British Board of Agrément (BBA) Evidence - Thursday 18th March 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:09 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to

00:00:14 going to continue hearing evidence from mr hunt who

00:00:17 who at the time with which we're concerned was employed by the bba um so before we go any further i'm going to check that we have got mr hunt

00:00:28 to check that we have got mr hunt here with us mr hunt good morning can you see me and hear me good morning sir yes i can very good thank you very much and you and others will like to know that i'm joined as usual by

00:00:39 i'm joined as usual by the other panel members miss uh surya estefan

00:00:42 estefan [Music]

00:00:44 [Music] good morning good morning good morning good morning good now um before we continue your evidence mr hunt

00:00:55 before we continue your evidence mr hunt i think we better just go through the uh the usual housekeeping arrangements can you confirm please that you're on your own in the room from which you're giving evidence i am thank you can you confirm that you

00:01:07 i am thank you can you confirm that you don't have any documents or other materials with you i don't and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other

00:01:18 and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages yes no i don't have any device good thank you very much well the procedure today will be the same as

00:01:29 the procedure today will be the same as it was yesterday we'll be looking to have a break uh sometime during the morning probably around about 11 15 but we'll see how your evidence is going uh for the precise timing and um

00:01:42 uh for the precise timing and um unless there's anything you'd like to raise is there no no thank you sir that's that's fine i think my screen is just like i'm on a slightly small screen so if you

00:01:52 if you if you uh rest your cursor in the top right hand corner of the picture you should have a button that says view yes

00:02:00 yes you press that you should be offered full screen yes if you click on that you should get full

00:02:07 full screen that's right thank you yes i'm good

00:02:11 good back on full screen thank you you're back in the picture good all right well now i think um if there's nothing you want to raise i'll invite this troop to put some more questions to you yes when you're writing this troop

00:02:23 you're writing this troop thank you mr hunt can you see and hear me clearly yes i can good we were talking yesterday afternoon about the particular wording which

00:02:34 about the particular wording which appears

00:02:35 appears on page one of issue one of the bba certificate k-15 do you remember that yes i do the particular wording was the boards will not contribute

00:02:46 will not contribute to the development stages of a fire so keeping that wording in mind can we go please to bba

00:03:02 3011287

00:03:06 this is a letter from the loss prevention council to the bba and we can see uh from the top

00:03:13 top section that it's dated the 13th of july do you see that yes i do we can also see that the subject of the letter is cool firm k-8

00:03:25 letter is cool firm k-8 cavity boards yes yes mr hunt this letter was exhibited to the second witness statement of brian moore

00:03:36 moore of the bba and he told us that it was one of the documents on which he thought the assessment of k-15 by the bba in 2008

00:03:47 2008 was based all right it was on the k15 file mr moore told us okay so if we go down please to

00:03:59 so if we go down please to just scroll down on page one we can see at the heading number one objective that the objective is to evaluate test data relating to k-8 cavity boards do you see

00:04:11 relating to k-8 cavity boards do you see that

00:04:12 that yes i do and if we go over please to page three

00:04:20 the section i want you to to look at with me is act for examination of draft certificate so at the top of the page and i'm just going to read the first part of that

00:04:31 going to read the first part of that with you

00:04:32 with you it reads based on the examination of the context of use specified in your draft certificate we do not believe that the product will make a significant contribution to a developing fire

00:04:45 contribution to a developing fire and then it goes on with some other details my first question is this have you seen this letter previously i think i think i might have done at the

00:04:56 i think i think i might have done at the time i don't i don't have a very clear memory of it um but i i think i may well have seen it at the time um

00:05:08 at the time um at what time at the time of reviewing the certificate for approval yes um so i think that that is that is very likely i can't

00:05:20 that is very likely i can't absolutely confirm that um based on memory but i i i it it is very likely yeah i see and given that answer that it's

00:05:31 i see and given that answer that it's very likely that you did see it although i appreciate that you're saying you can't remember for certain why would you have been looking at this letter in the context of approving a certificate for kingspan's k-15

00:05:45 what would be the relevance of this letter from 1994 about k-8 boards do you know um well i think i mean it may it may have been because it was

00:05:59 it may have been because it was related to other court firm um the family of court thought phenolic um

00:06:05 um insulation boards i see and i think the document you showed me yesterday

00:06:12 yesterday um from the early uh time of when when the the the project was first first sort of kicked off um there seemed to be some mention there

00:06:23 to be some mention there um you know relationship between other cool firm products there did but obviously when you came to approve the certificate that was four years later yes in in 2008 or thereabouts

00:06:34 thereabouts yes it was yes all right just looking at the first uh three lines of section four of this document which i've just read to you do you agree with me that the wording

00:06:45 do you agree with me that the wording there bears some similarity to the wording we were looking at yesterday afternoon which appears under key factors assessed on page one of the certificate for k-15

00:06:58 on page one of the certificate for k-15 yes it does do you think it is possible or do you know whether it could be this wording which was used

00:07:09 it could be this wording which was used for drafting the wording we were looking at yesterday on page one of the k-15 certificate yes it it it could have been i i i don't

00:07:20 yes it it it could have been i i i don't recollect

00:07:21 recollect that clearly and sort of unequivocally but i

00:07:25 but i i think i mean it it could could well have been yes i see all right let's go back to issue one of the certificate now please that's bba6038

00:07:36 bba6038 and i want to turn with you now mr hunt to section seven which is the section about behavior in relation to fire so if we can go to page five

00:07:45 five please this section yes thank you so there is the section behavior in relation to fire and i want to look with you first at

00:07:56 and i want to look with you first at what is said about the first test listed there a test to bs

00:08:01 to bs 8414 part 1 2002. i'm not going to go through it all it's quite dense and there's a lot of detail in it

00:08:10 in it but do you see that essentially what is set out

00:08:14 set out are some details of the system tested yes i do can we go please to the very last section of that

00:08:25 last section of that fairly big paragraph about the 8414 test so if you look three lines from the bottom of that paragraph at the very end of the third line up from the bottom starting within do you see that yes i do

00:08:39 within do you see that yes i do so we'll read that within the stated test time

00:08:43 test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria

00:08:54 and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 yes yes that assertion that the product meets the criteria in bl-135

00:09:05 criteria in bl-135 is inaccurate is it not oh i i i don't know um you told us yesterday and we can go to it in the transcript

00:09:16 to it in the transcript if we need to that your knowledge of bs8414 as a test series in 2008 did extend

00:09:27 in 2008 did extend to an understanding that 8414 was a system

00:09:30 system test you were quite clear yesterday you said that it wasn't a test of a component but of a whole external wall arrangement do you remember yes yes i do

00:09:44 do you remember yes yes i do that being the case do you accept that it is inaccurate to state that a product

00:09:51 product meets the criteria in bl-135

00:10:01 yes i think so yes um but what is the doubt in your mind about that

00:10:09 that i'm i'm i just have you know i'm not i'm not so familiar with with with the standard and the

00:10:19 and the and the um here at this time to to be able to without going back through through the standards in detail but you don't need to do that mr hunt what i'm asking you is about your

00:10:30 what i'm asking you is about your understanding at the time and unless i'm mistaken you told us very clearly yesterday that your knowledge did encompass an understanding that 841 fought was a system test

00:10:43 system test yes if that is true this is not really a matter of fire expertise it's a matter of reading if that is true it cannot be correct to state that a product meets the criteria in br135

00:10:56 product meets the criteria in br135 can it no no so can you accept that that assertion

00:11:01 assertion is inaccurate yes

00:11:07 it's a fundamental error uh carrying an obvious risk of misleading the reader isn't it

00:11:15 isn't it it could it could be yes it could be misread

00:11:19 misread well forgive me what do you mean it could be misread reading it as it is written it tells us that a product has met the criteria in br135

00:11:31 br135 and we know and you knew at the time that a product cannot do that

00:11:38 how else could it be read um i think i mean it could be read um that it's the product that that you know

00:11:49 that it's the product that that you know this insulation product within that system except system test but obviously this certificate relates to

00:11:57 to um the insulation board as a product so for the product within the system met the criteria on on that particular test assembly yes so you were saying

00:12:09 test assembly yes so you were saying that you think readers might have looked at that and thought uh i'd better add in the word the product within a system meets the criteria within br135 are you i think so yes

00:12:21 within br135 are you i think so yes i mean i think without knowing exactly how i would have read it at the time i think that's how i i would have would have read it why

00:12:32 i would have would have read it why doesn't it simply say that then i don't know um that that would have been a useful clarification well it would have been an accurate clarification

00:12:43 accurate clarification would you do you accept that yes yes how did you miss that mr hunt i don't know i can't i can't account for that

00:12:53 that i i it's something i should have spotted yes

00:12:57 yes all right let's move on please i want to go back with you to your witness statement so bba3011087 and to page 14.

00:13:12 thank you you're asked there if we go to uh the top uh yes i'm so sorry if we look at um do

00:13:24 uh yes i'm so sorry if we look at um do you see b

00:13:25 you see b which is the third paragraph down you've been asked was a br 135 classification report

00:13:31 report sought by the bba from kingspan in respect of the test to bs84141 2002 referred to at section 7.1 and your answer is i don't know and i

00:13:42 and your answer is i don't know and i have not seen any evidence on file yes yes all right well to save us um some time i can tell you that no such report existed in 2008.

00:13:53 report existed in 2008. okay are you able therefore to tell me how in

00:13:57 how in how did the bba establish from the bs8414 test data it had that that system had met the criteria in bl-135

00:14:09 i i think i can't again be absolutely sure of this but i think at the time um george lee would have gone through the

00:14:18 the um the the test the test report and the criterion in br135 and and um and looked at the whether those criteria were

00:14:30 criteria were were met or not i see do you consider that he was qualified to do that in 2008 um i think as we i think we might have

00:14:42 i think as we i think we might have touched on this yesterday i don't think he had any formal

00:14:46 formal competencies in in in fire i remember that my question is do you think he was qualified in 2008 to assess bs 841 for test data

00:14:58 to assess bs 841 for test data against the criteria in br135 only in respect of being a a technical person who would have read through the

00:15:09 through the reports and the standards and and and come to

00:15:13 come to a conclusion on on that but not not not if if there was any um competencies needed in in in jud in judgments that we're not clear

00:15:26 in jud in judgments that we're not clear from from those reports i see did you also go through that exercise when you came to review what mr lee had done did you go through

00:15:37 what mr lee had done did you go through the 8414 test data and carry out some sort of exercise to assess whether or not you considered that it met the criteria in br135

00:15:47 in br135 i don't remember i don't remember doing that

00:15:52 that specific i can't have don't have a clear memory of doing that right i i think i would have run george would have run through it with me um you know the criteria but i cannot

00:16:05 um you know the criteria but i cannot i cannot recall that specifically i can't put my finger on on a particular yes instance of that all right do you

00:16:16 yes instance of that all right do you consider that you would have been qualified

00:16:18 qualified to carry out that assessment against the criteria

00:16:22 criteria in bl-135 in october 2008. um again if if it was a question of just reading the standard and the test

00:16:33 and the test and it was a fairly straightforward conclusion i think then obviously any relatively technical

00:16:40 technical um person could do that again if some judgment was needed probably not i see all right uh as far as you're aware

00:16:53 all right uh as far as you're aware um let's explore this was the assessment of bs 841 for test data in general against the criteria in br135

00:17:04 in general against the criteria in br135 a normal or regular occurrence for the bba

00:17:07 bba in october 2008 was it something that was done regularly i don't i don't recall

00:17:18 i don't i don't recall i think in my in my experience which i think as we established yesterday is limited on insulation products at that time i don't i can't think of another

00:17:29 think of another instance of it whether that was done on other products prior to my involvement don't worry too much about what was done prior to your involvement

00:17:41 what was done prior to your involvement let me put it in this way do you remember ever yourself carrying out an exercise in which you looked at bs8414 test data and assess that data against the

00:17:53 and assess that data against the criteria in br135 at any time for any product i can't recall i can't recall another another um product such product no

00:18:06 another um product such product no all right let's take a look at what mr lee has to say about this in his witness statement

00:18:11 statement if we can go please to bba three zeros 107

00:18:15 107 94 and to page six

00:18:31 right if we look please this is a little bit tricky because the inquiries questions are not included in the statement so i'll need to explain to you uh what the question was if we look at paragraph 44a please

00:18:43 if we look at paragraph 44a please i i can tell you and hopefully we don't need to go to it that the question he had been

00:18:47 had been asked and is answering at 44a was this has the bba at any stage being an organization accredited by ucas or any other

