Evidence from Kingspan regarding fire testing strategy, including 'non-com tests' in Dubai with deliberate design imperfections. Focus on testing to fail in order to support arguments to government, and communications about test results.
00:00:05 good afternoon everyone welcome back we're now going to continue hearing
00:00:09 hearing the evidence of mr parjita i'll just check that the communications have been established mr good afternoon can you see me and hear me all right good afternoon yes i can good thank you very much um all ready to
00:00:22 good thank you very much um all ready to go on i take it yes thank you then uh mr millet when you're ready thank you very much mr chairman mr partisan good afternoon uh i'd like now to go to the email of
00:00:33 uh i'd like now to go to the email of the 22nd of may 2018 that you refer to in paragraph 2.7 of your statement we should we saw before the break that email is at kin360
00:01:01 and it's from you to john garbert richard burnley gwen davis peter wilson roy weghorst and mark harris and the subject is non-com test
00:01:12 and the subject is non-com test does the uh subject non-com test does that refer to well will you tell me what does that refer to it refers to the um my test in dubai the 22nd yeah
00:01:24 the um my test in dubai the 22nd yeah what does non-com uh mean combustible non-combustible right and you say guys i have had confirmation from the guys in dubai that the a2 stroke rw test was a pass
00:01:37 that the a2 stroke rw test was a pass peak temps around 400 and no flaming from the acm a new plan b is to get the g2 out to dubai where we can convert from cassette to flat panel similar sizes to
00:01:48 cassette to flat panel similar sizes to dclg testing nick has confirmed that there is enough material to do this the next test slot we can use is 24 june for the start of build and burn second of july
00:01:59 start of build and burn second of july this is the fastest way we can get another test if all in agreement i recommend we proceed asap now uh was the 22nd of may
00:02:10 now uh was the 22nd of may the date of the test itself i think so yes the recipient list here we can see is different from the recipient list on the april emails isn't it
00:02:22 emails isn't it yes it is why is that um because i was just mainly copying in um the people at my division and then
00:02:33 and then ensuring mark harris who was the sort of panel's contact um to ensure he he knew as well but he probably would have got got the same information possibly
00:02:45 got got the same information possibly from nick nick anyway but i just included him to make sure he got the same information right we we saw from the march emails and the april emails that jean murtagh and gilbert mccarthy were included on
00:02:58 and gilbert mccarthy were included on those but they weren't included on this one why was that um i would i would very infrequently very rarely copy in
00:03:07 copy in um gene particularly or gilbert i would probably leave that to to mark or roy to to make contact with them i wouldn't normally
00:03:16 normally copy them into things why did you copy them
00:03:19 them in to the march and april emails if you only did say so very rarely uh i didn't copy them in i would have been in from this that
00:03:30 i would have been in from this that started that email change i believe mark harris
00:03:33 harris i see generated right why did mark harris do you think or to the best of your knowledge and recollection why did mark harris include them in the email chains
00:03:44 i i guess you'd had discussions with them
00:03:48 them before about their plan to um do some testing and that's why they were they were copying i see
00:03:59 from your own perspective was this testing so important that gene murta and gilbert mccarthy who are really at the very
00:04:07 very top of kingspan global should know about the details uh i think they would i would have known about the details
00:04:18 about the details but i didn't think that was it was to me to pass that on um there were other people on that list there who would have had the direct communication uh peter wilson particularly and mark with um with anybody else who
00:04:31 and mark with um with anybody else who needed to know why did you include richard burnley in in this email when he hadn't been copied in on the march and april emails you know i i included him because obviously i
00:04:42 i i included him because obviously i reported to richard so um he he was aware of um what we were testing out in dubai so he was on my
00:04:50 was on my uh email when we got the results you say he was aware of what we were testing out in dubai so was he aware of the
00:05:00 the 22nd of may test i believe so yet how soon before the 22nd of may test do you remember he was aware of that i
00:05:11 do you remember he was aware of that i couldn't put a date on that it would have been
00:05:13 have been uh following those april emails um like you say where he wasn't copied in we'd have had discussions about what activities hit me and my team were what we're doing
00:05:24 what we're doing so it would have been obviously between those two but i couldn't give you it were those discussions held by telephone or in writing in some way could be face to face i i
00:05:36 could be face to face i i i couldn't uh tell you precisely do you remember whether you communicated with richard burnley before the 22nd of may test about the 22nd of may test in writing
00:05:50 22nd of may test in writing i i can't recall possibly but i can't report
00:05:53 report right
00:05:57 uh
00:06:04 what all the recipients of this email familiar with what the expression non-com test meant i would have assumed so
00:06:19 meant i would have assumed so right uh what about richard burnley would he have heard it before or seen it
00:06:26 i would have assumed so but i couldn't kind of guard you say it do you remember before this email sending him an email or seeing an email in which he was copy which referred to
00:06:37 in which he was copy which referred to non-contest
00:06:41 not specifically no by the time of this email
00:06:45 email i think i think you told us yes but just confirm for me by the time of this email did richard burnley know about the strategy to conduct linear tests yes yes did he know uh
00:06:58 yes yes did he know uh that as part of that strategy the strategy for the may test was to introduce design imperfections that we saw in the 9th and 10th of april emails i i couldn't comment on the
00:07:11 i i couldn't comment on the detail knowledge that richard would have had
00:07:15 had in general then leaving aside the detail is that your recollection that richard burnley by the time of this test would have known that the strategy was to test a
00:07:27 known that the strategy was to test a system which contained deliberate design imperfections
00:07:34 um i couldn't confirm no i couldn't confirm right now we see no uh sorry let me ask you this
00:07:45 this you say you've had confirmation from the guys in dubai was that x over the guys in dubai no i think it would have been um my guys so i think it might have been um
00:07:56 um adrian brazier i see who else who else are your guys well it would have been adrian was the main one and then of course we've got nick
00:08:05 nick jenkins who can't recall if nick was there specifically but if he wasn't we've been referring to nick as well i see okay how did the confirmation that you refer to in this email come to you
00:08:19 i think a telephone conversation
00:08:23 we can see the time that you sent this email
00:08:26 email at 0607 11. so just start is this is that right just after 6 a.m on the 22nd of may yes yes i'm not sure what time that would have been in dubai
00:08:37 would have been in dubai so i think four hours ahead of pembridge so at 10 o'clock yes uh 10 o'clock and that would that would make sense then i'd have had a call off um adrian
00:08:49 a call off um adrian uh to say what the results were right would that that call have come to you presumably is this right in the morning or of
00:08:57 or of the 22nd of july but before 607 a.m
00:09:04 yes just before i would have thought did it wake you up i can't recall i think we're probably um waiting to see what the result the test was so i
00:09:15 test was so i i'm quite frequently awake at that time anyway so had you left a message or center communication to either adrian brazier or nick jenkins to ring you as soon as
00:09:24 soon as they knew the outcome of the test i think i would have done yes but you've done that in writing
00:09:32 i i don't recall whether i did it in writing or not you see we can see no record in your disclosure of any communications between your guys
00:09:43 of any communications between your guys in dubai
00:09:45 in dubai about and you about the results of this test is it right that there is absolutely nothing in writing
00:09:53 i i i can't recall i don't i don't think there is but um i remember i record being a phone call
00:10:01 call and so i i don't think there is right
00:10:07 now uh if you go to the second paragraph of this email you say a new plan b is to get the g2 out to dubai where we can convert from cassette to
00:10:18 where we can convert from cassette to flat panel etc i just want to ask you about that new plan b
00:10:24 plan b and the g2 that you refer to there is that the
00:10:27 that the vitra core g2 honeycomb material it is yes that's the material that in fact in the end you did use in the second of july test yes that's
00:10:38 in the second of july test yes that's correct
00:10:39 correct and the nick that you refer to in the next line that's nick jenkins is it correct is he the person who had designed and built or helped build the maid test rig correct is it right he was
00:10:53 correct is it right he was also involved in building or designing the rigs for the dclg tests that have taken place after the fire at grenfell tower in the i think july and august of 2017.
00:11:05 i think july and august of 2017. i think uh nick was involved in that yes
00:11:10 did he also design and help to build the july test rig yes he did
00:11:21 so after the may test had passed is this right the plan was to move to plan b and test again in the second of july slot
00:11:31 correct yes and is it right that you wanted to do a further test because your may test having succeeded in meeting br 135 criteria that failed to provide you with
00:11:42 criteria that failed to provide you with the test evidence that you needed to support
00:11:45 support kingspan's case and arguments that's correct
00:11:49 correct did you already have the 2nd of july 2018
00:11:52 2018 slot pre-booked before the 22nd of may
00:12:01 i can't recall we might have done because we were doing some testing in dubai anyway but it might have been while they were there they'd booked that
00:12:12 while they were there they'd booked that right was it originally but for some other kind of test and then the test was swapped out in the second of july tests swapped in oh i can't call now you say in the email go back to it if you would
00:12:23 go back to it if you would uh in the
00:12:27 uh in the heart just below halfway down the next test slot we can use is 24th june for starter build and burn second of july this is the fastest way we can get another test and was the
00:12:39 another test and was the urgency here that you needed the failed or poor test data in order to advance your argument to the select committee
00:12:51 uh i think certainly to advance the argument i wouldn't i don't think i'd have um understood that it was specifically for the select committee but it was um certainly to
00:13:02 but it was um certainly to um to to advance the argument right you say this is the fastest way we can get another test what was the need for speed
00:13:12 um well because we were keen to get um the evidence i think we got the consultation a good consultation wanted to try and get the uh
00:13:23 get the uh information in for so there was um there was an urgency there right
00:13:32 and your deadline for that do you remember what that was roughly i don't at all events is this right that you wanted uh another test a plan b
00:13:43 test a plan b test as soon as possible so that you could
00:13:46 could get your arguments uh in as part of the what you call the government consultation yes yes yes so um
00:13:56 yes so um and to be absolutely clear is it is it right that the purpose the purpose of the july test was the same as the purpose of the may test
00:14:10 the purpose is to to test a system that would be
00:14:14 would be compliant by the linear routes that could then fail yes yes thank you
00:14:22 now the email starts guys and launches straight into its subject do you remember whether there was a discussion with any of those email recipients before you sent it
00:14:33 recipients before you sent it no i would that
00:14:37 right when you sent it what assumptions did you make about those who were receiving it knew what you were talking about
00:14:49 i just i knew they were aware that we were testing so i knew they'd understand what what the email said that includes richard burnley does it
00:15:00 richard burnley does it yes yes now you ask at the end of the email
00:15:04 email let's just look at it you say if all in agreement i recommend we proceed asap did you receive the agreement you were recommending
00:15:15 i think i think there was an email from peter wilson um agreeing to proceed
00:15:24 and then i can't recall if there's any other written confirmation but there may be but you recall an email do you from peter wilson saying proceed do you i think so right
00:15:37 saying proceed do you i think so right uh i i'm not sure the inquiry has seen that email you didn't exhibit it did did you no i didn't
00:15:50 uh when you were swearing your whitfish witness statement did did you ask to see all email correspondence pertaining to this
00:16:02 email correspondence pertaining to this arrangement to have the july test not at the time of doing the um statements now i've seen emails since obviously um and that's why i
00:16:13 since obviously um and that's why i think
00:16:14 think i've got this recollection of a response from peter wilson did you have any involvement yourself in deciding what documents you should see and uh and consider for exhibiting
00:16:27 and uh and consider for exhibiting to your fifth witness statement
00:16:32 uh yes yes i had some input into that yes
00:16:35 yes you did can you explain why well did you ask to see all email correspondence relating to the arrangements for the july test no i just i just wanted the um the email
00:16:48 no i just i just wanted the um the email chain particularly the one we started in red um to be part of that evidence because that showed
00:16:57 showed the track of the a2 and the g2 properly and then we've got the witness statement in um fairly swiftly and i know the um the document search has continued
