British Board of Agrément (BBA) & Kingspan Evidence - Tuesday 23rd March 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:12 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing uh as always i'm joined today by my fellow panel members mysterio istafan and mr ali akbar

00:00:24 ali akbar good morning good morning

00:00:28 today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr john albon of bba so my next task is to check that mr alborn is not only there but that he can hear me

00:00:39 not only there but that he can hear me and see me clearly good morning mr albon can you good morning yes i can thank you very much indeed um i think we ought just to run through the usual

00:00:50 ought just to run through the usual housekeeping questions before we uh get back to your evidence so i'm going to ask you please to confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence

00:01:01 you're giving evidence yes i am thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you

00:01:07 with you no i don't can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device in the room with you which is capable of receiving messages

00:01:18 which is capable of receiving messages no i don't good thank you very much well uh

00:01:21 uh you're an old hand at this the procedure will remain be as it was on the previous occasions you've given evidence um if you're still giving evidence

00:01:32 evidence uh during the middle of the morning we'll probably have a break at that point depending on exactly what point we've reached um is there anything you'd like to raise with me or

00:01:43 with me or ask me before we start no thank you good thank you very much well in that case i'll invite this grange to continue putting questions to you yes mr strange when you're ready

00:01:55 strange when you're ready yes good morning mr alban um if we can start i want to go back to the email exchanges you were having with mr brian martin

00:02:03 martin about amended issue one of the bba certificate for the k15 kingspan product and if we can go back to

00:02:11 to bba 50178

00:02:18 and if we look at page two of that email chain

00:02:34 so looking at your email at the bottom of that page 16th of july 2014 12 14. uh i'd asked you about the first

00:02:45 12 14. uh i'd asked you about the first two main paragraphs and i now want to look at what you say in the second half of that

00:02:50 of that email so you you say picking it up with the bba operates you say the bba operates a system of leader certificates in which we invite comments from a range

00:03:01 in which we invite comments from a range of industry experts on the initial draft of each certificate type and for example where changes are made to building regulations for many years we received such comments

00:03:12 for many years we received such comments from dclg's predecessors but unfortunately we were advised some time ago

00:03:19 time ago that you were no longer able to offer this service i believe that it would of benefit to both our organizations as well as the industry as a whole if you were able to reconsider this

00:03:30 if you were able to reconsider this decision

00:03:32 decision and you go on you say the next paragraph i've spoken to the bba's chief executive miss claire curtis thomas concerning your inquiry and we would be very willing to meet with you at your offices

00:03:42 offices to discuss the relationship between dclg and bba

00:03:45 and bba and how we can work more closely together would you please let me know whether you'd be interested in such a conversation now um can you just tell me a little bit

00:03:56 now um can you just tell me a little bit more about what you had discussed with the bba's chief executive miss claire curtis thomas about mr martin's inquiry you refer to that at the bottom of this email

00:04:10 i think i had made mrs curtis thomas aware of this approach from dclg and discussed with her the basis of the

00:04:21 and discussed with her the basis of the bba's response in particular whether we could recreate this relationship whereby they were to comment on our certificates

00:04:33 i see

00:04:36 um did you consider that this time that the bba was in need of guidance from the dclg

00:04:43 dclg on aspects of the building regulations or the bbas certification process

00:04:50 well we are able to seek guidance on individual circumstances where in our view situation is unclear and we continue to do so this was more a procedural

00:05:04 this was more a procedural situation whereby if we could gain comment on the content of certificates from those responsible for the approved documents clearly that would be an improvement to the process

00:05:16 yes and you were specifically wanting comment on each leader certificate from dclg is that correct yes and and you're saying that for many

00:05:29 yes and and you're saying that for many years you received such comments but unfortunately you were advised some time ago that

00:05:34 ago that dclg was no longer able to offer this service

00:05:38 service in your view had the accuracy of bba certificates worsened with regard to the building regulations after the loss of that dclg commenting

00:05:50 process i don't believe the accuracy had worsened but we would have a greater confidence in the content of certificates if those responsible for the building regulations had

00:06:02 regulations had reviewed them yes i see now if we go up to the next email uh at the top of uh page two we can see that this request that you made from

00:06:13 that this request that you made from dclg was declined mr brian martin responds to you the next day

00:06:20 day 17th of july and we can see just focusing for a moment in on the final paragraph of his email he says i note your comment about the relationship with dclg and vba

00:06:31 relationship with dclg and vba i think things have significantly changed over the years and my understanding is that your status is similar to any other certification scheme

00:06:39 scheme i very much doubt we could support all the various schemes in the way you suggest

00:06:45 suggest now what was your reaction to that response

00:06:50 it was consistent i think with the conversations we would have had previously um the bba at one time had a closer relationship with government

00:07:02 relationship with government than its current organizational status allows and the eclg felt i believe that they had to treat

00:07:13 treat the bba impartially with other certification schemes that exist yes i understand that but what was your reaction what was this was bba disappointed at this point that the dtld

00:07:24 disappointed at this point that the dtld felt unable to discuss this with them disappointed perhaps not surprised i think we did make a subsequent

00:07:35 think we did make a subsequent second offer that again was declined by dclg right can you help us when did you make that second offer and was that also to mr martin

00:07:46 was that also to mr martin i think it was part of this correspondence so it would have been within a few days

00:07:54 i see and and also that was also to mr martin was it mr brian martin yes it was i think yeah did you have any further discussions with uh miss curtis ms curtis thomas about this refusal

00:08:10 i'm sure i would have made her aware yes

00:08:14 right and we can see looking at the first part of mr martin's email that he asked the following he says for completeness i wonder if you could confirm a couple of things for me and then the first

00:08:26 of things for me and then the first bullet what has bba put in place since the original certificate was issued to make you so confident this won't happen again a summary would be fine and then the second bullet will you be

00:08:37 and then the second bullet will you be notifying the manufacturer certificate holder

00:08:39 holder of the issue and then if we go up um to page one we can see your response sent a few days later on the 23rd of july

00:08:51 and we can see you say in that first paragraph

00:08:56 paragraph the mistake was basically caused by human error the project manager involved in their line manager no longer work in the bba's operations department now just pausing there and just to be

00:09:08 now just pausing there and just to be clear

00:09:09 clear what had led you to give this further explanation that the mistake was caused by human error

00:09:21 i think i made that statement as an introduction to subsequent paragraphs which explained the steps that we had taken unless mr martin understood the reason

00:09:33 unless mr martin understood the reason for

00:09:34 for the error there would be no context as to whether or not these uh corrective actions were appropriate yes i understand you might have put that in as part of the context for the

00:09:46 in as part of the context for the the the ways in which you've addressed the issue in the following part of the email but i want to understand why were you stating at this point that it was caused by human error what had

00:09:58 it was caused by human error what had led you to to that conclusion well as we discussed the the statement was open to misinterpretation

00:10:10 was open to misinterpretation and that was as a result of it being poorly phrased that i would describe as a human error i see so you had concluded had you that the person drafting a certificate had

00:10:23 the person drafting a certificate had made an error when they were drafting it yes yes

00:10:29 and we know at this stage and i don't think at all you you'd never mention the diagram 34 exception point that you mentioned in several places in your inquiry statement that's correct isn't

00:10:41 inquiry statement that's correct isn't it

00:10:42 it yes and why not

00:10:50 well the the diagram 34 is the only scenario in which that statement could have been accurate but it does not change the facts that excuse me the statement itself is

00:11:02 excuse me the statement itself is capable of misinterpretation so in this context i feel i felt it was irrelevant right yes thank you um now just focusing on that second

00:11:13 now just focusing on that second sentence you say the project manager involved and their line manager no longer work in the bba's operations department and you you've told us in your witness statement this is third statement

00:11:24 statement this is third statement page 50 paragraph 198 that the two individuals were george lee and chris hunt

00:11:30 hunt now um were you meaning to suggest in this email that those two individuals had been moved to other parts of the business or had left as in mr lee's case as a direct result of this issue

00:11:44 as a direct result of this issue no not at all no lee left for his own reasons

00:11:47 reasons and uh mr hunt had made a career move to a different part of the organization it was

00:11:53 was entirely unconnected with this issue yes quite so that would not have been correct would it in what way would it not have been correct

00:12:03 correct well it wouldn't have been correct to suggest that they had left as a direct result of this mistake in this issue yes no it wouldn't but i don't believe i'm saying that i see i'm just

00:12:14 saying that i see i'm just i'm just seeking clarification of what you are saying now you continue on in your email in the second paragraph you say we are addressing the overall issue in three ways

00:12:26 issue in three ways we have introduced a new training program for all staff focusing on both technical and procedural matters an additional level of checking has been introduced by a new management structure

00:12:37 introduced by a new management structure we have placed more emphasis on certificate templates which are commented on by internal and ex external experts prior to finalizing as referenced in my

00:12:48 prior to finalizing as referenced in my earlier email and then you you carry on in the next paragraph there would have been a dialogue with the certificate holder as part of the reissue process and i would expect that this would have

00:12:59 and i would expect that this would have been pointed out the certificate holder would not claim that the material is of limited combustibility and this has never been stated in the certificate which did correctly give

00:13:10 certificate which did correctly give only a class naught rating i think that the chances of anyone inferring limited combustibility to be extremely unlikely from the certificate wording

00:13:20 wording and while the error is of course of concern

00:13:24 concern i am pleased that we recognized and corrected it

00:13:30 so just looking first at that very last sentence where you say i am pleased that we recognized and corrected it

00:13:41 why why do you say that in this email i am pleased that we recognized and corrected it it's simply the fact that the certificate in question was no longer

00:13:52 certificate in question was no longer current and had been replaced by the 2015 version

00:13:58 the second issue yes but you told us in your statement and you confirmed yesterday that the changes to that certificate were entirely unconnected with this issue and were to do with more substantive

00:14:10 and were to do with more substantive structural changes to the information contained in bba certificates

00:14:17 perhaps that is slightly over analyzing what i'm attempting to say here the point i was trying to make is that we had to replace that wording with the then current certificate

00:14:29 now just to be clear you're representing to mr martin by these words are you not that you had already recognized this matter as an error prior to receipt of this email and that

00:14:42 prior to receipt of this email and that the certificate had been revised in december 2013 in order to correct that error that's what you're saying here in this email isn't it

00:14:51 isn't it that's not the intention the intention is that the wording has been removed from the then current certificate i see well that that's the point i'm

00:15:02 i see well that that's the point i'm putting to you that that representing that the error had already been corrected prior to receipt of

00:15:09 of mr martin's email and that the certificate had been revised in order to correct it was not true was it

00:15:18 i can see how you would form that impression from the words that i chose but that was not the intention at the time i was purely trying to say that yes this certificate was capable of misinterpretation

00:15:30 misinterpretation but the current version does not include that version that's wording and therefore that possibility no longer exists

00:15:37 exists yes but you don't say to him um you should be aware that due to reasons unconnected with this error the certificate has already been changed you don't say that do you

00:15:48 changed you don't say that do you no no and you had only been alerted to this problem because of mr martin's email in july 2014

00:15:57 2014 that's right isn't it yes

00:16:03 and you appear to be suggesting in this email is this right that the new training program the additional level of checking and the emphasis on certificate templates had all been introduced at

00:16:14 templates had all been introduced at some earlier stage in response to or as a result of this error do you agree that's how it reads

00:16:25 no i don't i read it that these measures were put in place to minimize

00:16:31 minimize the possibilities of human errors occurring rather than in response to this specific issue well the question you were answering was mr martin's question what has the bba put in place since the

00:16:44 what has the bba put in place since the original certificate was issued to make you so confident this won't happen again so i'd suggest to you that it does read in that way that you're suggesting that these measures have been put in place in

00:16:55 these measures have been put in place in response to the error that you're saying or representing in this email you had already recognized now i don't agree i say we are addressing we are addressing

00:17:07 addressing we are addressing the overall issue not this specific issue and i think by the overall issue i meant

00:17:13 meant the possibility of human errors occurring in the wording in a general sense

00:17:21 now in terms of mr martin's question about whether or not the manufacturer had been alerted to the error isn't this right that you could not in truth answer that part of his question

00:17:33 truth answer that part of his question because you hadn't known until you heard from the dcld a few days before this that there was anything to alert the manufacturer to yes

00:17:44 was kingspan ever told about the problem with that certificate that reissue of the first certificate was kingspan ever told that at any stage

00:17:56 was kingspan ever told that at any stage no we did not feel that was necessary why not

00:18:02 because we did not feel it was technically significant we felt the possibility of someone inferring a limited combustibility classification

