Building Research Establishment (BRE) evidence examining the development of BS 8414 testing standards, BR 135 guidance, and BRE's relationship with industry including Kingspan.
00:00:20 would you ask dr coldwell to come back in please thank you
00:00:35 all right dr holwell yes all right well we'll carry on then yes from scratch yes thank you so moving away from contract um cc 1924 now and and just picking back up with the
00:00:46 and just picking back up with the chronology of what was happening we've established that in december 1999 when the select committee made its recommendations fire note 9 had already been submitted to the british standards institute for adoption as a british
00:00:58 institute for adoption as a british standard yes yes can you remember when was it first suggested that what had been far note 9 should become a british standard
00:01:09 my only recollection of that period is as part of the conversations around the select committee right i see um
00:01:18 um now if we turn to your witness statement at page 26 and look at paragraph 168
00:01:30 bre 3047571
00:01:36 page 26.
00:01:41 at 168 you say i understand that bre's test method set out in fire note 9 came to be approved as a british standard because the bsi was asked to develop a full british standard based on fire note 9 following the select committee's
00:01:53 9 following the select committee's report
00:01:54 report that was published in december 99 and then you say this i do not know who specifically facilitated the transition of fire note 9 through the bsi standardization process right
00:02:06 standardization process right yes and are you meaning there that you weren't involved in that transition process yourself i um i
00:02:16 i um i i was asked to provide a um a word copy of the of the document um and how it went from there once it got into bsi i don't know how they moved it into
00:02:27 bsi i don't know how they moved it into the to the draft that was became the committee draft at that point right but you do tell us if we look at paragraph 170 just below that you say i'm not aware of all the internal processes by
00:02:38 aware of all the internal processes by which the bsi addressed this request although i do know that the bsi established a joint working group committee
00:02:45 committee sitting under both the reaction to fire committee and the fire resistance committee together with experts and interested parties from the sector yes yes and you tell us then below that that you were invited to participate in that
00:02:57 you were invited to participate in that joint working group committee yes yes but you say you've been able to find any unable to find any documents relating to the invitation membership or exact timetable
00:03:08 and if we look at 174
00:03:13 you say
00:03:16 when asked why did bre's test method become a british standard you say i'm not aware of any specific reasons as to why the test method became a british standard other than what set out in the select committee's report as i was not
00:03:27 select committee's report as i was not involved in this decision but but it's right isn't it that you did participate in the bsi joint working group is that is that right yes that's correct um
00:03:38 um is it your evidence that you participated in that joint working group without knowledge of the reasons for the tests you had written being converted into a british standard
00:03:49 converted into a british standard uh no the
00:03:51 uh no the my understanding was that as part of the select committee discussions it was um
00:03:57 it was um suggested recommended that the fine note 9 moved across to a british standard but i don't have any
00:04:09 information regarding at what level that initial set of discussions took place or what or what drove them right i see did you join that working group that joint working group before or after you
00:04:21 joint working group before or after you had led the experimental testing program under contract cc 1924
00:04:28 i think in part they were in parallel right given that given the passage and the timelines around that yeah and did you have a specific role on the joint working group committee
00:04:39 working group committee no
00:04:41 no you didn't no i was a committee member right
00:04:44 right and who was it that suggested that bs-8414 should be split into two parts part one dealing with masonry backing and part two dealing with steel frame systems
00:04:56 would have it would have been um part of the the discussions within the committee that the scope of the standards were were different and therefore would need different
00:05:06 different um documents to to do that right i see did you view the impending adoption of the bre's full-scale test as a british standard as a positive development for
00:05:17 standard as a positive development for the bre
00:05:18 the bre yes what about the views of industry was there ever any resistance or objections to that test methodology becoming a british standard not that i was aware of you weren't ever
00:05:30 not that i was aware of you weren't ever aware of any objections or concerns about that no i see
00:05:36 i see you were also asked by the inquiry if we go back up to page 28 of your statement in paragraph 177 um or down to page one sorry that's it 177. you were asked who drafted uh bs
00:05:49 177. you were asked who drafted uh bs 8414 part one and you say this i do not know who drafted eight four one four part one and have not been able to identify any documentation that would help to clarify
00:06:00 documentation that would help to clarify this
00:06:01 this so is this really the case that as a member of the working group reviewing the document you didn't know who the author or authors were of eight four one four part one
00:06:11 one um
00:06:12 um sorry i i suspect that's um an interpretation of the word drafted um nine was given to bsi who have editors who would have taken and created a
00:06:23 who would have taken and created a committee draft that would have then come down to the committee to work with and i don't know who undertook that piece of work within the bsi framework right i see so you don't know who edited fire note 9
00:06:35 so you don't know who edited fire note 9 into bs8414 is that what you're saying that's correct and were you ever involved in the final wording of the 8414 standard oh the yes the once a committee draft is is prepared it's
00:06:46 committee draft is is prepared it's provided to all members of the committee and then
00:06:49 and then um comments and discussion are sought in in terms of working with that document to
00:06:56 to deliver a um an agreed consensus draft within the committee that is then passed on for for comments so yes yes uh all members of the committee are actively engaged in
00:07:07 the committee are actively engaged in that process right yes um let's look at a document this is bsi50189
00:07:14 we can see from page one that these are the minutes of a a meeting on the 30th of april 2002 of the joint working committee
00:07:21 committee responsible for the development of the 8414 standard we can see on page one that you attended and debbie smith is listed as somebody who
00:07:31 who returned apologies for their absence we can see that on page below that on page one
00:07:37 one if we look at the bottom of page one paragraph 2.1
00:07:43 we can see update on the publication of 8414. dr colwell reported that she had been in contact with bsi editors concerning minor editorial changes to part one prior to publication it was agreed that dr colwill would amend
00:07:55 agreed that dr colwill would amend figure a2 as discussed at the meeting and add a note clarifying the start and end of the test she also agreed to make sure that clauses and if we go over the page
00:08:09 a 7.4 and then a number of other clauses and a figure are aligned so it does look like you were involved in preparing some final amendments to this british standard yes oh yes yes
00:08:21 standard yes oh yes yes and if we
00:08:22 and if we go back to your witness statement on page 29 at 184 you say this um
00:08:33 you're asked about a description of the basis on which and the means by which all aspects of the test method were selected for inclusion in the final text and you say my recollection although i've not been able to identify any
00:08:44 i've not been able to identify any documents to verify this is that as part of the committee direction from the headline committees the classification element of fire note 9 was removed
00:08:55 9 was removed my understanding of this decision was that it would have kept the standard in line with the approach used in european standards of producing a standard solely for the generation of performance data for the product
00:09:07 for the product the benchmarking of the performance either classification would then take place through secondary standards or documents depending upon the end user requirements in this case br 135 and loss prevention