00:17:09 the um the document search has continued since then so can we take it that the documents that you exhibited to your fifth statement were selected from a wider pool of documents
00:17:20 selected from a wider pool of documents which pertained both to the may test and to the july test
00:17:24 test yeah i think they were just referencing the the ones that were discussed on the ninth of december i see
00:17:35 do you remember who was responsible for the budget for the july test
00:17:44 i think it would have been again the same would have been a split a split cost between us and panels right
00:17:55 and panels right 50 50 yeah i think so
00:17:59 and we so far as the us in that answer is concerned that's kill is it yes that's kings managed to lecture and were you the person at kil responsible for
00:18:10 responsible for that part of the budget it would have come out the technical budget yes but were you the person at kil kingston insulation limited response ultimately responsible the ultimate decision maker for
00:18:22 ultimate decision maker for spending that money um no it would have been an agreement from the team to do the tests and then it was agreed that it would come out of the um
00:18:35 come out of the um the technical budget which i was the budget holder yeah and as budget holder did you have the final say on what should be spent on what aspects of the test i agreed we would do the
00:18:47 the test i agreed we would do the testing which split the costs yes that's not quite an answer to my question did you have any do you exercise any control in deciding how much should be spent on what aspects of the test
00:19:00 uh no no it was just what what the test cost we would we would pay
00:19:09 now you you say going back to it the new plan b was to get the g2 out to dubai
00:19:16 dubai was it thought at that time that using vitra core g2 in the july test would increase the chances of a poor test result
00:19:26 um i think we understood that there'd been
00:19:29 been tests elsewhere with the g2 product which
00:19:32 which had um not performed well so it was that was why we wanted to try and
00:19:39 and test that to see if we would find the same
00:19:45 and can you we'll see some documents on this
00:19:49 this but while we're on the point can you remember what those tests were i think there were some tests out in australia which i think nick jenkins had become become
00:20:01 i think nick jenkins had become become aware of
00:20:02 aware of right so do i take it from that answer and the previous one that you had deliberately selected g2 as a component
00:20:13 selected g2 as a component of the proposed july test because it hadn't performed well historically in a full system test that's correct
00:20:26 thank you now let's um let's get back to the april email again i'm sorry to keep going back to it mr positive kin40s
00:20:37 keep going back to it mr positive kin40s 4658
00:20:41 this is mark harris's email from the 9th of april
00:20:46 at page 5 we go to that page
00:20:52 and at the very top of the page it says one data from failed bs8414 tests now i read you this before i'm not going to read it again you'll
00:21:04 i'm not going to read it again you'll remember that it refers in the last but one sentence also test vitrocor a2 honeycomb in bomb calorimeter this testing is for information only at this stage
00:21:15 this stage now you've confirmed that vitra core is the g2 product that's correct do you remember whether the testing of the vitra core g2 product uh in the bomb calorimeter as proposed
00:21:26 uh in the bomb calorimeter as proposed actually happened i don't recall i don't recall seeing any results from that right
00:21:35 now given that the aluko bond a2 which had been used in the may test had failed to produce a suitably poor performance at the may test was it the default
00:21:46 at the may test was it the default option plan b to put to use your own expression then to try out the vectrical g2 at the july test
00:21:53 test that's correct yes was that your decision
00:21:57 decision no that was would have been in those just earlier discussions um i'm not sure when i became aware of vitricor
00:22:05 vitricor or g2 or what it was but um it wasn't my decision to at this point to test that all right let's go let's just uh look uh on uh at the
00:22:17 uh on uh at the uh same email if we go a little bit lower down if we go to the bottom of page five lower down the screen i think we need to be
00:22:30 yeah that's it um
00:22:33 uh the very bottom it says or he says it is also worth noting do you see that yes yes it was also worth noting that if we do not achieve our objective with the
00:22:44 not achieve our objective with the testing in dubai perhaps we could provisionally book a later slot on the bs8414 rig in ulster as a plan b with an alternative system now it am i right in thinking that mark
00:22:56 now it am i right in thinking that mark harris was aware at the time of this email that there was a risk that the objective of a poor performance might not be achieved and was recommending a plan b backup with a later test with an alternative
00:23:07 with a later test with an alternative system
00:23:08 system at the time in that case in ulster yes i would think that was that the genesis of the plan b test that you are now pushing forward in your 22nd of may email
00:23:22 your 22nd of may email yes i think so now sticking with this chain and if we go back to page three we scroll up two pages to page three
00:23:33 again this is an email we've seen at least twice before and this is the email from nick jenkins of booth murray 10th of april
00:23:39 of april at 2054 you receive it as well as as well as g mercer and gilbert mccarthy and copy
00:23:47 and copy and in uh
00:23:52 and in uh the uh
00:23:55 the uh well you can see in in the first part he sets out the proposed test program at ulster university and then the proposed testing for dubai and it includes the details of how the test will be weakened
00:24:07 details of how the test will be weakened and if you go over the page you can see those we saw them before a at the bottom and then b at the top of the page down to g and then if you go to the last paragraph on page four
00:24:19 on page four uh are underneath the five bullet points he says
00:24:23 he says uh also looking to source some vitrocore g2 via a contact in dubai this would be another deemed to satisfy product that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system
00:24:32 a system valcan refusing to supply this product to be tested here in the uk
00:24:38 now first question though valcan valcan the manufacturers of vitra core g2
00:24:44 g2 yes did you yourself think at that stage april 2018 that vitrocore g2 would perform badly
00:24:55 myself i didn't know right let's get back to your fifth witness statement please um kin three zeros two four nine seven five and let's go to page four
00:25:11 if we look at paragraph two 2.8 you say the july test was carried out on a system incorporating a2 rated limited combustibility vitrocore g2 flat cladding panels a1 rated non-combustible
00:25:22 cladding panels a1 rated non-combustible rockwool deo slab synthetic fiber insulation the cytorise rh 25 90 30 horizontal and side rows rv 1930 vertical cavity barriers
00:25:33 1930 vertical cavity barriers uh the system tested in the july test closely replicated the dclg tests number two four and six with extra panel joints and therefore gaps in the wing wall if anything the system is more robust
00:25:44 if anything the system is more robust than that tested by the dc lg because the vitra core panel edges were folded over thus protecting the core of the panels
00:25:50 panels from the fire we decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the vitracore g2 panels might not be able to pass a large-scale test even when part of a robust design
00:26:03 part of a robust design now to be clear you agreed earlier with me
00:26:07 me that the purpose of the july test was the same as the mate test yes yes and you you would therefore achieve that purpose by deliberately using vitracore g2 a product you suspected would cause even
00:26:18 a product you suspected would cause even a robustly designed large-scale test to fail
00:26:21 fail yes yes so when you say here um that if anything the system was more robust than that tested by the dclg it wasn't intended to be more robust than the system tested by you in may
00:26:33 than the system tested by you in may was it it it would have been more robust um than the system in may but it
00:26:41 but it it just followed the dclg design so i i think it was in the one in may as we explained there were sort of
00:26:52 as we explained there were sort of weaknesses in the design there were no design weaknesses in this um design for this test did you like
00:27:03 um design for this test did you like no but what there was was the use of a a panel
00:27:07 panel which you knew or at least suspected would enhance the chances of that test failing
00:27:15 failing yeah we understood that other tests with that product had certainly struggled if not failed at a large scale and that it was an a2 rated
00:27:27 rated yeah and it's right isn't it that the july test was designed to maximize the chances
00:27:33 chances of failing the bre 135 criteria in just the same way that the may test had yeah no in the may test
00:27:41 test um as we explained we'd put designed weaknesses sort of at the extreme of a of a compliant design whereas this was not at
00:27:51 not at the extreme of a compliant design it followed the exact system design that dclg had done their comparative testing on so as it wasn't it wasn't designed it was the same weaknesses
00:28:02 the same weaknesses right let me ask the same question again but instead of using the word designed i'm going to use the word intended let's see see what happens isn't it right that the july test was intended to maximize the chances of failing the re135 criteria
00:28:15 chances of failing the re135 criteria in just the same way that the may test had been so intended
00:28:23 i think we suspected it would
00:28:28 and we were testing to see to see if it would yes i mean you agreed with me earlier that the purpose of the july test was the same as the may test yes
00:28:42 now you say in the paragraph you've just looked at
00:28:46 looked at uh and look at it again three lines up from the bottom we decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more that a system using vitra core g2 panels might not be able to pass a large scale test
00:28:57 large scale test when part of a robust design did you really proceed to set this july test up your plan b on the basis of a mere suspicion that such a system wouldn't pass yeah
00:29:12 such a system wouldn't pass yeah we've got yeah i think that's that's correct
00:29:16 surely you must have had a fair degree of confidence that it wouldn't pass otherwise it wouldn't be a reliable plan b for your purposes
00:29:27 for your purposes well we just know we suspected as we suspected that the um the a2 test would um would struggle to pass that test and it didn't
00:29:36 it didn't and we were proved we'll prove wrong obviously um we just suspected this this one and it was because of uh information gained by uh of in the industry um that this a2
00:29:48 uh of in the industry um that this a2 panel had uh had struggled in large scales that we thought well let's let's test that one
00:29:56 yes and i'm suggesting to you that instead of a mere suspicion it was more than that it was a fair degree of confidence that uh the july test as your plan b
00:30:07 that uh the july test as your plan b would fail we could have only suspected it
00:30:11 it we couldn't have had um 100 confidence that it would but you suspected that it would
00:30:18 would yes i'm not putting 100 confidence to you what i'm suggesting to you is that when you say we suspected no more that that was actually an understatement and that you had a fair degree of confidence
00:30:30 a fair degree of confidence that it wouldn't pass
00:30:35 no i think i don't think we had a fair degree of confidence i don't think we were
00:30:38 were you know very confident about it at all i think we suspected it and and that's why i wanted to try it
00:30:47 if we go back to page six of your statement
00:30:50 statement and paragraph three point four
00:30:59 uh you you see it paragraph three point four in the first sentence it says i wish to clarify that the july test was not designed to fail as described above its design closely replicated that used by the dc-lg in the
00:31:11 replicated that used by the dc-lg in the tests
00:31:12 tests which they commissioned after the grenfell tower fire and was made more robust
00:31:15 robust by the folding of the vetrical g2 panels is explained above and then you go on four lines down to say it was not constructed with weaknesses in it in order to enhance its chances of performing
00:31:27 enhance its chances of performing performing poorly now can we keep that up on the screen
00:31:35 and go then to page four of the same statement
00:31:42 paragraph 2.8
00:31:59 uh i read the first sentence of paragraph 3.4 and the other part of 3.4 now look paragraph 2.8 on the right of the screen
00:32:10 the screen where uh you say in the last sentence that i've read to you i think at least twice now we decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the victor called g2 panels might not be
00:32:22 victor called g2 panels might not be able to pass a large scale test etc how do you reconcile the first sentence of paragraph 3.4 that the july test was not designed to
00:32:33 that the july test was not designed to fail with your statement in paragraph 2.8 that you decided to carry out the july test because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the g2 panels
00:32:44 system utilizing the g2 panels might not be able to pass how do you reconcile those two statements because when i'm talking about the design now i was talking about the system
00:32:51 system design so the the designed weaknesses in the first test weren't related to the outer panel
00:33:02 outer panel they were related to the construction whereas this one didn't have those designed weaknesses so it was just purely on the performance of the
00:33:13 of the products within that system on that test rig yeah that's the difference i'm i mean there i follow so does that mean that when we read the
00:33:25 does that mean that when we read the first sentence of paragraph 3.4 should we remove the word designed
00:33:35 and or rather should we should we read the word design there as confined to the construction intended construction
00:33:46 construction intended construction that's what you mean by design there is it that's what i mean by design yes you're not saying there are you that the july test was was not intended to fail
00:33:57 intended to fail uh no i'm not saying that there i'm saying it was suspected to fail but um that that what i was talking about there is the design of the construction rather than