00:18:58 accredited by ucas or any other accrediting body to classify bs 8414 test data to br135 all right so that's the question he was being asked

00:19:09 question he was being asked and his answer comes at paragraph 44a and he says this not to my knowledge at the time of my employment this would be the reason to obtain a fire opinion

00:19:21 be the reason to obtain a fire opinion as the bba were not accredited to interpret fire data do you agree with that mr hunt

00:19:36 i think so yes i

00:19:42 yeah i i yes i think so i i don't remember i don't remember george saying that at the time um

00:19:53 george saying that at the time um don't worry about whether or not he said that to you at the time i think my question is as basic as this you were the head of approvals between 2007 and 2010 was the bba during that period

00:20:06 was the bba during that period accredited to interpret 8414 test data against br135 or not okay um we i don't believe the bba was

00:20:18 okay um we i don't believe the bba was accredited um you know in terms of newcast accreditation to um make that judgment i see however um you know you ucas accreditation is

00:20:30 um you know you ucas accreditation is not

00:20:31 not at that time and and i think probably now at bba is not necessarily required for every every judgment and activity that the bba would undertake i don't think

00:20:43 bba would undertake i don't think certainly at that time so whether accredited is is necessary is one part of the uh yes issue i think if

00:20:56 uh yes issue i think if the other part of it um should a fire opinion i think i think at least it should have gone internally to um

00:21:07 gone internally to um you know we'll come here by brian haynes and then and then if necessary out to um to an external body

00:21:15 body let's deal with that now forgive me did you say that you think if necessary it should have gone to brian haynes and then to an external body uh no i think

00:21:25 think i think it probably should have been referred to brian haynes whether it was at the time um i can't remember

00:21:32 remember no mr hun i'm so sorry just say that i don't become confused what do you think should have been referred to brian haynes oh okay the the the the judgment

00:21:43 oh okay the the the the judgment against br135 i see the interpretation of the test data i think would it would have been the practice shall we say at the time to to

00:21:54 practice shall we say at the time to to to have done that he we'll come on to that now okay right let's go to bba five zeroes two five five please

00:22:14 we can see an email at the top from george lee to brian haynes with you copied in dated the 9th of june 2008. do you see that uh yes i do

00:22:27 that uh yes i do and the subject is uh cool thumb k15 bs 8414 test report and we can see that the test report is attached do you

00:22:38 that the test report is attached do you see that

00:22:39 see that yeah i could tell you that 220876 is the test reference number for that test mr lee says there hi brian please find attached product description

00:22:50 please find attached product description and eight 104 fire report for which i require a fire opinion let me know if you require any further info

00:22:58 info yes yes mr hunt we cannot find any response to that email can you remember whether or not there was one

00:23:10 sorry i i can't um i think that that that email which i don't recall precisely from the time but that that if you like is the sort of

00:23:22 you like is the sort of yeah i'd expect to see you know that that it would here's the test report um you know it it yes it may require a fire opinion um so that that

00:23:33 so that that that i think is would have been would have been normal yes yes so here it is and what we can't work out was whether or not a fire opinion was provided can you help

00:23:44 a fire opinion was provided can you help us with that

00:23:47 i'm sorry i can't i think that's one thing that i've been trying to rack my brains about as to as to what you know whether that happened and and if so what the outcome

00:23:59 happened and and if so what the outcome was but i can't i cannot recall anything from the time i'm afraid yes i see if a fire opinion had been provided

00:24:06 provided would it have been in writing

00:24:10 it may have been or it may or it may have been done via via phone call but

00:24:22 have been done via via phone call but right generally speaking you you expect something in writing but i think it depends on i i mean i i'm speculating here which i know

00:24:33 know perhaps is is not right but i i'm suspecting there may have been conversations um you know with with with mr haynes from um from george

00:24:44 um from george um and right but what happened after that i i cannot remember

00:24:51 remember all right thank you let's move back to the certificate please and and move on with uh section seven if we can go back to issue one at bba 6038 and back to page 5 please

00:25:04 and back to page 5 please i want to look with you please at section 7.2 which is at the very end of the page

00:25:10 the page if we read that the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in

00:25:21 the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and if we go over please to page six

00:25:27 england and wales approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5 and 12.6 volume 2. see also diagram 40.

00:25:39 see also diagram 40. just stopping there can you help us with this

00:25:43 this what fire test data was provided by kingspan

00:25:47 kingspan prior to your approval of this certificate to evidence the assertion that k-15 was classified as class knowledge

00:25:59 i i don't based on memory i don't remember clearly from the time i think based on what what

00:26:10 i think based on what what has has been seen on the file files more recently as part of the for the inquiry um

00:26:18 um is that there's there's no um test reports that are specific to k-15

00:26:26 to k-15 on the file all right yeah uh for a bba certificate to state that a product is classified as class nord as this one does

00:26:38 class nord as this one does would you expect that to have been supplied to the bba test data evidencing that assertion

00:26:47 um yes either directly on that product or or possibly a related product

00:26:59 or or possibly a related product all right

00:27:02 could you help me with how test data on a related product could assist with a classification on a different one

00:27:13 with a classification on a different one i think if if if it was the part of the same

00:27:18 same product family um and depending on the materials and the and the

00:27:25 the and the the surface i know these insulation boards have a core and a and uh and then have facings

00:27:35 facings yes so depending on depending on whether it was in the same family i'm not sure i follow what i let me put it in a different way um can you explain to me

00:27:46 you explain to me the process of looking at test data from a different product let's say k8 how from that could the bba come to a conclusion

00:27:58 conclusion that a wholly different product called k15

00:28:03 k15 has a classification to class naught just help me with what the steps are that take you from the beginning to the end of that um so i can't i can't remember

00:28:16 um so i can't i can't remember in in detail what those would be um i think probably from time based on time it's a long time ago and i

00:28:25 ago and i yes i can't i don't know they certainly don't know the standards well enough now um i quote what my knowledge of the standards was

00:28:36 what my knowledge of the standards was at the time no that's fine um i i would imagine and this is this is this is me

00:28:44 is me talking now um and therefore you know is is is is just based on perhaps my what i would imagine would would happen is it

00:28:55 would imagine would would happen is it it would be it would be looking at the um the facing material

00:29:00 material and the core of the board um and if those were essentially now you might want to define what essentially is but they were

00:29:12 essentially is but they were either identical or similar enough to to to to say that the um the same classification might be appropriate

00:29:24 it's a bit tricky isn't it because you're talking about something that you say you would imagine might have happened let's go back to the beginning of this did you ever during the period that you were head of approvals

00:29:36 were head of approvals carry out an exercise in which which you looked at test data for one product

00:29:44 establishing a classification to class naught

00:29:47 naught and somehow concluded from that that another product had that classification too did you ever carry out that exercise

00:29:58 carry out that exercise i don't remember carrying that out that exercise personally no who do you say would have done that if that occurred think i mean generally i i think at that

00:30:11 think i mean generally i i think at that time

00:30:12 time um it would have been george lee initially as as as the project manager and and possibly with the involvement of um of brian haynes i see all right i think

00:30:24 of brian haynes i see all right i think we'll come back to that uh can we go please to your witness statement uh bba3011087 and to page 11.

00:30:42 you've been asked there if we look please

00:30:46 please at paragraph 46 and the question above it at f

00:30:50 it at f what evidence did the bba possess or see prior to the 27th of october 2008 which would or could lead to an assertion that k15 was a product which could be described as

00:31:02 product which could be described as class naught and your answer was i don't remember however

00:31:06 however i have inspected technical literature dated may 2007 provided to me by the bba and note on the front page that it describes it as class naught and

00:31:18 that it describes it as class naught and this is also mentioned at page six of the same document yes yes you're talking here in fact i think about kingston's marketing literature for k-15 are you yes that that was

00:31:31 are you yes that that was that was on the file that that i saw um more recently um yes right let's take a look

00:31:38 look all right let's take a look at that it's

00:31:42 kin402580 please

00:31:56 so this is the seventh issue if you look to the top right hand corner of the document

00:32:01 document of kingspan's product literature for k15 and it's dated may 2007. do you see that

00:32:09 see that yes yes i do i think this is the document you're referring to i believe so yes

00:32:15 so yes all right if we look on the right hand side at the second red bullet point down we can see there the words

00:32:22 the words class naught low risk fire rating yes yes and then if we go on in this document please to page six

00:32:35 and look at the left hand side under the heading

00:32:38 heading fire performance about halfway down the page

00:32:47 we see that claim repeated kingspan cool thumb k15 rain screen board will achieve the results given below which enable it to be classified by the building regulations as being class naught

00:32:57 naught and as low risk yes yes uh while we're on it if we go a little further down that section do you see that um under the sort of

00:33:08 do you see that um under the sort of shaded blue box there are a list of tests on the left hand side yes and the very last one is bs8414 2001 uh 2002 and say sorry

00:33:22 2001 uh 2002 and say sorry do you see that yes i do yes the test method is set out on the left hand side and then on the right hand side opposite that we see the following words successfully tested kingspan cool firm

00:33:36 successfully tested kingspan cool firm k15 rain screen board does not contribute to fire propagation spread within a cladding system yes yes and under that

00:33:49 yes yes and under that k-15 meets the criteria within br135 and it gives us the standard and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the

00:34:00 above 18 meters in accordance with the building regulations do you see that yes i do just say that i'm clear i understand that you're uh you tell me that this document was on the k15

00:34:10 the k15 file and that you saw it in the course of

00:34:13 of preparing your witness statement did you see it at the time you were reviewing this certificate for approval do you know i i don't remember all right i don't

00:34:26 i don't remember all right i don't remember specifically no um probably but i i i can't i can't say for sure all right well looking at the wording that we've just been through

00:34:38 just been through do you think in fact that this document might be the source of some of the wording we have been discussing about the boards will not contribute to

00:34:50 about the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire from page one

00:34:54 page one and about the product meeting the criteria in br135 could this be the source of the wording we end up seeing in issue one of the bba

00:35:06 we end up seeing in issue one of the bba certificate

00:35:10 it's it's it's possible um but you know we would not at that time would not normally have have just taken that wording directly

00:35:21 have just taken that wording directly um without without uh checking it and and and um seeing if if if it was if it was right

00:35:32 seeing if if if it was if it was right what do you mean you wouldn't normally have have done that are there circumstances in which you would have simply

00:35:38 simply lifted assertions from within a manufacturer's marketing material and place them into the technical sections of the bba certificate um i think what i mean by that is that

00:35:53 um i think what i mean by that is that in a way you know bbo certificate um [Music]

00:36:00 [Music] was was a way it was a way perhaps of of um of taking manufacturers i think that was one like um

00:36:11 i think that was one like um use of a application of bba certificate was was

00:36:15 was was looking at manufacturers claims and then and then you know assessing whether whether those were those could be um included in the certificate or not but

00:36:26 certificate or not but generally i don't think we'd you know we didn't take the wording directly from from the from the manufacturer's literature yes i understand that and that's the answer you had given me uh

00:36:38 that's the answer you had given me uh just now my question is this when you say you wouldn't generally do that or you wouldn't normally do that which is what you just told us are you saying that there are circumstances

00:36:50 circumstances in which the bba would have simply lifted claims from within the manufacturer's marketing material

00:36:58 material and placed those as assertions into a bba certificate without carrying out any checks oh okay no

00:37:06 no no we that wouldn't be that wouldn't be normal

00:37:11 normal i know that it wouldn't be normal i'm asking if if it ever occurred oh okay um not not not that i can recall no

00:37:20 no right do you think it is one possibility that what george lee did in the case of issue one of k15 is just that take the manufacturer's assertions

00:37:31 assertions and put them into a bba certificate it's it's possible um i don't i couldn't say whether that's

00:37:42 i don't i couldn't say whether that's what he did in in this case um well why couldn't you say that given that you were responsible for the technical sign of of the content of the certificate only

00:37:53 of the content of the certificate only that i don't recall that being the case i see all right

00:38:00 let's go please to

00:38:06 mr moore's witness statement this is the second witness statement of brian moore which is bba three zeros 11097 and this is going to bring us back to

00:38:17 and this is going to bring us back to discuss a couple of the answers you gave a few minutes ago so bba3011097 please and if we can go to page four

00:38:30 yes if we look at paragraph 3m we can see that mr moore has been asked about the initial technical assessment by the bba of k15 in 2008

00:38:42 by the bba of k15 in 2008 and in particular he has been asked about the

00:38:45 about the assertion that k15 had achieved a classification to class naught he says starting at paragraph 15 certificate 084582 and the first issue

00:38:59 certificate 084582 and the first issue of certificate 14 5134 stated that the product was a class not low risk material in order to demonstrate this test reports are required

00:39:10 reports are required to bs-476 part 6 and bs476 part 7 and no such reports are contained on any of the k15 file folders he then goes on at

00:39:21 file folders he then goes on at paragraph 16 instead the classification for k15 was extrapolated from a series of fire reports on similar kingspan phenolic products including those of similar density and

00:39:34 including those of similar density and facing type do you see that yes i do mr moore was asked about this in his evidence a couple of days ago and for the record this was at the transcript day 107

00:39:46 transcript day 107 page 167 line 7 to 15. i won't take you to it mr hunt unless we need to

00:39:54 need to he made clear that he arrived at the conclusion that an extrapolation of the type he has described here had been carried out later and on the

00:40:05 had been carried out later and on the basis of a deduction that it was more likely than not that that is what would have been done so i'm obviously paraphrasing but he essentially said because there's no uh test data

00:40:18 because there's no uh test data establishing class naught for k-15 on the file

00:40:21 the file he and mr alban in discussion together deduced

00:40:25 deduced that it was more likely than not that an extrapolation had been carried out from similar products right yes if we go please to your witness

00:40:36 yes if we go please to your witness statement now which is bba 3011087 and to page 11.