00:18:14 combustibility classification was very low given that nowhere in the certificate did it state that it was of limited combustibility

00:18:23 so um mr martin has drawn to your attention

00:18:26 attention what he considers to be a serious error in a bba certificate and he's asking the question has the manufacturer been contacted about this

00:18:37 manufacturer been contacted about this and

00:18:37 and and you're saying they were never told about this is that right we made two offers to discuss this with mr martin partly because we did not

00:18:50 mr martin partly because we did not understand the basis for his concern

00:18:54 wasn't it important for kingspan to be told that a human error had occurred with this certificate that you had recognized it was an error that it had subsequently already been corrected but

00:19:06 subsequently already been corrected but what in any event wasn't important that kingspan were aware of that and

00:19:11 that and knew that you considered that to be an error at this time

00:19:17 it would one clause that had the potential to be misinterpreted we did not

00:19:21 not feel and i'd still do not feel it was significant technically

00:19:28 did you speak to mr hunt who was still employed by the bba at this time about any aspect of this matter i don't recall if i discussed it with

00:19:40 i don't recall if i discussed it with him at the time there is nothing on file i can see to suggest that i did what i may have done his evidence which you mentioned this matter to him but he thought

00:19:51 thought that that was after you had a reply to mr martin

00:19:55 mr martin is that right i don't know it's possible

00:20:00 let's just look at mr hunt's evidence if we can go to the transcript day 109 page 63 starting at line four

00:20:27 so mr hunt is being asked about this email chain and he's asked have you seen that email previously and he says yes i think i've seen the chain of emails when and then he says it was i think it was

00:20:39 and then he says it was i think it was shown to me at the time when john alvin was when he replied to it and then he's asked so do you mean in person you had you and he had a discussion or are you talking about emails

00:20:50 talking about emails oh i think in person i think he told me that he'd had it and that he'd replied to it

00:20:55 to it and i think he showed me the reply i don't think he emailed it to me i think it was just a hard copy and then the question is i see just to be clear the first that you became aware

00:21:06 be clear the first that you became aware of this intervention from dcld was through a face-to-face discussion with john alban by which time he'd already respond replied to mr brian martin is that correct

00:21:15 correct i think so yes i can't be absolutely sure of the precise sequence but was it it was at this time of the reply

00:21:22 reply whether he showed it to me before he sent it or after i can't remember so his evidence was not entirely clear but does that help you he thinks that you had a a discussion with him but it

00:21:33 you had a a discussion with him but it was likely to be after you had already sent your responses to mr martin

00:21:39 i still don't know i'm afraid um john denier carried out the investigation it may be that he spoke to john denier um it may well be that he and i could speak about it afterwards but i really

00:21:50 speak about it afterwards but i really don't remember so just to be clear you didn't speak to mr hunt who was the head of approvals at the time that this certificate was issued his name was on the certificate

00:22:01 issued his name was on the certificate you didn't think to discuss the issue with him before you went back to mr martin

00:22:06 martin as i said i may have done but i don't remember equally john denier may have spoken to him as part of his investigation i don't know

00:22:16 i see on what basis going back to your email to mr martin if we could bring that back up so um bba five zero is one seven eight

00:22:29 so um bba five zero is one seven eight page one

00:22:32 you say in that penultimate paragraph that you think it's um it's the second line from the bottom you think it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would have inferred limited

00:22:43 that anyone would have inferred limited combustibility from the reference to 12.7 how did you reach that conclusion

00:22:51 from the fact that nowhere in the certificate is there any reference to that material achieving a limited combustibility classification

00:23:02 so was that just your own thoughts on the matter or did you speak to any of your bba colleagues about this before reaching that conclusion

00:23:13 conclusion i would have spoken to john benny about it

00:23:17 i see did being contacted by the dclg in this way make you question the bba's practices and procedures around fire performance certification

00:23:29 performance certification and whether improvements needed to be

00:23:34 made yes of course there had been a significant number of changes made to our processes and procedures since that error was made as i've

00:23:45 since that error was made as i've described

00:23:46 described in this email to mr martin it was an ongoing process process of continual improvement and we're always looking for ways to improve the way that we work i see so did you think there were

00:23:57 i see so did you think there were further changes that ought to be made after you'd received mr martin's email in order to improve the way the bba was certifying fire performance on its certificates

00:24:10 performance on its certificates it's not specific to fire performance it's all aspects of our certification process

00:24:15 process and yes since this time we have made further improvements to the way that we work

00:24:19 work and we will seek to continue to do so moving forwards

00:24:24 was this recognized within the bba as an important moment when you came to be aware of a serious safety issue arising from the fire performance wording in one of the bba certificates

00:24:37 again i don't agree this was a serious safety issue i think we had addressed the issue that was raised we had explained to the clg the measures

00:24:48 we had explained to the clg the measures that we had taken we had made two offers of a meeting to further discuss the issue and perhaps understand the context of his initial inquiry

00:24:57 inquiry the fact that we received no further correspondence from mr martin and the facts that he declined to have these meetings suggested to me that he was satisfied

00:25:08 suggested to me that he was satisfied with our response

00:25:11 you said that again i don't agree this was a serious safety issue do you genuinely not consider that there was any risk in stating that k-15 could be used in

00:25:22 in stating that k-15 could be used in accordance with 12.7 of adb is that genuinely your view that there was no risk in the bba having stated that

00:25:30 that in terms of safety

00:25:34 i think there is no risk of a suitably qualified and experienced building professional inferring from one number inserted in the certificate one clause number that that product was

00:25:45 one clause number that that product was of limited combustibility i think the certificate would have been read in its entirety and a suitably competent individual would understand that unless the bba certificate states that a

00:25:56 unless the bba certificate states that a material

00:25:57 material is of limited combustibility they should not infer that from a single sentence i see can i just look finally on this subject that's something you say in your third witness statement

00:26:09 you say in your third witness statement if we can go to that top of page 49 paragraph 191

00:26:18 i want to pick this up about seven lines down

00:26:23 down uh there is a sentence in right in the middle of the page beginning if the bba considered so you say if the bba considered that a product was a material of limited combustibility the certificate would

00:26:34 combustibility the certificate would clearly state this that's what you've just said

00:26:36 just said the bba certificate did not state that the product was of limited combustibility therefore a reader with the necessary level of knowledge and experience would know that it could not satisfy clause 12.7 for a range screen

00:26:48 clause 12.7 for a range screen construction above 18 meters unless the specific construction met the requirements of br135

00:26:55 br135 the error lay in not making this point specifically within the certificate leaving it open to some interpretation and then you say this to be clear i believe that the certificate wording was

00:27:07 believe that the certificate wording was technically correct and that a suitably competent reader would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning this might not however be the case for a casual examination

00:27:19 casual examination which is not the intended readership now um i just want to ask you about whether that remains your evidence do you still believe

00:27:28 believe that the certificate wording was technically correct as you have said there in your witness statement or are you now accepting that in fact that was

00:27:37 that was an error that was misleading

00:27:42 i think it was an error i think it was capable of misinterpretation but in one specific scenario the statement made was true

00:27:54 so i want to know are you maintaining that part of your witness statement where you say i believe that the certificate was technically correct and that a suitably competent reader

00:28:05 and that a suitably competent reader would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning does that remain your evidence

00:28:14 yes i want to move on now briefly to look at issue 2

00:28:19 issue 2 of the bba certificate which was published on the 17th of december 2013 just five months after amended issue one had been published in july

00:28:29 july 2013. now going back to your third uh witness statement actually we don't need to go to it i i think um i can summarize what you tell us on

00:28:41 um i can summarize what you tell us on page 33

00:28:43 page 33 and paragraph one two four is you're asked who was responsible for checking the wording of section eight that's the fire section of that second issue of the certificate and you tell us that it was initially

00:28:55 and you tell us that it was initially checked by the team manager miss ramkarun work was first supervised by the then head of approval sean moriarty

00:29:03 moriarty but you tell us mr moriarty left the bba prior to the issue of the certificate and that you replaced him in that role so the final wording was approved by you is that correct

00:29:15 is that correct yes and we can see that from page one of the certificate if we can bring this one up

00:29:20 up it's at bba 6036

00:29:36 um

00:29:39 we can see there that your name appears in the pale blue box at the beginning of this page

00:29:45 this page as head of approvals and that's your signature yes yes

00:29:52 and do you accept that in approving the final wording you were ultimately responsible for the checks on and the sign off of all technical assertions made within this certificate

00:30:06 yes and we'll come back to it in a moment but if we just note that under behavior in relation to fire all it says there is the product will not contribute to the development stages

00:30:17 not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard

00:30:20 hazard yes yes so that sentence which both you and mr hunt couldn't explain to us that stayed in this second issue of the certificate

00:30:33 in this second issue of the certificate yes

00:30:34 yes yes and if we go now to the bottom of page

00:30:38 page five the fire section is now section eight

00:30:44 eight we can see it starts right at the bottom of that page and we can see that this says 8.1 the product is classified as class naught or low risk

00:30:55 classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations

00:31:02 now can you help us since the first version of this certificate was published in 2008 had the bba ever actually sought test data from tests to bs 476 part 6 and part 7

00:31:16 tests to bs 476 part 6 and part 7 from kingspan supporting that statement this was a reissue for specific additions to the certificate it was not a repeat of the original technical assessment

00:31:27 technical assessment so no we would not seek information that should already have been on the technical file but just to be clear that information was not on the technical file was it there was no 476 part 6 or part 7 data

00:31:41 there was no 476 part 6 or part 7 data no it wasn't now when nine years on from the request to kingspan that we saw in 2004

00:31:49 in 2004 for reaction to fire and surface spread of flame data we looked at that letter from the 2nd of december 2004 from mr simon

00:31:57 simon lloyd didn't it occur to you at this later stage to request some up-to-date data from kingspan supporting that statement

00:32:10 no as i said the issue was to add specific sections to the certificate or specific changes to the certificate it would not involve a reassessment of

00:32:23 it would not involve a reassessment of the data

00:32:24 the data on which the original certificate was issued

00:32:28 issued can you help us then when in december 2013 when you came to approve the content of this certificate what did you think the basis was for that classification as class naught

00:32:43 as class naught the normal situation would have been for the bs 476 parts six and seven reports to be on file

00:32:54 yes i understand that's normal situation but that's not an answer to my question can you help us when you came to approve the content of this certificate what did you think the basis was for that classification of class naught

00:33:07 classification of class naught i would have had no reason to consider that as part of the reissue of this certificate which as i say were for specific

00:33:13 specific amendments as defined in the contract documents it is not a reassessment or a re-evaluation of the original certification i see can you help us then what was the

00:33:26 i see can you help us then what was the exercise that you carried out you your name appears on the certificate you've signed it off you're responsible for the technical content of it so can you talk us through what exercise

00:33:37 can you talk us through what exercise you actually did when you reviewed this certificate i would check that all of the contractual requirements had been met for this

00:33:48 requirements had been met for this specific reissue and check that wording i would of course reread the whole certificate before signing it and i made an error in not recognizing an inappropriate clause on the front page which i regret

00:34:00 on the front page which i regret i would not go back and check that statements made relating to the original assessments were justified

00:34:09 i see so when you say i checked that all of the contractual requirements had been met for this specific reissue what what does that mean was it a contractual requirement for kingspan to provide test data supporting each of

00:34:21 to provide test data supporting each of its claims in the certificate no we would need to examine the contract documents they would be for specific amendments to be made to the existing certificate i don't remember i'm afraid what those

00:34:33 i don't remember i'm afraid what those specific requirements were it was not a re-evaluation of the whole certificate i see so you check some contract documents to ascertain whether the amendments are

00:34:46 ascertain whether the amendments are covered by those contract documents i would check that the contractual requirements have been met that the changes we made in the contract had been made

00:34:57 been made the wording was correct and that the statements we made the new statements we made were justified and how would you check that the wording was correct and that the statements

00:35:08 was correct and that the statements you'd made had been justified if all you're doing is reading the certificate itself without checking any of the underlying data or any of the underlying information on the file

00:35:19 information on the file i'm sorry that's not what i said i would check the underlying information on the file for the new parts of the certificate i would not go back and redo the original assessment

00:35:30 original assessment i see so you can find your review to only checking those bits that have changed

00:35:36 changed and anything that was in there originally you you don't for yourself ascertain that there is in fact evidence supporting those statements i would re-read the whole certificate

00:35:47 i would re-read the whole certificate and make changes as appropriate given the current bba wording for a given product type clearly i would read the whole certificate i'm taking responsibility for it i would

00:35:58 i'm taking responsibility for it i would not go back for example and check that we had bs476 reports on the file from 2008.