00:34:08 design of the construction rather than the
00:34:08 the choice of products right so say that i've got this i've got this right
00:34:16 right instead of using a reliable a2 panel with a weak design the may test your plan b was to go for a more robust design but with a dubious
00:34:27 a more robust design but with a dubious product as the panel
00:34:32 with the product we we had suspicions over yes
00:34:40 was there any correspondence between you or indeed anybody else at kingspan on the one hand and nick jenkins on the other hand about the design or construction of the
00:34:52 about the design or construction of the july rig other than the 22nd of may email we've seen
00:35:00 i can't recall any
00:35:05 you would have got the designs out to the team out there installing it they would have had communications potentially with adrian brazier
00:35:17 potentially with adrian brazier around getting the test built test rig built yes i see now even if the july test rig or the system was not designed in the sense you mean it with
00:35:30 designed in the sense you mean it with weaknesses in it why did you choose to use a panel vitriol g2 which you suspected would not perform robustly
00:35:40 because it it was an a2 rated product so would have under the um the linear route being allowed in that combination with um non-combustible insulation
00:35:55 with um non-combustible insulation can i just say the i know the lights have gone off again here until i just i can just press them on
00:36:01 on again if that's uh convenient or you're happy with the lighting as it is it's um mr pardita it's not too bad but how
00:36:12 mr pardita it's not too bad but how difficult it is it for you to turn them on yourself no problem at all just turn around
00:36:16 around would you like to do that thank you
00:36:20 oh very easy good that is much better thank you very much sorry
00:36:32 there's a difference isn't there between i think we've established designing a test rig
00:36:36 test rig and choosing the products to use in that design do you agree with that yes so does it come to this that the design for the july test may have been
00:36:47 design for the july test may have been as robust as you say but but do you accept that you deliberately chose viktra core g2 as the panel intending that the use of that product in the july test
00:36:57 test uh would or might well cause it to perform poorly or could yes yes now
00:37:08 yes now uh can i show you an email very recently disclosed to the inquiry at kin3025127
00:37:29 uh we this is an email chain disclosed on the 10th of march this year we're going to look at this chain a bit later on and at the moment i just want to look at page two
00:37:43 and i'd like on that page to look at the second email up from the bottom
00:37:49 and it's dated the 15th of may 28 2018 from uh john garbett to gwyn davis and you and the subject
00:38:00 gwyn davis and you and the subject is re myth busting time you see that yes i do it says adrian do we have the budget to do the extra tests now of course i should mention this is a week before
00:38:11 week before the successful may test yes and it's the context of this i should also show you is at the foot of the page the email from gwen davis the same day
00:38:23 email from gwen davis the same day about um 11 minutes before well and we'll see the late we'll see the context further but it's it's about uh air freighting g2 panels
00:38:35 uh air freighting g2 panels to dubai and the question that john garbert asks you in the first line there is whether you've got the budget to do the extra test and then he says this nick j is going to be need to be brought into the loop so
00:38:46 be need to be brought into the loop so you can interpret these drawings and draw up the rest of the system would need to be as same as poss to the nc
00:38:53 nc test we are about to do is there room for insulation behind these panels they would normally test without in oz now i just want to focus on the middle paragraph there
00:39:04 middle paragraph there um the nc
00:39:07 um the nc test that you are about to do was the non-contest scheduled for the 22nd of may wasn't it yes the one with the limited design imperfections as you call them yes so when he says
00:39:21 yes so when he says would need to be same as poss to the nc test we are about to do is john garbett saying that the extra test
00:39:29 test would need to be intentionally weakened in the same way as the may test in some way
00:39:40 possibly but i don't know but possibly well how did you understand it when you received this email
00:39:48 i think we were i think that was a cassette test and we were looking to do this as a cassette as well um so i think it would have been yeah it would have been to have just tried to have keep kept it the same
00:39:59 just tried to have keep kept it the same but just replaced the panel so i agree yes
00:40:02 yes i thought it would have been interpreted
00:40:08 now to cut a long story short i think you've accepted that there's no wasn't the case that the original intention the may test namely that it would
00:40:21 the may test namely that it would it would fail or might well fail so as to be able to be deployed as empirical evidence to support your case
00:40:31 changed in any way
00:40:35 after the may test sorry question yes i do accept the the original intention for for the may test
00:40:45 may test namely that it would fail or may well fail would um do you accept that that original intention never changed after the may test
00:40:56 no i don't think
00:41:09 now we've seen them i don't think we need to go back to them yet again but the march
00:41:14 the march and april 2018 emails began with the subject heading ulster tests mhclg select committee lobby
00:41:23 uh and the first of those emails was mark harris's emails eu of the 2nd of march 2018. um is that the is that the origin of the linear tests
00:41:36 is that the origin of the linear tests and the idea of weakening it came from that was the first um email communication i'd seen about that right well let's just explore
00:41:47 about that right well let's just explore that a little bit further can we go to kin402379
00:42:08 now this is a long email chain from september 2017 the year before but after the grenfell tower fire and the chain bears the title demonstrating compliance and if we go down to page five we can
00:42:20 and if we go down to page five we can see where it starts it starts with a adrian brazier contacting the nhbc graeme perrier on the 4th of september 2017
00:42:32 2017 and if we can scroll up so that's the context and if you scroll up to the first email at the top of page two
00:42:41 this is an email from you on the 11th of september 2017 uh copied uh to richard burnley and also to john garber richard bromwich peter wilson and it says all it seems nhbc are taking
00:42:54 and it says all it seems nhbc are taking a very hard line over desktop studies leaving virtually no room for maneuver this will cause serious problems in current buildings getting approval and virtually demand a full-scale test on even minor variations
00:43:05 on even minor variations making every anything insured through them practically impossible to get combustible insulation on we have requested a face-to-face meeting but they are not interested not heard if any other insurers are taking the same
00:43:17 any other insurers are taking the same stats regards adrian if we go up in the chain to page one
00:43:23 one and go to the bottom of that page please we can see that peter wilson asks you the question uh adrian have they any position on the
00:43:34 uh adrian have they any position on the grade of the clatty and you respond just above that they're saying that limited combustibility for insulation and cladding
00:43:42 cladding all tested solution and then john garber responds to you the same day a bit later in the evening he says we need to show them we need to show them that
00:43:52 that that could also fail and force them to a position that everything must be tested they might compromise then when is the rw
00:43:59 rw stroke honeycomb test scheduled in i'll go back to that in just a moment just to see how this finishes off you go back to him by way of response uh and you say hi john that is earmark
00:44:10 uh and you say hi john that is earmark for dubai but but had nothing concrete from janet yet on dates i called her this morning for an update but no reply as yet regards adrian i'm just going back down to john garbett's email to you a
00:44:22 down to john garbett's email to you a little earlier that evening in the second paragraph he says when is the rw honeycomb test scheduled in rw was rockwool yes yes it was and honeycomb was what
00:44:35 and honeycomb was what it's it's a similar panel to the g2 product i see um you say a similar panel to it did you know what he meant by honeycomb
00:44:45 honeycomb well i knew about aluminium honeycomb design
00:44:49 design um product right did when you saw honeycomb test did you understand what particular product he was referring to no i don't think so at that time right
00:45:00 no i don't think so at that time right janet
00:45:00 janet that's referred to in your email was that janet murrell yes she is x over dubai isn't she yes yes and i think she may now be in the uk but she was of that organization
00:45:11 the uk but she was of that organization sorry no she's she's uk but she's of that organization i see forgive me now um
00:45:17 now um it's clear from this email chain is it not that there had been a plan to test a linear root system already in motion back in september 2017
00:45:29 yes it just it just seemed that way right
00:45:32 right you you sound a little surprised to see cool i didn't recall that
00:45:40 that do you know me showing you this now whose idea was it uh originally to test a linear route system
00:45:53 no i don't know it obviously was ideal it was
00:45:58 and on the face of what i'm showing you but you helped me was the plan always to test a linear root system uh comprising mineral wool and
00:46:09 uh comprising mineral wool and honeycomb like vitra core g2
00:46:17 from that yeah it was there was an idea there to
00:46:20 there to that was must have been the start of the idea to
00:46:23 idea to test a system that could could be the linear route but not pass the pr 135 compliance test
00:46:38 was the may test originally intended to have
00:46:41 have vitra called g2 but record but king's van couldn't get hold of it in time and therefore had to use a luca bond a2 but with design imperfections is that how it went
00:46:53 imperfections is that how it went no i don't think so i think the from the april emails the original intention was to do the a2 acm um and then have the
00:47:04 a2 acm um and then have the g2 product then the g2 test as a as a backup a second option
00:47:16 i'd like to show you some further emails uh disclosed to the inquiry by kingspan this time these emails came to us last friday 19th of march
00:47:27 came to us last friday 19th of march uh and the first one i want to look at please is kin30s25145
00:47:47 this is an email from john garbett to siobhan o'dwyer mark harris tenney ryan and you
00:47:57 and the subject is positioning with government now this is about a week or so after the may test in dubai and if we go down page
00:48:08 may test in dubai and if we go down page one to point three
00:48:14 it says vitrical g2 and mr garbett says if we get a fail then we can show that they would allow they would be
00:48:25 that they would allow they would be allowing systems through that will fail bs8414
00:48:29 bs8414 this would be incredibly politically damaging headline cladding system deemed safe under the government's new proposal for building regulations is found to fail a large-scale system test
00:48:40 large-scale system test and then the footer page one of under the heading our bottom line
00:48:47 uh you can see kingston will be accepting of an outright ban on combustible rain screens on all buildings
00:48:57 buildings an outright ban on combustible insulation would be robustly opposed by kingston because it is not supported by evidence
00:49:03 evidence kingspan supports all facade systems being subject to and passing the bsa414 test and then underneath that it says evidence to support our bottom line government and our 13785 tests show that grenfell was all
00:49:16 13785 tests show that grenfell was all about the acm and that would have happened even if rw had been insulin and then if you go over the page
00:49:26 uh you can see item two government tests uh uh thermosets are very hard to distinguish from mineral fiber and system tests and then three
00:49:37 system tests and then three says
00:49:40 systems that are based on non-combustible insulation and limited combustibility acms can fail 8414 tests we have on video which is hearsay evidentially and the fiber is foil face
00:49:52 evidentially and the fiber is foil face which probably makes the product euro class b
00:49:54 class b mark checking need our july to test to fail the vitra core g2 that is being tested according to nick is being used as a product of choice in all the reclaiming jobs mark was to dig with nick to get every
00:50:06 mark was to dig with nick to get every scrap of evidence he can now that's what you say well that's what this is said there
00:50:20 in fact it's right isn't it that the second of july test was required to fail in order to supply you with the evidence you needed
00:50:32 you with the evidence you needed to take part in the government's consultation it was it was needed to give empirical evidence
00:50:41 evidence um of of a fail with that combination of materials but obviously we were aware of other evidence out there but obviously we couldn't we couldn't submit that it wasn't errors
00:50:53 couldn't submit that it wasn't errors so it was needed to prove that to prove that point yes yes and it was needed to fail and intended to fail because kingspan's plans to use that
00:51:04 because kingspan's plans to use that fail
00:51:05 fail in the july test in order to damage the credibility of the government's new proposal
00:51:11 proposal of using only a1 and a2 materials over 18 meters
00:51:15 18 meters it was certainly to challenge to challenge that proposal yes all right and in doing so that would in turn support what we see from this email namely
00:51:27 what we see from this email namely kingspan's narrative or case for using eight four one four tests only as the benchmark for cladding systems on high-rise buildings and thus keep or thereby keep k15 in the
00:51:38 and thus keep or thereby keep k15 in the market
00:51:41 it it was too uh to allow a tested system so regardless of the materials i mean it wouldn't have just kept k-15 the market you could have kept a lot of other products in the market that would ordinarily be caught up in
00:51:53 that would ordinarily be caught up in the ban but weren't necessarily unsafe combining certain systems