00:09:18 in this case br 135 and loss prevention standards lps 1581 both recognize the data taken from the test method but apply different benchmarks yes yes
00:09:30 so it's right isn't it that what we ended up with was eight four one four parts one and two were test methods yes yes and br135 contain the performance criteria against which the test was
00:09:42 criteria against which the test was carried out um and assessed
00:09:47 uh it was it was one of the vehicles yes and in relation to the removal of that classification element of fire note 9 can you explain what you mean when you
00:09:58 can you explain what you mean when you say this was part of a committee direction from the headline committees what do you mean by that given the pat the period of time when the standard was being written um it was
00:10:09 the standard was being written um it was very much um the position that test methods were test methods and classifications with classifications they were two separate documentation and therefore in drafting the british
00:10:20 therefore in drafting the british standard the approach would have been to produce a test method um for
00:10:26 for for the for the process and then classification would have taken place elsewhere i see was this a person or a particular committee that was ultimately responsible for that direction that they they had to be split in that way
00:10:41 i've looked back and i i can i can find no um direct evidence of where that
00:10:50 that decision came from
00:10:53 came from [Music]
00:10:56 my recollection is it was a period of discussion around um the production of the standard and therefore where the classification was going to sit and that
00:11:06 and that as i say i i can find nothing documented around how that decision was reached or where that confirmation came from right did you have any particular views on that decision to split out the method from
00:11:18 decision to split out the method from the classification
00:11:21 i understood why it was being done [Music]
00:11:25 [Music] but in terms of placing it in 135 that seemed as um suitable the vehicle at that point because the classification already existed it was just taking it from that
00:11:36 existed it was just taking it from that and placing it into another um another position to to do that so you didn't have any objections to that approach no did you raise any concerns about
00:11:45 about what might happen if you did that in terms of like confusion that might cause in the industry having them separated out
00:11:52 out no but because as i say that was the direction that standards have moved to um now it is normal to have the the test uh data in one document and the classification in a in a second yeah
00:12:05 classification in a in a second yeah now we saw reference to the loss prevention standards there can you just in brief terms what are those loss prevention standards the loss prevention standards are
00:12:16 the loss prevention standards are primarily
00:12:17 primarily written around the requirements of the insurance industry and
00:12:23 and they are third-party certification schemes
00:12:26 schemes yes
00:12:28 yes and um they apply different benchmarks don't they do the same tests effectively yes i do yeah we'll come on to that in a moment um if we can
00:12:42 if we look at a document bre four zeros one zero eight five
00:12:49 we can see this is a document um it's a paper we think prepared by you entitled external cladding systems for use on multi-story buildings and we think it dates from 2010
00:13:00 think it dates from 2010 we might return to it but for the moment if we look at page seven and we look at the second paragraph in that
00:13:09 in that um
00:13:16 sorry i've just got lost
00:13:19 should be a paragraph beginning the building make it sorry go if we go to page six sorry there's a yes sorry there's a paragraph at the bottom of that page
00:13:31 bottom of that page that says how does this differ from adb and why and it's dealing with the loss prevention standards and it says this the building regulations do not address the property protection business interruption and social consequences arising from a fire
00:13:44 social consequences arising from a fire involving external fire spread they deal solely with issues related to life safety
00:13:48 safety the losses beyond life safety are generally addressed by the insurance industry which looks for enhanced fire performance requirements to limit their potential losses arising from the fire events including those involving external fire spread yes yes
00:14:02 external fire spread yes yes so um
00:14:04 so um it's right isn't it that those loss prevention standards including 1581 and 1582 require an enhanced standard of fire performance as compared with what the building
00:14:15 as compared with what the building regulations and approved document b require yes for example can we agree this that under loss prevention standard 1582 failure of the large-scale fire test can
00:14:27 failure of the large-scale fire test can occur within 30 minutes of the start of the test not just within 15 minutes yes
00:14:33 uh without reference back to the standard i i sorry it yes if if that is um how it's written then yes yeah you can take it from me thank you
00:14:44 from me thank you imposes more stringent criteria so that it has to run for 30 minutes not 15 minutes
00:14:50 minutes and there's a failure if burning debris or a pool fire develops on the floor of the test facility are you aware of that yes and there is actually performance criteria for mechanical performance in
00:15:02 criteria for mechanical performance in these loss prevention standards isn't there yes they were um originally drafted in that standard yes yes so for example
00:15:09 example under mechanical performance a failure can occur if a collapse of the system or part thereof um onto the floor of the test facility occurs yes yes doesn't that show that it is in fact
00:15:21 doesn't that show that it is in fact possible to draft performance criteria for mechanical performance if you really want to uh the issue is around the con the quantification of that collapse right
00:15:33 quantification of that collapse right and that that is where the the issue arises in terms of providing a distinctive pass fail criteria are we talking one small element or a a large a larger piece
00:15:45 element or a a large a larger piece right do you ever recall having any discussions with the department um about whether or not approved document b should be adopting some of the more stringent criteria for
00:15:56 some of the more stringent criteria for example used in the loss prevention standards
00:16:00 uh no i'm not aware that that conversation ever took place right now do you recall that bs 8414 part 1 was the subject of a full public consultation
00:16:11 consultation yes
00:16:12 yes if we look at your witness statement page 27 paragraph 172 um
00:16:18 um [Music]
00:16:19 [Music] if we pick this up halfway through the sixth line down there's a sentence that begins the draft standards would then and what you say is the draft standard
00:16:30 and what you say is the draft standard would then have been passed to the headline committees fsh 21 and 22 and made available for public comment the bsi would have generated a collated set of the comments that would have been
00:16:41 set of the comments that would have been reviewed and addressed by the committee based on a consensus approach bsi technical editors would then have sent this document to the headline committees for their approval for publication as a
00:16:52 for their approval for publication as a full standard yes yes now did you have a particular role you were a member of the committee did you have a particular role in relation to that consultation process as a member of the committee we would
00:17:04 as a member of the committee we would have seen the comments that were fed back and we would have discussed those as a as a
00:17:09 as a as a committee yeah so you did play some role in evaluating these consultation responses yes yes and is it fair to say that from industry there was some resistance at that stage
00:17:21 there was some resistance at that stage in terms of the comments you received back
00:17:29 i i honestly don't recall the the volume or um
00:17:35 or um specific details of them i would have expect i expect there were a number of comments related to it um and i expect they were and they would have been discussed and addressed within that but i i
00:17:47 that but i i i have no direct recollection of any specific
00:17:51 specific points raised let's just look at some of the responses i'm not going to take you to many but if we go to bsi50208
00:17:59 page one there's a consultation letter uh a response letter dated the fourth of february 2000 from epr architects limited we can see that on the top right hand side
00:18:10 hand side and if we look at paragraphs four and five
00:18:14 five on this page we can see it said the test appears to be designed for remedial works to domestic premises and would be draconian for new curtain walling systems all fully glazed systems would