00:36:06 i see so does it follow that when you read that class naught statement you would have just read it noted it moved on but not carried out any any form of checking that's by others as

00:36:17 any form of checking that's by others as part of the original assessment of the product so i had no reason to suppose that would not have been carried out i see if we go further down the certificate we can see if we go to page 6 section

00:36:29 we can see if we go to page 6 section 8.2

00:36:36 the certificate states it says it says when

00:36:40 when tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 the following specific cladding construction met the criteria as stated in

00:36:49 in bre report br 135 2013 and then the construction is set out below that now just pausing there were you aware at the time you approved this certificate

00:37:01 the time you approved this certificate that this bs 8414 test was undertaken in 2005

00:37:06 2005 and was therefore now eight years old

00:37:12 i don't recall but probably if we could just look briefly at something you say in your third witness statement

00:37:19 statement about this page uh if we go to page 42 paragraph 164 that's bba 3010751

00:37:32 you you say this you say the bba does have

00:37:36 have a policy of not normally accepting test reports for new assessments that are more than five years old which is consistent with the above however in this case the bba has had the

00:37:48 however in this case the bba has had the production under surveillance and can be assured

00:37:51 assured that there have been no changes to the formulation or specification of the product

00:37:56 product in these circumstances as the product is unchanged

00:37:59 unchanged it is reasonable to assume that the performance in respect to fire testing will also be unaltered now can we take it from that therefore that in fact it

00:38:11 that in fact it the bba's policy is to accept test reports

00:38:14 reports which are more than five years old unless the manufacturer has alerted the bba to changes to the formulation or specification of the product

00:38:26 no i don't think so um if it is a new assessment for products we are not operating a process of surveillance we will not accept a report that is more than five

00:38:37 accept a report that is more than five years old

00:38:39 years old once we have accepted a report certified the product and then have the production under surveillance we continue to accept that data

00:38:47 data as being representative of the performance of the product on the understanding that the formulation and specifications are from that point onwards unchanged

00:38:58 are from that point onwards unchanged yes i follow i i think that is a longer version of what i what i put to you um is it your understanding that kingspan at no stage alerted the bba to any such

00:39:08 any such changes in relation to the formulation of the product

00:39:16 there may well have been changes during the surveillance of the product um i'd have to look at the data on the file but

00:39:24 that's all i can say i'm afraid that there are always minor changes made during the course of production

00:39:31 yes would it be normal in your experience for no changes at all to the formulation or specification of an insulation product to take place over the course of a decade

00:39:42 decade no that would not be normal and did you actually check at the time whether there had been any changes

00:39:49 changes to the formulation or specification of this particular product now if any changes are made they are addressed

00:39:58 addressed at the six monthly surveillance audits that we carry out a technical assessment is made of any changes that may have been made and any additional technical work necessary is carried out at that point

00:40:10 necessary is carried out at that point if that had not been the case and had there had been issues that had not been addressed then these certificates would be suspended

00:40:19 i see now in this instance it instants changes to the formulation are not particularly relevant to whether or not k-15 could still achieve class nor because a classification to class naught

00:40:31 because a classification to class naught had never actually been established by evidence for k-15 in the first place had it

00:40:36 it back in 2008 but this is in reference to 8414 report i think we're talking yes sorry i'm i'm i'm now asking you about changes

00:40:47 about changes uh that are relevant to class naught i'm going back to that i i want to understand how changes in the formulation were relevant given you'd never got a

00:40:58 relevant given you'd never got a baseline

00:40:59 baseline you'd never got the evidence in the first place of uh satisfaction of the class naught tests

00:41:06 tests that's correct we did not however as you know

00:41:09 know um achievement of class naught would not in itself be sufficient to allow the use of the product above 18 meters no i i do know that thank you mr alvin but i'm still trying to explore how that

00:41:20 but i'm still trying to explore how that statement

00:41:21 statement made its way onto this certificate which you've signed off on

00:41:29 do you accept that it was a basic failure of due diligence on the part of the bba to allow that class naught statement to appear on this certificate in circumstances where the bba had never

00:41:40 in circumstances where the bba had never had proper supporting test data yes i think i acknowledged that yesterday and do you accept that it was a basic failure of due diligence on your part

00:41:50 part given that you signed off on that certificate

00:41:56 i think i followed the bbo's procedures which are reasonable and in doing so i perpetuated the original error so possibly i see

00:42:10 if we go back to the certificate at page six we can see um that there is a little footnote in the section that i just read you

00:42:21 in the section that i just read you about the 8414 test

00:42:25 can you see it says 8.2 when tested and then there's a footnote number one and we can see that that footnote number one refers to a section just underneath

00:42:38 one refers to a section just underneath that detail about the construction it says the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other

00:42:50 establish the performance of any other combination of materials now do you remember noticing that because that was different wasn't it from the previous version of the certificate yes it is can you help me

00:43:03 yes it is can you help me would you have the previous versions of the certificate in front of you when you came to sign off on a later version

00:43:12 version yes there would be a track changes word document

00:43:16 document so you could identify the original text and the changes that had been made

00:43:22 now in terms of that footnote there to section 8.2 are you aware that kingspan saw the placement and the size of that text as something of a victory in terms of

00:43:33 as something of a victory in terms of the final version of this certificate

00:43:37 i was not aware of that before it was identified in the inquiry does it surprise you that kingspan treated it as progress for them that requirements which limited the

00:43:49 that requirements which limited the scope of the use of k-15 were buried deep in the certificate

00:43:56 it does surprise me though i would argue that the limitations are placed by the approved documents not this certificate yes but just sticking with this certificate what we can see is you see

00:44:07 certificate what we can see is you see if we go back to page one

00:44:14 and under key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire as we noted when we first looked at this there's only one sentence there the product will not contribute to the

00:44:25 product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard and a sentence has been removed from the previous version which had said in that position on the

00:44:37 which had said in that position on the certificate the product has been tested to bs 8414 part 1 for a specific construction on masonry walls

00:44:45 walls c section 7. now that sentence has been deleted on the front of this certificate and that limitation is only expressed

00:44:57 and that limitation is only expressed in the footnote on page six that we just looked at

00:45:02 looked at now did you notice that change when you came to review the certificate i would have done i think you should have added when you read the

00:45:14 you should have added when you read the text under behaviour in relation to fire see section 8 because this is only intended to provide a brief summary and to direct the reader to the section of the certificate where the full information

00:45:25 certificate where the full information is given

00:45:26 is given similar to section 8 in bold text it does say this specific construction was tested so it is not only the footnotes that makes that point

00:45:38 makes that point yes i understand that but what i'm seeking to get to the bottom of is why why remove the sentence the product has been tested to bs eight four one four part one for a specific construction

00:45:49 part one for a specific construction on masonry walls you see that was a sentence that in late 2008 the bba had asked to be added into this certificate to make it clearer to the readers what the limitations were

00:46:01 the limitations were of that 8414 test data so can you explain to us why that sentence comes out of this front page and this that sentiment is now only expressed in a very small

00:46:13 expressed in a very small on page six because it is not possible to give a full and accurate representation of the detailed fire performance of the product in a one line summary on the

00:46:24 the product in a one line summary on the front page for that reason we refer the reader to the full text in section 8 which relates not only to bs8414 but also classo and the fire resistance

00:46:36 but also classo and the fire resistance of the product i understand why you're focusing on bs8414 because it is specific to this particular case but the bba certificate covers all aspects of fire not merely the 8414 and it didn't warrant

00:46:50 merely the 8414 and it didn't warrant emphasizing on the front page yes but you see kingspan had very little fire test data at this time which is why the bs8414 test was so critical

00:47:01 the bs8414 test was so critical did you understand that at the time i would argue the fire resistance of the product is equally critical the class over performance is equally critical and we cannot put all of that information on the front

00:47:12 all of that information on the front page

00:47:16 yes and i i see you say there the class naught performance is equally critical and we've already been through that did you actually notice at the time that that sentence had been taken off

00:47:28 that that sentence had been taken off the front page and instead a small footnote had been inserted do you remember actually noticing that when you reviewed the certificate this is one of hundreds if not thousands of

00:47:39 is one of hundreds if not thousands of certificates that i have reviewed over that period i don't remember looking specifically at that clause now no but i would have read it

00:47:51 do you believe that you gave the technical content of this certificate the attention it required before you approved it for publication and that your own work on it in terms of checks was competent and adequate

00:48:05 i believe i gave it the attention it required i made a mistake on the front page by retaining a misleading statement mr album before we leave um section 8 of the

00:48:17 before we leave um section 8 of the certificate can i just ask you this um you'll recall that the footnote is quite an important qualification isn't it on the passage that uh precedes it

00:48:30 passage that uh precedes it yes the footnote is printed in quite small type isn't it yes why is that it's standard bba house style for any football to incorporate

00:48:42 style for any football to incorporate into certificates it's not specific to this certificate or this clause you don't think it was important for a qualification of that

00:48:53 qualification of that type to be more to stand out more

00:48:58 with hindsight possibly but i would expect the reader of the certificate to understand the text to read all of the text and it does say in the first line i believe that it was

00:49:10 in the first line i believe that it was that specific construction that had been tested

00:49:13 tested yes all right thank you very much yes ms grange yes thank you um mr robin i just want to come to some general questions now at the end and it's right isn't it that the bba is held in very high regard in

00:49:25 the bba is held in very high regard in the construction industry is that right yes can we just look at something that paul hyatt the inquiries uh expert architect has said in his report

00:49:36 said in his report we can go to phyr604 at page 116.

00:49:57 and at paragraph 4.4.56

00:50:03 he he says this he says i believe that architects should be able to place reliance on a bba certificate in support of this view i quote from the bba's website and add some exhibit slogans as follows

00:50:16 and add some exhibit slogans as follows and if we read the quotes he's got there product approval and certification bba certification is recognized throughout the construction industry as a symbol of quality and reassurance it is the vital

00:50:28 and reassurance it is the vital ingredients in the provision of assurance quality and integrity to a plethora of stakeholders in the construction industry certification is an achievement that delivers the power of product confidence

00:50:40 delivers the power of product confidence industry satisfaction and market leadership recognized respected and sought after by specifiers architects and contractors reassures all parties that you are an expert in your

00:50:52 that you are an expert in your speciality who stays on top of the latest advances and best practices so you can deliver the safest most efficient and highest quality product possible

00:51:01 possible and then if we go over the page you can see that he's set out some extracts from the bba

00:51:13 extracts from the bba website here and under about us it says the bba sets the standard for excellence in construction products and systems we offer technical expertise are

00:51:24 we offer technical expertise are independent with an unrivaled track record and offer more than more than certification through our audit and inspection and test services and then below that it says we are the leading authority on

00:51:36 it says we are the leading authority on building product certification the position we've held for more than 50 years with the technical integrity founded on our independent approach and delivered by the industry's recognized experts

00:51:47 experts we we can also leverage our unrivaled track record to accredit building systems using the same trusted non-partisan approach so conveniently mr hyatt has summarized for

00:51:59 conveniently mr hyatt has summarized for us there

00:52:02 us there what we see on the bba's website now looking back and stepping back at what occurred with the rainer bond and the k-15 certificates can we agree that starting with the

00:52:13 can we agree that starting with the rayna bond certificate there was a serious failure by the bba to obtain

00:52:18 to obtain all relevant fire test data when the certificate was first issued specifically failure to obtain any fire test data relating to the cassette fix variant of reinaborn 55.