00:52:03 now let's go to kin3025854
00:52:21 another email that was recently disclosed
00:52:25 uh if you go to the bottom of page one on the screen in front of you you can see an email of the 30th of may 2018 so the day before the email we've just
00:52:38 so the day before the email we've just been looking at this is from john garber to gilbert mccarthy and gene murta
00:52:45 and others and you can see that john garbert writes that could end up being counterproductive pointing out to mhclg
00:52:57 counterproductive pointing out to mhclg that g2 is being used to re-clad buildings
00:53:00 buildings and that it is dangerous will probably lead to it coming out that g2 has failed an 8414 with extratherm because that is the only available evidence out there at the moment that we know of that in turn has the
00:53:13 that we know of that in turn has the potential to dent any confidence we tried to give mhclg about using k15 with a2 stroke one rain screens to get out of this
00:53:23 this we will need to pin the issue on g2 and to do that we need to have the rw stroke g2 fail in the bag from next month's test
00:53:35 month's test so we can't move on g2 until we have that test failed to support our case nb g2 is probably being installed on as much k15 on failed buildings
00:53:46 much k15 on failed buildings as any other insulation again i suggest to you that this shows very clearly that kingspan's intention was that by using g2 um the second of
00:53:59 was that by using g2 um the second of july test
00:53:59 july test would fail
00:54:03 it certainly had that potential yes
00:54:07 more than the potential in fact it was essential
00:54:11 essential that g2 did its work and julie caused that test to fail otherwise the kingspan strategy wouldn't work
00:54:23 the kingspan strategy wouldn't work yes if that test had passed we wouldn't have had
00:54:27 have had that empirical evidence but that's that's the the nature of testing it you know we didn't know it would fail um it could have passed um but we
00:54:38 um it could have passed um but we better test it to provide that empirical evidence
00:54:43 evidence yes when mr garber says we need to have the rw g2 fail in the bag and can't move on g2 until we have that test failed to support our case it's quite clear that the use of g2 was part
00:54:55 quite clear that the use of g2 was part of kingspan's strategy to have a failed test in your hands in the bag
00:55:01 the bag as it's put in order to advance your case with the government that's great because g2 was an a2 rated product
00:55:12 and and it was vital as we can see do you accept uh that as part of the strategy that you kept the impression that the vetrical g2 was a reliably a2 product
00:55:23 vetrical g2 was a reliably a2 product while at the same time ensuring that as far as you could that it failed to be estate for one full test um i'm not sure what you mean by i'm not sure what it mentions
00:55:34 sure what it mentions being a reliable a2 product well it was an a2 product wasn't it yes but it had a a and we'll come to this but
00:55:43 this but it's clear from this that it was it had a track record of having previously failed it for one full tests when used in a full system test well the system can contain that product yes yeah
00:55:56 and that fact was something that the government shouldn't know isn't it
00:56:06 no i don't think so
00:56:10 well otherwise if you told the government that you were using g2 because although it was a2 it had previously failed when tested under 8414. they would look at your test and go well
00:56:21 they would look at your test and go well that's not doesn't tell us anything does it
00:56:24 it no because if the test we were doing
00:56:28 failed failed the test then that's exactly the point it proves
00:56:36 so we would have been telling government um well then can we go back to the email they will have to explain something to me
00:56:41 me can we go back to the email just been looking at please kin302425854 you see mr garbett says uh in the second line it is dangerous
00:56:54 in the second line it is dangerous sorry pointing out to mhclg that g2 is being used to reclaim buildings and that it is dangerous will probably lead to coming out the g2 has failed at 841.4 with extra third
00:57:06 has failed at 841.4 with extra third what was the problem then with it coming out the g2 had failed in an 841 form
00:57:18 i'm not quite sure what he means there i think you know what if we test that g2 on a on a non-combustible system then it would that would come out exactly as that if it failed so that
00:57:30 exactly as that if it failed so that would be what would come out yes and that would in turn as mr as mr garbett says dent the confidence that you tried to give mhclg about using k15 with a2
00:57:41 give mhclg about using k15 with a2 stroke a1 rain screen i think maybe it's because that extra therm
00:57:47 therm is a combustible insulation
00:57:52 wow suggesting to you that it was essential to kingspan's case uh that kingspan concealed from the mhclg what it knew about the dangers of g2
00:58:03 about the dangers of g2 that's what this email is saying isn't it no we didn't i don't believe we concealed this at all
00:58:12 you say i don't believe we concealed it at all what you were planning to conceal from the mhclg is that uh it had failed
00:58:23 is that uh it had failed an 8414 with extra third
00:58:28 well we didn't have empirical evidence to show that so that would have been hearsay we wouldn't be talking about hearsay what you were actually doing was seeking
00:58:40 what you were actually doing was seeking to keep from the mhclg what you knew about the dangers of vitrip or g2 no no we if we tested it and it failed we're not
00:58:51 if we tested it and it failed we're not exactly what we're showing them yes there's a potential issue with with ge2
00:58:58 ge2 yes you're keeping from them the fact that you knew that
00:59:06 i don't think we're keeping keeping information from that let's then go to another email also disclosed to the inquiry last week
00:59:16 five kin3025856 also from late may this time 31st of may so same date as the
00:59:25 the ultimate email we just looked at and the day after the email we have just looked at this is from gilbert mccarthy a second email down on the page
00:59:36 a second email down on the page now it's not very clear who it's sent to um
00:59:40 um but uh if we scroll up to the top of the page
00:59:43 page you can just do that we can see um that uh it's it looks as if it's circulated um a little bit more widely by mark
00:59:54 um a little bit more widely by mark harris
00:59:56 harris um see if you can help me with it go back down to the bottom of the screen please
01:00:05 please spoke to jean and explained and it looks specific
01:00:08 specific it's coming from gilbert mccarthy we think it goes to mark harris spoke to jean and explained the latest view the government has made up its mind already and he was very clear that we need to pull out all the stops to convince the
01:00:19 pull out all the stops to convince the gov
01:00:20 gov and anyone who wants to listen as many independent experts and trade associations as possible but large scale testing for everything above 18 meters is the right and early solution to ensuring maximum future public safety
01:00:31 public safety he is adamant that our video footage of dts non-c
01:00:34 dts non-c is on the minister's desk asap and if needs be
01:00:38 needs be and at the appropriate time it is also on jeremy corbyn's desk we also need to do everything possible to bring forward that virtualbond g2 test
01:00:47 test in parallel we will ensure we have full product offer available in the event we fail to get our message across but prioritize the above with everything we've got to ensure we succeed in convincing gov that taking their consultation a step further
01:00:59 consultation a step further by ensuring all in caps all systems above 80 meters is large-scale performance tested did you see this email at the time do you think no do you know what footage uh
01:01:13 do you know what footage uh gilbert mccarthy is referring to there when he says footage of dds non-see not specifically now
01:01:22 it's clear from this isn't it that that the priority above all else was to have the g2 fail in the bag in order to convince the government to keep bs 8414 as the
01:01:33 government to keep bs 8414 as the standard test indeed perhaps the sole test um for high-rise buildings
01:01:42 yeah i think it was important to get that empirical evidence yes that's clear and this instruction was coming from the very top of kingstown wasn't it jean murder gilbert mccarthy that would
01:01:54 jean murder gilbert mccarthy that would appear from that email yes yes
01:01:59 now let's go back to
01:02:02 your fifth witness statement please okay kin three zeros two four nine seven five page four paragraph two point eight again
01:02:13 paragraph two point eight again i've i've shown you this sentence before we've discussed it mr paul so i'm sorry to go back over it again it's the third cent it's the third line up from the end of the paragraph we decided to carry out this test because
01:02:25 decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more that a test utilizing the electrical g2 panels might not be able to pass
01:02:31 to pass a large scale test even when part of a robust design i want to show you an email at
01:02:41 kin3025128 k i n three zeros two five one two eight
01:02:50 and this is an email chain from a little bit earlier in may 2018 15th of may and i i think we looked at the head of that chain in other words
01:03:01 at the head of that chain in other words the tail of it when it went as exhibited a little bit earlier and i said i'd come back to it can we go to the to the bottom of page five
01:03:14 and this is an email from gwyn davis uh to uh someone called darren copy to adrian brazier and gwen gwyn davis was i think the
01:03:25 and gwen gwyn davis was i think the divisional technical director of kingspan at the time wasn't he yes i think so yeah now uh he is writing to someone called darren
01:03:37 he is writing to someone called darren at
01:03:38 at aclad.com dot a u is is it are you familiar with darren at a clad i'm not generally familiar but i'm familiar
01:03:51 not generally familiar but i'm familiar with the fact that he was the contact um being used to supply the g2 product do you agree from that familiarity that he was the director
01:04:02 he was the director he's a man called darren hodder and was the director of aclad an australian firm which designs and manufactures architectural facades i don't know his position or title there is a clad or darren
01:04:16 or title there is a clad or darren personally where you sourced the vitrocore g2 from for the
01:04:20 for the july test i believe so yes do you know why you didn't buy it here in the uk i think we couldn't get hold of it
01:04:29 of it right now let's go to the third paragraph
01:04:32 paragraph uh
01:04:36 gwen davis says i've also copied adrian brazier who's organizing a lot of testing for us in x over dubai and is the focal point for designs et cetera et cetera
01:04:44 cetera currently sweating it out in the desert at x over on our latest round of testing he's been chasing down the elusive victrical g2 for nearly 10 months now exclamation mark why had adrian brazier
01:04:56 exclamation mark why had adrian brazier been chasing vitricor g2 for nearly 10 months as at mid-may 2018
01:05:05 um i think because we were looking for that
01:05:08 that um honeycomb and that was one we possibly knew of
01:05:14 for the test to provide evidence for your case to the government yes so it's in 10 months or so that takes on back to about august
01:05:26 back to about august also 2017. does that accord with your recollection um i'm not sure it was that long back but
01:05:33 but i know adrian has been trying for a while to get hold of g2 right
01:05:42 now let's go to kin3025484
01:05:52 this is an email the day before 14th of may 2018 from gwen davis to adrian brazier and you and also to john garbert subject vitriol g2
01:06:04 g2 he says hello i've made contact with darren hodder uh and there's a contact uh linkedin for him
01:06:11 him overnight asking if he could source some veterical g2 for testing in dubai this is the reply i got from him overnight hi quinn we can certainly assist you you may be aware of the battle i'm having
01:06:22 may be aware of the battle i'm having here in doing the same test at the public csiro facility if you google my name darren hodder you can read the two newspaper articles on the same the csiro is not
01:06:33 on the same the csiro is not getting the supplier's permission fairview stroke valcan a poor argument indeed we did do the bs8414
01:06:40 bs8414 at a private facility in canberra in which it failed under propagation i was wanting to do the test at the csiro in the attempt to make it more public quick some quotes to that end i can supply you with the g2
01:06:51 to that end i can supply you with the g2 i bought from a contractor for five thousand dollars aud it is here in my factory your staff navy and are welcome to come and view the same collectively we need to rid our industry of these dodgy suppliers smiley face and then gwyn davis goes
01:07:05 smiley face and then gwyn davis goes back to
01:07:06 back to his own words do you want me to progress this i need to confirm how many square meters it is and what sizes are the panels
01:07:14 panels uh now you got that email at that time did you understand from this message that g2 had failed an 841 full test already yes and at least mr hodder's
01:07:25 already yes and at least mr hodder's view
01:07:26 view was that its manufacturers were still selling it on dubious claims about its fire performance that was his view yes yes at least his view that its manufacturers
01:07:38 at least his view that its manufacturers were still selling g2 on dubious claims about its fire performance yes yes
01:07:46 and just to confirm was darren hodge the source of the g2 panels now i've shown you this email yes those would uh arrive looking at the date 14th of may they'd arrived too late for the 22nd
01:07:57 may they'd arrived too late for the 22nd of may test wouldn't they
01:08:01 yes does it follow from that that you were
01:08:04 were seeking these panels for delivery for the full back test uh or plan b uh in case the may test did not fail
01:08:13 not fail yes i think so
01:08:16 let's go back to kin 3025128 please
01:08:22 this is the email stream we looked at uh a little bit earlier page and i'd like to go to page four we were there before we were on page five before now i'd like to look at page
01:08:34 five before now i'd like to look at page four this is 15th of may 2018 and this is darren hodder's email on that date 15th may 2018 to gwyn davis and adrian brazier also