00:18:25 systems all fully glazed systems would fail this test these systems are widely used throughout the world there's long experience of them and they're not considered to be hazardous and then it says below that this standard does seem to be a knee-jerk
00:18:36 standard does seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to the poor detailing that caused two unusual fires in remedial situations the deficiencies were obvious with hindsight and we feel that tighter regulation and risk assessment would
00:18:47 regulation and risk assessment would overcome these problems without the need in most cases for this very expensive testing
00:18:52 testing do you see that yes i do do you remember that kind of concern being more widespread does that help you remember some of the types of comments you were receiving back
00:19:07 i i don't i don't recall this uh this particular comment and um there was um from my recollection that the type of
00:19:19 from my recollection that the type of commentary around um understanding the the test in more detail um
00:19:28 um right i see and what what was requested but i say i don't i don't recall this particular one in detail right yeah if we look at page three there's a letter from um sandberg consulting engineers
00:19:40 from um sandberg consulting engineers date of the ninth of february 2000 and if we go to page four over the page in the top paragraph we can see it said i would be very disturbed if this standard were published in its present
00:19:51 standard were published in its present form the range of applicability of the method needs to be properly tested and there must be proper guidance on how the results of the test are to be interpreted particularly with reference
00:20:02 interpreted particularly with reference to the building regulations do you see that yes do you remember anyone else ever raising any concerns that one of the problems is that the standard doesn't
00:20:11 doesn't refer back to how this fits with the building regulations and the functional requirements do you ever remember getting that feedback no over onto page five
00:20:22 no over onto page five there's another firm of architects called
00:20:26 called uh khan peterson fox associates they write on the 10th of february 2000 um at paragraph one we can see in the final two lines it said i'm writing to
00:20:37 final two lines it said i'm writing to register my concern at your proposal to adopt this as a british standard and at paragraph three
00:20:45 three um in the final two lines it says as it stands i believe the document will be ignored by designers and cladding manufacturers do you see that yes i do um and if we go to page seven there's a
00:20:57 um and if we go to page seven there's a response from um pilkington glass you can see at the bottom it's someone called brian waldron from uh pilkington um
00:21:06 um and then the third paragraph of the first
00:21:10 first uh first line it says this proposal appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to one unfortunate occurrence do you see that
00:21:19 that now how were those types of objections viewed by the members of the joint committee can you remember how were these kind of comments received
00:21:32 within the environment it it was um
00:21:37 not uncommon uh to
00:21:42 see um where new standards are being brought forward uh comments around how they were being um
00:21:50 um how their scope was being um considered and how they were being being used um it from a technical standpoint there was um
00:22:03 and no route by which the we we could make any changes or uh additions to the to the standard if the production standard itself was was under challenge then that was generally referred back to
00:22:14 then that was generally referred back to the
00:22:14 the to the headlines into the bsi right i see did you ever discuss these comments within the bre for example with um debbie smith
00:22:24 uh she would have been aware of those as part of the 21 committee so yeah they would probably have come up in conversation yes right i see i want to turn some questions now about
00:22:35 i want to turn some questions now about um
00:22:36 um specifically the revision of br135 and the preparation of the second edition of that document we know it came out in 2003.
00:22:43 2003. um if we look at your witness statement or you tell us in your witness statement for the transcript this is at page 30 paragraph 190 you say that brian martin and i conducted the review of the first
00:22:55 conducted the review of the first edition
00:22:56 edition as part of developing the second edition is that right that's correct and do you know what was brian martin's role within the bre at the time you were working on this revision to bl-135 and
00:23:07 working on this revision to bl-135 and looking back at the first edition from 1988.
00:23:10 1988. he would have been part of the fire safety group right
00:23:16 do you remember forming any particular conclusions about the first edition when you were doing this review
00:23:24 other than it was um a snapshot of that uh industry at that time um and and was a basis to work forward from that was the conclusion we reached between us right i see if you go to page
00:23:36 between us right i see if you go to page 30 of your statement paragraph 192 you explain there you say as part of the development of the second edition brian martin and i together with mhclg agreed
00:23:47 martin and i together with mhclg agreed that the first edition could be used as a suitable basis for the second edition yes
00:23:53 yes um and if we look at paragraph page 31 of your statement in paragraph 196 there you tell us you say brian martin
00:24:04 there you tell us you say brian martin and i work collaboratively collaboratively on the development of the second edition and you tell us together we reviewed the text of the first edition that formed the basis of the draft for the second
00:24:15 the basis of the draft for the second updated content based on developments in the testing of external cladding systems and the mechanisms of fire spread including principles for the design of fire barriers
00:24:26 fire barriers arriving from the mhcld sponsored research program underpinning the development of far note 9 and bs 8414 part 1.
00:24:34 part 1. now pausing there what specifically are you referring to there the mhclg sponsored research program uh uh 9 cc 1924 right it's the the work we've just
00:24:46 1924 right it's the the work we've just gone through this morning yes and then you tell us at sea over the page that it included annex a which was taken from the assessment of performance section of far note 9 which had previously been published yes so the
00:24:58 previously been published yes so the classification part of fire note 9 came in to be our 135 second edition yes yes yes
00:25:08 um
00:25:11 and was this work to review the first edition divided equally between you and brian martin did you both read the first edition and both come up with ideas about how you developed it or did one or other of you lead on a particular aspect
00:25:23 other of you lead on a particular aspect of the work uh the
00:25:26 uh the um
00:25:30 we were both aware of the the first edition
00:25:33 edition and the annex was
00:25:37 was lifted from from nine um and and placed in context um
00:25:44 um within the document the description of the mechanisms of fire spread was addressed collaboratively and the
00:25:54 and the discussion around the performance of the five arrows within the systems under fire load um i've led on the drafting of that right yeah do you remember specifically
00:26:05 right yeah do you remember specifically sitting down with mr martin and going through the first edition and saying to yourselves yeah we're going to keep that that's good no we'll delete that do you remember actually going through that process about the first edition no
00:26:18 um do you think such a process occurred jointly side by side no no and why was why why not we were both comfortable to to take the
00:26:29 we were both comfortable to to take the each other's opinions of how that that document was um presented and developed going forward right so does that mean you kind of started with a blank sheet of paper again taking
00:26:40 taking note of what was said before but effectively wrote it from scratch again no it was there was there was more more reference back before we began but
00:26:52 more reference back before we began but there was no um word document as such to to say this is where we begin with uh first edition and begin from there so it was just taking the relevant sections and and and style from that and moving it into
00:27:05 and style from that and moving it into the new document right now and we know just in terms of the timeline we know from the documents that a final draft was sent to anthony bird and to the industry advisory group on the 9th of july 2002.