00:52:33 reinaborn 55. i agree we did not have those documents in our possession i do believe it was the responsibility of the manufacturer to supply them to us and that they deliberately withheld them

00:52:44 and that they deliberately withheld them our procedures are not designed to cope with that scenario so do i take it from that you don't accept there was a serious failure by the bba to specifically obtain that fire test

00:52:55 to specifically obtain that fire test data

00:52:56 data we were unable to obtain that fire data yes

00:53:00 yes yes but do you accept that was a serious failure by the bba i would argue it was a serious failure by the manufacturer to properly declare the actual performance of their product moving on do you accept there

00:53:13 product moving on do you accept there was a serious failure by the bba to properly scrutinize such a varchonix fire test data as iconic had given you when the certificate was first issued

00:53:26 yes we should have explained that the fire test data was specific to the rivets product yes and that led to the erroneous and misleading statement within the bba certificate

00:53:37 certificate that the panel was fit for its purpose in fire both as a rivet fix and as a cassette fix yes it would have been fit for purpose in fire in certain scenarios but not in all

00:53:49 fire in certain scenarios but not in all scenarios

00:53:50 scenarios no and as a result the certificate was materially misleading about the panel's true performance in fire yes it was certainly

00:54:01 yes it was certainly capable of being misinterpreted yes and there was also a serious failure in the review of the certificate between 2013 and 2015

00:54:10 and 2015 which resulted in the review being completed and the certificate remaining in circulation without arconic confirming that there had been no changes to the product which invalidated the certificate

00:54:24 invalidated the certificate a decision was made as the bba procedures allowed that the information available to the bba gave sufficient reassurance to conclude that the product continued

00:54:35 to conclude that the product continued to represent the actual performance of the system based on the information provided by the certificate holder so does it follow from that answer that you don't accept that was a serious

00:54:46 you don't accept that was a serious failure

00:54:46 failure in that review process the review failed to identify that there were additional fire test reports available to the manufacturer that had not been provided to the bba yes

00:54:57 not been provided to the bba yes right and can we agree that in respect of the k-15 certificates now fire performance statements were made in those certificates which were inaccurate and misleading and which had no proper

00:55:08 and misleading and which had no proper evidential basis in terms of the classo performance yes i would agree and in terms of the fire whether it contributes to the development stages of a fire

00:55:18 a fire yes a particularly serious error was made when the revised issue one stated that k-15 could be used in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of adb

00:55:29 with paragraph 12.7 of adb and that error was so serious that the government had to intervene do you agree no i don't agree with that statement as for the reasons i've described

00:55:38 described and the bba was also extremely slow to implement

00:55:41 implement important changes to the first issue of the certificate which were necessary to ensure that the fire performance sections of the certificate were accurate a delay between december 2008 and july 2013. do you agree with

00:55:54 2008 and july 2013. do you agree with that

00:55:56 that which specific um amendments should be going to please yes so that was the amendment actually that we were just looking at where you had inserted an additional sentence on the front page saying that it had met 8414 for one

00:56:09 saying that it had met 8414 for one specific construction on a masonry wall that change was suggested by the bba in 2008

00:56:17 2008 but it was not implemented on the certificate until july 2013

00:56:23 it was a clarification but the construction was given i believe in the first issue of the certificate so the reader would have been able to infer that from the information given in the certificate i do agree that it was

00:56:35 i do agree that it was improved and clarified in the second issue but the point i'm putting to you is that the bba was extremely slow to implement that important change yes it took longer than i would have

00:56:47 yes it took longer than i would have expected i agree in the light of all of that do you accept that the work of the bba

00:56:51 bba fell a long way short of the standards of excellence advertised by the bba on its website

00:57:01 i agree that mistakes were made and i regret those mistakes but i still believe that from the information made available to us a suitably experienced and knowledgeable individual could have drawn

00:57:12 individual could have drawn conclusions from the contents of the certificates

00:57:16 can we agree that by failing to adhere to those standards of excellence what the bba did was to give a public stamp of authority and authenticity to false and inaccurate statements by the product manufacturers

00:57:31 i agree that the bba certificates were inaccurate as a result of the information not having been declared to us

00:57:37 us and so yes we did support inaccurate claims made by the manufacturer given everything we've gone through do you also accept that the bba has been slow to recognize that it was lacking

00:57:48 slow to recognize that it was lacking incompetence in the era of fire performance assessment no i think i've evidenced that we have put many improvements in place since the original assessment of that certificate and that our competence is

00:58:00 certificate and that our competence is higher now than it was then we are continuing to do so finally do you also accept that the bba has been has shown

00:58:09 has shown itself to be toothless and weak in its dealings with product manufacturers no i don't agree with that why not

00:58:20 no i don't agree with that why not what why have we shown ourselves to be toothless and weak by allowing statements by product manufacturers which are inaccurate to go into

00:58:29 into vba certificates and not correcting an accurate statement in a timely manner in terms of being toothless we have or

00:58:40 in terms of being toothless we have or we took steps to withdraw the iconic certificates when it became clear to us that these prior test reports had not been revealed to the bba that is the ultimate sanction we can take to withdraw a certificate

00:58:51 we can take to withdraw a certificate and that's what we did in 2017 when it became aware through the inquiry that there were additional fire test reports that had

00:59:02 additional fire test reports that had not been revealed to the bba the bba withdrew that certificate mr chairman thank you i've come to the end of my prepared questions if we could have a short break to see if

00:59:14 if we could have a short break to see if there are any more questions we haven't had many coming in recently so i don't think we need to take very long

00:59:21 long well it might be sensible to combine this break with the ordinary morning break anyway yes actually mr albon as you heard council thinks she's got to end her

00:59:32 council thinks she's got to end her questions but we always have a bit of a break at this stage just to ensure that um that is the case and also to give other people who are following the proceedings the chance to

00:59:43 following the proceedings the chance to suggest additional questions so we'll take a break at this point i think we'll treat it as our mid-morning break and we'll resume at 11

00:59:54 and we'll resume at 11 15 please and then we'll see at that stage whether or not there are any more questions for you all right okay thank you and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence

01:00:05 anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it during the break

01:00:08 break good thank you we'll see you again at 11 15 please okay thank you very much

01:14:26 welcome back everyone we're now going to see whether there are any more questions from mr albon so i'll just check that mr albon

01:14:34 albon can see me and hear me clearly mr albany there

01:14:37 there yes i can good thank you very much indeed so we'll now find out if there's any more questions for you yes ms grange yes just just one more question mr chairman please

01:14:48 question mr chairman please um mr alban can you help us about this why isn't the review process for a bba certificate a thorough and complete review of all original data

01:15:02 and complete review of all original data given that the contractual sanction for not doing a review is expiry of the contract and lapse of the certificate can you help us with that

01:15:14 all of our processes have developed and evolved over the years the current review process is different to those that we have been examining as part of the inquiry we now do require

01:15:26 as part of the inquiry we now do require that we receive a full and written response to every point requested as part of the review process and the default position should that not be the case is that the certificate is

01:15:37 the case is that the certificate is suspended until such time as the information is provided

01:15:42 i see but can you help us my question was a slightly different why isn't the review process a thorough and complete review of all the original data

01:15:52 data and all the underlying assumptions that have been made in the certificate given that the sanction for not doing it is effectively termination and withdrawal of the certificate

01:16:06 withdrawal of the certificate as i said our processes have developed and evolved and they are now significantly more robust than they were at that time and i would expect that all of the necessary information

01:16:17 that all of the necessary information would both be placed on file properly reviewed documented and signed off prior to the issue of that certificate given that that is the case there seemed little point in repeating the exercise

01:16:28 little point in repeating the exercise as part of the review i see thank you very much uh mr chairman i have no further questions it's just to thank this witness for for coming and assisting our investigations

01:16:40 coming and assisting our investigations yes thank you very strange well mr album as you've heard those are all the questions we have for you uh we're very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence and i'd like to thank you on behalf of myself and the

01:16:51 thank you on behalf of myself and the other members of the panel it's been very useful to hear what you've told us and that's all we have for you and you're now free to go on your way thank you very much indeed okay thank you now we have another witness

01:17:04 thank you now we have another witness uh who will be giving evidence in a moment but uh in order to make the necessary arrangements we'll have to have a short break so um we'll break now and resume as soon as we can

01:39:31 welcome back everyone our next witness is mr adrian pogita who has already given evidence to the inquiry but whom we are recalling to deal with some additional

01:39:43 recalling to deal with some additional questions

01:39:44 questions so my first uh step is to check that mr parchita can see me and hear me clearly mr podgetto good morning can you hear me and see me good morning i can hear and see you yes thank you very much now um although you

01:39:57 thank you very much now um although you made the affirmation last time i think we

01:40:00 we released you so i think we better ask you to make it again you should have the words of the affirmation on the screen in front of you do you have those i do can i ask you please then to make

01:40:11 i do can i ask you please then to make the affirmation by reading them out i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth ain't nothing but the truth

01:40:22 but the truth very good thank you very much um there are one or two housekeeping matters we have to deal with can i ask you to confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i am alone yes thank you can you confirm

01:40:34 i am alone yes thank you can you confirm also that you have no documents or other materials with you i don't right and finally can i ask you to confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other

01:40:46 and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages i don't have any devices on me at all right thank you very much now you probably know this but i just confirmed that your legal representatives

01:40:57 representatives are with us in the virtual hearing room they can if they feel it necessary to do so

01:41:05 so intervene in the proceedings but they know and we know that there are other arrangements under which they can contact our council so i'm going to ask them to keep their microphones and cameras switched off

01:41:18 microphones and cameras switched off in the ordinary way if we have a problem with sound or vision we will take a short break while our technical support people sort it out i think you'll

01:41:30 sort it out i think you'll probably still be giving evidence this afternoon we'll have a break during the afternoon we've already had one during the morning so i think we probably won't go for another one during the morning

01:41:41 the morning but if you feel that you need any additional breaks uh other than those already scheduled just let me know and we'll do our best to accommodate you i will do it

01:41:51 it um is there anything you would like to ask me or raise before you start giving your evidence no i'm fine thank you

01:41:59 thank you good thank you very much in that case i'm going to invite mr millet to put some questions to you yes thank you

01:42:06 thank you thank you very much mr chairman uh mr partridge

01:42:10 partridge first can i ask you whether you can hear me and see me clearly i can hear you answer you yes thank you very much

01:42:16 very much uh i should begin by thanking you very much for returning to the inquiry to give further evidence if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions that i'm asking you

01:42:27 any of the questions that i'm asking you or you want me to put the question in a different way so you can understand it better i'm very happy to do that could i also ask you please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who is on this call can take down

01:42:38 on this call can take down clearly what it is you're saying also again

01:42:41 again don't nod or shake your head please say yes or no as the case may be um mr chairman has already explained what we're going to be doing in in relation to breaks today uh and if we

01:42:53 in relation to breaks today uh and if we go into tomorrow then i there will be i imagine a scheduled break in the morning uh can you confirm that you gave evidence to this inquiry uh on the seventh eighth and the morning

01:43:05 uh on the seventh eighth and the morning of the night of december 2020 okay in addition to the four witness statements that you have given to the inquiry

01:43:15 inquiry which you confirmed in your evidence on the last occasion you i think have now provided a further fifth witness statement to the inquiry dated the 14th of january 2021 is that correct

01:43:27 of january 2021 is that correct that's correct and let's look at that then please it's at kin3024975 can we please have that up

01:43:45 is that the first page of your fifth statement

01:43:50 statement it is can you please go to page seven

01:43:57 you'll see a signature above your name and the date there is that your signature

01:44:01 signature it is have you read this fifth witness statement of yours recently i have do you say that the contents of it are true we do have you carried out any

01:44:12 we do have you carried out any preparations in order to give evidence today

01:44:18 in preparations how do you mean well have you made uh any refreshment of your memory have you spoken to anybody have you looked documents have you looked at previous statements in order to give evidence today yes i

01:44:31 in order to give evidence today yes i have around the fifth witness statement yes i have uh around the fifth witness statement what do you mean around the subject that's contained within the fifth witness statement and the

01:44:42 the exhibits that i've attached to it what preparations have you made around the fifth witness statement as you put it just looking at uh emails that were around at the time

01:44:56 that were around at the time and checking back on the evidence that i gave

01:44:59 gave on that last morning as well i see did anybody assist you with those preparations just in providing documents did anybody discuss

01:45:09 discuss uh the evidence that you're going to be giving today on those matters or any other matters with you before you came here today no

01:45:18 are you aware of three requests for further disclosure made by the inquiry of kingspan i'm aware there's been more evidence

01:45:30 i'm aware there's been more evidence requests yet are you aware of kingspan's responses

01:45:33 responses to those requests for disclosure no

01:45:39 do i take it from that that you were not the ultimate decision maker at kingspan in respect of kingspan's responses to the inquiry's requests for further disclosure that's correct all right

01:45:52 on the last occasion that you gave evidence the 9th of december 2020 you held the position at kingston of director of technical marketing and regulatory

01:46:03 regulatory affairs great britain didn't you i did do you still hold that role i do are you under any kind of internal investigation at kingspan

01:46:14 investigation at kingspan no have you made or been subjected to any arrangements to leave kingston no and you're not under any kind of suspension no now i'd like to

01:46:28 no now i'd like to look back first really by way of refreshment if i may um to your previous evidence about the 2018 tests

01:46:40 the 2018 tests uh and forgive me for going a little bit slowly with this um let's take it in stages you'll remember i think that on the 9th of december 2020 day 85 of this phase of the inquiry you gave

01:46:52 of this phase of the inquiry you gave some evidence on the subject of kingspan's testing of non-combustible insulation products

01:46:59 products in a bs-8414 test in the spring and summer of 2018 didn't you i did and am i right that that arose out of paragraph 12.3 e

01:47:12 out of paragraph 12.3 e of your second witness statement which i'll show you it's at kin3020824 kin30s two zero eight two four at pages one one three and over two

01:47:25 four at pages one one three and over two one one four there's your second witness statement on the screen

01:47:31 uh that's a bit slow coming up for you there it is that's the first page and if we go to page one one three let's look together um uh

01:47:42 let's look together um uh i probably need 112 to show you where it starts

01:47:45 starts actually uh yes and um this sits within a section as you can see on the screen headed 12 comments on issues 4 and 4a from the inquiry's list of issues last updated

01:47:57 inquiry's list of issues last updated 25th september 2019. and then you uh say uh in the in paragraph 12.1 as well as being asked

01:48:08 in paragraph 12.1 as well as being asked the number of questions by the inquiry i have in mind the inquiries list of issues last updated on 25 september 2019.