01:08:45 gwyn davis and adrian brazier also entitled myth busting time and he says hi gwyn and adrian okay gwen found out we have already rounded the sheets
01:08:53 sheets as we're booked in with the csiro to test the same one week after our a2 test uh please find attached our shop drawing of the same etc and then the third paragraph it says
01:09:04 etc and then the third paragraph it says these are ready to go can be flat packed on the timber skid in an instant and then says and he says not sure if x over in dubai talks to x over here in melbourne
01:09:13 melbourne it'd be best for you to photograph the same with the g2 film on it then remove it in case they both go to the same exclusive church you know what i mean can you explain what he means by that
01:09:24 can you explain what he means by that that's enough i don't know what he means by exclusive church
01:09:28 church and then if you go to the last paragraph he says anyhow let us know what you'd like
01:09:33 like now uh we do i think see that you saw this email at the time from emails higher up the chain when you saw that did you think that darren holder clearly thought that the test would be a failure with these
01:09:44 the test would be a failure with these panels and he wanted to see the result yes he definitely thought that um that the g2 product would be challenged by that test definitely right and that he wanted he wanted to
01:09:56 right and that he wanted he wanted to know that for his own purposes yes and if we go um to the next email up in the chain still on page four top of page four i think we go up
01:10:08 i think we go up uh this is it we probably need the bottom of page three just to see the start of the email gwen davis 15th of may 2018 and then back to the top of page four it comes to you and john garbert this
01:10:20 it comes to you and john garbert this busting time hello both as mentioned by down below panels were fabricated so we have to go with what we have please advise if i should request the entire stock of panels be afraid to dubai [Applause]
01:10:32 [Applause] and then if we go up the chain
01:10:38 page three we can see the email we looked at earlier uh on do we have the budget to do the extra test uh etc and then
01:10:50 uh etc and then at the top of the email j we see you
01:10:56 i'm so sorry it's just above this one it's
01:11:00 it's higher up page two if we go back a page to page two we can see you say in the email halfway
01:11:13 we can see you say in the email halfway down the screen also on the 15th of may 2018 fyi this appears to be an email to adrian brazier only but fr fyi
01:11:25 adrian brazier only but fr fyi i have set the drawings to nj to see how quickly he could knock up a design using the already cut panels this would make a good backup if current non-contest does not perform as expected now the nj
01:11:38 does not perform as expected now the nj there is nick jenkins isn't it that's correct
01:11:41 correct uh and and this was the origin of plan b wasn't it yes using g2 yes
01:11:52 using g2 yes that you now knew from um darren hodder would be very likely to fail in an 8414 test that's correct
01:12:05 and then if we go in further up the chain now to the bottom of page one of this email stream we can see an email also the 15th of may from adrian brazier to you he says
01:12:18 to you he says also from a test performance they go up like pe panels and will perform worse than a loco bond a2
01:12:26 by uh pe did he did you understand that he meant pe called acm panels yes i would have done do you know what test performance adrian brazier is talking about here
01:12:38 talking about here no not specifically do you know how he knows that vetrical g2 would go up like pe panel
01:12:47 no not unless he did i'd heard something um from the from the industry right i see and your response to him uh
01:13:01 and your response to him uh i think a minute later if you possibly allow for the time difference it's hard to tell
01:13:05 to tell um is when the email comes through you will see an image of a test which lasted four minutes or something what test was that i can't recall
01:13:18 what test was that i can't recall you were sending him something
01:13:21 what was it
01:13:30 i can't i can't recall what that one was right
01:13:34 right do you know where you got the image of the test from no unless it was no i can't i can't think where what where that was
01:13:45 i can't think where what where that was mr chairman it's now just before uh 3 15 and i hesitate i hesitate to uh um get into a habit of stopping early uh
01:13:56 get into a habit of stopping early uh but
01:13:57 but uh i i might be able to clarify this particular um particular question with a document and i think i need the break to do it right well let's take the break now then
01:14:08 right well let's take the break now then it's not particularly early um i said we'd have a break during the afternoon mr pargeter it's come slightly earlier than we might have expected but that doesn't matter so we'll stop now we'll resume please at
01:14:19 so we'll stop now we'll resume please at half past three and again i must ask you not to talk about your evidence or anything to do with it to anyone over the break i understand thank you very much
01:29:47 welcome back everyone we're ready to continue taking evidence from mr parjita mr parish said just to check you can hear me and see me i hope
01:29:55 i hope i can yes thank you very much then mr miller when you're ready uh on you go yes thank you very much and mr partridge can you please be shown the email we had
01:30:06 email we had just been looking at when we stopped for the break
01:30:10 this is a at 2 1 ok sorry k i n 3 0 2 5 1 2 8 page 1.
01:30:22 and i was showing you your email of the 15th of may 2018 to adrian brazier
01:30:30 brazier when you say when the email comes through you will see an image of a test which lasted four minutes or something
01:30:39 how do you in your hands at that stage an image of a test
01:30:47 look at that yes i must have done what was it was it a video or a still photograph what was it
01:30:56 i think as an image should be a still photograph right uh we haven't seen it in disclosure i don't believe and again i'll be corrected if i'm wrong
01:31:07 i'll be corrected if i'm wrong may have come through recently but uh is it something that it's actually a physical
01:31:14 physical or an electronic document is it i would think from that yes i would think it would be an attachment or an embed in the email
01:31:25 or an embed in the email but i i haven't seen that in in my pack either right i see um
01:31:35 when you say when the email comes through
01:31:38 through whose email coming through to whom i was i would suspect from me to adrian i see see you're going to send in this image i see
01:31:49 image i see and where did you get the image from the image of a test which lasted four minutes
01:31:54 minutes i don't recall was it darren hodder no not from darren hodder not directly from darren to me no
01:32:06 now in the light of these emails that we've been looking at do you agree that when you said in your fifth witness statement at the end of paragraph 2.8 that you had suspicions but no more about the performance of g
01:32:17 no more about the performance of g vitriol g2 that was something of an understatement no i think it's correct we had suspicions we obviously been told by darren for one but and certainly that
01:32:31 darren for one but and certainly that um it was a product that was struggling to pass eight four one four tests um but until we tested ourselves we wouldn't really know i mean the fact is that you were aware of evidence that the g2 panel
01:32:43 of evidence that the g2 panel would go up like or perform in a fire like a pe panel and would be likely to fail an 8414 test
01:32:52 well that's what that's what was said but i don't actually i wouldn't have thought that that was correct at the time uh i wouldn't have thought it correct and it's not correct now now up to up the email chain a little
01:33:04 now up to up the email chain a little bit further you see that uh you said he comes back to you
01:33:09 to you and says get back to the document please
01:33:21 he comes back to you and says my thought was it may be worth doing a test at the bre with the correct audience and attendance but not sure on the logistics um who did you understand
01:33:35 um who did you understand the correct audience to be there i would have i'd have thought some mhclg potentially or some of the
01:33:46 potentially or some of the people on the select committee that that type of um a type of audience right
01:33:53 right i see now your response as we can see at the top of the page is that's not a bad call braz
01:34:01 call braz i've related it to the team i guess timing may be an issue here with the 2019 test dates uh can you say i've floated it to the team
01:34:10 team who did to whom did you float it oh i would have probably been john john garbett and gwyn
01:34:19 maybe others i can't directly call but that that's who would have flooded that too maybe to mark harris right in writing do you think you sent him an email
01:34:30 him an email um possibly but i could call them as well uh now i want to show you another email chain which branches off this one
01:34:41 which branches off this one um kin30s25129 please two five one two nine
01:34:52 uh this uh is an email also 15th of may 2018
01:34:58 2018 from adrian brazier to you bearing the same title myth busting time and uh and you say maybe fund darren to do the test so it's
01:35:10 maybe fund darren to do the test so it's not
01:35:10 not kil versus rockwool but more industry view
01:35:14 view question marks darren referred to here was darren hodler from axeland wasn't it
01:35:21 yeah i suspect so yes the spelling's different but do you know darren with two hours en as opposed to darren
01:35:29 darren one r o n in this context no i suspect that would have been darren hodder yes
01:35:38 and is it right that what adrian brazier is suggesting here is passing the vehicle test off as an independent test undertaken by an impartial cladding company in another
01:35:49 impartial cladding company in another country
01:35:54 i wouldn't say was that impartial he's not saying that he's just saying it it would be a good idea to have someone else test and get um get a result as well was darren hudder or
01:36:07 a result as well was darren hudder or anybody else ever approached with that proposition not as far as i'm aware do you know why that
01:36:16 that why that is
01:36:20 maybe we just didn't take it forward as an idea
01:36:24 an idea now i want to turn to the subject of the letter to the select committee of the 6th of july 2018 next now on the last occasion to cut a
01:36:36 now on the last occasion to cut a longish
01:36:37 longish passage sure you agreed i think with the chairman
01:36:40 chairman uh that the testing that was done in july 2018 was not done for entirely altruistic purposes that's day 85 page 62 lines 15 to 16.
01:36:51 that's day 85 page 62 lines 15 to 16. that's right isn't it that's correct yeah it was undertaken to lobby government wasn't it correct uh uh and in fact as we've seen to use john
01:37:02 and in fact as we've seen to use john garbett's
01:37:03 garbett's words in his email at the 11th september 2017.
01:37:08 2017. the testing was part of kingston's strategy to force the government into a position that everything must be tested
01:37:17 yes and we saw that the july 2018 test report
01:37:22 report was included in richard burnley's letter kingspan
01:37:26 kingspan via richard burnley is the signature his letter to clive betts chair of the select committee on the 6th of july correct now let's go to that letter it's inq30
01:37:39 now let's go to that letter it's inq30 is 14076.
01:37:54 and
01:37:58 if we go to page five in the letter we can see the tests that are set out
01:38:06 uh test three is the july test it's the third of three tests if we go back up one page you can see the two other tests
01:38:20 and this is underneath the heading failed a1 stroke a2 large-scale fire tests
01:38:26 tests kingsman has evidence of three failed large-scale fire tests where the cladding system is made up of a1 and a2 products
01:38:34 products the tests are detailed below and supporting documentation is enclosed and then test one is underneath that and you can see that you describe a test at the bre on
01:38:45 that you describe a test at the bre on the 27th of october 2016 comprising the luca panel solid a core solid core a2 acm along with fujira rockwell full face mineral fiber stroke stone wool insulation rated as a1
01:38:59 stone wool insulation rated as a1 and to be clear that report didn't actually have a test report
01:39:07 report did it no i believe so no it says in the last sentence we understand no test report was produced for this test uh and in fact the letter says at the end of that paragraph the system tested
01:39:19 end of that paragraph the system tested in this test was is not typical in uk construction as the insulation is foil faced and test two uh another failed test was also expressly
01:39:32 another failed test was also expressly not
01:39:33 not typical of construction in the uk because
01:39:36 because partly because it didn't have cavity barriers in it yes yes
01:39:43 and there therefore although it's right isn't it that the first of these three tests first two of these three tests were genuine as you call them they were done on systems which were not representative of
01:39:55 systems which were not representative of systems built in the united kingdom at the time that's correct
01:39:59 correct yeah now shall we just go back please to paragraph 3 4 3.4 of your witness statement
01:40:13 which we'll find on page six yes thank you
01:40:16 you and we've already seen this but if we go to the middle of the paragraph you say uh it was not constructed with weaknesses can you see just just above halfway down
01:40:28 can you see just just above halfway down you say it was not constructed with weaknesses in it in order to enhance its chance of performing poorly yes yes we and then you say this we
01:40:39 yes we and then you say this we therefore considered it an entirely appropriate test to draw to mr betsy's attention as an example of the wider point we were seeking to explain namely that just because cladding panels
01:40:50 namely that just because cladding panels and insulation products which are certified as meeting an a1 stroke 80 standard when tested separately on a small scale does not itself mean that any system incorporating them will necessarily meet an appropriate
01:41:01 will necessarily meet an appropriate standard in terms of fire performance when subjected to the more exacting requirements of a large scale test now i'd ask you a number of questions um about this topic
01:41:14 in your examination and i just want to show you a passage in that examination
01:41:24 it's quite long but it's worth just looking at if we can day 85 please page
01:41:30 84.