00:40:48 thank you we can see here without reading through all of them that you have been asked if we look at paragraph

00:40:57 paragraph g is it correct that the product was stated in the certificate to have achieved class naught on the basis of an extrapolation your answer is at 47 i don't know

00:41:10 your answer is at 47 i don't know on what basis did you or anyone else consider that appropriate your answer at 48 i don't know

00:41:19 know scrolling down please on what basis did you consider that the bba was entitled to describe as class naught a product which had not to the bba's knowledge achieve that

00:41:31 to the bba's knowledge achieve that classification i don't know and then you're asked at j please explain with reference to the documents how the extrapolation was carried out

00:41:42 the extrapolation was carried out essentially that's what you're being asked there who carried out this exercise on what basis

00:41:47 basis please also explain who was responsible for authorizing this decision and your answer at 50 again i don't know so to be clear the evidence you gave to us a few

00:41:59 the evidence you gave to us a few minutes ago that you imagine that it might have been that test data from similar products was looked at and somehow possibly mr

00:42:10 was looked at and somehow possibly mr lee

00:42:11 lee carried out some sort of assessment exercise

00:42:15 exercise from different test data on different products to arrive at a conclusion that k15 has class naught is that something you actually remember

00:42:26 is that something you actually remember from the time or has that come to you since the inquiry has been asking about these matters

00:42:35 i think if i could just i don't know if this is helpful but a bit of explanation perhaps of um preparing the witness statement um

00:42:47 um preparing the witness statement um i i received a received notification to do with the witness statement fairly late on

00:42:53 late on and with a just before christmas with a fairly tight um time scale on so this from memory and then had the chance just to have a quick look at the bba

00:43:04 just to have a quick look at the bba files but

00:43:05 files but i i so i think um i can't remember if this was exactly your question but i think because i've obviously

00:43:16 i think because i've obviously heard and seen the other evidence that's as it's been um going uh through the inquiry so yes i think i think it's

00:43:27 yes i think i think it's i'm sorry i can't remember what you're what you're actually questioning that's quite all right it was a very long question my question is this um can you let's put it differently can you remember do you have any

00:43:39 you remember do you have any recollection of any technical assessment or extrapolation being carried out at the time to arrive at a conclusion that k15 was classified to class north

00:43:52 that k15 was classified to class north oh okay so i i don't have no i don't have a clear recollection of that from memory

00:43:58 memory um do you have any recollection of that i i think

00:44:01 i i think it it seemed it seems very likely to me that that was the case um now and and the evidence that i've

00:44:14 um now and and the evidence that i've seen and has been building up i think does

00:44:17 does does tend to indicate that um do i have a clear memory of it no i don't all right so you say you don't have a clear memory of it just i'm sorry but so that i'm clear do

00:44:29 just i'm sorry but so that i'm clear do you have any memory of that being of that taking place i i think seeing the

00:44:38 this relationship or possible relationship between some of the other cool firm um boards which

00:44:45 which um has appeared you know in in some of the documents it it seems it seems highly likely so i i understand that i don't have a clear

00:44:57 i i understand that i don't have a clear memory of it no no i understand that let's break this down i'm so sorry but it is quite important i understand that you're saying that you think it's likely that that is what occurred i'll

00:45:08 likely that that is what occurred i'll come to that i also understand that you're saying you don't have a clear recollection of that actually occurring my question now is

00:45:18 now is when you say you don't have a clear memory of it occurring do you have any memory at all of that type of extrapolation being carried out oh okay i think

00:45:31 more recently yes i think i do have i do have

00:45:34 have a vague memory if you like of of of that happening

00:45:38 happening i see the details of it but but i you know some of the evidences if you like

00:45:45 you like has triggered a vague memory that that was how it was done um so

00:45:52 um so yes forgive me go ahead i said you know so yes yes yes a sort of a vague memory but but no detailed recollection

00:46:03 but but no detailed recollection fine what is the vague memory the the

00:46:10 thing i'm trying it's difficult to in a way disentangle what what i'm my mind is perhaps filling in from what has been heard more recently indeed from what actually would have

00:46:22 indeed from what actually would have been the case at the time and there may be no definitive way of doing that perhaps but um let's

00:46:31 um let's given given the relationship between or possible relationship i guess this is one of

00:46:36 one of the issues between you know call them k8 and some of the other cool thing boards um that yes that would have that would have been

00:46:47 yes that would have that would have been what was done right forgive me sorry i need to address that

00:46:53 that what do you mean given the relationship between cool firm k-8 and some of the other cool firm boards what do you actually know about that what is the relation mr hunt between cool firm k-8

00:47:06 hunt between cool firm k-8 and cool sperm k-15 that that i don't recall in in detail they were part of this obviously the same

00:47:15 the same call for firm family of phenolic boards right exactly how they related i i can't remember in detail all right can you remember seeing any

00:47:26 all right can you remember seeing any documents at the time relating to any extrapolation exercise

00:47:32 uh i i can't no all right i want to ask you about something brian moore told us uh in his evidence talking about what he came to understand from mr alban

00:47:45 came to understand from mr alban and that's at the transcript at day 107 page 170 lines 17-23 actually let's go to that please so transcript day 107 page 170

00:47:58 transcript day 107 page 170 lines 17-23

00:48:03 yes he's been mr moore was being asked there

00:48:07 there about this extrapolation we've been discussing from one set of cool term products to another

00:48:14 another and if we look please at his answer at line 17

00:48:19 line 17 he said this i understood that it was not it wasn't common but it was not unusual if there were products of a similar of a similar kind to each other and if the performance was adjudged to

00:48:31 and if the performance was adjudged to be so similar to one that we'd already assessed it was not unusual for the bba to extrapolate its opinion from one product to a similar one that was the core of the conversation

00:48:43 was the core of the conversation so just in very basic terms do you agree with that

00:48:47 with that is that something the bba did or was not unusual for the bba to do in 2008 to your knowledge

00:48:57 can i just check the so where it says that was the core of the conversation that was

00:49:02 that was conversation with with john alban that's correct

00:49:05 correct um sorry can you just repeat the actual question again yes the question was whether you agree with mr moore or with what he appears to have

00:49:16 what he appears to have been discussing with mr alban mr moore tells us in that section that i've just read to you that he was given to understand that it wasn't it was not common but was not unusual for this practice to

00:49:29 but was not unusual for this practice to take place that the bba would extrapolate a class naught test result from one product

00:49:37 product to another and what i'm asking is do you think that is right that it wasn't necessarily common practice but it was not unusual yes i think i think i would i would

00:49:50 yes i think i think i would i would agree with with that i think can you ever remember yourself carrying out any such extrapolation exercise

00:50:04 i don't i don't recall any specific incidences but i think right i think i mean i might we it's quite likely that that that it did

00:50:17 it's quite likely that that that it did happen at that time and before that time but i i couldn't name you i couldn't name your particular product no you don't need to do that do you remember ever overseeing

00:50:29 do you remember ever overseeing an extrapolation of that type carried out by someone else one of your project managers can you actually remember ever doing that

00:50:40 remember ever doing that i remember i remember i think i do you know i do remember cases where not necessarily on an insulation product i'm trying to think now but um

00:50:52 product i'm trying to think now but um on on products where surface spread of flame appropriately every class class one or class nor might have been relevant where where where that was that was done

00:51:04 where that was that was done um yeah so certainly i don't think it was unusual to do that do you know at the time whether any external qualified fire

00:51:15 whether any external qualified fire engineer

00:51:17 engineer was ever asked by the bba whether it was appropriate to extrapolate in this manner from one product to another

00:51:30 um are you aware of advice having been sought

00:51:34 sought on that matter or that practice i think i think it did yes i think again if my memory from the time on on you know on products was was that if

00:51:46 you know on products was was that if if that was going to be done if that that was the if that was something which which was being um considered that it would generally the

00:51:58 that it would generally the the project manager or the section head or the approvals manager as they became would would have discussed it with with brian haynes generally in the first instance

00:52:10 instance seeing what his opinion was and then and then sought an external um an external opinion if it was if it was considered necessary

00:52:21 it was if it was considered necessary i see are you aware mr hunt that during the period you were head of approvals and signing off issue one of that certificate for k-15 that in fact kingspan continually

00:52:32 that in fact kingspan continually struggled to achieve class naught for that product

00:52:36 i don't recall that no no are you aware now

00:52:40 now that during the life of that bba certificate which you approved kingspan had obtained test results

00:52:47 results which showed that they were not able to achieve class naught for that product no i don't i don't recall that no do you agree that had the bba actually insisted on seeing some test data

00:53:00 insisted on seeing some test data relevant to k15 and class naught the bba would have discovered that fact potentially yes what do you mean potentially

00:53:11 potentially if you had seen test data which showed that the product could not achieve class naught you would have discovered that it could not be classified to class nor would you not

00:53:22 nor would you not yes if we'd seen the data yes why did you as head of approvals allow a technical assertion of that kind to be printed in a certificate

00:53:35 to be printed in a certificate without checking whether or not it was correct

00:53:41 i i think at the time i must have considered that that what we had was was close enough to to other products um on what basis

00:53:55 um on what basis i think that just just on on based on the extrapolation that that seems likely to have occurred but other than that i can't account for it no do you agree

00:54:07 can't account for it no do you agree uh thinking about it now that the bba should have requested test data to parts six and seven of bs476 for the product it was certifying

00:54:18 certifying k15 yes i've been given given given what i know now yes yes it's a very basic failure of due diligence on the part of the bba

00:54:30 diligence on the part of the bba do you accept that

00:54:34 given given the the facts that we know now yes um would i consider that at the time i obviously not um give me mr hunt but

00:54:47 obviously not um give me mr hunt but that's the point isn't it when you say given the facts that we know now you would have known them at the time had someone asked do you see sorry known at the time

00:55:00 do you see sorry known at the time that there were problems achieving class naught for k-15 had those test results actually been sought from kingspan oh okay um yes i think was was is there

00:55:13 oh okay um yes i think was was is there is there no evidence that they were sought well i'm not sure we need to go through kingspan's struggles with 476 testing at this stage on this topic my last question for you

00:55:24 on this topic my last question for you is this do you accept now that this was in fact a very basic failure of due diligence on your part as head of approvals yes

00:55:36 all right let's go on to a different topic please and i want to talk with you about the initial assessment of k15

00:55:42 k15 as a product to be newly certified so if we go to your witness statement please bba 3011087 and back to page 11.