01:48:14 2019. i would like to add these comments to deal with issues 4 and 4a and you describe them i have previously contributed to submissions kingspan made to the mhclg on 14th of august 2018

01:48:26 to the mhclg on 14th of august 2018 in the consultation on banning the use of combustible materials in the external walls of high-rise residential buildings the inquiry already has a copy of kingspan's response to this consultation but a further copy can be made available

01:48:38 but a further copy can be made available on request and to an extent these comments reflect those submissions and then at 12.2 you say experience and reflection has led us to the view that the most

01:48:50 has led us to the view that the most effective way of achieving the goal of improving the safety of building occupants in the event of a fire would be to ensure that all cladding systems are tested as complete systems in their intended configuration to bsa414 standards so as to meet the

01:49:02 to bsa414 standards so as to meet the requirements set out in br135 experience suggests that this delivers better safety outcomes and in our view as best practice rather than simply banning of classes of certain materials and then at 12.3 you say you explain the

01:49:14 and then at 12.3 you say you explain the rationale behind this view and if we go over the page and to uh e at the bottom of the page page 113

01:49:25 uh e at the bottom of the page page 113 we have the bottom of the page you say it is not correct to assume that any combination of non-combustible systems are safe irrespective of how they are assembled in a holistic system

01:49:36 in a holistic system committed product combinations can yield unsafe systems systems comprising so-called non-combustible and limited combustibility insulation and or cladding systems systems have failed to meet br 135

01:49:49 systems have failed to meet br 135 criteria such as and then you set up three tests roman one failed test one and you identify that 27th of october 2016. then if we turn the page to page 114

01:50:01 the page to page 114 you can see test failed test 2 a condesc a test conducted in australia in march 2018

01:50:09 2018 and then test three failed test three you say this test was commissioned by kingspan

01:50:15 kingspan and carried out at x over in dubai on 2nd july 2018 the system comprised rockwell duo slab which is rated a1 and vitricore g2 which was understood at

01:50:26 and vitricore g2 which was understood at the time by kingspan to be rated a2 the construction of the test rig was a replica

01:50:31 a replica of the ministry of housing communities and local government tests conducted immediately after the tragedy at grenfell tower the test failed on the basis of thermocouple data which is detailed in the enclosed br-135 classification

01:50:43 in the enclosed br-135 classification report from x over which you exhibit

01:50:48 now i've written you that in full so that you can understand the questions that now

01:50:52 that now i think flow from that it's right isn't it that when you made that statement uh in october 2019 kingspan hadn't searched for and given disclosure to

01:51:03 disclosure to the inquiry of all relevant documents relating

01:51:07 relating to what i've just read to you from your second statement

01:51:12 kingspan hadn't sorry can you repeat the question

01:51:15 question search for and given disclosure to the inquiry of all relevant documents relating to those comments that i've read to you i'm not sure the reason i ask you that

01:51:27 i'm not sure the reason i ask you that is because following further requests from the inquiry that i mentioned to you at the start of your evidence kingston made further disclosures in january of this year 2021 relating to the 2018 testing

01:51:41 you know that don't you or do you not know that um i wouldn't i wouldn't have done the specifics around that right and is it right that when you uh sit

01:51:50 sit you referred to documents here in your second statement dealing with these comments

01:51:54 comments that's par part 12 of that statement you were referring uh simply to those documents that you had selected or had been selected for you

01:52:05 uh that i selected as part of what i was saying here but i'm right in thinking that you didn't commission or cause to be commissioned a full search of all documents

01:52:16 documents relating to the testing in the summer of 2018.

01:52:19 2018. no i didn't do you know why that was

01:52:24 why i didn't yes why you didn't

01:52:29 um i no i don't don't know you know why it was not done regardless of whether it was you uh no i don't

01:52:40 now you can see from what i've shown you that you made no reference in this statement

01:52:46 statement uh or made any disclosure of documents relating to a test conducted on the 22nd of may 2018 in dubai did you that's correct and you didn't do

01:52:59 did you that's correct and you didn't do that until after your examination had completed in december 2020 had you that's correct now on the last occasion you gave evidence 9th of december 2020 you gave

01:53:11 evidence 9th of december 2020 you gave evidence about a series of emails that were generated internally within kingspan in march and april of 2018 about uh about about the testing done

01:53:22 about uh about about the testing done in that year do you remember that i do and i'll just put the email chains up in front of you one by one to refresh your memory of what you were examined about

01:53:34 what you were examined about the first of those is at kin404637 mr miller before you go on can i just ask uh mr parchita mr farageta is there a light in the room in which

01:53:47 is there a light in the room in which you're sitting which has failed because at the moment we can only see half of your face i regret yeah but what's happened is the main room lighting i think because there's not enough movement that's gone into dim mode so i'll switch

01:53:59 that's gone into dim mode so i'll switch this uh light on now which is uh exactly see if that's any

01:54:06 better

01:54:16 did you switch this one

01:54:27 that's definitely an improvement the main lighting is now come on now i've moved

01:54:32 moved it moved around well if you start waving your arms around we'll understand that you're just trying to switch the light on all right well thank you that makes a lot of difference thank you very much

01:54:40 much thank you mr punisher you were speaking to somebody just then um who was that that was just somebody nipping into trying to get the lights to work they've gone back out again there i see that can you confirm that they've now left the room yes they left

01:54:51 now left the room yes they left immediately no no there's nobody thank you now let's have the first of those uh email chains up please kin40s 4637

01:55:05 up please kin40s 4637 this uh was the email chain from early march uh 2018 uh entitled re-ulster tests mh

01:55:16 uh entitled re-ulster tests mh clg select committee lobbying uh and you'll remember do you remember this email chain yes i do and i don't want to read it all to you again at this stage but you remember that

01:55:26 that and then the second chain we looked at was kin four zeros four six five eight we can have that up please

01:55:36 uh and you'll recall that this was the the chain of emails in april 2018 also relating to the testing to come and entitled linear route action plan

01:55:49 and entitled linear route action plan you recall those yes yes i do and do you recall

01:55:52 recall giving evidence that the aim of those tests

01:55:56 tests uh that was that was discussed in those emails was to obtain evidence to support the need for full-scale testing

01:56:03 testing of all systems and demonstrate that materials that are quote deemed to satisfy the linear route unquote don't automatically or always meet the criteria under br135

01:56:17 always meet the criteria under br135 when tested full scale to bs8414 that's correct and do you recall also that you were asked and confirmed that the system uh the proposed system to be tested

01:56:30 uh the proposed system to be tested as discussed in these march and april 2018

01:56:33 2018 emails was the system that was tested by kingspan in dubai on the 2nd of july 2018 yes that's correct

01:56:41 correct and you confirmed that yes uh we we talked about um two systems we talked in that evidence there was the a2 system which was the earlier test

01:56:53 a2 system which was the earlier test and then there was the g2 system which is the

01:56:56 is the the later test so in discussion we actually discussed both well not to my knowledge mr barter uh let's show you the transcript that

01:57:07 that because this is i think what you're here to correct let's go to day 85 page 77 line 12.

01:57:22 and i'd like to pick it up at line 12 uh where i say let's move on uh and i've shown you the march and april emails nothing else and say i asked you at 13. the test went

01:57:33 and say i asked you at 13. the test went ahead didn't it and it failed answer yes question and i think it went ahead in fact in july 2018 second july didn't it answer i believe so just to be clear we've got the test or

01:57:44 just to be clear we've got the test or classification report at kn five zeros 480. let's have a look at that please report sr089 vitracore g2 composite panel with 180 millimeters rock will do a slab

01:57:56 with 180 millimeters rock will do a slab insulation and if we look down to the next page the page reference is given we can see just working through it and this is an x over test the test sample description with side rise cavity barriers there

01:58:07 barriers there and then over the page the next page the insulation uh 880 millimeters of rockwool railing and the cladding panel there vitrocore g2 and more details on the right-hand

01:58:18 g2 and more details on the right-hand side

01:58:19 side if you go to the next page reference you can see the drawings that build up do you have any reason to think that what was tested as per this classification report was different from what was discussed in the april emails

01:58:30 what was discussed in the april emails we've been looking at answer no not that i can think of we've we've um now mr millet i'm sorry that i'm going to interrupt you again at this point

01:58:41 this point and i hope that uh mr parchita can remember the passages you've just shown him but the reason i'm interrupting you is because as i think most of those watching us

01:58:52 as i think most of those watching us will know

01:58:53 will know a national one-minute silence is being held at noon today in remembrance of those who have died from covid and the many others whose lives have been badly affected by it

01:59:05 been badly affected by it during the past year we will observe that one minute silence and we'll observe it now

02:00:18 thank you all very much well i'm sorry to interrupt the train of your thought like that mr farcher i hope you can remember the passages that mr millet was uh trying to remind you of mr millet um

02:00:30 trying to remind you of mr millet um would you like now to put your question mr chairman thank you i've shown you the passage

02:00:36 passage uh which uh you which was your evidence last time can we now look at your fifth witness statement please which we we looked at before and into which you

02:00:48 looked at before and into which you swore this morning and i'd like to go to page one paragraph one point one please your fifth statement kin4 30 is 24975

02:01:12 three zeros two four nine seven five

02:01:16 can we look down at the paragraph one point one

02:01:20 point one you say this this witness statement is provided

02:01:24 provided in addition to the four earlier statements which i've provided to the inquiry and relates to the two fire system tests carried out in accordance with bs-8414 part two which kingston insulation limited kingspan

02:01:35 kingston insulation limited kingspan commissioned in 2018. this issue was addressed on 9th december 2020 my final day of evidence and i wish to deal with an error that has been made in the evidence heard by the inquiry in relation to

02:01:47 heard by the inquiry in relation to these tests then you go on to say a paragraph 3.1 if you can just turn to that please go to 3.1 which you'll find on page 4.