01:41:36 day 85 page 84 and we can start at line 19.
01:41:40 19. i want to read you three pages or so of your your evidence last time mr patrick said bear with me and follow along
01:41:47 along question at 19. why did you why did you not or kingspan not tell clive betts chair of the select committee that the test done in dubai was deliberately designed to perform poorly answer because it was designed as a
01:41:59 answer because it was designed as a potential system on a building how would mr betts know that from this letter
01:42:04 letter well he wouldn't but it was built along the linear route so that was the objective
01:42:09 objective question all the weaknesses that were introduced into the system that we saw in the april email run which were designed to make the system perform poorly were not clearly identified as such in this document where they answered no and therefore anybody reading it would
01:42:21 and therefore anybody reading it would think that the system was designed not as a worst case scenario or as designed to perform poorly
01:42:27 poorly but just as a system correct as a system and therefore anybody reading this letter would be misled wouldn't they into thinking that the test had not been set up to fail but was a fairly representative test no they wouldn't
01:42:40 representative test no they wouldn't have been been misled it was a system designed which would comply with the linear route so that's not misleading anybody that's what it was and then the chairman asks but if i may
01:42:51 and then the chairman asks but if i may say so the key point the council is inviting you to consider is whether the system
01:42:54 system it was actually tested the design so so as to be fairly representative of what one
01:42:59 one might expect to be built is that your point
01:43:02 point and then i say yes mr chairman and then answer then it was designed to be the most challenging for that test the chairman says so i think it follows that it was not intended to be fairly
01:43:14 that it was not intended to be fairly representative of what one might expect to see built answer i think i'd agree with that yes chairman thank you and then i continued therefore anybody reading this letter would be misled by the results of that test into
01:43:25 misled by the results of that test into thinking that tests involving mineral fiber were just as likely to fail as tests involving kingspan k-15 um when that was answer i think it
01:43:37 um when that was answer i think it not true and known by kingston not to be true
01:43:40 true answer no i think if the letter had said this was built as a typical standard system then that would be true it doesn't say that it does says what the system was question do you accept this much that
01:43:51 question do you accept this much that kingspan deliberately concealed from the select committee the fact that this test was deliberately designed to perform poorly answered no question you don't accept that it was deliberate question mark answered
01:44:02 deliberate question mark answered deliberate you thought it was an accident did you pause no i think i don't think it was an accident there was no deliberate attempt in this lead it just was a system which complied with the linear route question why not tell mr bets as part of
01:44:13 question why not tell mr bets as part of your response to the to the hackett consultation that the dubai test was deliberately constructed with weaknesses in it in order to enhance its chance of performing poorly why not
01:44:24 performing poorly why not say that well we could have done but we didn't
01:44:29 didn't now uh your state i read you that in full because there are questions that then
01:44:35 then flow from that entire passage your statement in your fifth statement that i've just read to you uh is inconsistent isn't it with your previous evidence that the dubai test
01:44:47 previous evidence that the dubai test was designed to be the most challenging for an 8414 test
01:44:54 the debate which dubai test are you talking about this is the july test no i think on on that passage there i i was still
01:45:05 on on that passage there i i was still um thinking about the design weaknesses of the a2 test um and that's where i think the
01:45:16 um and that's where i think the conversation continued around those um design weaknesses which you'd highlighted and because i hadn't picked up on the g2 test difference then that's why i
01:45:28 test difference then that's why i answered
01:45:29 answered in in the way i did but the g2 product has been used on buildings in in the uk your statement statement of paragraph 3.4 i read to you it was inconsistent with your acceptance
01:45:42 it was inconsistent with your acceptance in december that the system tested in july 2018 had been deliberately weakened i was talking about the earlier test
01:45:54 well i'm just ready to pass it yes i understand that but i was talking about the design weaknesses which they weren't in the g2 test they were in the earlier dubai test
01:46:07 the earlier dubai test yes but you do you accept as you told us in december sitting there now that the dubai july test was designed or intended
01:46:19 test was designed or intended let me use a a clearer word for you intended
01:46:22 intended to be the most challenging for an 8414 test it wasn't the most challenging now i think the design or the intent was a direct copy of the dclg test so we didn't
01:46:35 dclg test so we didn't design in any any weaknesses above that and the standard product used on it was was a g2 a2 rated product so i think that was
01:46:46 that was more fairly representative when you presented the july test to the select committee
01:46:55 committee do you accept that you did not reveal to the select committee that although vetra core g2 had an a2 rating
01:47:04 rating in england and wales it was it was known to perform like a pe panel no you don't accept that you didn't reveal
01:47:16 you don't accept that you didn't reveal that fact to them well it didn't perform like a pe panel you had been told that we've seen this uh that it it had been
01:47:28 uh that it it had been known to perform like a p e panel we saw the email earlier it goes up like a pe panel but it doesn't and it didn't
01:47:39 but it doesn't and it didn't well it may not have done in the event but do you accept that you did not reveal to the select committee that although vitricord g2 had an a2 rating
01:47:50 although vitricord g2 had an a2 rating it was known before the test well to use your words suspected before the test that it would perform like a pe panel
01:48:01 no i don't think we did suspect it would actually perform like a pe panel um just simply because of the makeup of it so i knew we knew it was challenging and but we didn't know it
01:48:13 challenging and but we didn't know it was
01:48:13 was um like a pe chord panel and it didn't perform like the pe chord panel do you accept that you didn't tell the select committee that you were aware of a
01:48:22 a test where ventricle g2 had failed within four minutes
01:48:30 no we didn't nor did you reveal to the select committee that you had deliberately selected vetrical g2 because it already had already failed a full system 8414 test no but we did
01:48:43 a full system 8414 test no but we did tell the select committee that it was an a2 rated
01:48:46 a2 rated product that's not quite the same thing is it
01:48:54 and you didn't even tell the select committee did you mr positive that you chosen g2
01:48:58 chosen g2 because even on your own evidence today you suspected that it might fail your own words in your fifth witness statement
01:49:06 no we didn't why did you not disclose any of those matters to the select committee
01:49:14 committee because it didn't need to it was it was a rated product that got um a certificate to say that it was a2 and we tested it in an a1
01:49:26 in an a1 system a201 system and it failed we know we gave
01:49:29 we gave all the information um we could on that test
01:49:34 by not mentioning any of these matters to the select committee do you accept that kingspan were not being entirely transparent with the select committee no i think we were being transparent with them
01:49:47 did you deliberately choose not to tell them that kingspan had selected the vitrocore g2 panel for inclusion in the thought system test on the second of july
01:49:58 system test on the second of july because you suspected it might fail i don't i don't think we deliberately omitted anything so you telling us i'm sorry to interrupt you just a minute
01:50:09 i'm sorry to interrupt you just a minute but i i'd quite like to clarify some of this
01:50:12 this mr partner when you chose the g2 which we call panel uh did you think that it was typical that its performance was likely to be
01:50:24 that its performance was likely to be typical of an a2 panel or worse than one might expect from an a2 panel um i think we would have we would have expected it to be worse at a large scale fire yes
01:50:37 worse at a large scale fire yes and therefore not really typical of an a2 panel
01:50:43 um well i2 panels come in all different types but i think it would probably be we would have thought it was at the
01:50:51 at the the bottom end if you like of a performance of an a2 product yes all right thank you very much yes sister do you accept that you not only did not tell the select committee that
01:51:05 tell the select committee that uh you thought or suspected that vitrocore g2 would not behave like a typical a2 panel uh you you did not tell them that
01:51:18 deliberately well we didn't we didn't tell them that because it wasn't it wasn't relevant the the test speaks for itself and we've full disclosure on the test the way the
01:51:30 full disclosure on the test the way the test was designed the product data i think we even provided the product data sheet
01:51:35 sheet with that so i think you know we gave them
01:51:38 them everything they needed to um to make a judgment on it why didn't you tell the select committee that you
01:51:46 that you deliberately selected the g2 vitra core panel because you either knew or at least strongly suspected that a full system test with it in it
01:51:57 that a full system test with it in it would fail because we didn't need to we just told them
01:52:06 them what we'd found why didn't you tell the select committee that the uh victor called g2 would not behave in a full system test like a
01:52:19 not behave in a full system test like a typical a2 panel and that therefore they should read the results of the july test in that night
01:52:28 because it's an a2 panel and that's you know it
01:52:33 know it it's proving the point that a system with
01:52:36 with limited and non-combustibility doesn't always perform the way you think it does or you may think it does so
01:52:43 does so whether it was suspected as being at the bottom end of an a2 compared to other a2s it was not really the point
01:52:52 the point wasn't the point precisely to get across to the
01:52:55 to the panel sorry the um the select committee uh the very fact that there are different kinds of a2 panels some which will pass or may pass an a41 full test
01:53:06 will pass or may pass an a41 full test and some which may not and that you'd selected the one which may not in order to make your point why not just tell them that
01:53:15 because so you're referring to that as a product test and it's not as a system test isn't it so what we're proving there is a system combining
01:53:23 combining that product with non-combustible insulation can can fail an 8414 test i repeat my question
01:53:31 question uh why not just tell the select committee
01:53:35 committee the very fact that there are different kinds of a2 panels some which of which will when included in a full system test uh not cause that test to fail
01:53:46 test uh not cause that test to fail and some of which when included in such a test will or might because i think that's kind of implicit in the the way the uh legislation was was moving towards and
01:53:58 legislation was was moving towards and and and as making that assumption but what we were saying was that's not always the case isn't the reality it's departure time that the july test
01:54:10 that the july test was set up to fail in just the same way as the may test had been set up to fail and you kept that fact from the select committee no it wasn't we were very
01:54:21 committee no it wasn't we were very open about the design of the test the design of the test was copied from dclg um and we gave full disclosure on the products that we used
01:54:32 i'm so sorry can you identify anywhere in that 6th of july letter which spells out to the select committee that you have deliberately selected g2 vitracore as the panel because you
01:54:43 g2 vitracore as the panel because you knew or suspected that it would cause the test to fail no that's not there
01:54:52 now you also do you accept did not tell the select committee that the dubai test was a plan b i'm sorry the july dubai test was a plan b
01:55:03 dubai test was a plan b that was only necessary because your plan a
01:55:06 plan a test back in may with all its design imperfections that we'd seen in the march of april emails had passed
01:55:16 that's correct surely by referring to the july test but making no
01:55:24 making no mention of the successful may test you were giving an unfairly incomplete picture to the select committee about linear route systems no i think because there was already an assumption
01:55:37 because there was already an assumption that that route would provide you know on all tests to be safe and we were just challenging that against the bo 135 against that one
01:55:48 against the bo 135 against that one product
01:55:48 product so i don't think it was unfair now was it not relevant for the select committee to know
01:55:54 to know that even a system containing linear route compliant products but with in-built design flaws deliberately included to enhance the chances of failure had in fact passed
01:56:09 no i don't think that was considered why was that irrelevant i don't know i just don't think it was considered it may not have supported your case
01:56:19 your case mr parchita but surely it was relevant for the select committee to understand both tests and the flaws in both tests so as to be able to have the full picture so as to be able to understand
01:56:31 picture so as to be able to understand what the empirical evidence truly shows no
01:56:36 no i just don't think it considered that you don't think you considered it no when you say you don't think you considered it did you mean that
