37 something that the bre did or as you might put it would have done is that not right well i also said that there were there was an ad hoc relationship between between the two so if we were contacted

01:48:49 between the two so if we were contacted or asked for um information or whatever then you know that

01:48:55 that that would be dealt with um but it wasn't a formal sort of um ongoing relationship where we met with them every month and you know and discuss things it was very

01:49:07 you know and discuss things it was very much

01:49:09 much ad hoc based on um

01:49:13 um if you like the if and when they did occur

01:49:17 occur it was no more than that i understand so in fact is this right um just so that we have your evidence clear about this there was an open channel of communication that would be used informally on an as and when needed basis between the bba and the bre um

01:49:30 basis between the bba and the bre um potentially yes as indeed with any other organization well

01:49:35 well i mean that might depend but i've just put it to you you said potentially yes i mean actually yes i was there i'll put it again

01:49:46 i'll put it again so we've got your evidence clear was there an open channel of communication let's take the date from 2008 between the bre and the bba that could be used informally on an as and when

01:49:58 be used informally on an as and when needed basis to discuss particular questions

01:50:02 questions well i i suppose i'm struggling to understand what you mean by an open channel i mean it's open in the same way that it is with any organization um it wasn't special there was no

01:50:13 um it wasn't special there was no special relationship with bba okay let's go then to page four of this certificate

01:50:25 uh you can see that one of the other documents referred to

01:50:30 on which the certificate was based was the bba

01:50:34 the bba certificate itself 084582 take it from me that that's the the certificate we looked at this morning dated the 27th of october 2008 signed by the bba for kingspan k15 yes

01:50:48 signed by the bba for kingspan k15 yes did you notice that at the time did you notice the recall did that not then prompt a discussion with the bba that their certificate was engendering other uh manifestly erroneous and misleading

01:51:01 uh manifestly erroneous and misleading certificates i i can't remember that i don't recall can you explain why given the manifestly erroneous and misleading content of this certificate in the way you and i i think have agreed

01:51:14 in the way you and i i think have agreed we never see in the records that we have seen from the bre a strong letter that goes to kingspan to

01:51:21 to ask them about how it is that they have allowed labc to labor under this clearly wrong impression and what they propose to do to correct it can you explain why we see no such

01:51:32 it can you explain why we see no such communication no i can't it should have been one shouldn't they um

01:51:38 on reflection yes that we should have done that

01:51:43 but nonetheless for the years that followed

01:51:46 followed uh it looks as if vre was continuing to treat its kingspan as its client uh without a degree of skepticism that might have been required given the knowledge that

01:51:57 been required given the knowledge that you had about what it was telling the market through these certificates

01:52:03 well i say we did have a degree of skepticism and

01:52:09 around all of the the sector of the industry i'd like to move next to some questions about the testing carried out by kingspan at bre in 2014

01:52:21 kingspan at bre in 2014 uh under bs8414 part 2. now and by 2014 or perhaps in 2014 dr smith what was your role in relation to testing to bsa414

01:52:34 um 2014 yes

01:52:39 2014 yes and particularly um so i i was heading up the

01:52:42 up the um

01:52:44 um fire and security area

01:52:47 area at bre at that point i was the director for i think bre foreign security did that have any role in relation to

01:52:58 did that have any role in relation to testing um testing to psa yes it would have done so that would have sat under there with all of the other testing areas that came under bre fire and security yeah

01:53:11 under bre fire and security yeah so security testing and now take one or two things from me we know that kings ban carried out a test to part two of bs8414 on the system incorporating k15 or a

01:53:22 on the system incorporating k15 or a version of that product and trespa panels as the rain screen on the 19th of march 2014 and we've also heard evidence from witnesses about kingspan's complaint or

01:53:35 witnesses about kingspan's complaint or appeal against the bre's decision as a result of that test which was that had been terminated early and therefore couldn't be classified to be r135

01:53:45 be r135 i've just given you some information there does do you recall any of this i do recall that yes right because it was very unusual

01:53:54 right and what was unusual about it it was unusual for a test result to actually be contested i see

01:54:02 i see if we go then to bre triple zero one five five two six i think we could probably take it quite quickly

01:54:12 quickly if you go to the top email in the chain you can see that here is an email from stephen phillips to

01:54:20 to some recipients copied to you as well as uh stephen howard at 7th of may 2014 subject complaint forward cladding test result

01:54:31 forward cladding test result yes yes now we don't need to go through the whole chain but if we go if we scroll through it you'll see that the emails cover the fact that kingston will be complaining about the bre's decision

01:54:42 be complaining about the bre's decision that the 19th of march for 2014 tests had failed to meet the br135 criteria that that's that's what to take that from from me but if we go to the foot of page two of

01:54:53 but if we go to the foot of page two of the email run over to page three we can see an email from tony milichap right at the foot of two seventh of may 2014

01:55:02 2014 to stephen howard and if we turn the page please

01:55:06 we can see that uh he says this hello stephen uh we write further to our ongoing correspondence and further to our and prior to our meeting later this week in connection with the above we would

01:55:17 connection with the above we would confirm the following and then if you look at the paragraph after the one the longer one which starts for clarity he says this for clarity based upon data

01:55:28 he says this for clarity based upon data received we would interpret this as a positive result against the br 135 assessment criteria and should this be interpreted any other way by ourselves we would intend to appeal the result formally

01:55:39 formally now i don't know whether you would have noticed

01:55:43 noticed at the time that

01:55:46 that one of the people copied into this email if you look right at the top of your screen was somebody called t randall at fennick elliott who were kingspan's solicitors at the

01:55:58 who were kingspan's solicitors at the time yes did you notice that um i think it was actually brought to my attention for that very reason right do you know what

01:56:07 what do you know at the time why that had been done

01:56:10 been done um

01:56:14 no but the um intimation was that they were likely to pursue it um legally if they didn't get the result that they wanted

01:56:27 didn't get the result that they wanted yes so it was almost like a threat was our interpretation well yes and let's move let's move then to um page uh if we go up the email chain please

01:56:38 uh if we go up the email chain please at the top top email happening at the top of the page is that in the email that comes to you from stephen howard we can go to page one

01:56:54 uh

01:57:01 if you

01:57:10 uh yes um if you go please to page two i think i want page two

01:57:27 uh forgive me i i i need to show you a different email change in fact this is a bre 3015592

01:57:36 and there we have it if you go to the first page there stephen howard sends the email run to you in a slightly different format uh on the 23rd of may and says please see the bit in yellow

01:57:48 see the bit in yellow yes

01:57:49 yes and

01:57:50 and if you um go down piece to page two you can see there that what the bit in yellow is and this is from tony miller chap it's a longer email and he says this issue is of such significance to kingspan's