02:02:04 on page 4. at page five and says 3.1 you say i refer to the transcript of evidence that i gave to the inquiry on 9th december 2020

02:02:12 2020 in a particular day 85 at pages 71 to 77 when i was asked about some of the emails exhibited to this witness statement just ap five straight one i was then referred to the letter from richard burnley to clive

02:02:24 the letter from richard burnley to clive betts

02:02:25 betts dated sixth july 2018 exhibited this to this witness statement as ap five three after the july test classification report i was then asked do you have any reason to think that what was tested as per

02:02:37 to think that what was tested as per this classification report was different from what was discussed in the april emails we have been looking at day 85 page 78 lines 7 to 10 of the transcript i replied no i think

02:02:48 transcript i replied no i think although i've been asked by this by the inquiry to reply in writing via witness statements to several hundred questions no questions have previously been raised specifically about the april 2018 emails and so i had not reviewed them in detail

02:03:00 and so i had not reviewed them in detail previously and under oral questioning i could not recall that there had been two separate tests carried out in may and july 2018 i have now had an opportunity to review

02:03:11 i have now had an opportunity to review the emails attached to this witness statement and i would like to correct my evidence

02:03:15 evidence the emails exhibited to this witness statement as ap 5 1 and ap 5 2 are about the may test the information sent to clive betts in the letter dated 6th july 2018 is

02:03:26 in the letter dated 6th july 2018 is about the july test the answer i gave while giving oral evidence in relation to the question set out in paragraph 3.1 of this witness statement is therefore incorrect now to be clear when you say here at

02:03:38 now to be clear when you say here at paragraph 3.2 the emails exhibited to this witness statement as ap five one and ap five two are about may test are you saying that they are only

02:03:49 test are you saying that they are only about the may test and have nothing whatever to do with the july test

02:03:54 july test i think the main thrust of those emails and discussions was about the the may test

02:04:01 test the a2 test rather than the the g2 test

02:04:08 well we'll come to look at those emails again shortly uh can you confirm anyway for the purposes of clarity that the two

02:04:19 for the purposes of clarity that the two bs 8414 tests that we now know about may and july 2018 were the only tests that kingspan had undertaken using a1 and a2 cladding panels

02:04:31 and a2 cladding panels as part of its testing of the linear route to compliance with a non-combustible insulation yes yes and you say that the may 2018

02:04:42 yes yes and you say that the may 2018 used

02:04:43 used aluco bond a2 panels as the cladding and the july 2018 test used vetrical g2 panels yes that's right yes do you say that not once during detailed

02:04:56 do you say that not once during detailed examination of the topic when you gave evidence in december

02:05:03 december that you didn't at all recall that the may 2018

02:05:07 may 2018 test took place no i just didn't come to me unfortunately

02:05:16 when did you first recall that the may test had been carried out um i think i think probably when i got away from evidence and back at work and

02:05:30 i was told then that you know had missed that my the maid test um and so then i started to look back at it and we decided you know needed to do another witness statement

02:05:43 needed to do another witness statement to correct that

02:05:47 who told you that um

02:05:55 colleagues or the the team the team that we're working with or the team that you were working with can you tell me who

02:06:06 can you tell me who reminded you of the may test when you got back

02:06:10 got back it may have been um a legal team

02:06:18 we need to correct this we need to correct this evidence

02:06:23 so you may have been your legal team yeah i think it was you think it was your legal team right uh

02:06:30 uh when you say your legal team do you mean your independent solicitors or do you mean a lawyer in-house at kingston um

02:06:39 i think it was the um our independent legal team right and when did this discussion take place can you recall

02:06:52 might have been a few a week or so after giving evidence i had a few days off um and then i think it might have been uh discussed then

02:07:05 uh discussed then we need to start to look into it and that's when we prepared the fifth witness statement for january right did they show you any documents

02:07:16 right did they show you any documents as part of the refreshment by them of your recollection at that time

02:07:23 the doc there was some documents already that one document with the red email chain on was one i'd already

02:07:30 already submitted and and it was looking back at that where you can i could see there that um it does clearly state it was the a2 one but under on the day i just couldn't i

02:07:42 but under on the day i just couldn't i just couldn't recall it has been a separate test

02:07:48 when you were reminded of the may test by your

02:07:52 by your legal team did they show you any documents

02:08:05 just the ones that are attached to my witness statement those documents were documents that had not previously been disclosed to the inquiry were they

02:08:16 to the inquiry were they oh i wasn't aware of that i thought the i thought certainly the one with the red email writing on was one that had been previously submitted

02:08:27 previously submitted did they show you any documents which had not uh to that point be disclosed to the inquiry i don't know whether they were disclosed or not what their status were at that time

02:08:42 so can we take it that although you had forgotten you say the fact that the may test had taken place your legal team were aware of it

02:08:52 uh yes yes i would have been aware of it right now i don't want to i don't want to ask you about communications between you and your legal team but can you explain to

02:09:04 explain to us the best of your knowledge why it was that kingspan had not disclosed uh the documents about the may test or which indicated in any way that a test in may had gone

02:09:17 in any way that a test in may had gone ahead

02:09:18 ahead what they had because the documents you showed me

02:09:23 showed me uh on that day actually were about that that may test so certainly the one with the red email was maybe all about the may test and not about

02:09:34 about the second test in june so that had already been submitted and it was it was my failure to connect that

02:09:43 that at the time rather than the the lack of evidence

02:09:51 do you say that the march and april emails relate to the test done only in may 2018 and not at all to the july test

02:10:02 to the july test um i can't quite remember the end of them but certainly at the beginning of them

02:10:06 them at the early stages certainly the big chunk in in red that was all about the the a2 test and the discussions with

02:10:17 test and the discussions with nick jenkins i remember being brought to and the design of that test all of that discussion was around the a2 test we didn't actually discuss at all

02:10:28 we didn't actually discuss at all anything around design and installation um processes of the g2 test the second test in june

02:10:38 you confirmed in your evidence last time that the april emails the march and april emails we looked at with including the red writing uh related to the july test are you now saying that they related

02:10:49 saying that they related solely to the may test or that they're related to you are saying that yes yes

02:10:57 i see when you were reminded when you got back to the office after giving evidence and spoke to your legal team

02:11:06 team of the fact that the may test had gone ahead did you did you want to see any further documents about the may test which showed uh when it had gone ahead uh and with

02:11:17 uh when it had gone ahead uh and with what rig it had gone ahead and what the results were well when i was reminded when i got but obviously i started to recall exactly what happened and in those emails

02:11:28 and in those emails you can you can see the detail in that anyway

02:11:32 anyway so that's that's the evidence that you've got right but that's not quite an answer to my question my question was did you want to see any further emails that related to the main

02:11:43 further emails that related to the main testing

02:11:44 testing where in the um respects i've identified

02:11:49 i don't think i requested anything extra all right

02:11:53 all right now can we go uh to the april emails kin four zero six sorry four zero four six

02:12:04 four zero six sorry four zero four six five eight

02:12:12 just to have them on the screen

02:12:16 do you recall that uh the uh uh

02:12:23 the uh uh linear route test was originally planned for the 10th of may 2018.

02:12:30 uh i don't specifically recall that well let's go to page three within this email run just to refresh your recollection once again uh

02:12:41 refresh your recollection once again uh this is part of the way through uh nick jenkins's

02:12:45 jenkins's uh 10th of april email which starts on page two sorry it starts on page three halfway down and then goes over the page but it's towards the foot of page three

02:12:57 but it's towards the foot of page three do you see there's a heading bs8414 test proposal dubai to utilize the test slot booked by kal on 10th may available for a test on the system comprised of materials deemed to satisfy br135

02:13:09 deemed to satisfy br135 so can you confirm that it's right that in fact

02:13:14 in fact the linear route test was originally planned for the 10th of may 2018. yes that looks that looks correct yes and it's right isn't it that in fact kingspan

02:13:23 kingspan tested a system containing k15 as the insulation product on the 10th of may 2018 at x over dubai which was not a linear route system

02:13:36 i don't recall what was what we tested as k-15 at the time right let me help you and can we go to uh

02:13:45 uh kin three zeros two zero eight six nine page seven

02:13:56 now uh this is page seven of appendix a to your second witness statement which we've looked at uh and i'd like just to show you box 15

02:14:08 uh and i'd like just to show you box 15 at the very bottom of the screen you have in front of you and it says there 10th may 2018 x over kingsman insulation al pollock a2 acm bml 400

02:14:20 acm bml 400 k15 and then there's the bs 8414 report number and date and the classification report now that is not is it the test the linear

02:14:31 that is not is it the test the linear route test the subject of the march and april emails is it i don't think so to be certain i'd need to look at that dlr 1558 but i don't think so have you been able to locate or have you

02:14:43 have you been able to locate or have you seen any documents or correspondence that shows that the test planned for the 10th of may on the system the subject of the march and april emails was then moved to the 22nd of may

02:14:57 no i don't think so now we've seen no records at all in kingspan's disclosure showing how the may test was booked or paid for or who the attendees were to be

02:15:07 be or how the materials were shipped or any drawings of the test are you able to explain why we haven't seen any of such documents no no i'm not have you seen any such

02:15:19 no no i'm not have you seen any such documents into that detail about that i don't think i have now have you asked to see any such documents

02:15:28 documents no why is that

02:15:33 um i didn't think i needed to right i'm surely in correcting the evidence you gave last time

02:15:43 time uh so as to correct the record and ensure that the inquiry knows about the may test as opposed to the july test did it not occur to you that the inquiry might like

02:15:54 occur to you that the inquiry might like to see all the documents showing how the test was

02:15:57 test was paid for booked who attended it and what the results were uh i think provided uh everything that we've uh got which would come under the search term so i don't

02:16:09 come under the search term so i don't know um what else there is to show right

02:16:20 i see would you kingspan normally uh arrange a test pay for a test

02:16:33 and organize people to attend it without any documents at all showing those matters no i'm sure those there will be documentation

02:16:46 documentation for those tests yes now you can see as i've shown you from the schedule to your second witness statement box 15 on page seven that the test went that went ahead in may in on

02:16:58 test went that went ahead in may in on the 10th of may in dubai was for k15 and al pollock a2 um can we go to kin404658 page one this is the april uh email string we

02:17:11 this is the april uh email string we looked at a moment ago and if we go to page one of that you can see that there's some discussion about an alcoholic test uh

02:17:22 that's uh that's not the document i was after i i asked for ka 40 is 4658 please

02:17:32 yes and uh if you um go down please uh to uh halfway down page one there you can see

02:17:43 halfway down page one there you can see that

02:17:44 that nick jenkins writes on the 13th of april uh a test slot for par a part one test wall rig 2 at bre watford has become available for our use commencing 23rd of april

02:17:55 april this was reserved for tower a to have been having who who i have been having dealing with in connection with re-clad solutions for a number of their clients properties this was offered to us on the back of a

02:18:06 this was offered to us on the back of a meeting with him in london yesterday any objections to taking advantage of this serendipitous opportunity question mark it would save a small fortune in air freight and airfares then if you go up to the next email back

02:18:20 then if you go up to the next email back there's another email from nick jenkins this time

02:18:24 this time to john garbett and to you dated the 13th of april and he says this is also a subject re-linear route action player copied to gene murtagh

02:18:35 gene murtagh and gilbert mccarthy tower eight on behalf of whitbread have now decided that they will be utilizing their test slot after all so we remain focused on plan a as a result of my presentation yesterday the

02:18:47 result of my presentation yesterday the test that they will carry out using their pre-book slot will now be an assembly combining k15 and alpolic a2 this will be to justify the retention of k15 as part of the reclad of multiple premier inns

02:18:58 the reclad of multiple premier inns changing the existing pe panels to alcoholic

02:19:02 alcoholic a2 and then at the very top of the email string you can see that you respond

02:19:10 respond uh or perhaps reflect internally i think it's copied on actually to adrian brazier and adam heath within kingspan subject forward linear route action plan black back to plan a double exclamation mark

02:19:24 back to plan a double exclamation mark now i show you that to to prompt your recollection is it right that you were at one stage going to use tower 8 slot to do a linear

02:19:35 going to use tower 8 slot to do a linear route test but then they took up their slot hence back to plan a in dubai that looks like what the proposal from nick jenkins was um obviously he was in discussions with

02:19:46 um obviously he was in discussions with um with terenade and he thought it would be an opportunity to save doing it in dubai i see do you know why you proceeded yourselves then to do a k-15 and al

02:19:58 yourselves then to do a k-15 and al pollock

02:19:58 pollock a2 test in the 10th of may slot instead of the linear test that you had planned as plan a um no i think that was already

02:20:09 a um no i think that was already on the program to be done with um with the al poly systems so i think we we'd already committed to that i see

02:20:20 we we'd already committed to that i see if that is so can you explain going back to page

02:20:24 to page three uh

02:20:28 three uh at the bottom of page three uh what then happened when you see it says at the bottom of page three to utilize the test slot booked by carol on 10th of may

02:20:39 slot booked by carol on 10th of may but it was there a decision to keep the alpolic

02:20:42 alpolic and k15 test as per the original schedule

02:20:46 schedule for the 10th of may and then you and find another test slot for the linear route action plan test which was in april i think you know

02:20:58 which was in april i think you know which was which was on the 22nd of may as you told us

02:21:04 there was a test in april i think wasn't it was the 8-2 test was april no was it well your evidence um which you spotted this morning in your fifth witness statement said there

02:21:16 your fifth witness statement said there were two

02:21:16 were two linear route tests one in may and one in july

02:21:21 yes what i'm seeking to get to the bottom of

02:21:25 bottom of is is how the date for the 22nd of may test came about i've shown you the emails that show you that uh the 10th of may was in fact used for a k-15

02:21:36 for a k-15 and alcolic a2 test which is not the linear route test here we see the proposal to use that slot for the linear route test and in the end the linear route test took place on the 22nd of may

02:21:48 took place on the 22nd of may my question is what arrangements were made to fix that test or get the slot for the 22nd of may

02:21:57 of may well it would have been just with discussions with um effectives and see what slots they've got available were you involved in those discussions i think um

02:22:08 think um our guy who was in dubai at the time adrian brazier would have been liaising with nick jenkins and with effective to see