01:56:49 considered it did you mean that the question of whether you should tell them about the may test simply formed no part of kingspan's thinking about whether to tell the select committee about it
01:57:00 select committee about it yeah i don't know whether it did i didn't write that uh didn't write that letter so i don't know um
01:57:06 um what the thinking was of those who were drafting it precisely but i don't imagine it was to deliberately leave anything out it was
01:57:17 deliberately leave anything out it was just that that was the point we were trying to prove do you accept that the non-disclosure of the may test the fact of the mate test and its
01:57:28 the fact of the mate test and its successful result was not the result of an oversight
01:57:32 oversight but the result of a deliberate decision no i can't i can't say that you can't say that
01:57:39 say that you do realize don't you that that is what kingston told brian martin of the mhclg and clive betts in separate letters
01:57:50 and clive betts in separate letters dated the 19th of january this year that the may test was considered to be irrelevant
01:58:00 um i don't recall that now right well we'll come to it later for the time being
01:58:08 were you party to or privy to any decision
01:58:12 decision to omit any reference to the may test from the 6th of july letter to the select committee no no even if you weren't party too or privy to that decision
01:58:23 privy to that decision do you know when that decision was taken no
01:58:26 no you know who took it no do you accept the truth of the overall
01:58:37 do you accept the truth of the overall position
01:58:37 position that kingspan concealed the fact and result of the may test from the select committee because it seriously undermined kingspan's case that combustible
01:58:48 kingspan's case that combustible materials should not be banned
01:58:52 it didn't support the case and you know we were trying to make the case that not all systems would perform the same
01:59:03 perform the same so you know we that wasn't the case we were trying to make so it wasn't necessary well you've almost accepted my point is it that
01:59:14 that the reason why the fact of and results of
01:59:18 of the may test were deliberately withheld from the select committee was because they didn't support kingspan's case
01:59:28 well i i couldn't say whether that was the thought process or not
01:59:38 right
01:59:42 we have seen that you did decide to tell them about the july test
01:59:47 and in presenting the failed july test evidence in support of your case but not revealing the successful may test do you accept that you were only giving the select committee half the picture
02:00:06 no i think we were just we're giving them the evidence of the point we were trying to prove and not evidence of any empirical evidence which might
02:00:17 evidence which might fairly red undermine that case or point that you were trying to prove well it doesn't it doesn't undermine it
02:00:28 well it doesn't it doesn't undermine it really it's just it's another system test that did pass and there are probably
02:00:31 probably plenty of others that do pass under that but what we're saying is that it's it's not all systems and so you know that we were just using that evidence to prove that
02:00:42 that evidence to prove that not all systems would i have to put it to you that in not revealing the successful may test to the select committee kingspan was attempting to mislead the select committee
02:00:53 select committee i disagree the reason you didn't mention the may test in your second witness statement in october 2019 but any of the july tests was for exactly the same reason your
02:01:04 was for exactly the same reason your plan was always to conceal the fact of and result of the may test from both the inquiry and the public no that's not that's not true and it was only once that it had been put to you in evidence that the july test was similarly part of an attempt to mislead
02:01:16 similarly part of an attempt to mislead the select committee that you chose to come clean as you would have it about the may test and sought to put the record straight no that's that's that's not true right it's right isn't it that nick
02:01:29 right it's right isn't it that nick jenkins was the was the very designer of the dc lg's own bs8414 fire testing i think he was involved
02:01:40 why didn't you mention that fact to the select committee
02:01:47 and then what was ever thought about did it not occur to you or anybody at kingston to your knowledge that mr jenkins's involvement in setting out poor performance options
02:01:58 in setting out poor performance options for kingston's linear route tests both may
02:02:00 may and july might have involved a conflict of interest for him i don't i don't know discussed or not right now i want to examine another
02:02:12 right now i want to examine another topic
02:02:13 topic please arising out of kingspan's recent disclosure um and this is about richard burnley and his knowledge uh can we go please to the transcript of your evidence on day 85
02:02:25 your evidence on day 85 page 81 please
02:02:34 and we pick it up at line two we go to page four of what is the letter of the select committee
02:02:45 committee of the 6th of july 2018 at inq 3014076 page 4. and i say to you at line 3
02:02:53 at line 3 we can see that this is part of what is in fact a 94-page submission isn't it to the
02:02:57 the department or the client bet sponsor yes as chair of the select committee halfway down the page he identifies failed a1 stroke a2 large-scale fire tests
02:03:08 stroke a2 large-scale fire tests just in general and i've dived rather into the middle of this were you involved in drafting this 94 page submission i don't recall possibly who else or who would have been i think richard burnley obviously
02:03:17 obviously and the team at king spencer that would be john garbert right you had a technical
02:03:21 technical yes and marketing i think i was involved you were involved you think yes question yes
02:03:30 uh just pausing there we can see that you agreed with the question i put to you that you were involved in putting the submission together
02:03:39 together can you confirm that yes that's what i said there yes and then i go on to ask ask you about richard burnley's knowledge of the july test
02:03:49 test uh on the basis um of course at that stage
02:03:54 stage that you had said that it was the subject of the march of april emails that discussed weakening the system design imperfections so against that background it's important you bear that in mind
02:04:04 in mind if i can then ask you to go to day 85 page 83
02:04:08 page 83 two pages on in the transcript and start at line ten
02:04:13 and i ask you the question we don't see anywhere in this letter or indeed in any of the underlying material where mr burnley or anybody else at king's span tells the select committee that the test was designed to perform
02:04:24 that the test was designed to perform poorly do we answer no we don't see anywhere where they are told that it was set up to fail or a worst-case scenario do we answer no now mr burnley was one
02:04:35 do we answer no now mr burnley was one of those senior individuals at kingston who was not on the email stream from april
02:04:39 april did he know that the test was designed to perform poorly when he wrote this letter
02:04:43 letter to the best of your knowledge answer i don't know to the best of my knowledge whether he knew that did you not have a discussion with mr burnley about this test before he wrote
02:04:51 he wrote this letter answer i can't recall question it's unlikely and i'm not asking you to speculate but just to accept what is common sense that you as head of technical and marketing and engaged in the campaign as
02:05:02 marketing and engaged in the campaign as we've seen for some months would have been bound to have had a discussion of some kind with him about these failed tests no answer well we would have done yes it's important you see because i don't want to ask mr burnley something
02:05:14 don't want to ask mr burnley something which is unfair did mr burnley to the best of your knowledge know that the july test was designed
02:05:19 designed to perform poorly answer i couldn't confirm whether he did or not question was there a plan to keep mr burnley in the dark about the test being designed to perform poorly so that he would write this letter in all innocence
02:05:31 would write this letter in all innocence answer no i don't think there was a plan to keep him in the dark now i've read you again a lengthy uh section of your uh transcript from your
02:05:42 section of your uh transcript from your evidence on the 9th of december and against that background and i want to look at a document a k-i-n-3-25512
02:05:59 this is an email chain that was again disclosed to us within this month march 2021 and it's a chain from the 12th and 13th of june 2018
02:06:11 of june 2018 and relates to this select committee hearing can we go to page two and look at the bottom of the page please
02:06:22 and uh you can see at the bottom of page two uh it's an email from tony ryan of the 12th of june john garbert um just help me what was
02:06:35 john garbert um just help me what was tony ryan's role at this time so tony ryan works for the panels division i see and in what's in what capacity what position does he
02:06:47 in what capacity what position does he work he's a technical director of a similar similar position right so you say of a similar position in a similar position to you and now to
02:06:58 in a similar position to you and now to that title he works alongside um mark harris yes i see now um let's just look at what he says um subject uh select
02:07:09 what he says um subject uh select committee hearing john i know richard was subjected to media training today and is preparing for the select committee hearing richard's name was bounced around a number of times as we anticipated that
02:07:21 number of times as we anticipated that an md or ceo would be called but as we now know it's kingspan representative that is required to attend personally i think this is so important
02:07:29 important that we need someone who's been very close to the various issues over the last few months and who's on point with all the evidence we have this person needs to be technically excellent demonstrate their knowledge of testing
02:07:40 testing in a way that portrays kingspan as absolute leaders in fire testing etc therefore i think you'd be more suited to represent kingspan this is the chance we cannot risk i'm sure richard could deliver but i think
02:07:52 sure richard could deliver but i think you are better positioned to do this now let's look at the response from john garbett the next day back to tony ryan if we just scroll up
02:08:08 back to tony ryan if we just scroll up john garber tells tony ryan on the 13th of june 2018. hi tony richard is going to be very good he knows enough but not too much which is helpful the worst thing he could do is a deep dive
02:08:20 worst thing he could do is a deep dive on detail
02:08:21 on detail he needs to talk to the mps at their level of understanding what was meant well first of all i should ask you did you see this email chain no
02:08:32 did you see this email chain no you didn't
02:08:39 did you find yourself involved at this stage in discussing who should attend the select committee hearing and give evidence i don't recall
02:08:50 hearing and give evidence i don't recall being involved in those discussions right when mr garbett says he knows enough but not too much
02:08:59 too much can you help us what he meant about what he meant
02:09:03 he meant no is it a reference to richard burnley not knowing about the intentionally weakened may test
02:09:11 no i i don't know i don't know what he's talking about was it a reference about the intention to use the vitracore g2 panel and all that involved as a plan b
02:09:23 panel and all that involved as a plan b in case the may test failed no i don't know
02:09:31 what do you know what it is that mr burnley didn't know no i don't know what richard didn't know do you know why his not knowing too much would be
02:09:44 helpful no was he being put forward as king's spans spokesman before the select committee
02:09:55 select committee because he had plausible deniability
02:09:59 no i don't really i don't understand what that phrase means and i don't understand i don't know if that was um ever discussed or thought about
02:10:11 plausible deniability means that he could credibly say he knew nothing when asked about the weakened tests in may and the use of deliberate use of vitrical g2 in july that's what plausible deniability means
02:10:24 that's what plausible deniability means no i don't know i don't know the reason i ask that question is because we don't see his name on the march and april emails
02:10:35 are you saying well do you can you do you know that what he didn't know or know enough about the plan to introduce weaknesses into both tests in order to maximize their chances of failure
02:10:48 their chances of failure i don't know what uh detail he knew i know he knew of the tests and that they were happening but i don't know if he if he knew the detail of the design
02:10:59 of the design elements of it right well my question really is whether richard burnley was set up as kingston's useful idiot in other words knew enough to argue kingston's case convincingly
02:11:10 kingston's case convincingly but not enough to compromise his integrity in the process
02:11:17 now let's move to a different topic uh another email this is about what happened after the july test and the email i want to show you is kin30s25168
02:11:38 you is kin30s25168 this is an email chain between gwyn davis and mike stenson on the third of july 2018
02:11:44 july 2018 which is the day after the test can you help me who is mike stenson i don't know he said i don't know his full title but uh he's uh well he's something like group
02:11:55 uh well he's something like group innovation director so he runs the um the innovation center called icon
02:12:03 icon i kind of think it's cool yeah it's a
02:12:07 a group innovation center now um he
02:12:13 um he if you go to the second email down you can see that there's an email from gwen davis
02:12:17 davis on that day third of july to mike stenson read dubai fire test hello mike it says burnt yesterday morning they have to review the thermocouple data several were over 600 very close to 30
02:12:29 several were over 600 very close to 30 seconds and flames reached top of the rig they need to look if it was sustained flaming we are chasing the results currently but there is a danger it could have passed a danger it could