01:58:01 of such significance to kingspan's business that we have consulted with our lawyers who have confirmed that in their view bre's current position cannot be justified we recognize the influential position bre hold and do not wish to contradict its views however our

01:58:12 contradict its views however our conviction is such that we may have no other option now did you read that passage there from toby milica as a threat

01:58:20 threat um yes we did if we go then to bre40 it's 498 4980

01:58:27 4980 this is an email chain of the next day 24th of may 2014 if we go to the second email in the chain this is from you to stephen howard and richard hardy steve you say uh

01:58:40 steve you say uh obviously i'm unaware of the background to this it appears as if kingsman are challenging a test failure based on our interpretation of br135 is this correct if so what is the specific problem and he comes back to you at the top of the screen and on the 26th of may and he

01:58:53 the screen and on the 26th of may and he says

01:58:54 says does stephen howard there were flames over the top of the rig at around 43 minutes this in our view means that the test at that point is terminated and if you do not run for the full 60 minutes you cannot be classified against br 135

01:59:06 you cannot be classified against br 135 kingspan insulation are contesting the interpretation the email was sent for info really i suspect that they will get an other to offer a classification against the test report now um

01:59:16 now um stephen howard gave some evidence about that when he came to give evidence to the inquiry on day 98 at day 98 page 92 lines 18-24 and he said that that is what he expected at

01:59:29 said that that is what he expected at the time namely that kingspan would go elsewhere to get a classification test and was that your uh did you think that that was um that was a realistic possibility um i don't think that would have been at

01:59:41 um i don't think that would have been at the forefront of our minds at that time at the forefront of our minds was was the interpretation of what we'd done correct and if so we

01:59:53 what we'd done correct and if so we needed to stand firm right did it concern you that kingspan might go to another to get a classification against the test report um i don't recall particularly thinking about that at the time as i say it was

02:00:04 about that at the time as i say it was more a case of um

02:00:08 how have we have we carried out the the um the test and the classification um decision appropriately and as a consequence of that

02:00:21 and as a consequence of that um you know are we standing firm on this right because at the end of the day it's our decision whether we wish to classify or not

02:00:28 or not and what were your thoughts about that at the time um well obviously then there was a proper investigation by the compliance team to look into all of this

02:00:39 compliance team to look into all of this on the face of it from what steve says there then it appears everything's in order but you need to have all of that properly investigated so there was a full investigation carried out

02:00:51 full investigation carried out and then it was discussed obviously with richard hardy who was the managing director of bre global at the time and we absolutely took the view that we were going to stand firm

02:01:02 were going to stand firm that that you know it was our decision we had followed the the test and we were not going to give them a classification report can we go to bre 402516 please

02:01:18 this is a globe this is a bre global test report yes date of the 26th of june 2014

02:01:24 2014 uh for k-15 insulated system with a ventilated trespa rain screen yes

02:01:30 yes [Music]

02:01:31 [Music] and if you turn please to page two you can see that it was prepared by phil clark as the senior consultant and authorized by stephen howard that day yes

02:01:42 that day yes if the decision that was to stand firm and we're not going to give them a classification report are you able to explain how this document came into being

02:01:52 being this is a test report

02:01:59 so

02:02:02 but not the classification report correct

02:02:06 correct did it occur to you uh that

02:02:10 uh that the test report might be used by kingspan to create the impression that the

02:02:14 the system tested on the 19th of march had actually met the criteria in br135 um

02:02:22 um no

02:02:23 no in the sense that all of the parameters that are required for issuing a br 135 classification report were not met and they are reported factually in the

02:02:35 and they are reported factually in the test report

02:02:38 why did you issue given that you were going to stand firm on classification why did you go ahead nonetheless and issue a test report because a test report well i mean i i wasn't involved

02:02:49 report well i mean i i wasn't involved in issuing it but a test report is basically a statement of fact it is what what happened and

02:02:57 and there are

02:02:59 there are test reports for

02:03:01 for a number of systems that fail the the test and you know and that that applies um to

02:03:12 and you know and that that applies um to many

02:03:12 many many tests there is nothing that says you shouldn't issue a test report

02:03:19 the data is there and people looking at the data

02:03:23 the data should be taking that into account before they issue any classification did the bre issue test reports as a matter of course even where a system failed to meet the criteria in br135 so

02:03:36 failed to meet the criteria in br135 so i think that has probably changed over over the years and to some extent it it does also depend on

02:03:46 depend on i think the nature of um the performance um this is a termination yes it was a termination so when you say it might depend on the nature of the performance

02:03:59 nature of the performance what what is it about that performance that would nonetheless um either require or

02:04:05 or encourage the bre nonetheless to issue a test report like well i think i think in the main we would issue test reports of the data right even though even

02:04:16 of the data right even though even though tesla failed even if a test had failed

02:04:20 failed there would be some occasions where a test sponsor would say oh don't bother with a test report you know

02:04:29 you know in the circumstances um but you know we were as part of the contract we were committed to issuing a test report unless they actually said to us

02:04:41 report unless they actually said to us look

02:04:42 look you know

02:04:43 you know please don't worry don't bother don't you know we don't we don't want one we don't need one can we go

02:04:49 can we go please to bre three zeros one eight zero three seven

02:04:55 page four middle of page four this is an email from phil clark on the 16th of january 2015

02:05:06 where he is corresponding with somebody called america i think that's probably how you pronounce it

02:05:16 who is from korea facades in france and he

02:05:23 and he she is asking for a report and phil clark's response as you can see there is good morning ameri i hope you are well i would suggest you discuss the

02:05:34 are well i would suggest you discuss the issuing of a report with mr howard as we do not issue bsa41 for reports of the system

02:05:40 system did not complete i think it means if the system did not complete the test requirements i'm happy to draft a quick letter showing the data which steve may be able to forward to you now

02:05:51 now that was i think on what you're telling us

02:05:54 us untrue wasn't it because as we've seen you did issue one for kingspan the previous year for its terminated trespa test and as you've told us you would you would regularly if not routinely do so well

02:06:06 regularly if not routinely do so well that was my understanding anyway yes well well can you please tell us then whether what mr uh clark is telling

02:06:17 here when he says uh we do not issue bsa414 reports if the system did not complete the test requirements was true or not well

02:06:29 well in safaris um phil clark was working in the laboratory at this particular time when he sent this email i can only assume that this was true and

02:06:39 and they appear to be issuing a

02:06:45 or suggesting to issue like a summary or something

02:06:49 something showing the data but providing the data i mean uh but i can't i can't comment beyond that i i'm not entirely sure well phil clarke told us day two day 97