00:56:00 right if we go uh at the very can we go to the very bottom of this page please

00:56:09 here you've been asked on the basis of information given to this inquiry by the bba

00:56:15 bba the following question the inquiry also understands from the bba's letter the 18th of april 2019 that no initial assessment of the manufacture of the product

00:56:25 product took place and going over to page 12 please and that this appears to have been on the basis that kingspan's quality standards were in the view of the bba

00:56:36 in the view of the bba well established you are then asked in your witness statement whether that is correct in your view and your answer at paragraph 51 is i note that there was no initial factor

00:56:47 i note that there was no initial factor inspection but this in isolation would not have concerned me now just so that i

00:56:53 that i am clear is that something you noted at the time

00:56:57 the time before you reviewed the certificate for approval or are you noting it now okay so i was noting it now having obviously seen the the

00:57:10 having obviously seen the the the file um for doing preparing the evidence

00:57:14 evidence um but i would i think i also would have been aware of it at the at the time um because yeah because i think i would have known i had known and would have

00:57:26 have known i had known and would have known that um the the factory was under surveillance already i see let me go on to page 12 of your witness statement please and to inquiry question c

00:57:40 and to inquiry question c there yes there you're asked about this decision not to carry out any initial assessment of the manufacture of the product is this normal practice if not why not

00:57:52 this normal practice if not why not and you say it paragraph 53 i believe so at the time the manufacturer was already subject to bba surveillance for related products

00:58:03 products you then confirm actually at paragraph 54 that you were personally aware that no initial assessment of the product had taken place do you see that yes and if we go on down

00:58:14 do you see that yes and if we go on down the page please

00:58:21 you're asked whether you consider that to represent good practice and you say yes this is paragraph 55 if satisfactory surveillance was considered to be established for similar

00:58:32 considered to be established for similar products

00:58:33 products at that location do you see that yes i do

00:58:41 i think my basic question is this how could anyone have known that k-15 would be manufactured in an identical way

00:58:52 identical way to the products under surveillance if nobody had been out to assess that

00:58:59 um this this is this was fairly normal practice at the time

00:59:08 time i understand that and my question is how could it be established given that you're saying not only that it was normal practice but that you consider it to represent good practice

00:59:19 consider it to represent good practice my question is how could anyone have established other than taking the manufacturer's word for it that the product which was about to be newly certificated

00:59:30 newly certificated was manufactured in the same way as and subject to the same standards as other products if no one had checked that

00:59:42 usually where a new product was being added to a range um that was being produced in the same factory the the new product

00:59:53 factory the the new product would get added to the um i think at the time bba called quality plans yes um and it would it would fall under the surveillance for that

01:00:04 surveillance for that for that factory site and would be would be assessed by the by the um the auditor as part of that and that would want to see the records of that

01:00:15 see the records of that um and the production controls that were carried out yes great uh i want to take you back to a different section please of the certificate uh so if we can go back to

01:00:26 certificate uh so if we can go back to bba

01:00:27 bba six zeros 38 we're going to continue on mr hunt

01:00:31 mr hunt in section 7 and if we look please at section 7.3 do you see that yes in buildings with a floor more than

01:00:42 yes in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder that's the manufacturer kingspan yes yes do you remember seeing that when you

01:00:53 do you remember seeing that when you approved this certificate uh yes i believe so why does the certificate refer or direct readers back to the manufacturer in this way

01:01:08 from from memory that was not an unusual statement in a bba certificate um whether or not it was

01:01:19 certificate um whether or not it was unusual why was it done okay i think trying to remember my you know the the what would have been the thinking at the time um

01:01:30 time um but i think i think it would have been because the um buildings over eight or higher higher buildings buildings over 18 meters

01:01:41 buildings buildings over 18 meters particularly would um the design of the of the of the system the design of the cladding interaction between the cladding system and insulation and

01:01:52 the cladding system and insulation and the building itself for building elements

01:01:55 elements um was became more complex the considerations were more complex and and and um therefore there may maybe kingspan you know in this case the

01:02:07 maybe kingspan you know in this case the certificate older might may have been able to provide some some guidance on on on the the use of the product or the type of system it would work with that

01:02:19 it would work with that in that situation i see did you understand at the time of approving this certificate that the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters was in fact limited to the one specific

01:02:31 was in fact limited to the one specific configuration that had been tested to bs 8414 part one which is set out in section 7.1 of the certificate did that form part of your understanding

01:02:45 i i can't remember precisely at the time um i would have thought so um or at least that it could

01:02:56 thought so um or at least that it could have been

01:02:57 have been that you know the design team on on a particular project would would be able to have an assessment of those of that with those results done in terms of

01:03:08 with those results done in terms of whether it was it was whether that test data was um could be assessed and used on on a particular build-up particular system

01:03:20 system mr hunt the bba was it in october 2008 an independent certification organization yes yes did you consider at the time of

01:03:33 did you consider at the time of approving this certificate that the organization best place to make clear to readers and construction of professionals what the limitations of

01:03:44 the limitations of use for k-15 over 80 meters was was the manufacturer rather than an independent certification body

01:03:59 an independent certification body i'm not sure how it was there it it it was not

01:04:03 was not as i say that this was the sort of statement which which would appear in in in a number of bba certificates but you're not sure why is that right

01:04:15 but you're not sure why is that right well

01:04:15 well i think because perhaps this is you know i don't know perhaps this is taking a step back but because this is a certificate for a

01:04:27 but because this is a certificate for a for a product a component the insulation board is is a is a is a component in this case that you you you can never really know all the circumstances of the

01:04:39 the circumstances of the of the um the finished project you know is for a product it wasn't in this case for a system um and even a certificate for a system

01:04:51 and even a certificate for a system needs needs the context of use on that particular project establishing because i think at the end of the day the building regis requirements relate to the building

01:05:02 the building not not any one component you could only go so far in in in giving data on on a on a product it's

01:05:13 giving data on on a on a product it's not it's not sufficient in its own yes i understand that what i was really trying to get at was why as an independent certification organization the bba did not make clear

01:05:26 the bba did not make clear in this certificate that k-15 could only be used over 18 meters in one specific configuration

01:05:38 that assertion or that statement is not anywhere in this certificate is it no i don't think it is no and instead the bba's readers are directed back to the manufacturer of the

01:05:51 directed back to the manufacturer of the product

01:05:52 product for advice on that subject yes yes great let's go on to uh something else now please we know obviously that this certificate issue one was uh there's the date

01:06:04 issue one was uh there's the date 27th of october 2008. and i want you please

01:06:08 please uh to look at an email now if we can go to that it's kin402093

01:06:21 yes uh if you can look please i need to take you to page two first i think

01:06:28 think yes do you see an email there from george lee dated the 24th of december 2008 yes and that is sent to gareth mills at

01:06:39 yes and that is sent to gareth mills at kingspan

01:06:39 kingspan and you are copied in do you see that yes mr lee says there hi gareth we've recently received a number of comments on the k15

01:06:50 number of comments on the k15 certificate in relation to the clarity of wording used as part of this certificate's fire section in response to this we have a suggested amendment to the text which

01:07:01 a suggested amendment to the text which we wish to make this amendment we will make at no cost to yourselves and as an improvement to the certificate which i hope you will agree will improve how this certificate will

01:07:12 will improve how this certificate will read in the future do you see that yes george lee in late 2008 was still reporting to you wasn't he yeah i think so yes yes

01:07:26 wasn't he yeah i think so yes yes yes what comments had the bba received between the publication of issue one on the 22

01:07:34 the 22 27th of october 2008 and this email on christmas eve 2008.

01:07:45 i i don't recall we must have received some

01:07:50 some some comments um but you can't recall what those were

01:07:59 having approved the certificate would you have expected us as head of approvals to have been made aware of what those comments were

01:08:11 aware of what those comments were yes generally yes right

01:08:16 and he's copied you into this email uh mr lee do you think that well would you expect him to have sent this email to gareth mills in which he proposes a number of

01:08:27 in which he proposes a number of amendments to improve the clarity of the wording on the fire section was there some discussion with you before he did that can you remember yeah probably yes

01:08:40 can you remember yeah probably yes um i can't recall i can't recall exactly what it was right do you remember being at all concerned at the time

01:08:52 concerned at the time that only two months after publication in the bba's view at least amendments were required to the fire section

01:09:04 um yes possibly our amendments were for you know certificates were amended um from time to time yes after issue

01:09:17 um from time to time yes after issue because

01:09:18 because um because something had been you know a reader had seen something or either internally or externally something had been um yes

01:09:31 something had been um yes and and then and then and then we would as it here you know it it would if it was a sort of a correction or or an amendment

01:09:42 a correction or or an amendment um we then would try and do that without you know not charge the the the uh the certificate holder for it yes all right let's look at what mr lee

01:09:54 yes all right let's look at what mr lee was proposing um if we look at the third paragraph of his email please which should still be on your screen forgive me he says this the changes i propose are as follows

01:10:07 propose are as follows at the first bullet point product scope and summary of certificate remove the word external and then at the second bullet point key factors assessed now that is the section

01:10:17 section we spent some time looking at from page one of the certificate do you remember yes and his proposal is key factors assessed behavior in

01:10:28 key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire the boards are classified as class naught the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

01:10:35 a fire the product has been tested to bs84141 for a specific construction on masonry walls

01:10:44 walls so we can look at it again if that would make it easier but do you see that the change proposed to that section of the key factors assessed

01:10:55 the key factors assessed is the final sentence there the product has been tested to bs84141 for a specific construction on masonry walls

01:11:06 walls that is the proposed edition dc yes yes which ties in with the um what we were just talking about yeah it does doesn't it because that is the specific assertion that was

01:11:19 that is the specific assertion that was missing

01:11:20 missing from the 27th of october 2008 issue of the certificate for k-15 do you see yes yes all right and it's a fundamentally important

01:11:32 fundamentally important piece of information would you agree i yes it clearly has been it has been uh raised by by um

01:11:44 it has been uh raised by by um has been raised um yes do you agree sorry i overspoke sorry no i i think i think

01:11:52 think yes it was it was something which which you know should have should have been in the certificate yeah yes and presumably that's why the amendment's being

01:12:03 amendment's being proposed if if that had been set out on the front page of the certificate under key factors assessed do you agree that that wording would make absolutely

01:12:14 make absolutely clear to a reader that the use of the product

01:12:19 product at height was limited to one specific configuration on masonry walls

01:12:26 yes that that that does that does clarify that that point yes yes all right let's go up um up to the bottom of page one of this

01:12:37 um up to the bottom of page one of this email chain please i'm sorry to interrupt you miss drew but mr hunt in the light of your earlier evidence would you also agree that a statement that the product has

01:12:49 that a statement that the product has been tested in accordance with bs8414 is itself erroneous

01:12:56 um yes i think so the the the product was tested as part of a of a system exactly yes thank you

01:13:07 of a system exactly yes thank you yes so sorry are you getting true no in fact i i wonder uh given the progress that i'm making this morning whether looking at the time this might be a good time for us to take

01:13:18 this might be a good time for us to take a short break um well tell me how you're getting on i'm afraid my progress has been sub-optimal and i think it is unlikely if we continue now that i will be

01:13:30 if we continue now that i will be finished by 11 30. well 11 30 might not be an absolute deadline

01:13:35 deadline um i know it's always extremely difficult to know quite um how much time is going to be required but do you think you're going to be another 15 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes i i

01:13:46 15 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes i i think 30

01:13:47 think 30 is a very safe estimate and i would hope to be done within 30 minutes but i think 15 is too short well um i'm quite anxious to avoid too many breaks in the day i'm sorry across

01:13:59 many breaks in the day i'm sorry across you mr hunt but we will have a break this morning but if we could combine it with the usual break that we have for uh considering further questions that would obviously

01:14:10 further questions that would obviously be uh

01:14:11 be uh convenient to everyone sorry would you be happy mr hunt to go on for another between 15 and 30 minutes or do you need a break now no that that that is fine for me sir

01:14:25 no that that that is fine for me sir all right well that's good of you thank you we'll miss trooper i think we'll carry on

01:14:29 carry on yes but i think that um we need to have a break

01:14:34 a break um somewhere around 20 to 12. i understand if you can manage it i'm not trying to put you under pressure i'm just trying to give you an indication of um how far i think we can

01:14:46 indication of um how far i think we can afford to go i understand i'll do my best and if we come just take your course but if it yeah 20 to 12 you haven't finished i think we might have to um have a break i understand thank you

01:15:00 right mr hun let's go back please to the email we were looking at between mr lee and kingspan from december 2008.