00:27:18 the 9th of july 2002. do you remember that or around that time oh yes say that can we go briefly to the first edition of br135 this is at bre
00:27:30 this is at bre 401077 i don't think it's a document we've looked at much as an inquiry so far so this is the 1988 edition of br135 and we can see it's prepared by rogowski
00:27:42 and we can see it's prepared by rogowski ramprasad and somebody called southern yes three authors and if we go briefly um to page four i want to ask you about a passage on the right hand side there's a heading
00:27:54 right hand side there's a heading regulatory aspect do you see that and what it says is this it says control over the external surface of walls of buildings particularly those of multi-storey flats to avoid ignition and
00:28:07 multi-storey flats to avoid ignition and flame spread which might endanger the lives of residents above by breaking down effective compartmentation is currently controlled by reference to tests specified in bs 476 part 6 and
00:28:21 tests specified in bs 476 part 6 and part 7. yes you see that yes and it goes on however these tests only provide information on surface fire behavior
00:28:31 behavior the overall performance of a ventilated cladding system or insulated assembly incorporating independently supported weathering finishes and complicated reveal details can only be investigated
00:28:43 reveal details can only be investigated under actual fire conditions on a full-scale building facade
00:28:51 so um the authors in 1988 are saying that um what's the controlling references within 8414 were bs 476 part 6 and part 7 yes
00:29:04 8414 were bs 476 part 6 and part 7 yes in terms of the external surface of walls of buildings you see that in that paragraph they're saying control over the external surface of walls of buildings
00:29:16 surface of walls of buildings particularly those of multi-story flats is currently controlled by reference to tests specified in 476 parts six and seven yes
00:29:24 seven yes yes and we've looked at adb 2000 those matters were still controlled by reference to bs 476 part 6 and 7 tests yes in diagram 40. yes
00:29:38 and in 2003 when the second edition of br135 was published that remained the case yes
00:29:44 case yes yes
00:29:48 now you can take it from me that the paragraph i've just read to you from the first edition does not appear and nor does anything similar in the second edition of br135 and i'd like to understand why
00:30:01 and i'd like to understand why was a specific decision taken not to include reference to the fact that those tests only provide information on surface fire behavior and that the overall performance of a system
00:30:13 that the overall performance of a system can only be investigated under actual fire conditions on a full-scale building facade
00:30:19 facade the
00:30:20 the introduction to the um
00:30:25 135 goes into some detail about the references to the varying regulatory frameworks to which the full scale test might may be applied
00:30:38 full scale test might may be applied so it references to the approved document and and the other details in there it doesn't reproduce the contents of that no so why don't we see something specific
00:30:49 see something specific about the limitations of the bs 476 part six and seven tests in br135 wasn't that that a warning that was equally pertinent for the second edition of this
00:31:00 pertinent for the second edition of this document
00:31:02 document it was not an aspect that was considered within that second edition revision yeah and i'm looking to understand why not why not give that warning again so that people are absolutely crystal clear
00:31:13 that people are absolutely crystal clear that when they're thinking about those four seven six part six and seven tests either tests which combine to give you national class naught in certain circumstances they're only providing certain
00:31:24 they're only providing certain information and they're not telling you about the full performance of that system why not give that warning in those clear terms again
00:31:34 and say at the time the time that it was was drafted it wasn't um something that was was considered do you remember there being an objection
00:31:45 do you remember there being an objection by anybody about including a similar um
00:31:49 um type of text in the second edition no
00:31:54 no given the time frame in which that second edition was being published and the changes in the um uh regulation around it the
00:32:04 the um the reference was made to the right to the uh guidance yes but fundamentally there hadn't been any changes i appreciate out there i say i appreciate the comment you make but
00:32:17 i appreciate the comment you make but i'm not aware that there were any comments around that at that time and it wasn't something that was carried forward and there was no um
00:32:25 um direct
00:32:27 direct um
00:32:28 um position to remove it or to include it i see
00:32:34 but did you actually apply your mind to this question at the time do you think anyone asked themselves oh do we need something similar in the second edition do you think that was actually a thought process anybody had at the time
00:32:52 given that the document was reviewed yes it would have it would have been considered but as i say the the introduction and the opening discussions around
00:33:04 discussions around the fire mechanisms etc were were presented in a different way and i suspect that may have led to that
00:33:11 that particular aspect not being carried forward no now we know the second edition of br135 was the subject of a consultation process that's right isn't it it was and you tell us in your witness
00:33:22 and you tell us in your witness statement this is page 32 paragraph 197 that you that brian martin and yourself you manage this process and you address the comments and feedback received yes yes again how did that work divide
00:33:34 yes again how did that work divide between you did you both look at all the comments or did you split the comments and divide them up between you we sat with
00:33:41 with myself and brian and debbie smith and we went through all the comments uh collectively and um given that br135 was not to be a british standard did the bre run and manage this consultation process alone
00:33:53 manage this consultation process alone or did the department assist with it the consultation was was run using the same group that the department had established the aig at the start
00:34:05 established the aig at the start right
00:34:06 right so they were all party to that consultation process so the industry advisory group had a had a role in terms of yes um
00:34:14 of yes um fine and following the consultation who had the final say or final sign off in terms of the content of the second edition of br135 the
00:34:26 the bre document was signed and presented signed off by debbie smith and presented to the department as part of that comment uh and they had had opportunity to comment
00:34:37 and they had had opportunity to comment on that
00:34:38 on that in that process i see
00:34:41 i see so debbie smith approved it and then it's presented to the department and they then sign it off as the final sign on that's the final sign yeah um
00:34:50 um do you remember the consultation process revealing any particular concerns or resistance on the part of industry we saw that there were some concerns raised about the 8414 british standard do you remember anything
00:35:01 remember anything around the consultation over br135 no i think um it was a
00:35:09 it was a a presentation a presentation of um understanding of the performance of the systems at that time and
00:35:17 and [Music]
00:35:19 [Music] the
00:35:21 classifications had already been available through fine note 9 so there was nothing technically new in the appendix right i want to look at one particular consultation response
00:35:32 consultation response if we go to bre 3042031
00:35:37 this is a letter to you dated the 15th of august 2002 and we can see from the bottom it's from alan keila of the cwct
00:35:48 alan keila of the cwct the center for window and cladding technology at the university of bath yes yes