02:07:01 well phil clarke told us day two day 97 page 60 lines 17 to page 61.99 that the bre's general policy

02:07:08 policy was not to issue a test report if the system failed the test requirements but would do so if the client asked um is that correct um

02:07:19 um it may very well be to be honest i'm not entirely sure well you see you've given

02:07:26 given evidence this morning in the last few minutes that

02:07:33 and i don't want to misquote you um

02:07:37 there are many many tests which fail and there's nothing to say you shouldn't issue a test report is that right looking at looking at what mr clark says here that does not appear to be well

02:07:49 here that does not appear to be well there's no there's nothing in any of the accreditation standards etc or the um british standard

02:08:00 standards etc or the um british standard for the test method that says whether you

02:08:02 you should or should not issue a test report i mean it's very much a local

02:08:09 local decision

02:08:10 decision and

02:08:12 and i was not sure what the customer practice was in january 2015 and i say it appears here and i've no reason to dispute

02:08:24 reason to dispute what phil has said here that their customer practice was not to issue reports other than if they were requested to do so and it looks as though they're offering to

02:08:35 it looks as though they're offering to provide a summary report

02:08:39 report um

02:08:40 um but there was no sort of um overarching um policy as you suggest one way or the other it that would very much be down to the local

02:08:52 the local area so is your evidence that phil clark was wrong in this email and wrong in what he told the inquiry no i i didn't say that at all no you didn't and i'm suggesting to you that as a result of

02:09:03 suggesting to you that as a result of what you've told us that must be the case wasn't it no no i don't follow i don't think that's contradictory at all let me try it slightly differently look

02:09:14 let me try it slightly differently look at the words we do not issue bs8414 reports of the system or if the system did not complete the test requirements was that true or was it not true

02:09:25 i can only read what's written here was it true why was it not true i'm not going to say that this was not true in january 2015. so

02:09:37 right so when did that become the policy i don't know when that became the policy it wasn't a policy per se it was custom practice within the different areas so

02:09:48 practice within the different areas so in bs 8414

02:09:52 i mean they maybe i couldn't tell you when they decided to do

02:09:59 do what they decided to do

02:10:04 so i can't give you dates as to when they may have changed what they did or evolved what they did they would be better qualified to answer

02:10:15 they would be better qualified to answer that for you people such as phil clark and stephen howard i was not sort of in that environment and working with them on a on a daily basis

02:10:26 on a daily basis if there had been a change in policy between

02:10:29 between may and june 2014 from a policy of giving clients test reports for failed tests if they asked to not giving

02:10:40 not giving clients

02:10:41 clients reports

02:10:43 reports it test reports if the system didn't complete the test requirements you would have known about it wouldn't you not necessarily no i mean why would i well that's a question i'd like to ask

02:10:54 well that's a question i'd like to ask you why wouldn't you well i was not

02:10:58 i was not involved in the day-to-day running and those responsibilities were delegated to the business group managers in the area to

02:11:07 to deal with their own local procedures now um in the context of um bs8414

02:11:18 bs8414 that would have been stephen howard that would have taken those decisions and that there would be no reason for me to be involved in that he would work with

02:11:29 with the quality compliance team if that was necessary but

02:11:36 you know i was not involved in the in the day-to-day procedures within all of the different local areas within the business

02:11:48 in issuing the test report to kingspan in respect of the failed test was the bre doing kingspan a special favor as a valued client i doubt that very much i have no evidence one way or the other

02:12:00 i have no evidence one way or the other but that's not my experience that that was the way that we worked or operated we weren't there to do favors for anybody

02:12:11 in giving them the test report against the background historic background of marketing material that claimed that k-15 could be used generically above 18

02:12:23 k-15 could be used generically above 18 meters

02:12:24 meters and two

02:12:26 and two certificates the nabc certificate and the bba certificate that contained fundamental errors in the claims for reaction to fire performance

02:12:38 reaction to fire performance why wasn't the bre extremely skeptical of the uses to which kingspan would put this test report before issuing it

02:12:49 before issuing it i i can't answer that i don't know

02:12:55 i'm now going to turn to some questions uh about the period immediately following the fire at grenfell tower can we start please with clg 3036408

02:13:23 uh and if we go to the last email on the first page there it's about three quarters of the way down your screen dr smith you can see that there's an email of the 16th of june 2017

02:13:34 june 2017 1532

02:13:36 1532 now doing the best you can with your recollection uh 16th of june 2017 was a friday [Music]

02:13:45 [Music] um was this the first contact that you had had with brian martin after the fire at grenfell tower on the 14th um i don't recall but probably

02:13:59 so it's probable that is this right you hadn't spoken to him or corresponded with him between the fire and the receipt of this email probably not i mean there would have

02:14:10 probably not i mean there would have been

02:14:11 been an email if there was an email i'm sure it would have been evidenced

02:14:18 evidenced um in the email we can see that he says to you debbie dave sarah i've been asked to prepare a rebuttal of the assertion that pe called acm panels

02:14:29 the assertion that pe called acm panels comply with the guidance in adb i've also been asked if an independent expert would be willing to say this or something similar in public and then if you turn the page please to

02:14:40 and then if you turn the page please to page two can you consider the attached and let me know please brian and if you look right at the bottom of uh page two you can see that there is a little

02:14:51 you can see that there is a little insignia which says rebuttal of times article dot dot x yes yes so there was an attachment and did you read the attachment um

02:15:03 and did you read the attachment um in all likelihood yes i don't recall specifically now but yes now before we look at it do you remember what was your reaction to this email um very

02:15:14 very very unusual surprised yes what did you think he meant by just looking at the text let's go back to it page one

02:15:23 page one uh what did you think he meant by no page one sorry page one of the email please

02:15:30 please clg three zero three six four zero eight foot of the screen what do you think he meant by

02:15:38 meant by the assertion that pe chord acm panels comply with the guidance in adb um

02:15:46 um [Music]

02:15:48 [Music] i can't recall the detail of the times article but potentially i would guess it was suggesting that they didn't comply with adb did you understand that immediately to

02:16:01 did you understand that immediately to be a reference to the guidance in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b um well i wouldn't have immediately understood that no

02:16:09 that no but obviously it was relating i guess to um

02:16:13 um chapter 12 in general yeah right

02:16:18 right now was that assertion that pe called acm panels comply with the guidance in adb one which you had ever heard expressed

02:16:29 one which you had ever heard expressed previously before seeing this email um no

02:16:34 no not that i can recall no or ever been made aware of anyone else expressing um

02:16:43 um no not that i can recollect no now i i'm asking you that because um your evidence so far i think has been that you were wholly unaware