01:15:12 if we can go yes there it is there is kingspan's response and that appears to come on the 5th of march 2009 so a good number of months after mr

01:15:26 so a good number of months after mr lee's email to kingston on this matter do you see yes that i can't remember the date of george lee's email the 24th of december

01:15:37 george lee's email the 24th of december 2008

01:15:38 2008 and here is philip heath's response on the 5th of march 2009 okay yes do you remember being aware of that delay in a response from kingspan at the time

01:15:52 in a response from kingspan at the time i i don't remember specifically that what the delay was um no do you remember being aware of the delay i

01:16:03 delay i i possibly yes i i don't i don't recall it in detail but seeing that email then then clearly yes yes all right let's

01:16:15 then clearly yes yes all right let's look at the response uh good afternoon george gareth mills has brought to my attention your recent emails in relation to our bba certificate for k-15 firstly may we register our concern at

01:16:26 firstly may we register our concern at the proposal to reissue this certificate so soon after publication when we have waited some considerable time for its issue and going over the page please

01:16:37 issue and going over the page please secondly your request is receiving our attention however we are determining the implications to kingspan of this speedy reissue

01:16:45 reissue as documentation has been published that refers to the current certificate and the wording therein therefore there could be cost implications to kingspan that we would have no option but to pass

01:16:56 that we would have no option but to pass on the bba if we are in agreement to your request once we've completed our audit to determine the implications for kingspan insulation we will be back to you now i see that

01:17:10 we will be back to you now i see that that response from philip heath to george lee uh does not appear to have copied you in do you remember seeing it at the time i don't i don't remember

01:17:22 at the time i don't i don't remember seeing that response in detail i think i do i do remember kingspan being um a bit resistant

01:17:35 kingspan being um a bit resistant to the to the uh the amendment do you did you consider why that might be

01:17:42 um i but probably only in in terms i don't remember this in detail but only probably in the terms that are that are in

01:17:53 in uh mr heath's response that that you know this this this business of the literature and and the cost of that i that that may well have been what i

01:18:05 that may well have been what i understood to be the uh their resistance at that time yes all right

01:18:10 right given the bba's obvious awareness that there was some lack of clarity in the fire section and given that comments had obviously been received by the bba to that effect

01:18:24 why was this not followed up why has it been allowed to run on until march 2009

01:18:34 i i can't recall um for sure um it should have been followed up before then all right and what about thereafter

01:18:46 all right and what about thereafter having received that email from mr heath informing the bba that kingspan were carrying out an audit to determine the implications for kingspan

01:18:56 kingspan do you remember

01:18:59 what activity took place thereafter when did a response come in from kingspen for following that email following that email yes i don't i don't recall

01:19:10 email yes i don't i don't recall no all right can we go please to the third

01:19:13 third uh witness statement of john alban which is bba three zeros 107 5 1.

01:19:22 107 5 1. and to page 30 please

01:19:29 yes if we look please at paragraph 111 mr alban is talking here mr hunt about amended issue 1 the certificate we looked at yesterday which bears

01:19:40 looked at yesterday which bears a date of the 6th of april 2010. do you remember

01:19:45 remember yes and he says there although the date of the amendment is given on the certificate as the 6th of april 2010 in fact it was not published until the 12th of july 2013

01:19:56 published until the 12th of july 2013 and was superseded by the second issue dated the 17th of december 2013. my simple question is this is that right as far as you can remember is it correct that amended issue one was

01:20:09 is it correct that amended issue one was not published until july 2013 i i can't remember um i can't remember

01:20:21 if the records if the records at the bba show that then that that seems that the uh what would have happened but i don't i don't remember that

01:20:32 don't remember that um right all right let's go back uh let's go now please to amended issue one of the certificate so that's bba 3037

01:20:49 and if we can go i want to ask you uh straight to aps about section seven so if we go to page five

01:21:00 section seven so if we go to page five yes and if we look at section 7 behavior in relation to fire it's a bit difficult to spot but we can see that there's been a change to section 7.1 if we look at that

01:21:11 to section 7.1 if we look at that together it tells us in the first two lines that the product is classified as class

01:21:15 class naught or low risk as it did before yes yes and then uh where we see the words in bold england and wales just as before we see approved document

01:21:29 just as before we see approved document b

01:21:29 b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5

01:21:33 12.5 and 12.6 and then we see and 12.7 volume 2. so we can put them up side by side if we need to but what has changed between issue one

01:21:46 but what has changed between issue one and amended issue one is that in this issue amended issue one the words

01:21:51 the words and 12.7 have been added do you see yes so this certificate now tells us that the product k15 may be used in accordance with the

01:22:03 k15 may be used in accordance with the provisions of 12.7 of approved document b amongst other provisions do you see yes i do

01:22:12 i do what was the reason for that edition

01:22:17 i i don't have a clear recollection from the time um i i i think it may have been related to um masonry uh masonry cavity walls

01:22:31 masonry uh masonry cavity walls what do you mean it may have been related to masonry cavity walls well having pain having thought about it um more recently again obviously with

01:22:42 it um more recently again obviously with the

01:22:42 the the the uh you know looking looking at the

01:22:45 the the certificates and the available files and

01:22:50 and i i think that that reference was probably related to to mason um masonry cavity construction because that reference appears in a

01:23:03 because that reference appears in a proof document b there is that reference to masonry cavity walls and masonry external walls are mentioned in the certificate yes that is something that you have

01:23:16 yes that is something that you have um considered fairly recently may have been the reason for the inclusion of that wording is that right yes but but it seems to me now that that

01:23:29 yes but but it seems to me now that that was

01:23:30 was also likely like the um situation at the time

01:23:35 time i see were you familiar with the with the content of approved document b 12.7 at the time i believe so certain certainly with with

01:23:46 i believe so certain certainly with with the

01:23:48 the the that that the fact that that clause appears in in the proof document b at the time and related to um these this this situation yeah all right

01:23:59 these this this situation yeah all right well let's take a look at it can we go to clg

01:24:02 to clg one and then six zeros seven please mr hunt this is the 2006 edition of approved document b okay

01:24:14 of approved document b okay and if we can go please to page 94

01:24:23 uh yes i'm so sorry so if we can go on down

01:24:26 down two more pages yes there we can see uh 12.7 under the heading insulation materials products and it reads in a building with

01:24:38 products and it reads in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level

01:24:41 level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not

01:24:54 see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. yes yes so having looked at that section

01:25:05 yes yes so having looked at that section can you assist me any further with how k15 could be used in accordance with the provisions of that section

01:25:16 section um i think you know this situation where it was insulation within a masonry cavity wall construction i see do you agree that um

01:25:29 i see do you agree that um insulation within a masonry cavity wall instruction construction i'm so sorry is the exception in 12.7 in other words materia such materials

01:25:41 in other words materia such materials should be of limited combustibility other than where they're being used in masonry cavity wall construction yes i believe so although

01:25:54 yes i believe so although there's also the provision further up that

01:25:58 that um if the system's been tested and um meets the criteria of br135 then that that that is the other exception i think isn't it i see let's

01:26:11 exception i think isn't it i see let's just try and stick with this i want to make sure that i understand your evidence okay are you saying that you think now having looked at

01:26:19 looked at it that probably that wording and 12.7 was included because the bba intended to indicate

01:26:30 because the bba intended to indicate that within the exception in 12.7 k15 could be used is that your reasoning yes i believe so yes i see why does the

01:26:41 yes i believe so yes i see why does the certificate not simply say that

01:26:46 that i i don't know do you think it would have been helpful for it to do so if that was truly the intention of that wording

01:26:55 wording yes i think i think it would

01:27:00 have you spoken at any stage to john alban

01:27:03 alban about what the reasoning for the inclusion of 12.7 is in amended issue one uh no i don't i don't think so no

01:27:14 no i don't i don't think so no right let's uh go back please to amended issue one and to page five so i'm sorry the reference is bba six zeros thirty three before we do that mr i'm sorry to

01:27:25 before we do that mr i'm sorry to interrupt again but um just help me with this if you would mr hunt would it not be fair to say that the thrust of paragraph 12.7 is to tell the reader that in relation

01:27:38 is to tell the reader that in relation to

01:27:38 to certain sorts of buildings those above 18 meters

01:27:42 18 meters the insulation should be of limited combustibility is that right um

01:27:53 is that right um yes uh yes i i yes um although there is obviously that there is an exception but the primary thrust of the paragraph is to tell you that now if the certificate

01:28:04 if the certificate includes a statement that a material may be used in accordance with paragraph 12.7 does that not risk at least giving the impression that it can be used in buildings over 18

01:28:17 that it can be used in buildings over 18 meters because it is of limited combustibility

01:28:22 there is the there is the the risk that it could be read that way um

01:28:31 yes um yes all right thank you very much yeah on your game is true thank you that risk you've just referred to mr hunt could have been entirely uh stamped out by the inclusion

01:28:44 entirely uh stamped out by the inclusion of

01:28:45 of wording indicating that it was a reference only to the exception in 12.7 couldn't it yes it could yeah do you accept that

01:28:56 yes it could yeah do you accept that this is potentially quite dangerously misleading this inclusion of the idea that k15 can be used in accordance with the provisions at 12.7

01:29:08 with the provisions at 12.7 um yes i think it should have been clarified

01:29:12 clarified yes all right uh let's go back please to amended issue one bba 6037

01:29:20 bba 6037 and to page five if we look towards the bottom of that page at section 7.5 we can see that the description of the bs8414 test has

01:29:33 the description of the bs8414 test has moved

01:29:34 moved to that section do you see that at the very bottom of the page there are six lines there detailing the system that was tested yes if we go over the page please to

01:29:45 yes if we go over the page please to page six

01:29:48 we can see that the wording we were discussing earlier at the very end of that paragraph which stated

01:29:56 stated that the product meets the criteria within br135 has been removed do you see that

01:30:03 that yes i do why was that

01:30:08 i i i don't recall i don't recall from the time um i'm not sure why why it was removed had there been as far as you can remember

01:30:20 as you can remember any comments or complaints about the accuracy of that previous assertion that the product met the criteria in br135

01:30:29 br135 it's it's possible um i don't i don't remember

01:30:33 remember it um but it but it but it it is it is possible whether it was a internal or external i can't remember i see all right will you made aware

01:30:46 i see all right will you made aware mr hands as far as you can remember of of any

01:30:49 of any complaints or concerns about any aspect of any certificate for k-15

01:30:58 in the entire over the course of the various issues over the course of all the various issues okay

01:31:06 okay i i am i became aware that there was a um and i think it came up in the witness statement

01:31:14 statement um there was an email from um from dclg fine let's go to that yes should we take a look at that

01:31:27 it's bba five zeros one seven eight please

01:31:37 we can go down please to page three in fact

01:31:42 fact and there we see an email from brian martin of dclg to john alban copying in guy bampton and nick price on the 11th of july 2014. do you see that

01:31:54 you see that yes i do let's look at it together mr martin writes as follows dear john i'm not sure we have met i am currently the official at dclg responsible for part b

01:32:05 responsible for part b of the building regulations it has come to my attention that bba certificate 0845 2008 included advice that the product in

01:32:16 included advice that the product in question satisfied paragraph 12.7 of volume 2 of approved document b para 12 provides that

01:32:25 that insulation materials used in external walls

01:32:28 walls should be materials of limited combustibility it would appear however that the product in question is not a material of limited combustibility i am also aware that certificate 08452

01:32:41 i am also aware that certificate 08452 has recently been revised and that this reference has been removed i am concerned that the original certificate may have been issued in error as this is a serious safety matter

01:32:53 error as this is a serious safety matter i would appreciate it if you could investigate and advise me of the outcome of your investigation as soon as possible could you please also acknowledge receipt of this email

01:33:04 also acknowledge receipt of this email right yes have you seen that email previously um yes i i think i've seen the chain um of of emails um

01:33:17 um of of emails um when it was i think it was it was shown me at the time when um john album was when he replied to it

01:33:32 so do you remember do you mean in person you and he had a discussion are you talking about emails oh i think in in in person i think he

01:33:43 oh i think in in in person i think he he um he told me that it it that he'd had it and that he'd replied to it and i think he he showed me the reply i don't think he emailed it to me i think it was

01:33:54 emailed it to me i think it was it was just a hard copy i see so just say that i'm clear the first that you became aware of this intervention from dclg was through a face-to-face

01:34:05 from dclg was through a face-to-face discussion with john alban by which time he had already replied to brian martin is that correct i think so yes i i i can't be absolutely sure of the

01:34:18 i can't be absolutely sure of the precise sequence but it was at this at this time of the of the reply whether whether he showed it to me before he sent it or after i i can't remember

01:34:29 sent it or after i i can't remember i see but did he ask you in a more investigative manner what happened here why is 12.7 included in this certificate

01:34:41 i i don't recall i don't recall that in in in in the way you've described i don't i don't remember

01:34:50 remember it in an invis investigative capacity no that might have been an unhelpful word on my part let me put it differently as far as you can recollect did mr alban

01:35:03 as far as you can recollect did mr alban come and ask you questions about the inclusion

01:35:07 inclusion of reference to 12.7 in amended issue one

01:35:12 one i don't remember that specifically now did anyone else come and ask you questions

01:35:17 questions about why that reference had been included in amended issue one not that i can recall

01:35:27 let's look at uh mr olgan's response please if we go up to page two

01:35:36 we can see yes so it's the email there on the 16th of july at 12 14 do you see it

01:35:43 it yes i do and we see uh that his response says this thank you for your mail regarding the above certificate