00:35:53 yes um do you remember uh receiving this letter do you remember it no did you know who mr keeler was at the time was he someone that you knew professionally
00:36:04 professionally uh
00:36:05 uh i i knew of cwct but not um
00:36:11 um uh professionally to work with right and we can see from the first line of the letter that mr keeler says he's been asked to respond by dr led better yes yes is that stephen led better
00:36:24 i i i assume so yeah dr ledbetter was a member of the joint bsi committee considering the draft of 8414 wasn't he
00:36:35 i believe so
00:36:38 apologies the passage of time is a little no i understand now if we look at the second paragraph of the letter he writes he says this ventilated rain screens are a cost-effective form of construction used widely throughout europe the generic
00:36:51 widely throughout europe the generic data supporting the revision of br135 show that all the rain screen system tested
00:36:56 tested failed to meet the test criteria we are concerned that the use of this proposed test or the proposed test will lead to the abandonment of this method of construction without any guarantee that
00:37:08 construction without any guarantee that alternative forms of construction are available particularly for multi-storey buildings where weight is an important consideration if this occurs there could be economic consequences for the building industry
00:37:19 consequences for the building industry and the uk as a whole it was emphasized at the outset of the work of the bsi committee that it is necessary to take account of the needs of industry and use of energy in buildings do you see that yes i do
00:37:31 see that yes i do in terms of that last sentence had that been emphasized at the outset of the work of the bsi committee that it was necessary to take account of the needs of the industry and the use of energy in
00:37:43 of the industry and the use of energy in buildings
00:37:45 buildings i
00:37:45 i i don't recall that being a statement made within the committee and i it would be
00:37:51 be a little unusual because a bsi committee is a
00:37:53 is a technical committee um
00:37:56 um dealing with the development of standards
00:37:59 standards do you remember any discussions within the bre about this warning from the cwct that the introduction of br135 might make or the second edition might make rain screen systems obsolete as a method
00:38:11 rain screen systems obsolete as a method of construction
00:38:14 as as you can see from the revision note to the side um it was a
00:38:20 it was a it was addressed by um making that suggestion that it it was possible for these systems to perform in that against those tests yes i'll come on to that those
00:38:31 yes i'll come on to that those handwritten notes in a moment um
00:38:36 but but i'm asking do you remember any particular discussions occurring within the bre about this warning i mean it's a pretty strong warning that's being um delivered here by the cwct they would have been
00:38:48 here by the cwct they would have been addressed as part of the con as part of the consultation process yeah did this objection form any part of the basis for the decision to split 8414 into part one and part two do you know no
00:39:01 and part two do you know no now as you've pointed out on the left-hand side of the letter we can see a handwritten comment which reads um page 28 revised text to make clear that appropriate fire barriers could improve performance
00:39:14 barriers could improve performance now is that your handwriting no whose handwriting is it dr smith that's debbie smith's handwriting yes now
00:39:24 now in terms of the ventilated systems tested in 2001 under the cc 1924 contract
00:39:30 contract four of the five systems tested at full scale had no fire barriers and all four failed the fifth system did incorporate fire barriers and also
00:39:41 incorporate fire barriers and also failed yes yes in the light of that on what basis did dr smith consider it appropriate to revise the text to include the words
00:39:54 revise the text to include the words appropriate fire barriers could improve performance can you help us with that
00:40:01 given that um
00:40:05 in the design and construction of the systems
00:40:08 systems we had not assessed all the types of fire barriers available in the market and that industry and construction
00:40:19 and construction were
00:40:21 looking at varying different ways of meeting that fire breaking fire barrier performance then
00:40:30 then it it was a statement to make clear that
00:40:36 design could it could enable um appropriate design could enable improved performance but but when you said given the design and the construction of the systems
00:40:47 and the construction of the systems and that you've not assessed all the types of fire barriers wouldn't that be a wholly irresponsible statement to make in the absence of reliable data on the effective fire barriers
00:40:58 barriers how could you be making clear that the provision of fire barriers could improve performance how could that statement be made
00:41:06 made because they're the the use of fire barriers um in the
00:41:12 in the previous
00:41:14 previous pii work had provided mitigation but in dr connolly's work it didn't did it dr connolly specifically said that a number of the barriers proved
00:41:26 that a number of the barriers proved wholly ineffective in the systems the ten tests that he did so on what basis could it be said that these fire barriers could improve performance that they're that
00:41:37 that they're that at that time there were um five systems that had contained fire barriers that met the performance criteria
00:41:46 criteria and that
00:41:48 and that industry faced with um developing appropriate fire barriers um were considering different designs and different types of approaches at that time
00:41:59 time yes but
00:42:00 yes but just because you've got a system that's got a fire barrier that's tested successfully doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's the fire barrier that's been successful or whether in fact it's just the composition of that particular
00:42:12 just the composition of that particular system it's makeup whatever the panels were the materials used which has led to its passing does it you would need to do an awful lot more work wouldn't you to
00:42:23 an awful lot more work wouldn't you to understand the precise contribution that fire barriers would make do you agree with that absolutely it is a systems test and that is the point of
00:42:32 point of the point that is trying to to be to be laid across in in 135 is that the role of the fire barrier within the system needs to be considered as part of the
00:42:42 the system yes but what's being suggested here and i think we'll just find it but this similar statements in br135 second edition is that the use of appropriate fire barriers could improve the performance
00:42:54 barriers could improve the performance of the system let's have a look at bre-405555
00:43:03 page 14 paragraph
00:43:07 paragraph 3.3.2 is that right page 14.
00:43:28 bre four zeros five five four fives sorry four zeroes four fives
00:43:35 fives page fourteen
00:43:38 paragraph 3.3.2
00:43:43 cavities may be incorporated with an external cladding system or may be formed by the delamination or different movement of a system
00:43:54 and then it says this may enable fire to spread rapidly unseen through the external clouding system if appropriate fire barriers have not been provided do you see that there yes and there's quite a heavy emphasis in
00:44:05 and there's quite a heavy emphasis in this document isn't there on the difference that fire barriers can potentially make in these systems do you agree with that generally yes yes
00:44:16 let me ask you about some specific questions about the criteria in br135 if we can go to annex a to the second edition
00:44:25 edition at page 22 of this document
00:44:36 so here we have the performance criteria for the system and we've got external fire spread intel internal spa spread and mechanical performance there and those criteria match what we saw in
00:44:47 and those criteria match what we saw in fire note 3 yes yes and fine note nine yes and
00:44:54 and we can see the failure criteria um are set out on page 23.