02:16:55 that you were wholly unaware of any debate at all about the meaning of adb in respect of pe called acm panels

02:17:02 panels or any concerns about it or any difference of interpretation before this moment correct

02:17:13 what was your reaction when you discovered that that assertion was being made even though by the times um

02:17:20 um well as we've already said um surprise

02:17:24 surprise shocked well yes yeah did you ask anybody what this was all about and you read this what have i read the article

02:17:35 what have i read the article well

02:17:36 well when you got the email whether or not you read the article i'm just focusing on the asset the fact of the assertion being brought to your attention and your reaction to it did you did you then go and ask other people what this

02:17:47 then go and ask other people what this was about

02:17:48 was about um

02:17:49 um i'm sure it would have been um because it wasn't just sent to to myself um

02:17:56 um so

02:17:57 so in all likelihood i would have discussed it with is that david crowder yes and uh take care i think so yes he's certainly on the email chain higher up so let's proceed on that assumption yes yes

02:18:09 yes yes did you discuss it with them i'm i in all expectation i probably did um however i would say that um around this time david crowder was

02:18:21 around this time david crowder was um

02:18:22 um possibly on-site carrying out for investigation work during this sort of window of time so um

02:18:31 um [Music]

02:18:34 [Music] did you have a conversation with sarah colwell

02:18:36 colwell about the assertion that pe called acm panels comply with the guidance in adb i can't recall it but i will be i'm pretty certain that would have happened yes would that not have been the first thing you did

02:18:47 you did ask her what's this about yes i mean that there was an awful lot going on um at this particular yes time and do you remember what she told you

02:18:57 told you no i don't recall at that time though

02:19:01 do you not remember her did she let me put it this way did she tell you

02:19:07 tell you that

02:19:09 that that was her view it was her view that pcpe called acm panels don't comply with the guidance in adb

02:19:17 adb but that there had been a raging debate about it for the previous at least the previous three and a quarter years i don't recall that no

02:19:27 let's go to the document

02:19:30 document that brian martin sends you it's at nhb401458

02:19:39 and it reads as follows in the times the times asserts that cladding on the grenfell tower was formed using a composite aluminium panel with the polyethylene core it claims that such panels conform to uk

02:19:52 it claims that such panels conform to uk standards but are prohibited in other countries

02:19:55 countries we cannot comment on what has or has not been used on grenfell tower but we would dispute the assertion that a polyethylene core panel is acceptable for use under current building regulations

02:20:06 regulations requirement b4 of the building regulations 2010 provides that the external walls of the building shall adequately resist spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another

02:20:17 another paragraph 12.5

02:20:21 the guidance in approved document b that supports this requirement says that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread it goes on to provide detailed advice that quotes in a building with a story

02:20:33 that quotes in a building with a story over 18 meters or more above any above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of

02:20:44 external wall construction should be of limited combustibility paragraph 12.7 unmodified polyethylene would not meet the definition of limited combustibility so a composite panel formed with a polyester core would not be considered

02:20:56 polyester core would not be considered to comply with this guidance as such it should not be used as a cladding material on buildings over 18 meters in height

02:21:07 do you remember reading that um it's the attachment to the email that he sent yeah i mean i don't remember that specifically but i mean a lot of the text is text that has been seen elsewhere so

02:21:18 elsewhere so i mean it's familiar a lot of the text is familiar at the time did you agree or did you disagree with the contents of brian martin's pre-prepared statement um

02:21:32 is this is is this the times article or is this brian's

02:21:37 brian's proposed statement this is his proposed statement okay i'm sorry would you like to go back to the email so yeah no no i understand that i thought to start with was the um text that the times were

02:21:49 text that the times were um in the times article um no i mean i think this pretty much summarizes what i had understood

02:22:00 did you discuss this text with either dr colwill or dr crowder um as i say i can't recall um whether david was actually around at the time

02:22:11 david was actually around at the time and i wasn't actually in the office because

02:22:14 because um as you can see from the email trail um but i i'm sure this would have been discussed with with sarah yes

02:22:24 and what were her views what did she tell you

02:22:29 i don't recall but i don't i would have imagined that she would have agreed with what was written did you say anything else

02:22:40 anything else well i don't i don't recall i don't you really don't no i don't you don't recall her referring to

02:22:47 to a meeting at cwct three years before or the fact that government had accepted that the wording of 12.7 was uh unclear or misleading and no i don't i don't you don't i say that

02:22:59 no i don't i don't you don't i say that and there was you know an awful lot of activity going on around that time but this particular activity is one in which government has specifically sought you out

02:23:09 you out as an expert for its assistance yes just try and try and remember as best you can in those days after the fire this particular text can you really not remember what sarah

02:23:20 can you really not remember what sarah colwell told you no i can't

02:23:24 not specifically no as far as you were aware was the content of this proposed rebuttal consistent with the department's historic position

02:23:35 with the department's historic position on polyethylene cord acm panels for use in the external wall systems of buildings above 18 meters

02:23:44 i don't know um it was certainly consistent with my understanding was it consistent with your understanding of the department's understanding

02:23:56 i mean only the department can relay what their understanding was but well let me this is what my belief was that that this was their understanding yes that's not an answer to my question

02:24:07 yes that's not an answer to my question let me try it i can

02:24:10 i can absolutely yeah done it's difficult let me just see if i can get it this way when you saw this was your reaction well that's what that i know that's always been brian martin's view that

02:24:21 always been brian martin's view that comes as no surprise or was your reaction gosh he agrees with my view how interesting i didn't think he did or something else no i thought i thought brian's

02:24:32 no i thought i thought brian's understanding was um similar to my understanding and had always been so um that had been my view yes it had been your view was it always your understanding that his understanding expressed here had remained constant

02:24:44 expressed here had remained constant throughout history or at least back to 2006. well i'd had no reason to to doubt that

02:24:58 and what about the department more generally

02:25:01 generally was it was the position expressed here consistent with the department's historic position on pe called aluminium uh composite material panels above 18 meters or

02:25:12 meters or did it diverge i don't know

02:25:18 did you plan

02:25:21 to decline to issue the rebuttal um

02:25:26 um it was it would not be appropriate for bre to be issuing a rebuttal um we would not we would not have issued a rebuttal

02:25:38 to the article on the baha on on behalf of anybody else we would only issue um a comment to something if it directly applied to bre

02:25:50 applied to bre looking at the last paragraph it says unmodified polyethylene would not meet the definition of limited combustibility what what did you understand him to mean there by unmodified polyethylene um one

02:26:01 there by unmodified polyethylene um one without any um fire retardant um additives any yes