02:12:40 it could have passed a danger it could have passed
02:12:43 that do you agree that that pretty much sums it up doesn't it that kingston's intention and hope was that the test would fail
02:12:54 i was certainly expecting it to fail but we didn't know until we tested it
02:13:04 after the test failed as we know it did uh is it right do you know that kingspan then
02:13:10 then disseminated the test uh widely sent to government select committee bbc yes i was i was
02:13:22 select committee bbc yes i was i was aware of that yes
02:13:25 not mate yesterday no yeah it's right the kingspan as we know commissioned no test report for the may test and told no one of its existence
02:13:39 that's correct
02:13:42 now do you remember this widespread dissemination of the july test actually led to a legal dispute with valcan who made victra core g2
02:13:53 uh i believe something was started yes now do you remember that uh we went through this one when you gave evidence in december but
02:14:04 in december but after notifying uh select committee of the july test the government um the mhclg was keen to test fitracore g2
02:14:16 the mhclg was keen to test fitracore g2 itself and they asked kingspan for some panels with which to do it do you remember that i do yes and in fact after the july test the government indeed did test some bitter core g2
02:14:32 you remember that i know they tested it but they definitely had some samples right
02:14:41 right did you know whether you actually did send them the vitra call g2 you had or did they get that from somewhere else no i think we sent them the the from the what we do in our test and it's right that they
02:14:52 in our test and it's right that they were able to confirm that the vitracore g2 that was being sold on the market differed from the vitracore g2 tested to classification to a2 i believe that's what they uh they said
02:15:03 i believe that's what they uh they said yes
02:15:05 yes in essence that's because there was more adhesive in the bonding yes potentially yes
02:15:14 now let's look at another document also disclosed to the inquiry within this month
02:15:19 month march 2021 kin3025285
02:15:32 this is a an email chain from september so two months or so after the july test uh which was done using the vitra core g2 test
02:15:41 g2 test at the g2 panel and if you go to page one down the screen you can see that there's an email of the 19th of september 2018. uh second one down where john garbett writes to mark harris
02:15:52 writes to mark harris copies you in uh subject read janet morrell
02:15:57 morrell uh and you we've established that she worked for x over and uh he writes this we are trying oh it's gone off the screen uh if we go down a little bit further down the screen please
02:16:16 you go to the bottom of page one that's it um
02:16:19 it um uh this is the 19th of uh september as i say
02:16:23 say um and he writes roy mark we are trying to get hold of janet morrell uh but adrian is struggling to get a response it is about a1 stroke a two eight eight one eight four one four test fails was the adrian
02:16:35 four one four test fails was the adrian that he's referring to there you
02:16:40 i think experience i think so yeah adrian brazer no i think he was me yeah and if you go over the page to page two
02:16:52 and if you go over the page to page two at the top of the screen top of the page he says
02:16:57 he says mhclg announced that they tested vitrical g2 and the spec of what is on the uk market is not what was tested when they got the a2 from bre and then
02:17:08 when they got the a2 from bre and then he goes on they haven't tested it to see if it gets a2 it appears but they have contacted trading standards to get trading standards to get g2 withdrawal
02:17:19 that being the case they have killed our failed
02:17:23 failed 8414 on g2 which was our most powerful test
02:17:28 test bike killed our failed 8414 on g2 was john garbett saying that your july
02:17:35 july test was now useless for kingspan's lobbying purposes
02:17:43 i'm not sure i think that might be what he's saying but i'm not sure well when you received this email how did you understand what he was saying there
02:17:56 was this one to me did you say uh uh it was um certainly copied to you um yes if you go to the back to the bottom of page one it was copy to you so you would have come into your inbox
02:18:08 so you would have come into your inbox i'm assuming you would have read it
02:18:14 so go back to page two
02:18:17 okay third paragraph down that being the case they have killed our failed 8414 on g2 which was our most powerful test
02:18:26 how do you understand what john garbert was saying there
02:18:32 yeah i think that's probably what he's trying to say there i guess the july test was now useless for kingspan's lobbying purposes
02:18:43 potentially yeah and useless because you have been shown now or it had been revealed that you had used a panel that had an unreliable a2 classification
02:18:55 that had an unreliable a2 classification and was self-evidently dangerous and shouldn't be used in the real world in a real system
02:19:06 in a real system yes well what they said was it it's a different appears to be a different product they didn't say what performance it was they didn't say it failed to to achieve a2
02:19:24 they just said it was different from that that was tested
02:19:32 then the next paragraph he says janet let it slip in an email to adrian and she has another a2 a2 to test fail and we are of course aware
02:19:43 to test fail and we are of course aware of an a1a2 test that was being done in dubai by
02:19:46 dubai by wandsworth council that failed it was burned
02:19:50 burned whilst we were in whilst we were building one of our rigs nick jenkins also refers to a stack bond a2 spanish brand of acm with rockwell insulation that failed in dubai are you the adrian
02:20:02 that failed in dubai are you the adrian that mr garbett refers to in that paragraph
02:20:06 paragraph i think so i don't recall
02:20:12 exactly the mail from from janet where she said that i don't believe we've seen an email to you from janet morrell on this topic do you recall that there was one
02:20:23 was one no that's why i was just thinking i i i haven't seen one either and i mean it may have been a telephone conversation with a um it says slip in the mail so it's it's not yes yeah i am
02:20:34 not yes yeah i am um i think i've seen that recently right there's another another document that we're gonna have to ask kingston
02:20:44 kingston for fans
02:20:47 for fans possibly if you haven't seen it yet if he's there did you have the conversation with janet morrell
02:20:56 can we get back to the document i'm so sorry can we go back to the document please
02:21:01 please and look at the next paragraph
02:21:05 uh in the paragraph below the one i just read to you it says we need a conversation with janet to ask her to find a way to get these fails into the public domain do you remember whether you had such a
02:21:18 do you remember whether you had such a conversation with janet morrell i can't recall specifically but i i do know we were you know frustrated by the fact that there were test fails on that eight on sort of
02:21:31 test fails on that eight on sort of linear route systems that were just not not in in the public
02:21:38 domain
02:21:44 yes my question was whether you recall actually having a conversation with janet morrell don't recall specifically um how did you think at the time that
02:21:55 um how did you think at the time that janet morrell of x over was going to get confidential information such as those uh fails the test results from those failed tests
02:22:06 results from those failed tests into the public domain
02:22:10 i don't know how she would have how she would have done that unless she'd got permission from the test sponsor to um to do it she wouldn't right oh it was john garvin implying here that
02:22:22 oh it was john garvin implying here that she might somehow be persuaded to leak these reports to kingspan in some way i don't think so it's not something of certainly with my experience with janet she would uh she would even contemplate so i think um
02:22:35 she would even contemplate so i think um i don't think so right
02:22:40 well how would that be done in practice i mean how how could janet find a way of getting these fails into the public domain
02:22:46 domain unless her clients were willing to put them into the public that's the only route i could i could say the clients are willing to share it
02:22:57 and one on the same topic i i'd like to ask you about a similar request from the april of 2018 can we go to kin3025426 please
02:23:10 i'm sorry before we i'm so sorry my i'm being reminded to go back to the document we were on quite rightly before we leave it there's a further question actually i should have asked you um in in the in the penultimate
02:23:21 um in in the in the penultimate paragraph
02:23:23 paragraph you could see in this email the reason for her to do this is that her uk derived 8414 testing revenue will drop off a cliff if we don't get eight four one four included in adb either as an alternative
02:23:35 included in adb either as an alternative r to c i think it's route to compliance uh or as an additional requirement for a1 stroke a2 systems
02:23:47 a1 stroke a2 systems um is it was that the reason and said is the reason for her to do that
02:23:55 that um did was the idea that there would be some commercial advantage to x over in ensuring um that eight four one four
02:24:09 in ensuring um that eight four one four tests kept coming in for them to do
02:24:19 i don't know what he's thinking there but i mean they do do 8414 testing amongst amongst others
02:24:27 others um but i don't think you know but the revenue stream from it would um would be something that you'd talk to janet about particularly she was not a commercial person so i
02:24:41 she was not a commercial person so i i don't think it measures up matches up it appears that the way of persuading janet morrell to find a way of putting these test fails into the public domain
02:24:52 fails into the public domain was the alignment of your respective commercial interests um x-overs in keeping on doing eight four one four tests and indeed doing more of them uh and yours in using 8414 as the way
02:25:06 uh and yours in using 8414 as the way of having combustible insulation used above 18 meters is that their way of looking at it
02:25:14 it's it's it's one way of looking at it i mean i didn't i didn't write that so now let's go to the document i wanted to go to um kin30s kin30s25426
02:25:25 go to um kin30s kin30s25426 from april 2018. this is an email with the subject test proposal of ulster and um if you go to um it's another email from
02:25:36 if you go to um it's another email from the march in their april emails that we examined back in december when you last game ever gave evidence but this particular email only came to us on the 10th of march this year
02:25:46 this year if you go to page one and the email date of the fifth of april 2018 from mark harris
02:25:51 harris to john garbert and to you and also a copy to roy weghorst we can see that he says this uh
02:26:10 see that he says this um i was interested to hear that kale has an 8414 test coming up with bre shortly the discussion we had about inviting the select committee to witness the test could be very impactful
02:26:22 could be very impactful another thought could be to substitute the planned test for the test to demonstrate that linear root system can fail what do you think about this in my message from earlier today
02:26:32 uh and then if you go down to the email below that
02:26:41 um the email i've just shown you follows on from an email from mark harris to john garber dante you also covered weghurst
02:26:49 weghurst wake horst and in the third paragraph of that he says i'm hoping that phil can come up with the information that we discussed last week that would be ideal but i doubt that he'll be able to get the information in the form
02:27:00 to get the information in the form needed
02:27:01 needed and then he says roy had an idea of getting
02:27:05 getting brian i think that should be martin uh to request test data from aluko bond on past
02:27:11 past and failed tests similar to the request he made to us now we know that brian martin was a senior official at what was then the dclg do you know who the phil is who's
02:27:23 do you know who the phil is who's referred to there
02:27:29 no i don't know what information um
02:27:34 he could have been either discussed last week
02:27:38 week was the plan that if brian martin could get hold of the data you were asking for or
02:27:42 or were suggesting that he might be able to share it with you
02:27:48 well i think if um if brian martin was able to get hold of the failed test data then we theoretically wouldn't need to do
02:27:59 we theoretically wouldn't need to do anything
02:28:01 anything because there was evidence there was evidence there
02:28:05 what kind of relationship did you or did kingspan rather have with brian martin that you
02:28:10 that you thought he might work with you and share that kind of information with you
02:28:16 uh i don't know whether we thought he'd share it with us but he would then at least be in possession of it and and and if you look there there must have been a request from i can't quite recall that request from
02:28:27 i can't quite recall that request from brian martin to for us to provide evidence to him of what we'd what we got
02:28:40 of what we'd what we got did kingspan ever consider whether a request such as this would have been ethical for brian martin to make
02:28:51 i don't know i don't know if it even went any further
02:28:57 mr chairman uh i haven't quite come to the end of my questions but i'm not far away
02:29:03 away it might be a convenient moment yes well um
02:29:09 um you've got on pretty quickly but you don't need to worry that you haven't finished i'm sorry to have to ask you to come back
02:29:14 come back tomorrow mr fujita it sounds as though it won't take too long so i can't guarantee anyway we're going to stop there for this evening and resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:29:27 o'clock tomorrow please yes and as before please don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it over the break i understand it thank you very much we look forward to seeing you tomorrow thank you thank you and that's all as
02:29:39 thank you thank you and that's all as far as the proceedings are concerned for today
02:29:41 today 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you
02:29:51 you