00:45:06 can we agree this that br 135 and the large-scale testing it refers to are addressing a generic risk of flame spread across surface and cavities
00:45:17 surface and cavities but it leaves it to the competent professional to assess the nature of an acceptability of that risk of flame spread
00:45:23 spread in any particular fire strategy
00:45:31 sorry could you yes so it's quite a long question i'll repeat it can we agree this that br135 and the large-scale testing it refers to are addressing a generic risk of flame
00:45:42 are addressing a generic risk of flame spread across a surface and cavities but it leaves it to the competent professional to assess the nature of an acceptability of that risk of flame spread in any particular fire
00:45:53 of flame spread in any particular fire strategy
00:46:01 um so
00:46:04 so the test
00:46:06 the test the test data
00:46:09 provides information to um anybody who is working on a fire strategy to understand the
00:46:19 the mechanism of the uh fire spread through the system so sorry i do apologize the the final part of the
00:46:26 of the statement
00:46:28 statement it was really that it's well let's break this down in into two points um the first of all it says it's addressing a generic risk of flame spread yes
00:46:40 generic risk of flame spread yes generic and it's system specific so the the the data and the information comes from the system that is tested so that explains the
00:46:52 that explains the the what is happening to that system whilst it is under test yes yes because what the document doesn't do does it is it doesn't link these pass fail criteria
00:47:04 it doesn't link these pass fail criteria back to the issues addressed in the main body of the document or to the requirements of the building regulations or the guidance and approved document b does it no no why doesn't it do that because it is
00:47:15 no why doesn't it do that because it is a classification it is a classification at standing alone from um
00:47:23 from um for end users to be able to uh apply to whichever
00:47:27 whichever regulatory framework or specification framework they require right tell us this as well why is it that these later versions and it would apply to versions two and three of br135
00:47:39 to versions two and three of br135 equally focus almost entirely on the threat of fire propagation through cavities
00:47:45 cavities and say very little about the potential for flame spread over or through the external panels themselves
00:47:58 insofar as it talks about the different elements and their involvement in the
00:48:04 in the in the fire process um
00:48:09 um and and as such we measure the uh rate of propagation through each of the elements within the system then that was the description of the of the mechanism of
00:48:20 description of the of the mechanism of fire spread that we were uh presenting in 135
00:48:25 but how can that be justified given your knowledge of the circumstances of the fires at noseley heights and at garnet court by this time that there's not more attention on
00:48:36 there's not more attention on the combustibility and the propensity of the panels themselves to spread fire the external panels as opposed to fire spread through cavities
00:48:47 in that we are
00:48:50 we are measuring
00:48:51 measuring that fire spread characteristic um
00:48:57 in all of those elements then
00:49:00 then that that was the basis on which the the presentation was made i i understand the point you make but i say that the the time
00:49:08 time time of writing
00:49:11 we've the
00:49:13 the description of the unseen cavities and the description of the external fire spread were were presented in that way yes can you help us with this as well why is there no attempt to measure flame
00:49:25 there no attempt to measure flame velocity
00:49:26 velocity or flame or heating length as part of the large-scale testing method
00:49:34 flame
00:49:40 sorry i don't recognize velocity we measure the time of travel from 0.1 to 0.2 so that gives us a rate um
00:49:49 um a rate step um
00:49:54 um so
00:49:56 in in that sense we uh we have a measure of that
00:50:01 of that that parameter well it's measuring temperature changes between two parts of the rig isn't it yes that might be different from the flame velocity do you agree
00:50:13 agree it
00:50:16 visualizing flame and measurement of flame is
00:50:22 challenging because is it the flame in contact with the surface of the product which is actually potentially masked by the
00:50:32 actual combustion process itself also
00:50:38 how that flame is traveling generally flame progress progression is measured through temperature rather than through visual observation right
00:50:48 right and can you help us with this was consideration ever given to having openings as part of the 8414 test so that at least visual observations of the propensity of a compartmentation failure to occur could take place
00:51:04 the early development work looked at openings as part of the process
00:51:09 process the
00:51:10 the principle behind this particular test was to look at the um
00:51:16 um the the system um
00:51:19 um to
00:51:21 to enable fire
00:51:25 travel not the
00:51:29 provisions of
00:51:32 of openings within that right and was there ever any discussion about whether or not a test method could be developed that had openings so that at least visual observations of the propensity of
00:51:44 visual observations of the propensity of compartmentalian failure to occur could take place not during the time i was involved in these activities no right now
00:51:55 now we know that br135 contains no failure criteria for mechanical performance yes we've already established that if we go to a document bre 3042039
00:52:12 this is going to be a consultation response
00:52:17 from eurosol from someone called jerry miller the secretary general of uracil it's dated the 23rd of august 2002 and it's addressed to you
00:52:28 addressed to you now eurosol was the uk mineral wool association at the time wasn't it
00:52:34 yes i believe so and on page two under the heading um
00:52:39 um page 17 assessment of performance mechanical failure if we could just expand that because the text is quite small
00:52:47 small we can see it says whereas we must be content that the failure criteria for fire spread has been transposed from the fire note 9 test to the br135 document without
00:52:58 test to the br135 document without change
00:52:59 change it is disappointing that the opportunity to apply a failure criteria for mechanical failure has been missed it is appreciated that the test primarily examines the spread of fire upwards by the cladding system however
00:53:11 upwards by the cladding system however there remains a danger from falling debris to those escaping from the building or attempting to fight the fire from below do you see that yes and the handwritten mark on the right hand side
00:53:22 handwritten mark on the right hand side simply says noted yes yes can you help us to who wrote that whose handwriting is that that would be dr smith dr smith again and if we go to page three of uracil's
00:53:34 and if we go to page three of uracil's response and to the final paragraph we can see it says this all the ventilated systems tested showed a failure regardless of the whether fire barriers were
00:53:45 of the whether fire barriers were incorporated into the system or not it appears that timber and aluminium railing supports may not be suitable for this type of construction but without some further discussion in the main br135 document this may not be the only
00:53:57 br135 document this may not be the only reason for the failures other questions should be assessed such as whether the failures occurred in the insulation layer or did the insulation become detached due to a fixing failure the br135 report
00:54:09 due to a fixing failure the br135 report states that intumescent grill fire barriers were generally found to be inadequate in such systems but offers no guidance on what may constitute an adequate barrier
00:54:20 adequate barrier and somebody's written on the right hand side it looks like dr smith yes needs to be discussed with odpm is that right yes and that stands for office of the deputy prime minister yes yes the depart the
00:54:32 prime minister yes yes the depart the department that is now the department for leveling up housing and communities yes
00:54:39 yes do you can you help us as to why that comment needed to be discussed with odpm
00:54:47 no i don't i i i don't recall what in that paragraph triggered that that comment
00:54:58 yes i mean there seems to be a concern that more guidance needs to be given particularly about fire barriers if it's going to be said that those might be adequate yes uh it may well relate to um
00:55:11 may well relate to um an understanding of the insulation layers and then they them seeking information about the performance of the layers given this has come from one of the mineral wool
00:55:22 has come from one of the mineral wool from the mineral wool
00:55:24 wool sector
00:55:26 sector right i see if we go now to another document bre three zeros four two oh three eight this is um a response to the br 135
00:55:38 this is um a response to the br 135 consultation submitted by ian target and bill parler of the fire safety development group um
00:55:46 um and there's a question mark below that says who are they question mark whose handwriting is that mine um
00:55:55 um so did you not know at the time that ian target and bill parlour were part of a fire safety development group that had given evidence um
00:56:06 group that had given evidence um during the select committee it was dr moore i think who gave evidence on behalf of this group during the parliamentary select committee did you put two and two together and realized that they were part of the same group
00:56:19 at that the point when they were placed on the table it was it was a question that was who who are they in that relationship and then