01:35:53 and if we look actually please at the third paragraph starting the reference do you see that yes i do the reference to paragraph 12.7 seems to have been an unfortunate and

01:36:04 seems to have been an unfortunate and rare

01:36:05 rare oversight that would not escape the internal checks and measures that bba currently operate a review of other certificates has confirmed that this has not been reproduced

01:36:17 that this has not been reproduced elsewhere

01:36:18 elsewhere do you see that yes i do do you agree with what brian martin is being told there that this inclusion of 12.7 was an unfortunate and rare oversight

01:36:34 i think so in general yes um yeah he doesn't go into detail there but i think

01:36:46 detail there but i think it was either you know the reference was entirely you know shouldn't have been there or it should have been um qualified yes but did mr alban not

01:36:57 um qualified yes but did mr alban not ask you any questions about that i don't he may have done i don't remember i don't remember him doing so no

01:37:05 no i see all right did you see this response that john alban sent to brian martin

01:37:12 martin uh i i have seen it um and i think i was shown it at the at the time um all right i can't remember if i saw i can't

01:37:24 i can't remember if i saw i can't remember if i saw this email separate from the from the complete string fine let's go up a little further please to

01:37:34 to uh if we scroll up please but still on page two

01:37:39 page two we can say that the next day there's another

01:37:42 another there's a follow-up email from mr martin on the 17th of july who says john many thanks for your prompt response for completeness i wonder if you could confirm a couple of things for me

01:37:55 confirm a couple of things for me what has bba put in place since the original certificate was issued to make you so confident this won't happen again a summary would be fine and just holding

01:38:06 a summary would be fine and just holding that in your mind please we could go up the page again to look at john alban's response to that question

01:38:15 yes that comes on the 23rd of july and and he says there brian the mistake was basically caused by human error the project manager involved and their

01:38:26 the project manager involved and their line manager no longer work in the bba's operations department and he then goes on to set out a number of other measures which he says have been taken we don't need to go to it mr hunt but mr

01:38:38 we don't need to go to it mr hunt but mr alban has been asked by this inquiry in his witness statements who the two individuals he's referring to in his

01:38:45 to in his opening paragraphs there are and he names those individuals as you and mr lee all right yes

01:38:55 yes [Music]

01:38:56 [Music] what i'd quite like to understand from you is whether there was any anything other than i realize it's difficult for you to recall but i i have the impression that you had some sort of discussion with john alban where

01:39:08 discussion with john alban where he he simply said we've had an email from brian martin here it is and here's how i've responded

01:39:17 responded did anyone ever say to you hang on a moment mr hunt you were the head of approvals at the time how did this happen how did this potentially extremely misleading

01:39:28 potentially extremely misleading statement make its way into a certificate

01:39:34 i i don't i don't recall a conversation in in those terms no no and was the first you ever heard of any issue

01:39:46 ever heard of any issue with that certificate amended issue one at this time in july 2014

01:39:56 i can't think of any others i'd obviously

01:40:01 obviously from having changed roles in 2010 yeah i i only i you know after that point my my

01:40:12 i you know after that point my my involvement obviously it had stopped with with that certificate until i understand that and this you know this email is the so that's this is the only the only one i can

01:40:23 the only one i can recall all right thank you uh mr hunt i've come to the end of

01:40:31 end of my prepared questions for you just slightly over time but i'll hand back to the chairman now because we need to take another short pause at this stage right well

01:40:43 short pause at this stage right well thank you miss troop well mr hunt i did say we'd have a break during the morning and we are going to get one and take it now so um we'll come back at 12 o'clock please

01:40:54 we'll come back at 12 o'clock please noon at that stage we will know whether there are any further sweep up questions that this troop wants to ask and whether any other questions have been suggested for you by other people

01:41:05 been suggested for you by other people so

01:41:06 so um so we'll we'll know then whether there's more to put to you uh in the meantime please i must ask you again as i have before not to talk to anyone about your

01:41:17 not to talk to anyone about your evidence

01:41:18 evidence or anything to do with it over the break all right

01:41:21 all right okay thank you very much i'll see you at 12 o'clock okay thanks so much

01:59:52 welcome back everybody we're now going to go back to uh mr hunt to see whether there are any further questions but first i better check that mr hunt is there can you see me and hear me mr hunt yes i

02:00:05 can you see me and hear me mr hunt yes i can sir

02:00:06 can sir very good thank you very much um well i now find out from miss troupe whether she has any more questions for you miss troop

02:00:13 troop there are not we have no further questions to hunt right well thank you very much well mr hunt i'm sorry we've kept you waiting to tell you that but

02:00:24 kept you waiting to tell you that but perhaps you're relieved in any event anyway there it is we've we've put to you all the questions we needed to put to you we

02:00:31 to you we are very grateful to you for making yourself available to give evidence to us it's been very helpful to hear what you have to tell us and and now you're free to go so thank you very much

02:00:42 you very much thank you very much sir now we've got another witness waiting to be called but we need to have a short break just to make um the necessary arrangements for that so

02:00:54 the necessary arrangements for that so we'll

02:00:55 we'll stop now for a few minutes and return i hope in about 10 minutes or even less if we can manage it

02:12:31 welcome back everyone uh our next witness is mr john albon of the british board of aggramar so my first task is to check that mr albon can see me and hear me

02:12:43 albon can see me and hear me clearly are you there mr albon yes mr chairman i can hear you thank you very much indeed now i understand you are going to make the affirmation is that right yes please and i think you

02:12:55 is that right yes please and i think you should have the words on the screen in front of you yes right well then could i ask you to make the affirmation by reading out the words thank you i do solemnly sincerely and truly

02:13:07 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare

02:13:08 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

02:13:15 truth thank you very much now there are one or two things we just need to clarify before we get to your evidence um

02:13:23 um can you confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving your evidence

02:13:27 evidence yes i am thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you

02:13:33 with you i don't right and finally can i ask you to confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages

02:13:45 capable of receiving messages no i have no electronic devices thank you very much indeed um i hope that we shouldn't have problems with sound or vision we haven't had very many but if we do have one we'll probably

02:13:57 but if we do have one we'll probably take a short break while uh the technical support team solved it for us um there will be a short break

02:14:08 um there will be a short break uh part way through the afternoon probably about 3 15 and since i think we're going to go over the weekend during the course of the mornings next week but if you need any additional

02:14:20 week but if you need any additional breaks will you indicate and we'll do our best to accommodate you all right um is there anything you would like to ask me or raise before you begin giving evidence

02:14:32 begin giving evidence thank you right thank you that in that case i'm going to invite ms grange to put some questions to you yes ms grange yes thank you mr chairman and good

02:14:44 yes thank you mr chairman and good morning mr alban well actually good afternoon now um thank you very much for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence it is very much appreciated if you have any difficulties in

02:14:56 if you have any difficulties in understanding any of my questions please just ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way

02:15:03 way um can you also keep your voice up for the transcriber who's taking a live transcription of your evidence and and can you try and avoid nodding or shaking your head so that we

02:15:14 nodding or shaking your head so that we do have clear answers for the transcript now you've made three statements to the inquiry

02:15:21 inquiry if we can bring up the first of your statements that's at bba 50158

02:15:32 there we can have we can see your first statement it's dated the 13th of november 2018. it's 17 pages long and if we go

02:15:40 if we go it's already it also has a two-page appendix

02:15:44 appendix and if we go to page 17

02:15:49 is that your signature at the bottom there

02:15:52 there yes it is yes thank you and your second statement

02:15:56 statement is to be found at bba 3010723 your second statement we can see it's dated the 20th of june

02:16:07 dated the 20th of june 2019 and if we go to page 40 again is that your signature there yes it is and if we bring up your third

02:16:18 yes it is and if we bring up your third statement now that's to be found at bba 3010751

02:16:26 this is dated the 5th of september 2019 and it's 53 pages long so if we go to page 53

02:16:35 again is that your signature there at the bottom yes now have you read those three statements recently yes

02:16:46 recently yes and can you confirm that the contents of them are true and accurate yes they are have you discussed those statements or your evidence that you're going to give with anybody before coming here today

02:16:58 before coming here today only with the bba's lawyer okay thank you

02:17:02 you now in your statements you address two products

02:17:05 products which were used as part of the cladding system at grenfell tower first the rainer bond 55 acm panels and second the kingspan k15 phenolic

02:17:16 and second the kingspan k15 phenolic insulation now in terms of how my questions will be ordered i'm going to start by asking you some general questions about the bba and its practices and procedures and

02:17:28 and its practices and procedures and then i'm going to ask you first about the bba's involvement with the rayna bond

02:17:32 bond acm panels and the certification of that before turning to consider its involvement with the k-15 the kingspan phenolic product in the latter part of my questioning so that's how it's going

02:17:43 my questioning so that's how it's going to be structured now just beginning then with some general questions about the bba as an organization if we can bring up

02:17:53 bring up um paragraph 12 of your first statement on page three that's bba five zeros one five eight page three

02:18:09 and you tell us there in the first few lines of paragraph 12 that the agramon board was established by the government in 1966 following billy building

02:18:22 in 1966 following billy building failures that were attributed to the inappropriate use of innovative construction materials yes yes and

02:18:34 you go on to explain that the intention was to provide an independent authoritative source of data on the performance of such products and their

02:18:45 performance of such products and their suitability for use in clearly defined applications do you see that yes and you go on to explain in the fifth line that the original status of the

02:18:56 line that the original status of the organization was a semi-autonomous non-departmental body but just to be clear it was originally funded by government yes

02:19:09 as i understand if there was some government funding i'm not sure if it was entirely government funded it was before my time i see yes thank you

02:19:20 you and and what you go on to explain at the very bottom of that page in that paragraph is that um over time its links to government have eroded and that you now operate as a self-funding non-profit distributing

02:19:32 self-funding non-profit distributing company limited by guarantee with no formal government associations is that correct

02:19:39 correct yes and you tell us in the next paragraph

02:19:44 paragraph um paragraph 13 on page four that in 1982

02:19:49 1982 the organization sorry it's in the same paragraph that in in 1982 the organization became known as the british board of agrimoon and that coincided with that change of

02:20:01 and that coincided with that change of status

02:20:02 status is that correct yes yes now just in terms of your background and your um education

02:20:14 and your um education you summarize this in your second witness statement um but but i'm just going to go through the key points it's right isn't it that you have an honours degree in chemistry

02:20:25 you have an honours degree in chemistry from the university of bath yes and prior to joining the bba you worked as a development chemist for jonathan johnson matthew chemicals

02:20:37 for jonathan johnson matthew chemicals is that right yes and you also worked as a technical service representative for albright and wilson limited is that right yes and did you work as a chemist in

02:20:50 yes and did you work as a chemist in that role

02:20:50 that role for albright and wilson it was a customer services representative it was a field-based position

02:20:58 position right yeah and you joined the bba in 1989

02:21:03 1989 is that correct yes and can you confirm that you've worked continuously at the bba so by now you've worked there for just over 30 years

02:21:15 over 30 years yes and you are still employed by them yes

02:21:19 yes yes now you explain in your second statement if we bring that up page two paragraphs four to six so it's bba

02:21:32 paragraphs four to six so it's bba yeah so you begin explaining uh from paragraph eight onwards the different positions that you've held at the bba and i just want to run through those with you now

02:21:44 those with you now so um between 1988 um sorry 1989 and 98 you were a project manager managing

02:21:56 you were a project manager managing product assessments is that right yes so uh that was a job like that carried out by uh mr gregorian and miss amaroso is that correct

02:22:09 miss amaroso is that correct yes dealing with different product areas but the principles were the same yeah and then if we move down that page to the next paragraph

02:22:21 to the next paragraph the paragraph nine

02:22:25 you then tell us that between 1998 and 2002

02:22:30 2002 you were a senior inspector responsible for carrying out audits of client manufacturing facilities based on the bba quality plan and producing reports on the same

02:22:42 producing reports on the same for consideration by project managers at the bba's head office is that correct yes so that was a surveillance role is that right you conducted audits of

02:22:54 is that right you conducted audits of production yes yes and then right at the bottom of that page and then on to the next page you explain between 2002 and 2003 you were a project manager but for a

02:23:08 you were a project manager but for a different department to the one above can you just explain what department were you a project manager in during that short period

02:23:19 in during that short period at that time the bba had a number of small

02:23:23 small assessment organizations or sections um specifically the materials department had two different teams i began working for

02:23:33 for the first of those teams and when i returned to the office i worked for the second of the two materials teams yes so it was the first team the