02:26:08 yes how much is any well but that's what unmodified generally means in relation to any polymeric material it's the raw polymeric material and what quantity

02:26:20 raw polymeric material and what quantity of poly of mineral additive would be required to turn uh a an unmodified polyethylene panel which was not of limited combustibility into a panel which was of limited

02:26:32 into a panel which was of limited combustibility so i mean the modification isn't just about adding materials of limited combustibility it's also about adding fire retardants so it's not necessarily a percentage

02:26:46 so it's not necessarily a percentage of a material it's just not quantifiable in that sense the way that this is understood and is dealt with um

02:26:54 um is

02:26:56 is anything that you add with the intention of improving its fire performance right john lewis of the nhpc told us that in his view

02:27:07 told us that in his view uh a a percentage of about 70 percent of mineral additive would make the difference between a

02:27:16 a limited combustibility and not limited combustibility is that right um

02:27:25 it depends no i i mean i can't comment on that i mean it's basically i say unmodified is the raw

02:27:34 the raw polymeric material and then there are various things that manufacturers can do with the intention of improving its fire performance and i think you know

02:27:45 you know and that can be addition of chemicals in terms of fire retardant chemicals as opposed to adding mineral content

02:27:56 as opposed to adding mineral content which in effect is diluting the um [Music]

02:28:00 [Music] the thermoplastic um and mixing it with a non-combustible do you know why brian martin sought you out you dr crowder and dr colwell for

02:28:11 you dr crowder and dr colwell for assistance here um

02:28:15 um well no not not directly no do you know of any reason why brian martin thought that you or dr crowder or dr colwill would support him in this rebuttal no i can't answer that did you ask him

02:28:28 no i can't answer that did you ask him um

02:28:31 i don't remember if we asked him that direct question

02:28:35 we don't think we don't see any email traffic at least in which you contacted him and said well you've made a mistake we're not experts on the building regulations and the guidance in adb and we can't speak

02:28:46 the guidance in adb and we can't speak to the correct interpretation of those provisions we can't find a record of your or a dot crowder or dr colwell doing that

02:28:56 that why is that um well that may very well be the case then um but i think you'll see that there was um probably telephone conversations around this i'll come to this in a moment

02:29:09 this i'll come to this in a moment are you is your recollection that you told him that you were the wrong people to ask because of your lack of expertise on the building regulations and approved document b and this was all a matter for the department i think we would have

02:29:20 the department i think we would have said that we can't um you know we can't issue this

02:29:27 on on your behalf it's not our role to do so do you know of any reason why brian martin would have felt it necessary to provide you dr crowder and dr coldwell with a a pre-prepared script

02:29:38 dr coldwell with a a pre-prepared script rather than simply asking you to express your your own views as independent fire safety experts or fire experts um no i don't did you consider it appropriate that a

02:29:50 did you consider it appropriate that a government official was approaching you with a pre-prepared script to be sent to the times in support of the government's interpretation of its own guidance did we think that was appropriate well no because we didn't feel that we ought to be sending that

02:30:02 be sending that did you think it appropriate that the government official was approaching you with a finished pre-prepared script to be presented as though it were the independent view of an independent expert in support of the government's

02:30:13 expert in support of the government's interpretation of its guidance it's not appropriate

02:30:18 did you

02:30:21 tell him at the time that's not appropriate no um

02:30:27 um well in safaris we did not i don't recall the exact conversation but insofar as we did not do it

02:30:36 do it then clearly there was a conversation around that

02:30:44 and i'm going to show you the emails again i just want to ask you in light of your earlier evidence was this the first time that you learnt acm panels with a 100 polyethylene core

02:30:57 acm panels with a 100 polyethylene core unmodified polyethylene core existed in the united kingdom's built environment

02:31:04 for use above 18 meters above i guess yeah

02:31:11 the first time that i was aware that they they were actually on a building you mean or potentially on a building well yes yes given your evidence to the inquiry that from 2001 at least

02:31:23 from 2001 at least acm panels with a pe core should never ever be used above 18 meters the discovery that grand that those used on grenfell tower might have been must have come as a considerable

02:31:34 have come as a considerable shock to you absolutely did you go to brian martin and ask him how on earth that could have happened there was discussion around that

02:31:45 there was discussion around that particular topic and that's indeed what led then to the screening

02:31:52 screening programme

02:31:54 programme that the government carried out for other buildings and i it certainly was my

02:31:59 my expectation at the start of that that we wouldn't be looking at more than a handful of potential buildings with

02:32:11 potential buildings with the un um unmodified or um 100 polyethylene acm panels on them notwithstanding the warnings given the previous year by people like

02:32:23 given the previous year by people like uh nick jenkins of muri well i you know that that was my view at the time and that was my genuine belief that the screening program would not unearth very many buildings that indeed had

02:32:37 many buildings that indeed had polyethylene called acm on them that's erica will not tell you that she had been told that many buildings were clad in acmt no i was not aware of that let's go back to the email clg 3036408

02:32:52 we can see from the third email down in the chain that you respond to brian martin at 1632 just below halfway in your down your screen

02:33:01 screen copied to david crowder and sarah colwell

02:33:04 colwell hi brian just spoken to david and it is my understanding that this is now no longer live question mark if this is wrong and or you need to discuss please let me know debbie what did you mean by no longer live um

02:33:16 what did you mean by no longer live um i'm not entirely sure but it might mean that the link that he'd sent to the article

02:33:21 article wasn't um wasn't live so he couldn't look at the article that had been written

02:33:27 or did it mean that your the his requirement for your services was no longer needed yeah i can't i can't be sure i'm not sure now it's clear from this email that you had spoken to david

02:33:39 you had spoken to david crowder dr crowder in the hour the exact hour between 1532 and 1632

02:33:48 and 1632 as you can see yes yes uh

02:33:52 uh when brian martin first emailed you what did you discuss with dr crowder um i don't recall but i mean it would have been the content um and what we were being asked to do i

02:34:03 um and what we were being asked to do i guess

02:34:04 guess um as i say i i wasn't at bre and it doesn't and i don't suspect that david was either so it would have been a telephone

02:34:11 telephone um conversation i guess right well it says just spoken to david and given that as you say it's likely that he was on site at grenfell tower itself at that time yes uh and i think

02:34:23 itself at that time yes uh and i think in fact as we see later you were on the eurostar it must have been a telephone conversation yes can you remember can you give us at least the gist of that conversation i can't recall it and

02:34:34 that conversation i can't recall it and and i don't know if i phoned david or david phoned me um so i don't know you don't know

02:34:42 going back to the emails we can see at the second email down in the chain that brian martin responds to you and he says hi debbie this is at 1734 i still need an expert but it can't be