00:56:28 then as you say that would have been um tracked back to to find out who they were if we go to page two of this where we start to see their detailed comments in item 11
00:56:39 item 11 on that page it reads page 17 mechanical performance and they say we do not accept that no failure criteria have been set for mechanical performance
00:56:50 have been set for mechanical performance that would suggest partial collapse could only be determined by close scrutiny of the test report whereas it should be recorded up front as a potential hazard to firefighters etc
00:57:00 etc do you see that yes and then
00:57:03 and then they say we would suggest some form of impact kinetic energy limit would be appropriate and since the velocity equals gravity it's only the maximum mass of the falling debris which is important either as a single piece or as
00:57:14 important either as a single piece or as a progressive collapse in several pieces and again someone has written in relation to both of those comments discussed with the odpm whose handwriting is that
00:57:25 whose handwriting is that dr smith right
00:57:29 why did you consider that that comment about mechanical failure criteria needed to be discussed with the department can you help us as to why that was the bre view
00:57:38 view because these were a collection of uh comments coming back from consultation it would be appropriate for us to advise them
00:57:47 them uh that we were receiving these types of comments right and do you remember whether these particular comments led to any further discussion about the possibility of including performance criteria for mechanical performance within br135
00:58:03 as i've said previously the determination of quantifying mechanical performances um and has been an ongoing challenge
00:58:14 challenge um within this this test scenario and it i imagine i have no direct recollection but it would have been discussed again at that time
00:58:25 at that time right
00:58:27 right do you know whether anthony bird or any other official took an active part in considering the feedback and comments that were received in response to this consultation
00:58:38 they they would have been made aware of them
00:58:40 them what action they took from that i i'm i'm not aware of okay let's go to one last piece of correspondence on this topic if we go to bre four zeroes one three zero eight
00:58:52 bre four zeroes one three zero eight and we go there's a email at the bottom of that page second email down and we can see it's from wilf ball at brookman his name actually appears we can see if
00:59:04 his name actually appears we can see if we go to the bottom of the email on page two just if we can flip to page two we see we see his name you can see it's ball of broofman now brookhammer was the
00:59:16 ball of broofman now brookhammer was the british rigid urethane manufacturers association is that right yes and it's now known as ima the insulation manufacturers association
00:59:30 did you know that it's now known as the ima
00:59:34 ima um no i
00:59:35 um no i i don't work in that sector okay if we go back to page one and look at his email he says in the first paragraph i'm concerned that the normal route for setting performance requirements either
00:59:47 setting performance requirements either bsi committee is not being used to determine the limits of acceptable performance in the normal way for the treatments applied to a masonry wall to serve as a facade for bs 8414 part one
00:59:59 serve as a facade for bs 8414 part one it was reported only on friday last by anthony bird that the bre revised requirements in bl-135 will shortly be issued and i assume that this is supposed to be the mechanism for setting the limits between acceptable and
01:00:11 the limits between acceptable and unacceptable products and further concern that whilst polyurethane products are being used as a means of applying thermal insulation to the exterior of masonry face buildings albeit with a suitable protective
01:00:23 albeit with a suitable protective rendering system that we are not being consulted with regards to these criteria of acceptance and he goes on the problem could be exacerbated since now the part two draft is well underway and i can see that the
01:00:35 is well underway and i can see that the logic that could be applied for polyurethane panels which often form a facade and other facades for that matter may be expected to satisfy the same criteria limits which have been proposed or agreed for the 8414 products
01:00:48 or agreed for the 8414 products and then it goes on frankly we are more concerned with the second situation either use of polyurethane cord panels as building envelopes since this is and has been a major application for the
01:00:59 has been a major application for the insulation products the world over for 35 years without any justified criticism regarding their fire performance in that application accordingly the new facade test should recognize this by not setting limits
01:01:11 recognize this by not setting limits which cannot be met by these products you will recall that during 2001 we carried out two facade tests at cardington which gave the limits for these products by finding the product with the poorest
01:01:22 by finding the product with the poorest performing core material which was tested first and then testing another system which used the best performing poly isocyanurate core material
01:01:31 material we envisaged therefore that products on the market would all fall within the range defined by these two products all products have been uncriticized for
01:01:42 all products have been uncriticized for 35 years and therefore whatever limits you're considering should be such that both products would be accepted to reflect this 35 years of acceptability now
01:01:53 now by the new facade test just going back to page one of the email he talks about the new facade test in the third paragraph
01:02:01 paragraph um
01:02:03 um did you understand him it's in the fourth line of that third paragraph did you understand him to be referring to eight for one for part two which was then being drafted
01:02:42 can you help us as to whether you understood him to refer to i apologize it's
01:02:47 it's many years since i've seen this email i'm just trying to to to read it to understand the the con the context and the the content of it yes
01:03:02 he says accordingly the new facade test should recognize this by not setting limits which cannot be met by these products
01:03:11 i'm i'm very i'm i'm very sorry i'm trying to read this call to to give some context i don't recall this exchange yeah
01:03:21 reading this would suggest that this is related to the to the part two tests these are talking about
01:03:27 about sandwich panels i believe the composite panels that we we talked about earlier um and
01:03:36 and um
01:03:38 um yes
01:03:39 yes i believe that on on a very brief reading is what he's talking about did you agree with this opinion and it's pretty strongly expressed here that the new test and the associated criteria should be designed
01:03:51 associated criteria should be designed to reflect the status quo and simply on the basis that there existed a status quo did you agree with that
01:04:08 the performance limits would have been set based on the performance seen in those products if the
01:04:16 development was not
01:04:20 was not not appropriate then that was something that would be discussed
01:04:24 discussed discussed with them but it would it would not be um
01:04:29 um set as he's he's suggesting in there no right
01:04:33 right we looked earlier um this morning in when we were looking at some of the reports you prepared under the cc 1924 contract that you'd warned government about highly active lobbying groups that
01:04:45 about highly active lobbying groups that were quite aggressive about their marketing yes was brookman one of those highly active lobbying groups yes yeah and kelp is with this what are these facade tests that he says were
01:04:57 these facade tests that he says were carried out at cardington in 2001. so he says um you will recall that during 2001 we carried out two facade tests at cardington which gave the limits for
01:05:08 cardington which gave the limits for these products by finding the product with the poorest performing core and then the product with the best performing core and he goes on and says that he envisaged therefore
01:05:20 envisaged therefore go over the page again
01:05:24 that the products on the market would all fall within the range identified by these two products can you help us as to what he's referring to there i'm sorry i can't i i don't recall
01:05:37 i'm sorry i can't i i don't recall um
01:05:39 um i don't recall whether they were um separately commissioned final nine tests um at that time do you ever remember um adopting that methodology to try and
01:05:51 adopting that methodology to try and test the worst performing foam in these sandwich panels and the best performing foam to make sure that um
01:06:00 um what was passing fell somewhere in between do you ever remember adopting that methodology i don't recall that no right
01:06:08 right if we look at your email at the top of page one we can see your reply which is sent on the 13th of july if we go back to the very top 13th of july 2003
01:06:20 2003 and you say we'll further to our conversation on friday please see the reports i mentioned attached the second edition of br135 was published at the beginning of the month and there's some differences from the draft copy i've attached full copies of the new document
01:06:33 attached full copies of the new document can be obtained from the bre bookshop website
01:06:36 website do you remember what discussions you'd had with will fall or with any other member of brookman in relation to this yes he um i don't recall
01:06:47 yes he um i don't recall the conversation directly um but i