02:22:19 nick jenkins and with effective to see what slots they got i think that's how that came about did did those arrangements or communications happen in writing

02:22:33 there would have been emails about that i think but i've not quite recall right now but i think there would have been some discussion with with adrian brazier about it right were you

02:22:44 you copied in on those emails or otherwise party to them i've certainly copied in on some of the um correspondence between nick jenkins and abrasion um

02:22:55 nick jenkins and abrasion um out there doing the sort of final setting up making sure the materials had arrived there um and drawings were ready i remember discussions of that being on email right have you

02:23:08 being on email right have you or did you review those emails when preparing to give your fifth witness statement

02:23:16 yes i think i saw some on that yes you didn't exhibit any did you no why's that i would i would assume they would have been captured in the uh in the evidence

02:23:30 i will check this but um um as i stand here

02:23:34 here i'm told that kingspan have not produced those emails are you able to explain why that is no i can't

02:23:42 can't was nick jenkins already in dubai on the 10th of may do you know no i don't know i don't i don't know was he involved in the k-15 testing that you

02:23:54 involved in the k-15 testing that you undertook on the 10th of may using the al pollock a2 panel can't recall if nick was was there for that test or not he was involved i think you just told us

02:24:07 he was involved i think you just told us but do confirm that in the testing that took place on the 22nd of may which was the linear route test yes yes

02:24:19 to be clear at no time during your evidence on the 7th 8th or 9th of december 2020 or in any of your four previous witness statements to the inquiry did you mention

02:24:29 mention a linear route test being undertaken by kingspan

02:24:33 kingspan in may 2018 do you agree that's correct why is that um because it was the g2 test was which would proved um the point that

02:24:45 was which would proved um the point that we were trying to make about the um relying on um small-scale testing and it was that test that we then

02:24:57 that we then had a full report for and then used um as evidence to the select committee and other

02:25:05 other consultations not the not the a2 test yes did you choose not to to refer to the may test

02:25:18 i i don't recall it being a conscious decision to choose not to well it answered my question why you didn't refer to it in your previous four witness statements or in

02:25:29 previous four witness statements or in any of your evidence before you said uh in answer to the question why it was because the g it was the g2 test which proved the point you were trying to make my question i'll put it again is does

02:25:42 my question i'll put it again is does that tell us that that kingston had made a conscious decision

02:25:47 decision not to refer to or reveal the existence of

02:25:51 of the may test

02:25:54 um i don't recall being conscious or not but

02:25:58 but we wasn't referred to now as i've shown you you do mention the july 2018 test or what you call the g2 test

02:26:09 test in your second witness statement of the inquiry at paragraph 12.3 c in october 2019 when you were preparing that statement casting your mind back uh

02:26:20 that statement casting your mind back uh how do you not recall that there was also an earlier test in dubai on the 22nd of may 2018. i think probably then i would i would have

02:26:32 probably then i would i would have understood that and recalled it yes yes and so therefore did you choose when signing that second statement to make no reference to the may test but only to refer to the july test

02:26:45 yes i think we probably did yes i think i probably did because of the g2 test what was what we've got the report on and the evidence on to submit right so do i take it from that that you chose to

02:26:57 take it from that that you chose to refer

02:26:58 refer to the july test because it proved your point but

02:27:02 point but chose not to refer to the may test

02:27:08 yes i think that's correct and you chose not to refer to the may test because it didn't prove your point would that be fair that's that's correct yeah now um in light of

02:27:19 that's correct yeah now um in light of your new

02:27:20 your new witness statement we need to look again i think at certain aspects of the march and april emails and your evidence about it that you gave on the 9th of december and i'm sorry for going back over old ground mr positive i think it's

02:27:31 over old ground mr positive i think it's probably necessary let me start please by looking at your fifth witness statement paragraph 1.2 page one

02:27:43 you say in paragraph uh one point uh uh i want your fifth witness statement i

02:27:57 uh i want your fifth witness statement i think uh we've got your fourth witness statement

02:28:01 statement uh your fifth witness statement again

02:28:09 1.2 please you say both tests were carried out by xover at their test facility uh at alpha taim in dubai

02:28:17 in dubai the first test took place on 22nd of may 2018 the may test the second took place on 2nd of july 2018 the july test both tests were carried out with

02:28:28 both tests were carried out with cladding systems including cladding panels and insulation products rated either as limited combustibility a2 or non-combustible a1 and therefore deemed to be compliant with the proof document b of the

02:28:39 with the proof document b of the building regulations for use over 18 meters under the linear route

02:28:44 route for the avoidance of doubt neither of the systems tested in either the may test or the july test incorporated kingspan k15 or any of the cladding or insulation materials used during the grenfell tower refurbishment project now let's that's

02:28:57 refurbishment project now let's that's what you say let's look at uh the march emails first we saw them before they are at kin-404637 please four six three seven

02:29:12 uh and can we go uh um oh well i can do it on this actually you can see that the title is ulster tests mhclg select committee lobby

02:29:24 lobby can we go to page three

02:29:28 and look in the middle of page three and you'll see there an email of the second of march 2018 from mark harris to you as well as others including

02:29:39 as well as others including um gilbert mccarthy as a copy party and it starts hi adrian john et al it's clear that kellen kevin holland rake is still pretty lukewarm about our

02:29:50 rake is still pretty lukewarm about our draft letter stroke arguments to address mhclg select committee and mp concerns now

02:29:57 now just pausing there do you agree that this email chain starting with this email from mark harris about kevin holinrake mp's concerns is

02:30:08 about kevin holinrake mp's concerns is where

02:30:08 where the testing of a linear route system is discussed

02:30:15 it's it is discussed in this email yes yes

02:30:19 yes and the reference in the first line there to a draft letter uh or arguments to be put to the select committee what was that draft letter

02:30:31 i think there was something that was um being considered to submit to the uh the select committee and um and mark had had discussions with

02:30:44 and um and mark had had discussions with kevin hollenreich around this right do you know whether that draft letter has been produced to the inquiry i don't you don't

02:30:54 don't did the draft letter go to kevin hollenrick as a draft for his comments i don't know

02:31:02 was the draft letter an early draft or even

02:31:06 even an advanced draft of the letter that ended up being sent to the select committee on the 6th of july 2018.

02:31:14 2018. i couldn't confirm that i would i would make that assumption but i couldn't i couldn't confirm that

02:31:23 now do you remember whether or not this was the first time that the linear root system testing was discussed within kingspan

02:31:34 uh i wouldn't have thought it was the first time because i'm being brought in here to i think to sort of

02:31:42 sort of try and make it happen so i would assume that's been talked about um earlier and we'll come and look at some documents about that perhaps shortly

02:31:51 shortly um can we then go back to the april emails

02:31:55 emails which we saw earlier kin four zeros four six

02:31:58 six five eight

02:32:01 [Applause] these are all entitled linear route action plan as we've seen the first email in this chain starts on

02:32:12 the first email in this chain starts on page four and it's the one with the red text

02:32:15 text can we go to that please it starts at the bottom of that page as you can see and it's from mark harris dated the 9th of april 2018 to john garbett you and

02:32:26 to john garbett you and a group of others including nick jenkins copied to gene murder and gilbert mccarthy

02:32:37 the first paragraph in this email refers to a meeting in red letters um that's taken place and it says hi all the objective of the discussion was to look closely at potential issues related to the use of the linear route

02:32:49 to the use of the linear route to compliance in other words provide evidence to demonstrate that the linear route approaches weaknesses and full-scale testing is essential for all systems

02:32:59 systems we reviewed evidence currently available and discussed how we can generate evidence for use in both the political arena

02:33:04 arena and the hack it reviewed t now just pausing there do you remember that on the 9th of december 2020 i asked you what discussion was being referred to and you answered that you couldn't recall that discussion

02:33:16 you couldn't recall that discussion do you remember that yes i do yes and just for our references that's at day 85 page 51 line 22. now uh

02:33:28 on the 10th of march this year so within this month um the inquiry received some 530 odd

02:33:39 the inquiry received some 530 odd documents from kingspan following the inquiry's request for disclosure and included in that disclosure was your diary entry for the 9th of april 2018.

02:33:50 9th of april 2018. can we look at that that's kin three zeros two five four two eight

02:34:02 two five four two eight can you confirm that this is your diary entry

02:34:06 entry relating to the 9th of april 2018.

02:34:13 yes that looks like a diary entry yes and if you look towards the bottom of the screen you can see required attendees john garbett cook phil it's phil cook adrian pargeter

02:34:24 cook phil it's phil cook adrian pargeter roy weghorst tony ryan does that tell us that there was

02:34:30 was a meeting on that date yes i think there would have been a meeting on that date yes and you could see towards the top of the page

02:34:41 page or at the top of the page subject confical linear route compliance discussion stroke testing program location kip rmec boardroom hollywell is kip kingston

02:34:53 rmec boardroom hollywell is kip kingston pembridge

02:34:54 pembridge no it's moving on right kingsman panels and then

02:34:59 and then rm is that room i would assume so it's their

02:35:03 their room location sequence for in hollywell i see now let's go back to mark harris's email

02:35:12 email of the 8th of the 9th of april at kin404658 and uh at the very very bottom of the

02:35:23 and uh at the very very bottom of the screen

02:35:23 screen bottom of the page he he says notes and actions as follows and then if we turn to page five one data from failed bs8414 tests we are aware of at least two bs8414

02:35:36 we are aware of at least two bs8414 tests comprising only non-straight limited combustible materials that have failed to meet br 135 criteria key reasons for the failures are believed to be associated with the a2 cassette type stroke

02:35:48 with the a2 cassette type stroke robustness stroke geometry and stroke or the combustibility of the mineral fiber insulation system binder contact

02:35:55 contact content stroke presence of polyethylene adhered aluminium foil however we do not have access to the reports or any rights to make this information public actions test a leukopanel a2 material in

02:36:07 actions test a leukopanel a2 material in bom calorimeter to determine heat release

02:36:10 release nj has sample also test vitricor a2 honeycomb in bom calorimeter this testing is for information only at this stage and then under item two which is

02:36:22 and then under item two which is particularly important we looked at this last time in detail mr parjita we'll look at it again kil has three upcoming slots at x over in dubai and has agreed to make a slot on the 10th of may available for a test

02:36:34 on the 10th of may available for a test on a system comprised of materials quotes deemed to satisfy unquote br135 discussion during the meeting identified the following test proposal for a configuration that has the potential to fail

02:36:46 fail potential to fail br 135 criteria note the words potential to fail hey bs8414 part two bmmf do a slab

02:36:57 bs8414 part two bmmf do a slab insulation just causing that mmmf is man-made mineral fiber isn't it correct c 38 millimeter ventilated cavity

02:37:07 cavity d aluco bond a2 acm cassettes with quotes weak quotes structural specification e cavity barriers included actions

02:37:18 e cavity barriers included actions nj to create drawing of a2 cassette assembly that could perform poorly note that could perform poorly also a range fabrication detailed test specification to be

02:37:29 detailed test specification to be developed a degree by all ap is that adrian partiter yes nj nick jenkins yes yes to arrange materials for tests on 10th main dubai

02:37:40 materials for tests on 10th main dubai kip straight kil to share costs um is that king span panels stroke kingston limited

02:37:51 yes please i see mh stroke a p and mh is mark harris and ap as you yes yes yes

02:38:02 yes yes yes uh now i've shown you that we'll come back to it i then read you the last paragraph of this email on page six if we can go to that i'll read it to you again page h6

02:38:20 at the top of the screen it says i thought we had an extremely useful session

02:38:23 session this morning with actions that could deliver some very valuable evidence to support the need for full-scale testing of all systems and demonstrate the materials that are quotes deemed to satisfy on quotes the linear route did not

02:38:35 on quotes the linear route did not automatically meet br 135 criteria when tested full scale to bs8414 and you agreed in your evidence last time that this was indeed the purpose of the testing do you

02:38:46 indeed the purpose of the testing do you recall that that's correct yes and that's day 85 page 58 lines two to four

02:38:51 to four and uh and we then went back to the middle of page five and i'm reminding you of what happened last time in your evidence if we go back to the middle of page five we went through the detail the

02:39:02 we went through the detail the weaknesses and the poor assembly that was being proposed for that test and you call that test i'm summarizing or evidence so forgive me a worst case scenario do you remember that yes that's correct yes uh and do you

02:39:16 yes that's correct yes uh and do you still maintain that it was a worst-case scenario kind of test

02:39:22 test the may test yes yes and we then looked up at mark harris's email on page five of the 10th of april um which one sees