02:34:53 i still need an expert but it can't be an employee of bre that's the approach i agreed with the met police see you in the morning brian

02:35:00 brian now

02:35:02 now can we take it that you were aware looking at brian martin to see you in the morning message that you knew that you would be meeting him the next day which was saturday the 17th of june yes yes i had been requested to attend

02:35:14 yes i had been requested to attend a meeting at

02:35:18 dclg on saturday with the housing minister and a number of other fire people

02:35:27 people yes and we're going to come to that meeting in a moment uh first do you remember when had you been made aware that you would be attending that meeting um

02:35:37 um well it was probably on that day it was all very short notice and obviously who invited you to it who told you that you would be coming or you were needed at a meeting

02:35:48 needed at a meeting on saturday with the minister it was probably brian right

02:35:52 right going back to the emails if we can at the top we can see that you respond uh at

02:35:58 uh at what looks like 1552 but um and it's difficult to tell you say brian can i call you or you call me i'm on the eurostar so maybe patchy coverage

02:36:08 coverage yes

02:36:09 yes why did you want to speak to brian martin at that time i mean i maybe needed to know you know more details about the meeting on on saturday um right did you speak to him

02:36:21 right did you speak to him i would guess i probably did but i i don't recall what did you discuss do you remember no no

02:36:28 no did you discuss the content of his draft

02:36:32 draft rebuttal or did you discuss the historic position or did you discuss your shock at having discovered that it was possible at least that acmpe

02:36:43 it was possible at least that acmpe called panels were being used in the built environment in this country i doubt that i doubt that i think the any discussion would have been very focused in terms of what was going on at the time

02:36:54 time um

02:36:55 um you know the the meetings that were being hurriedly called and um

02:37:01 and maybe um in terms of um

02:37:07 um what he'd been asking us to do although it looks as though the need for that had gone away by then do you know why there had been an agreement between brian martin and the metropolitan police that the bre should not be asked to act as the independent experts

02:37:19 the independent experts putting the bre's name to a rebuttal of the times article no i don't for certain but it may be that at that time

02:37:31 and i'm trying to recollect i think david was potentially being approached by the metropolitan police to assist them in terms of their fire investigation did you have any further discussion with

02:37:43 did you have any further discussion with brian martin or sarah colwell or dr crowder about any aspect of that times article or the rebuttal to it before the meeting on the saturday morning i don't recall that no i and i doubt it to be honest right

02:37:55 honest right now you've told us and we can see in a moment you were invited to join a group of fire experts to provide immediate advice to the government on various aspects of the fire and in particular the steps to be taken in terms of fire

02:38:08 the steps to be taken in terms of fire safety checks and other on other buildings yes yes do you know how you came to be included in that group no i don't did you understand what your role or contribution was to be um well not until the meeting no right

02:38:21 um well not until the meeting no right discussion now let's go to clg403356 please we can see here some internal emails between various officials within the department on the 16th of june 2017

02:38:33 department on the 16th of june 2017 and i'd like to show you please the third email down in the chain this is at 11 47

02:38:43 from brian martin to helen mcnamara and sally randall copied to grenfell tower team and shane coulson

02:38:51 coulson urgent expert advice and it says i've been asked for a draft cast list for the urgent meeting of experts most of confirmed availability currently as follows

02:39:01 follows and then we can see a list of names and i think all of whom are familiar to the inquiry as you can see there and top of the list is yours you see yes and you are

02:39:11 are credited with being chief executive of the bre and chair of the european committee for fire safety

02:39:19 uh and that that meeting then took place i think didn't it on the the morning exactly the 17th of june at martian street um yes i believe so let's go to clg four zeros five two four

02:39:31 let's go to clg four zeros five two four seven

02:39:34 um this is uh the

02:39:38 the um

02:39:41 uh uh well have you seen this document before i should ask you um no i don't recall seeing this before right uh well let's um it looks like a briefing note for the minister

02:39:53 briefing note for the minister attendees alok sharma mp is the chair minister of state dclg and then immediately underneath that you can see your photograph and

02:40:05 and four lines of description about your background yes yes you can and then underneath that we have other names and photographs and if we go to page three we can see

02:40:16 three we can see other attendees from the department uh bob led some brian martin louis upton among others yes yes

02:40:27 among others yes yes and if we go to page four we can see the purpose of the meeting it's summarized for the minister in the first paragraph we have called together the group of fire safety experts to advise us on advice for local authorities and housing

02:40:39 advice for local authorities and housing associations on how to identify risks in similar high-rise buildings risks which have been refurbished with cladding and the process for assessing those risks and taking necessary action to provide

02:40:50 and taking necessary action to provide reassurance for tenants and does that align with your understanding of the purpose of the meeting

02:40:56 meeting um that certainly coincides with the my recollection of what was discussed at the meeting can we go to page five

02:41:08 please uh where we can see further details set out for the minister in relation to the purpose of the meeting and this looks like speaking notes for him

02:41:17 him pretty much verbatim script um and if you go to item two purpose of the meeting we can see starting at the fourth bullet point that the minister was advised by

02:41:28 point that the minister was advised by his fifth officials to say uh this

02:41:32 uh this uh fourth bullet point down we are asking for your advice on how local authorities and housing associations can identify risks in similar high-rise buildings which have been refurbished with cladding and the process for

02:41:44 with cladding and the process for assessing those risks and taking necessary action yes and then it says please provide your frank advice to me and my officials we really need to know what you think we should be doing

02:41:56 should be doing and then it says clearly as we go forward we will need to be very careful about saying or doing anything which could cut across the investigation but at this point we need your frank advice

02:42:08 at this point we need your frank advice was it made clear to you dr smith during this meeting that the minister

02:42:14 minister alok sharma was asking for your full and frank advice as well as that of others um

02:42:21 um i don't recall it being explicit in that sense but i mean i you know what why would you not provide your frank advice so

02:42:32 your frank advice so that would be my expectation that we were there to you know answer the questions that that were posed to us and to provide you know the technical assistance where we were able to

02:42:44 we were able to did you understand that your role was there not only to provide full and frank advice on matters on which you were asked but also candid and open insights into circumstances which perhaps you

02:42:57 into circumstances which perhaps you weren't being asked about did that was that your understanding um i don't recall at the time i mean obviously the meeting when it took place was a very focused meeting

02:43:11 and

02:43:15 the opportunities for talking about broader and wider issues were were limited i would say i mean you know it was very very focused in terms of

02:43:27 it was very very focused in terms of um

02:43:29 um the challenges that they were facing there and then on that day but nonetheless it appears from this document that the minister who i think had only been in post some