02:23:44 yes so it was the first team the engineering department and then you move to the materials department now at this time the structure of the organization was different there were six different teams

02:23:56 there were six different teams two were described as materials to as physics and two as engineering

02:24:05 i worked entirely in the materials team i see yes and just to be clear mr gregorian

02:24:11 gregorian he was in one of the engineering teams that's right isn't it yes so you weren't in the same team as him

02:24:18 him no and then between 2004 and 2009

02:24:25 and 2009 if we go back over the page to page three you were what's called a section head and you tell us in that paragraph 11 that you were responsible

02:24:36 that you were responsible and you had overall technical and operational control over a department and that was the materials department is that correct it was one of two materials departments

02:24:47 it was one of two materials departments yes i see

02:24:48 yes i see and what did work in that materials department cover what did it relate to there were a variety of materials primarily coatings um

02:24:59 primarily coatings um damp proofing materials and broadly speaking something that didn't conveniently fit in another department within the organization right yes and had you specialized

02:25:11 right yes and had you specialized at that point in the materials department because of your background as a chemist

02:25:16 a chemist yes yes

02:25:21 and did the materials department have anything to do with the certificates for the k-15

02:25:26 the k-15 product the kingspan product no and just to be clear that was not the department that issued the 2008 bba certificate for the rainer bond panels

02:25:38 certificate for the rainer bond panels was it

02:25:39 was it no no and then you go on in paragraph 12 and tell us that between 2009 and 2013 your role was as a technical manager

02:25:50 your role was as a technical manager and is it right that in that role you were responsible for the technical content

02:25:54 content and correctness of all bba policies and publications including certificates is that correct i was responsible for the policies

02:26:05 i was responsible for the policies procedures and principles the contents of

02:26:08 of individual certificates were the responsibilities of the heads of approval

02:26:14 approval i see and who were the heads of approval at that time between 2009 and 2013 from memory i think chris hunt and

02:26:26 from memory i think chris hunt and brian chamberlin yes thank you

02:26:31 and then between 2013 and 2019 you tell us at paragraph 13 that you became head of approvals for construction projects products is

02:26:43 for construction projects products is that correct yes and was this construction products a new department of the bba at that time

02:26:58 i'm trying to remember um it was an established department i believe i took on the responsibility for that team because the previous head of

02:27:11 that team because the previous head of approval had left the bba

02:27:15 i see now um is it right that in that role you were responsible for the technical content of all the certificates that the department issued yes

02:27:26 that the department issued yes yes and with that department the construction products department at that time have been responsible for the second review of the rayna bond certificate that was carried out between

02:27:37 certificate that was carried out between 2013 and 2015. now the rainer bond certificates belonged in the engineering department i see so

02:27:49 the construction product department was separate by this time from the engineering department yes yes at this point there were two teams construction products that i led and an

02:28:01 construction products that i led and an engineering department that brian chamberlain led i see

02:28:08 and then finally in terms of your role uh you've told us in your statement that since 2019 you have been the bba's chief scientific officer is that correct yes and is this right

02:28:20 is that correct yes and is this right that you've continued to maintain responsibility for the technical content of all certificates issued by the construction products department is that right

02:28:33 yes now in any of your roles were you required to have any technical knowledge on the subject of fire performance and the testing and classification regimes

02:28:45 the testing and classification regimes which applied for fire yes

02:28:50 did if so did you have a good working knowledge of let's start with say reaction to fire testing under the bs 476 regime

02:29:01 the bba is not a fire laboratory we do not carry out fire testing we take the results of newcast accredited fire tests produced

02:29:12 newcast accredited fire tests produced by other

02:29:13 by other organizations and assess them against the requirements of the documents supporting the national building regulations so we have a narrow field of expertise

02:29:26 i see so in terms of my question if i could ask it again did you have a good working knowledge of reaction to fire testing under the bs 476 regime i appreciate

02:29:39 under the bs 476 regime i appreciate you're not doing the testing yourself but did you understand that those test standards under that 476 regime i understood that those tests would

02:29:51 i understood that those tests would produce classifications and could interpret those classifications in the context of the approved document yes right thank you yes and what about reaction to fire testing under the

02:30:02 reaction to fire testing under the european classification regime the en 13501 regime again could you understand those tests and

02:30:11 and understand the classifications that were produced pursuant to that regime yes and what about large scale testing to bs 8414 parts one and part

02:30:24 testing to bs 8414 parts one and part two in the roles that you've performed have you been familiar with that testing regime with the constraints previously

02:30:35 with the constraints previously expressed yes would you say that your knowledge had uh evolved over time was there a time when you were less familiar with fire performance issues and then a

02:30:47 with fire performance issues and then a time when you became more familiar with them how has your knowledge evolved

02:30:52 i was involved in the interpretation of fire test data from almost my first employment for the bba clearly

02:31:00 clearly over time that knowledge has broadened i hope and deepened as i have dealt with many test reports over that period yes i see so i think it follows it would

02:31:12 yes i see so i think it follows it would be right wouldn't it that from the very first role you were carrying out as project manager you were required to interpret fire test data as a active project

02:31:24 fire test data as a active project manager yes initially under very close supervision but yes

02:31:29 but yes yes and i think you've confirmed already but for the avoidance of doubt um

02:31:38 um were you familiar with the applicable building regulations in relation to fire performance and the associated practical guidance in approved document b yes

02:31:52 now if we can go to your third witness statement at this point bba 3010751 page 3 and look at paragraph 11.

02:32:10 and look at paragraph 11. so here you're dealing with the training of um

02:32:14 of um new staff and training hours per year and beneath that you have set out helpfully for us in a in a table uh training that

02:32:25 in a table uh training that uh employees of the bba have undertaken over different years now we can see that your name is in the very first row and we can see that for 2008 you say you

02:32:38 and we can see that for 2008 you say you undertook 124 hours is that correct of training yes and then after that we say we see just a n a

02:32:50 we see just a n a the acronym n a um and you explain on page four we just go over to page four

02:33:00 underneath the table it says n a indicates that the staff member was not required to complete timesheets so if we can just go back to your line

02:33:11 so if we can just go back to your line we can see that from 2009 onwards you weren't required to keep a record is that right yes staff in senior management's

02:33:23 yes staff in senior management's position

02:33:23 position were not required to complete timesheets that was the period at which i became technical manager

02:33:32 when you say that was the period at which i became technical manager i'm not quite clear what you mean by that i think in 2009 i was appointed technical manager yes it was considered a sufficiently

02:33:44 yes it was considered a sufficiently senior role that it did not require weekly timesheets to be completed in the absence of a weekly timesheet i don't know how many hours i would have worked

02:33:54 worked in terms of training for the remaining period of my employment i see did you in fact undergo training during that period 2009 through to 2017.

02:34:06 during that period 2009 through to 2017. yes but is this right that you weren't required to keep any record or log of that training because of the seniority of the position you held yes it is not specific to the

02:34:20 you held yes it is not specific to the training

02:34:20 training it's across all activities carried out during the working day

02:34:27 yes but um i think it follows that because of the seniority of the role that you had you weren't required to keep a log of for example training records yes

02:34:38 for example training records yes i keep cpd records as part of my fellowship with the institute of materials minerals and mining but that does not translate into bba records

02:34:50 records yes so the bba as an organization did not require you to keep a training log of the training that you'd undertaken yes not in terms of time sheets

02:35:02 yes not in terms of time sheets completion um there would be records of training in terms of

02:35:06 terms of courses attended certificates of attendance that type of thing this is purely based on timesheet bookings right i see

02:35:17 based on timesheet bookings right i see during that period can you help us 2009-2017 did you yourself undertake training on fire testing or fire classifications and performance yes

02:35:29 and performance yes and what about building regulation relevant to fire did you undertake training during that time on that topic there would be self training and discussions with colleagues no formal training courses that's what

02:35:41 no formal training courses that's what i'm aware of

02:35:45 so when you say there will be self training and discussions with colleagues is that on the job training about building regulation relevant to fire yes yes now if we could look at

02:35:57 yes now if we could look at um your third witness statement yes in this statement we go to page two now and look at paragraph seven

02:36:11 you you say this you say in addition the bba provides formal training by way of presentations by experienced staff on relevant technical subjects a senior bba project manager also

02:36:22 a senior bba project manager also fulfills the role of technical coordinator fire and she and the bba senior scientist have made a number of presentations to project managers on fire

02:36:34 managers on fire related on fire related issues with respect to product certification and then you say i exhibit copies of these presentations and associated papers in your ja 28 exhibit now i i want to take this in

02:36:48 exhibit now i i want to take this in stages you say there that there is a technical in the third line a technical coordinator fire and that she gave presentations on fire related issues

02:36:59 fire related issues with respect to product certification who

02:37:02 who was that technical coordinator for fire nisha sharma and did you attend the presentations that she gave

02:37:13 presentations that she gave i would have helped her to prepare them i would have attended as well i believe and uh when was that role created when did nisha's

02:37:24 did nisha's sharma begin that role of technical coordinator fire

02:37:30 i would guess perhaps eight or ten years ago

02:37:34 ago that is a guess

02:37:38 i see so as early as 2011 you think she might have been in position on reflection probably slightly later than that perhaps

02:37:49 than that perhaps 2014 of that order mr gregorian gave oral evidence last week

02:37:57 week um that was at day 105 and he explained that

02:38:01 that during the time that he was employed at the bba as a project manager there was no internal fire expert within the bba

02:38:10 the bba that's at day 105 page 11 lines five to 6.

02:38:15 6. now um is he right about that that at the time he was employed so 2004 to 2010 there was no internal fire expert within the bba

02:38:30 i would say that the technical manager at that time brian haynes had a very good knowledge of

02:38:37 of fire in the context of what the bba does i don't think he would regard himself as an expert in the context of the type of experts

02:38:50 in the context of the type of experts who have presented evidence to this inquiry but he was expert

02:38:54 expert within the boundaries of the bba's activities yes thank you i'm going to ask you some questions about mr haynes in in just a moment

02:39:02 moment but just in terms of the the bigger point

02:39:06 point i think it follows from your answer that it's right that between 2004 and 2010 there was no appointed fire in-house fire expert within the bba

02:39:17 fire in-house fire expert within the bba is that correct

02:39:20 there was no formal job description of that type no

02:39:27 and in terms of later is it your evidence that uh ms sharma is the in-house fire expert for the bba we still have no

02:39:41 the bba we still have no defined in-house fire expert i and colleagues have a good understanding of the principles that the bba works to with respect to fire

02:39:52 the bba works to with respect to fire we have external contacts to whom we can go

02:39:55 go if the knowledge we require is outside of our experience yes thank you i'm going to come on to those external uh contacts in a moment but i'm focused at this time on on the

02:40:08 but i'm focused at this time on on the bba's in-house expertise um mr nakomo said during his oral evidence that during the last few years there had been a technical excellence team

02:40:20 a technical excellence team consisting of john denier and yourself who he could go to for fire guidance that's how he described it he said it wasn't expertise it was guidance

02:40:32 guidance is he right about that has there been a technical excellence team consisting of yourself and mr denyer who were there for the giving of fire advice

02:40:43 for the giving of fire advice the technical excellence team extends beyond

02:40:46 beyond john denier and me but it is correct that john

02:40:49 that john and i give guidance on fire matters yes and and over what time period have you been doing that mr nicomo said during his evidence that it was

02:41:01 during his evidence that it was just during the last few years that that had happened can you help us how long has that technical excellence team been available to give fire guidance

02:41:14 john deny has provided scientific um consultancy within the bba from i believe around 2002 onwards um he is

02:41:25 2002 onwards um he is a building physicist not a fire expert we all it's a small organization um the technical staff will discuss with each other um any aspects that

02:41:36 with each other um any aspects that require inputs from other people i've been working with fire since 1989 clearly i have built up my knowledge and

02:41:47 clearly i have built up my knowledge and expertise over that period of time there was no one point of which i became as you put it an expert it's an evolutionary process yes thank

02:41:59 it's an evolutionary process yes thank you

02:42:01 you um mr nakayama said that the two of you um

02:42:04 um include including mr denyer could be consulted for fire advice uh before that time although he made clear that that was not routine is that right yes

02:42:19 and he said that between 2010 and 2015 project managers would normally ask one another for fire advice or possibly brian chamberlin i think he

02:42:31 or possibly brian chamberlin i think he was the head of approvals before you again is he right about that between 2010 and 2015 project managers would normally ask one another for fire advice

02:42:42 another for fire advice or possibly brian chamberlain

02:42:48 these individuals worked in a different department i'm not sure what the normal activities would be on a day-to-day basis within my team my project managers would