02:39:35 of the 10th of april um which one sees on page three we go from page five to page three i'm sorry to do this in this order but this is how it went chronologically and you can see um that that set up the

02:39:47 and you can see um that that set up the test program

02:39:50 uh uh under ps8414 test proposal dubai and that said and i've shown you this a little bit earlier this morning let's look at it again to utilize the test slot booked by kil

02:40:02 to utilize the test slot booked by kil on 10th may available for a test on a system comprised of materials deemed to satisfy vr135 ap is advised that we need to get the full set of panels and components to pembridge to be packaged for freight to dubai

02:40:13 dubai by the end of the day on friday 13th of april this week this represents a challenge but it is not impossible and then if we go over the page uh you can see um there are various

02:40:24 you can see um there are various different things to be done uh and under item b we have some aluco bond a2 in stock from which we can fabricate the panels and then d um side arrives have

02:40:36 and then d um side arrives have recommended we use the envirograph cavity barrier products these meet regs requirements but their performance is expected to be poor we do not we will not utilize panel inserts but attempt to cut the cavity

02:40:47 inserts but attempt to cut the cavity barriers to suit the geometry of the panels this will further weaken their performance e the panel system as drawn is expected to perform badly in spite of being a2 as it relies on bonded stiffness and

02:40:58 it relies on bonded stiffness and extrusions for its structural stability the panel is not fixed on its vertical edges and the bonded connection are expected to deteriorate and fail quickly in the bs 8414 test

02:41:09 quickly in the bs 8414 test the way the internal corner is detailed will allow flames to bypass the vertical cavity barriers and attack the cavity of the wing wall f the vertical joint is ventilated and the fire will enter the assembly through

02:41:20 fire will enter the assembly through this baffled joint g the horizontal joint is ventilated and the fire will lets the assembly through this

02:41:26 this baffle joint and as i said to you before and you you agreed you did you confirmed that that was the proposed test that was the one that had gone ahead on the second of july

02:41:37 second of july i showed you the passage now that's that was incorrect and you say now that that was incorrect that went ahead on in may right now can we please look at

02:41:48 in may right now can we please look at paragraph 2.7 of your fifth witness statement

02:41:52 statement it expands on what you've just said to us just now page 4 of your statement 2.3 sorry 2.7 that's correct

02:42:03 2.3 sorry 2.7 that's correct that the system was tested on 22nd of may 2018 in accordance with bs8414 by xover and in fact it passed the criteria set out in br135 i refer to the email which i sent at

02:42:14 i refer to the email which i sent at o607 on 22nd may 2018 which sets out the preliminary results of the test kingspan did not commission a test report in this particular case the limited design imperfections

02:42:27 design imperfections had not adversely affected the overall performance of the system enough to mean that the system failed the test we decided to test a different system using the test slot booked on

02:42:37 booked on 2nd july 2018

02:42:42 just to ask the question again why did you fail when giving evidence last time to mention that in fact there had been two

02:42:49 two linear route systems tested first in may and then in july just simply because i just could not recollect it on the day my um my powers of recollection

02:43:01 um my powers of recollection right well then did you make that point sorry i'm sorry i interrupted you i'm so sorry mr partner he said my powers of recollection did you want to continue

02:43:12 continue just deserted me um for that section of the

02:43:16 the right of the evidence and you say it in in your witness statement of paragraph 3.2 that you couldn't recall them a test i have to ask you is that really true

02:43:27 true well yes it is absolutely true because i mean it was far more beneficial if i hadn't remembered it because we could have um cleared up the later

02:43:38 later um accusation around misleading the select committee so much genuine uh just a genuine i just couldn't recall it

02:43:52 recollection how much of the may test cost in total including freight design supply costs and things of that nature i don't i don't recall exactly do you know which budget it came from

02:44:05 do you know which budget it came from um i think it would have been a shared shared budget between um ourselves and um mark harris's budget yes we saw we saw this in the email

02:44:18 yes we saw we saw this in the email didn't we

02:44:22 yes yes who had authorized the spend on the may test is that a combination of you and mark harris yes that's correct and do you know who had arranged the

02:44:33 and do you know who had arranged the test to be moved from its 10th of may slot to the 22nd of may slot no i don't recall why that moved from the 10th um it may be because we were struggling to get the materials there on time and um

02:44:46 get the materials there on time and um we move it to the 22nd to make it more feasible

02:44:49 feasible i don't recall the detail was there not a degree of surprise or perhaps disappointment within kingston that after spending so much time and money on this test it in fact passed

02:45:04 um i think there was a little bit of um surprise yes and a bit of disappointment i'd agree yes because we from what we've seen from other um

02:45:14 other um evidence of other tests that that was quite likely to um to really struggle in the test but it passed so

02:45:23 passed so yes was it not also very inconvenient that your attempt at poor performance as is said in the april emails uh

02:45:34 as is said in the april emails uh had it failed so that as as we'll see you have to try again it's not very inconvenient but yes it was we wanted to try another

02:45:47 but yes it was we wanted to try another route but we'd identify as a potential and and would i be right in thinking that

02:45:54 that the unexpectedly successful result of the may test but dealt something of a blow to your case that uh 8414 system testing

02:46:06 to your case that uh 8414 system testing was the only reliable way to ensure fire safety

02:46:10 safety rather than relying on the use of non-combustible products

02:46:15 so what was the question well the fact that the may tests passed must have dealt a blow to your case the 8414 system testing was the only

02:46:26 the 8414 system testing was the only reliable way of ensuring fire safety well it meant we we didn't have any in empirical evidence um we could use we knew of anecdotal evidence which we couldn't use

02:46:37 evidence which we couldn't use um we wanted to generate um and have empirical evidence to to prove the anecdotal and it didn't do that so we didn't use it yeah and i'm suggesting

02:46:49 we didn't use it yeah and i'm suggesting that was a bit of a blow because you didn't have empirical evidence to back up your argument

02:46:56 yes there was a disappointment yeah yes disappointment does it remain your evidence that despite your involvement in setting up the test

02:47:03 the test the money spent on it in which you were involved

02:47:06 involved uh the surprise and inconvenience of the test passing and the blow that it dealt to your case message you never recalled the successful may test when you were

02:47:17 the successful may test when you were giving evidence on the 9th of december no i didn't i didn't recall it i have to suggest you that that's not really credible is it well what what other reason would i have

02:47:28 well what what other reason would i have for withholding that it doesn't make sense

02:47:31 sense i genuinely didn't uh didn't recall it it would have been far better if i had recalled it um at the time

02:47:42 i was sorry you started speaking again as i was about to ask my next question john john too i was gonna say there's no advantage

02:47:50 advantage um towards no purpose for us from me forgetting about that at all

02:47:59 if you ask a rhetorical question what other reason would i have withholding it one reason might be that you'd never hitherto to that point mentioned even the existence of the may

02:48:11 mentioned even the existence of the may test

02:48:12 test and the blow that it dealt to your case let alone disclose any documents about it that would be a good reason for not mentioning it when you were giving evidence wouldn't it no i wouldn't have thought i wouldn't

02:48:23 no i wouldn't have thought i wouldn't have thought that now

02:48:27 what was your reaction when the may test passed mr parterton um i think it was we onto plan we got a plan b

02:48:37 plan b um which was the g2 the g2 test um so it was on on to plan b yes and we'll see an email shortly where

02:48:48 yes and we'll see an email shortly where that expression plan b is used uh can you remember what the reaction of your team was

02:48:59 of your team was they just just phoned me i think i think adrian brazier phoned me and said well may have sent me an email call but just said you know we've looking at the early results on this because we can tell before you get

02:49:13 because we can tell before you get the official details whether it's past not looking at the early what this looks like it passed and so you know it passed

02:49:23 i see he told you that he had early results did he well he was he was at the test so he could

02:49:32 could he could uh to tell if that if it had failed or if it passed his indication his thoughts where it would have passed because it didn't it wasn't terminated

02:49:43 because it didn't it wasn't terminated early

02:49:45 or anything like that

02:49:49 right did you have a meeting after the news was received of the test pass

02:49:59 i can't specifically recall a meeting but we certainly exchanged um some exchanged emails

02:50:10 exchanged emails

02:50:14 yes you're nodding i think you have to say yeah sorry yes exchanged emails yes do you remember whether you discussed the result of this may test with gene murder i i didn't personally

02:50:27 i i didn't personally you didn't personally do you know whether anybody else involved in the test did i couldn't confirm

02:50:36 confirm did you discuss the result with gilbert mccarthy

02:50:40 mccarthy i didn't again do you remember whether anybody else in your team did no i don't know did you discuss the results of this

02:50:51 did you discuss the results of this successful test with richard burnley yes i think i would have discussed that with richard burnley yes i see did you discuss it with him by telephone or in writing i can't recall

02:51:04 in writing i can't recall certainly would have been by a conversation on the phone possibly by email but um certainly would have been

02:51:11 have been on the phone right what about john garbett

02:51:15 garbett did you discuss it with him yes john garbe would have been aware of it as well

02:51:21 well telephone or email can you tell us what the media

02:51:24 the media specifically but again i mean i think i think john would have been copied in on um uh an email i think there might have been an email from me to say

02:51:35 been an email from me to say going out to that team um that in that it's john garbett and uh maybe mark harris

02:51:41 harris to say that the test has passed we've got to move on to

02:51:47 we'll come to that in just a moment there isn't you're right there is an email to that effect and it's exhibited to your second stage your fifth statement

02:51:54 statement and do you remember discussing uh the fair the

02:51:57 fair the the failed fail as it were the success with nick jenkins

02:52:05 what not specifically did nick jenkins not share his thoughts with you on why he thought the test had passed given the number of weaknesses that he'd introduced

02:52:17 introduced no not that i couldn't afford he gave any detail on that now did you not want to know

02:52:26 i'm not really because you know we were aware of the uh the design and and it it had passed i think um there's nothing more to know really

02:52:38 there's nothing more to know really right

02:52:39 right did you know were you not curious to know why it was that given the number of weaknesses that you'd introduced into the system so as to uh enhance its risk of failing

02:52:50 so as to uh enhance its risk of failing or poor performance to use your words or the words of the time uh in fact the test had passed

02:53:00 no it just it just did pass i think it'd be hard to know to analyze exactly why it did pass um difficult difficult time why something might pass maybe a bit

02:53:11 why something might pass maybe a bit easier to analyze why something might fail but

02:53:14 fail but um because it passed it it was just it passed

02:53:17 passed i see now we know there was no test report commissioned for the may test was that a a result of a decision not to seek one

02:53:27 seek one yes i think so we didn't we didn't need it it was not of any um any value to us so we didn't uh we didn't commission a test report do you know who made the decision

02:53:38 report do you know who made the decision not to commission such a such a report no no i think because it was um it was a bml system a booth movie

02:53:50 it was a bml system a booth movie clubbing system we thought that maybe booth murray might um have some value in the test so and a test report being a pass might have had some value to them um but they i don't think they needed it

02:54:03 um but they i don't think they needed it so um

02:54:04 so um we just just decided not not to pursue it see when you say a booth murray clashing system do you mean one designed by

02:54:11 by nick jenkins yes yes

02:54:23 is the reason why you commissioned no test report for the successful may test that you were only interested in having a record of failure

02:54:34 a record of failure for this test not a record of success uh well we're only we were only interested in a a report a failure because that's what we needed to provide the empirical

02:54:48 we needed to provide the empirical evidence and so we didn't need it we didn't need a pass report i i understand that and is the not needing a

02:54:59 and is the not needing a pass report for that reason the reason why you didn't commission one

02:55:05 yes no no need for one and it's right that a record of success would damage your argument that even systems containing non-combustible

02:55:16 systems containing non-combustible products

02:55:17 products could fail abs-8414 tests i don't think it would damage it because of probably other systems out there that have

02:55:25 have been tested or and have been fined so i don't think it would have damaged it necessarily

02:55:34 mr chairman i'm four minutes away from one o'clock and we're going to change topic um i could it's unlikely that i'm gonna get through the topic uh before a convenience well it might be

02:55:46 uh before a convenience well it might be more sensible just to stop now than mikey

02:55:49 mikey i think it would i i hesitate to finish a little stop a little early i know you don't like doing that i know that but um i think you can sometimes be the better course

02:55:58 course and i don't think this product is going to complain about having an extra three minutes for lunch it's probably so we're going to stop there now so we can all get some lunch we'll resume

02:56:09 we'll resume please at 2 o'clock and i'm sure you remember this but i'm going to say it to you again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right of course yes thank you very

02:56:21 all right of course yes thank you very much we'll see you at 2 o'clock

02:56:41 you