02:43:41 in post some 10 days

02:43:42 10 days uh and was was new to the building regulations as the minister was was heavily reliant on everybody at the meeting including you for your frankness and candor

02:43:53 for your frankness and candor did you understand that um

02:43:56 um well that was my um purpose for being there would be to you know to participate and give what information in part what information i could

02:44:06 could yeah in terms of the um the discussions that were taking place let's go to page six then possible questions and this is under the heading developing

02:44:17 and this is under the heading developing next steps discussion and the first bullet point reads as follows do you think this is an isolated incident or something peculiar to this building recognize the need to be very careful

02:44:28 recognize the need to be very careful about speculation and comment given that there is a criminal investigation underway

02:44:39 do you recall the discussion on that topic

02:44:42 topic i don't recall the detail as i say it was um

02:44:47 was um it was it was a very focused meeting i do remember that um it was done in a very um efficient way as you'd expect

02:45:00 um efficient way as you'd expect very much led by the the government officials do you remember what advice or answers were given to that question

02:45:09 i don't recall that specifically i do recall um discussion and that's where we became heavily involved in the identification of

02:45:22 the identification of the cladding and the cladding types to identify

02:45:26 identify where the problem might be on other buildings and that was very much the focus of what we were trying to do

02:45:36 do did you

02:45:38 did you candidly and frankly tell the group that it was most unlikely to be peculiar to this building no i wouldn't have done because my view and belief was at that moment in time as

02:45:50 and belief was at that moment in time as i've said on a number of occasions during my evidence that

02:45:57 the polyethylene cord acm

02:46:03 should not and could not have been used on buildings over 18 meters if they complied with the requirements in approved document b and that was my genuine belief did you tell

02:46:15 that was my genuine belief did you tell the minister that um

02:46:17 um [Music]

02:46:20 [Music] potentially i don't remember saying that i mean other people were there expressing opinions around this also so i don't remember that specific

02:46:31 so i don't remember that specific conversation but that i do know was my specific belief at that time so did you tell the minister that yes this was an isolated incident

02:46:43 that yes this was an isolated incident or very likely to be because so far as you were concerned your view was that acmpe

02:46:50 acmpe should never ever be used above 80 meters and so far as you were concerned that has been stuck to and very well understood by industry i would not have said anything within

02:47:01 i would not have said anything within the terms that you've just described there because i wouldn't have had the knowledge

02:47:07 knowledge to have made such a statement did you on the other hand tell the minister that you had been aware that acmpe was on use in external wall systems of high-rise buildings in the public sector

02:47:19 high-rise buildings in the public sector from as early as 2001 because you had used that material on a publicly funded or partly publicly funded project in 2001 the testing program cc 1924. no i

02:47:31 2001 the testing program cc 1924. no i don't believe there was any such discussion why didn't you tell the minister that you had carried out tests on acm of the polyethylene corp on the basis that the architect's journal

02:47:43 architect's journal had identified it as a relevant product yeah back in 2001. i just don't think that that was the focus and and the nature of the discussion i mean i contributed to the discussions as they

02:47:56 contributed to the discussions as they took place during um this meeting and um you know the the focus from my recollection is that this was on um predominantly on

02:48:08 um predominantly on we are here and now do we have a problem and how can we identify what that problem is and how big that problem is and and that that was the primary sort

02:48:21 and and that that was the primary sort of objective of the meeting is there an issue

02:48:25 issue and if there is an issue how are we going to identify if there is an issue it you know because it's not it's not necessarily a simple thing to to do it definitively and to and to

02:48:36 to to do it definitively and to and to answer that question was it not of the utmost materiality to the minister's understanding of the background at least that the government had itself

02:48:47 that the government had itself sponsored and the bre carried out 14 tests in 2001 one of which demonstrated that acm with a pe corps performed appallingly and as a result

02:48:58 performed appallingly and as a result should never ever be used above 18 meters in your view why not tell the minister that tests have been carried out

02:49:05 out well i just don't think there was that it came

02:49:08 it came it wouldn't have come into my mind because that wasn't what we were discussing i say the discussions were very very focused in terms of the here and now this is where we are

02:49:21 and now this is where we are what does this mean what are we going to do and how can we um how can we address this going forwards did you mention to the minister your knowledge uh

02:49:34 at any time during the government's program of checks after this meeting that in fact the government had carried out these tests in 2001 and acm panels with the pe corps had been found

02:49:47 with the pe corps had been found to have failed spectacularly um i don't believe i i met the minister again i i don't recall meeting

02:49:58 i i don't recall meeting mr sharma

02:49:59 mr sharma again

02:50:01 again did it well i think the answer is probably no to this question but did it occur to you to say to the minister as a result of the tests which you've done in uh

02:50:12 uh forget when the date was but on on the panels which included acm uh cord rain screens um that you had tested some of those panels because

02:50:23 panels because you had been told that they were available in the market no i just don't think that came up in the thought process because it was very focused as i say on the here and now

02:50:35 focused as i say on the here and now and you know how can we identify if there are any other of any other buildings with this material on and in in a an absolutely conclusive and definitive way

02:50:47 definitive way but it wasn't the fact of the tests in 2001 and the reason for testing acm pe core those all those years ago a fact which would have

02:50:59 a fact which would have helped the minister understand the answer to the question i've just read to you in the first bullet point there is this an isolated incident or something peculiar to this building well when you look at it now in um

02:51:10 look at it now in um in retrospect then it might have been but i still don't think it would have altered the here and now situation where we don't know what buildings have in

02:51:21 we don't know what buildings have in terms of their external cladding system there's no centralized database or whatever

02:51:27 whatever that government had so how can how can we from today understand what is out there and how we can then analyze what is out

02:51:38 and how we can then analyze what is out there to know if it's similar

02:51:42 similar or

02:51:43 or or different and you know it was the here and now and [Music]

02:51:50 [Music] would it have made a difference to have said that to him at that meeting i suspect it wouldn't have made any difference at all can we go to the minutes of the meeting which are at clg 3016581

02:52:08 and you can see them there set out and the attendees you are second on the list there

02:52:14 there and if we go over to uh page two and the last uh

02:52:19 uh sorry page one at the bottom which i think we need to scroll down to the the last bullet point on page one over to page two it says this from the available information it was understood that a pe called

02:52:30 it was understood that a pe called aluminium composite material acm cladding system had been used on grenfell tower while the exact reasons for the speed of the spread of fire have yet to be determined it was agreed that additional tests

02:52:41 it was agreed that additional tests should be undertaken with regard to this type of cladding and during this discussion did you or or any other time during this meeting tell the minister or anybody else