02:42:59 within my team my project managers would ask

02:43:00 ask me about fire

02:43:04 right and when the role of technical coordinator for fire was uh created you think your best guess is around 2014 that's miss nisha sharma and

02:43:17 nisha sharma and can you explain why did that change occur was there a particular trigger for the role of technical coordinator fire

02:43:26 fire being appointed in the bba

02:43:30 yes mrs sharma does not normally give detailed file advice she is a coordinator as the title suggests

02:43:39 suggests it was put in place i think around the time that we established a formal consultancy arrangement with ex-overwatch and fire her role was to field any inquiries and

02:43:51 her role was to field any inquiries and to pass them to the experts at xova and to distribute as she felt appropriate to the responses we received within the whole organization

02:44:02 organization i see thank you so is her role largely administrative to coordinate between you and x over in terms of the obtaining of any specialist fire advice

02:44:16 it's partly administrative she also has a good background knowledge of fire and she is aware of the answers we have previously received

02:44:26 what what's her training uh and and what are her training and qualifications are they in in fire engineering what's her background she has a background as a scientist she

02:44:39 she has a background as a scientist she started work i believe like me in 1989 at the bba as a project manager

02:44:45 manager and so has built up experience in the same way that i have so does it follow from that that she doesn't have any formal fire qualifications no she doesn't

02:44:56 fire qualifications no she doesn't as far as i know and was it any part of her role to actually answer fire related queries or was her role

02:45:08 fire related queries or was her role as you've just described just liaising with the

02:45:11 with the with x over warrington if they were straightforward inquiries um within her area of competence she could answer them herself

02:45:22 could answer them herself normally it would be a coordination role

02:45:26 right now prior to that uh prior to there being and we'll come to the formal arrangement with x over warrington in a moment could it have been the case that requests for technical fire advice

02:45:38 requests for technical fire advice were referred to organizations like the bre on an ad hoc basis yes sometimes mr gregorian for example described in

02:45:49 mr gregorian for example described in his oral evidence witnessing a telephone conversation between brian haynes and sarah colwell when he obtained oral advice on fire performance issues for the 2008 rainer bond certificate

02:46:02 the 2008 rainer bond certificate now was that the way that such fire advice was obtained at the time

02:46:09 it's difficult for me to know how william haynes obtained external file advice i would expect any advice to be documented

02:46:21 yes that's helpful so you would expect that

02:46:25 that any advice that was obtained from an external department to the external body to the bba would be documented yes we should have objective evidence of any

02:46:37 objective evidence of any conclusions we draw yes now we haven't found any documents showing that anyone at the bre read the rayna bonds certificate in full or approved the statements

02:46:48 approved the statements made in it about the product's fire performance rather the arrangement appears to have been that mr gregorian if he had something which needed to be clarified

02:46:59 clarified or a problem then he would be able to refer it to the bre for advice if necessary now as far as you were aware

02:47:07 aware was that a sanctioned approved process in say late 2007 when he was operating

02:47:18 i believe the normal approach would be to seek advice in-house within the bba if possible if the information or the knowledge was

02:47:29 if the information or the knowledge was not available to bba staff then we would seek external expert assistance yes i see thank you now mr gregorian

02:47:40 yes i see thank you now mr gregorian said that he was not an expert on fire and that he had very little knowledge of fire issues at all and he said that he would have consulted with brian haynes who you've already mentioned on the fire performance of um

02:47:53 on the fire performance of um the content of the certificate zero eight four five one eight one oh which we're going to come to that's the rayna bond

02:47:59 bond certificate now just focusing on mr haynes now for a moment to your knowledge did mr haynes have any formal expertise in fire

02:48:12 i'm not sure what you mean by formal expertise i i don't know if he had formal qualifications he certainly had long professional experience of fire

02:48:23 professional experience of fire based on his witness statement for the transcript this is bba 3010784 he appears to have been a physicist by training

02:48:33 training with particular expertise in engineering and building physics is that right i believe so yes

02:48:42 was he ever nevertheless recognized by the bba as a fire expert an authority on fire related matters

02:48:55 there was no formal role of fire experts within the bba there never has been he was

02:49:02 was recognised of having good knowledge of the areas of reaction to fire in which the bba had an interest would you have expected mr haynes to

02:49:14 would you have expected mr haynes to have checked all of the statements about fire performance on the bba certificate

02:49:23 mr haynes had authority for the entire content of that certificate so yes fire would be part of that certificate so yes

02:49:36 yes just to be clear my question was would you have expected mr haines to have checked all of the statements about fire performance on the bba certificate and your answer is yes is that right

02:49:48 and your answer is yes is that right sorry interrupted yes great thank you if we can look at the um oral evidence of mr hunt at this point i'd actually like to take you to this

02:50:00 i'd actually like to take you to this this is from yesterday day 108 page 131 picking it up 13199

02:50:18 and so looking at line nine he's asked going back to what you said a few moments ago about mr haynes and his perhaps technical expertise in

02:50:29 and his perhaps technical expertise in in 2007

02:50:30 in 2007 when you began in your role as head of approvals was brian haynes a qualified fire engineer do you know and the answer is um i don't believe i'm almost certain he wasn't and he i'd worked with brian for many

02:50:42 and he i'd worked with brian for many many years really from the start of my career at bba i don't think he would ever have described himself as a he certainly wouldn't have described himself as a fire engineer and i don't think he ever would have

02:50:53 and i don't think he ever would have really described himself as an expert as a fire expert i don't think and then it goes on he's asked the question is it fair for me to say then that he had fallen into that role in a

02:51:04 that he had fallen into that role in a way

02:51:05 way of being consulted on fire at the bba despite perhaps not having the qualifications to call himself an expert in that area and then he says yes i believe so

02:51:16 yes i believe so i suppose as a bit of background perhaps i think that that was something that tended

02:51:23 tended and then we go over the page tended to happen at the bba at that time you know a lot of the work at the bba of project managers you know project assessors

02:51:31 assessors is a fairly generalist sort of role because you're looking at a wide range of performance aspects that is the nature of bba certificates so you

02:51:40 so you but you would build up expertise you know perhaps not formal qualifications but certain individuals and it wasn't a huge organization at that time would probably be either willingly or unwillingly

02:51:52 willingly or unwillingly given the mantle of the bba authority if you like on that particular aspect of performance i think ryan whether he wanted i don't know whether that was his choice but i think he ended up occupying that space so that's what mr hunt has told us

02:52:06 space so that's what mr hunt has told us about

02:52:07 about mr haynes and also how it tended to work at the bba in terms of falling into these roles as fire experts

02:52:18 falling into these roles as fire experts is he right about what he says there do you agree with that is he right about the general point he makes about how individuals at the bba might

02:52:25 might ended up end up building expertise in certain areas but without formal qualifications in that role

02:52:34 i think he's correcting that brian was not a fire engineer bba individuals have defined competencies with our quality systems so it is controlled the

02:52:45 quality systems so it is controlled the areas in which we are competent to work and defined the areas that we are competent to work in i think brian haynes was more experienced than chris hunt

02:52:56 was more experienced than chris hunt suggests in that sentence or a series of sentences

02:53:00 sentences i know for example he sat on various european committees dealing with reaction to fire

02:53:08 so i think he had a deeper knowledge than chris acknowledges in his statement yes but but can you help us can you explain

02:53:18 explain how someone with no formal expertise or experience in fire was checking statements on fire performance in bba certificates at this time

02:53:31 statements related to clearly defined requirements given in the guidance to the national building regulations i am very confident that brian would be thoroughly familiar with those requirements

02:53:46 i see so are you saying that the work that the bba had to do in interpreting fire related data was a straightforward one is that what you're saying

02:53:59 i wouldn't want to imply that it was a casual exercise it certainly isn't it's very carefully controlled but the level of interpretation made is limited given that

02:54:10 limited given that the requirements are clearly defined in the approved documents

02:54:16 i see so yeah you've told us the level of interpretation made is limited does it follow that that job of interpreting fire related data was perceived by the bba as a

02:54:29 was perceived by the bba as a straightforward one

02:54:33 absolutely not the the limits placed on the bba

02:54:37 the bba are the limits of our competence if there are

02:54:40 there are assessments or judgments to be made that go outside that competence we are required to go outside the bba and consult external technical experts

02:54:52 and consult external technical experts yes just touching on a related point this mr gregorian told us that it was only if he had something which needed to be clarified or a

02:55:03 which needed to be clarified or a problem

02:55:04 problem that he would consult a fire expert like the bre that was day 105 pages 25-26 and mr nakomo said something very

02:55:15 and mr nakomo said something very similar that it was only on difficult questions or things that were not clear about fire that he would consider asking an external fire expert

02:55:26 external fire expert now if a project manager like mr gregorian

02:55:30 gregorian didn't know much about fire performance can you explain how did the bba expect him to be able to identify

02:55:38 identify what the relevant questions might be on which he would need to take external fire advice i think mr gregorian was not competent

02:55:49 i think mr gregorian was not competent to make judgments on fire and i think he would have gone to a competent authority such as brian haynes to make those judgments for him if mr haynes was incapable of answering the queries

02:56:01 was incapable of answering the queries then he would seek external expert advice such as the bre

02:56:09 right but but you see mr gregorian who told us he was responsible for certainly doing the initial drafting of the certificate including the fire performance section

02:56:21 including the fire performance section uh

02:56:21 uh he doesn't know what he doesn't know does he i know that is an informal way of putting it so on fire issues how would he be able to identify the questions that he needed help with

02:56:34 questions that he needed help with if he had no expertise in fire at all

02:56:38 mr gregorian was the project's manager um very often carrying out a bba exercise is a collaborative exercise within

02:56:49 collaborative exercise within different teams we will talk to each other i wouldn't expect that mr gregorian drafted the fire section i would imagine that was done for him perhaps by mr haynes

02:57:01 i don't know sorry it was a different department i wasn't involved i see mr gregorian explained that if he didn't think there was a problem he would proceed to include a statement about fire performance in the

02:57:12 statement about fire performance in the certificate based on what test data that the bba had that was at day 105 page 26 lines two to eight does it follow from that that a project

02:57:24 does it follow from that that a project manager was able to draft the fire contents for certificates which could then be issued without any fire expert checking those at all

02:57:35 checking those at all all of the certificates would be checked internally and possibly externally for content

02:57:47 miss amaroso explained in her oral evidence that when she began working as a project manager she had no formal fire training and was left to learn about fire performance

02:57:58 learn about fire performance on the job herself and by attending fire conferences and some large first large-scale fire tests

02:58:05 tests that was day 106 page 10 lines 9 to 11. she also said that if she needed help with fire issues she would either speak to you as technical lead or later she would speak

02:58:17 technical lead or later she would speak to stephen howard at the bre now was it considered acceptable for project managers at the bba not to have a detailed knowledge of issues like

02:58:28 issues like fire performance

02:58:34 no one coming into the bba will have had previous experience of product approvals we are almost a unique

02:58:45 product approvals we are almost a unique organization and we recognize that in the training we provide to our staff it's not the case that a project manager comes in and immediately starts drafting certificates we have a formalized

02:58:58 certificates we have a formalized training program we appoint a mentor to each new project manager who sits with and on a day-to-day basis discusses the content of the assessments

02:59:09 discusses the content of the assessments being carried out and builds up that members of staff's knowledge

02:59:14 knowledge people are not allowed to draft certificates until they're competent to do so

02:59:21 can you explain why mr miss amaroso's experience was that she was left to learn about fire performance on the job herself

02:59:36 the approved documents are huge documents there are many of them we would not sit somebody down and talk them through the content of the approved documents

02:59:48 the content of the approved documents when they first started there would be an on the job type of training whereby where an issue came up that involved assessing the requirements of the approved documents the mentor would then

03:00:01 approved documents the mentor would then take the new project manager through those requirements and as part of that process we would expect the project manager to familiarize themselves with that aspect of the approved

03:00:12 with that aspect of the approved document

03:00:13 document it's an evolutionary process as you go through the job you build up the knowledge required to carry out that assessment

03:00:23 right thank you mr chairman i i'm i'm careful looking at the time now um and i think

03:00:29 think even though i'm mid topic um we ought to break at this point well that probably would be sensible mr albon we're going to stop now so we can all get some lunch um

03:00:40 now so we can all get some lunch um we'll resume please at two o'clock and i have to ask you on this and other occasions when we have a break please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it

03:00:51 evidence or anything relating to it during the break all right thank you thank you very much we'll see you at two o'clock

03:00:56 o'clock please thank you

03:01:10 you