02:52:52 tell the minister or anybody else present that you yourself might have a very good idea as to the exact reasons for the speed of the spread of the fire namely what the bre had witnessed in the 2001 cc 1924 tests um no because that

02:53:06 2001 cc 1924 tests um no because that would not have been appropriate at that time because an investigation was ongoing and it would have been pure speculation really no it wouldn't dr smith it wouldn't have been speculation

02:53:18 smith it wouldn't have been speculation it was a fact and it was a material fact but highly material to the very issue of the exact reasons for the speed of the spread of fire the bre had conducted an experiment

02:53:29 fire the bre had conducted an experiment on acm pe cord cladding and it had failed spectacularly why not tell the minister that that had happened and that the government had the records of that

02:53:41 government had the records of that i say it didn't occur at the time but also i mean you have to factor in the fact that that research was just that and it was not a complete

02:53:53 was just that and it was not a complete system that was tested and the similarities to what was tested back in 2001 anyway if it had um have been presented would not have been

02:54:04 been representative of the system that was designed and installed on grenfell but at the time on that day that we were sat there we did not know the details about um what was on grenfell so

02:54:18 um what was on grenfell so i you know i don't agree with um with what you're with what you're saying did you there were too many unknowns is basically

02:54:27 basically what i'm saying did you tell the minister

02:54:31 that so far as you were concerned the department very well understood that acm pe cord

02:54:40 pe cord rain screen panels should never ever be used on the external face of high-rise buildings no that because that wasn't the

02:54:48 the the discussion that was taking place on that day at that time would wouldn't have did it not occur to you that that that might have been a helpful thing for the minister to know in the exercise

02:55:00 for the minister to know in the exercise of the obligations of candor and frankness that were the conditions for this meeting i don't think that would have been really of any value at all given that

02:55:11 really of any value at all given that they wanted to know whether there were any other buildings that had this type of cladding on them and how to identify those buildings that had that cladding on them that was the

02:55:23 had that cladding on them that was the issue that was what was being explored on that day and

02:55:29 and and then subsequently did you tell the minister that the bre had in fact designed the criteria in br 135 certainly in its second edition in 2003 to ensure that acm pe products

02:55:42 2003 to ensure that acm pe products could not pass the test um

02:55:46 um no because again i don't think there was a discussion about br 135 or bs8414 i say the discussions were very focused and you can see the

02:55:57 and you can see the the extent to which they were were focused around identifying what was out there did you tell the minister that acm pe panels had in separate testing also

02:56:09 panels had in separate testing also carried out in 2001 achieved class naught

02:56:13 naught and therefore would satisfy the building regulations despite their catastrophic performance at full scale in the cc 1924 tests no and insofar as

02:56:26 brian martin was there and was also party to that research project you know he would have known that um

02:56:35 um and we just weren't talking about those broader broader issues did you tell the minister that as a result of the ability of acm pe called panels

02:56:46 the ability of acm pe called panels to achieve class naught such panels would have been perfectly compliant

02:56:50 compliant with the guidance in approved document b at the very least at the very least up until the publication of the 2006 edition of approved document b in april 2007. not that i can recall

02:57:03 b in april 2007. not that i can recall no

02:57:04 no why is that why is that again for the reasons that i've already outlined was it not relevant exactly in answer to the question for the minister to know

02:57:16 for the minister to know that up until 2006 there was at the very least a real possibility of a legacy of buildings which had acn with a polyethylene court on them because the regulations at that stage permitted them

02:57:28 regulations at that stage permitted them okay but i mean what was being discussed was about finding facts and about knowing exactly the numbers and where they were

02:57:38 they were it was a direct answer it would have been a direct answer to a direct question

02:57:41 question is grenfell a one-off why didn't you say it can't have been a one-off because the regulations were only tightened up in 2006 to ban all combustible materials from the external wall okay well i mean

02:57:53 from the external wall okay well i mean again it's not something that

02:57:57 occurred to me at the time given the nature of the discussions that were going on in that meeting did brian martin and the imperative that was being placed on doing

02:58:08 placed on doing you know obtaining the facts about the building stock did brian martin mention any of the matters i've just asked you whether you mentioned

02:58:17 mentioned um

02:58:19 um to the best of your recollection well not i don't think so at the meeting but whether there were discussions outside of the meeting with the minister and the government officials i can't answer to i don't know

02:58:30 officials i can't answer to i don't know did you reach an agreement with brian martin before this meeting that you would speak only when spoken to and give away the barest minimum of information to the minister that you could absolutely not did you

02:58:41 that you could absolutely not did you reach an agreement with him that you wouldn't mention the 2001 tests absolutely not did you reach an agreement with him that you wouldn't tell the minister about the debate that had raged at least as we've seen since

02:58:52 had raged at least as we've seen since july 2014 about the scope and ambit of 12.7 no absolutely not

02:59:02 have you discussed any aspect of what i've just put to you with brian martin at any time between the grenfell tower fire and today well but before you started giving your oven um not that i can recall no mr chairman

02:59:14 not that i can recall no mr chairman it's one o'clock and i've come to the end of my prepared questions well that

02:59:20 well that means we can do one of two things we can either have the usual break at this point and see whether there are any more questions and take a late lunch break

02:59:31 lunch break or we can take the lunch break and do the questions now i'm sure you'd like to get away fairly promptly but we have to have a break at this stage so that um it's a

02:59:42 break at this stage so that um it's a minute can check that there's nothing that he's failed to put to you and also to allow other people to suggest questions that perhaps we should have put to you and haven't yet um so there's got to be a break the

02:59:53 um so there's got to be a break the question is whether it's inconvenient for you to stay over lunch and see if there are any more questions after lunch or whether we should um try and push through now do you have a view about

03:00:04 through now do you have a view about that

03:00:05 that i'm prepared to do whatever you require well that's that's very helpful thank you well i think it might be better than to take the break for lunch yes and we can pick up the questions over the lunch period i think that would be

03:00:16 the lunch period i think that would be best so as long as those outside this inquiry at least physically outside this inquiry know that the lunch break is for the provision of questions well i hope i've made that clear but yeah

03:00:27 made that clear but yeah i'll say it again that any questions which people wish to suggest to be put to dr smith must be provided to council to the inquiry by let's say 1345. i was going to say of

03:00:39 let's say 1345. i was going to say of course the two thank you right well we'll have a break now for lunch dr smith we'll come back at two o'clock

03:00:46 o'clock and at two o'clock we'll see if there are any more questions for you all right and as before please don't discuss your evidence with anyone over the brick all right thank you thank you very much

03:01:03 thank you mr miller two o'clock please

03:01:27 you