01:06:51 but i can envisage that the conversation would have been one of um explain to him where the process was and providing him with copies of the documents that he was he was seeking to
01:07:03 documents that he was he was seeking to um
01:07:04 um [Music]
01:07:05 [Music] to gain sight of
01:07:08 right i see now
01:07:11 now before we move to a different topic is it right that as part of the bre's work on the review of and revisions to br 135 the bre disseminated information on the new edition of that document
01:07:22 new edition of that document including about the background to the development of the second edition yes
01:07:30 sorry disseminated did you give a number of presentations about revisions to br 135 both to the department and more widely yes
01:07:40 yes to whom did you deliver those presentations other than the department um
01:07:46 um we're invited to
01:07:50 trade bodies right
01:07:53 right we've got several sets of powerpoint slides from those presentations but let's just look at one by way of example if we could go to bre 3041986
01:08:02 3041986 we can see this is a set of slides with your name
01:08:07 your name headed assessing the fire performance of external cladding systems yes yes now the document has no date but we think it might date from around 2001 and 2002
01:08:17 2002 and the file name reads abe cladding presentation is that could that be a reference to the association of building engineers yes yes now known as uh cabe the chartered
01:08:29 yes now known as uh cabe the chartered association of building engineers yes
01:08:33 i i you don't know um
01:08:38 um and
01:08:39 and if we go to page two we can see some of the um topics that you cover in this presentation background system types current guidance development the full scale test full
01:08:50 development the full scale test full scale test method in the future if we go to pages six and and then seven because six first you cover that's the garnet court fire at irving yes by way of background yes
01:09:03 at irving yes by way of background yes and then at seven that's again garnet court is that correct that's correct and then on page eight you've got the select committee's recommendation yes
01:09:16 sorry that's the recommendation yes
01:09:21 um now the section i want to ask you about is called current guidance if we go to page 13
01:09:28 page 13 yes
01:09:29 yes so
01:09:31 so correct me if i'm wrong you are giving a presentation to the abe about current including about current guidance and the building regulations yes at this point at that point i had taken the guidance
01:09:43 at that point i had taken the guidance that was that was given in um in the document yes yes and we can see that you say um building regulations to meet with the guidance and approved document be
01:09:54 guidance and approved document be external walls may need sufficient fire resistance to restrict fire spread across a site boundary so that's the space separation guidance yes
01:10:05 guidance yes yes
01:10:07 yes and then it says this the combustibility of the outer surface should be of a value that minimizes the danger of ignition from an external source yes yes
01:10:20 and then on page 14 you set out the functional requirement b4 and on 15 we see this diagram 40 restricts the combustibility
01:10:32 diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings to reduce the danger from fire spread up the external face of the building do you see that yes now we've had this conversation before but in relation to words which you said were perhaps
01:10:43 words which you said were perhaps drafted by somebody else but here these are your words yes yes and they would have been taken from that document so are you saying that you would have simply copied over from the reports you
01:10:54 simply copied over from the reports you did in the cc 1924 work yes what was in those documents about for example what diagram 40 did or did not restrict yes i would
01:11:04 would that was taken from my understanding from the presentation that brian had presented in the cc 1924. right so did you ever ask yourself the question whether diagram 40 did in fact
01:11:17 question whether diagram 40 did in fact restrict the combustibility of external walls of high-rise buildings or whether actually that might be a slightly misleading description of what diagram 40
01:11:26 40 is requiring hindsight um it's a question i should have asked yeah
01:11:34 yeah but do you accept that wording like this from someone as expert and authoritative as you as you might have contributed to the confusion which existed within the industry in
01:11:45 which existed within the industry in terms of the meanings of and difference between the concept of national class law and the concepts of for example limited combustibility do you do you see that now
01:12:00 at the time that presentation was given no i don't i don't i didn't see that as it was a statement of the documents as presented
01:12:17 i see now um
01:12:21 now um just moving on can you help us with this do you know who drafted bs 8414 part 2 in 2005
01:12:30 in 2005 the commit initial committee draft um i i would have done the initial drafting on you did do the initial drafting of it yes because we've seen some documents
01:12:42 yes because we've seen some documents which appear to show that you were involved in some detail in amending the document yes at the committee stage yes
01:12:53 did you have any role in inviting experts and interested parties from the sector
01:12:58 sector to comment on uh bs8414 part two no that's done through the bsi committee system right and do you know who those members were that were chosen who
01:13:10 members were that were chosen who who were these experts and interested parties from the sector you described those in your witness statement who commented on 8414 part two so that would have the the comments would have been received through the normal bsi dpc process right
01:13:24 normal bsi dpc process right mr chairman i think that's a very good moment for ourselves yes thank you very much well we'll have a break now uh dr coldwell thank you we'll resume please at 25 to four
01:13:35 at 25 to four and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break
01:13:40 break now can i just ask you is is that long enough would you like a bit longer no thank you i prefer just to keep going 25 to 4 thank you very much
01:14:00 right thank you 25 to 14 please
01:30:21 would you ask the color world to come back in please
01:30:38 all right dr coldwell yes all right thank you yes mr screen yes i'm going to break off now from the overall chronology that we were working through with you in terms of events in your career and i'm going to turn now to some questions about testing to bs 8414 and
01:30:52 questions about testing to bs 8414 and third party certification for some of the products which were on grenfell tower okay now in your witness statement this is at page 38 paragraph 239 you tell us that
01:31:03 page 38 paragraph 239 you tell us that your involvement in testing and classification extended up to 2009 at which point we know you joined the fire suppression team yes that's correct now for clarity did your involvement in
01:31:15 now for clarity did your involvement in testing to bs 8414 and the br135 classifications end all together in 2009 or did you carry on sometimes dipping back into that world uh dipping back in as as requested if if
01:31:28 uh dipping back in as as requested if if there was a question or somebody wanted to
01:31:32 to discuss something then they would contact me you would get involved now you were asked in your statement about the processes for testing to 8414 and classifying to br135 and in your answers in your witness statement you
01:31:44 answers in your witness statement you rely heavily on the witness statement of dr debbie smith including her description of the requirement for the bre to maintain impartial and independent yes yes and
01:31:57 impartial and independent yes yes and the process is under uh iso 17025
01:32:02 17025 and the processes around that in terms of carrying out these fire testers yes that's correct now let's turn to dr smith's witness statement it's a bre 405624
01:32:14 statement it's a bre 405624 and page 12.
01:32:20 bre 405624
01:32:26 page 12 and look at paragraph 42 she says this as with any other test the test sponsor is responsible for the design specification procurement and installation of their specimen onto the
01:32:38 installation of their specimen onto the test rig the bs en iso e iec 17025 accreditation standard which bre is required to comply with
01:32:49 which bre is required to comply with obliges the test laboratory to remain completely independent and impartial and also to safeguard the test sponsor's proprietary information
01:33:00 proprietary information only information that both the test laboratory and test sponsor have agreed can be made public do you see that there yes and you agree with all of that yes yes
01:33:11 and you agree with all of that yes yes and then at page 20 of her witness statement if we go to paragraph 72 please
01:33:17 please she says this in the first few lines um sorry yeah bre does not and should not give any advice or guidance
01:33:28 not give any advice or guidance to test sponsors in relation to the design specification procurement or installation of a cladding system test specimen beyond making the requirements of the standard known to the sponsor
01:33:40 of the standard known to the sponsor in the case of testing contracts bre is not involved in designing selecting installing or sampling materials for use in a test specimen it is entirely the responsibility of the test sponsor to
01:33:52 responsibility of the test sponsor to design select install and supply the products to be tested this is important in order to maintain the independence and impartiality of the test laboratory as required by the iso
01:34:03 test laboratory as required by the iso standard that she gives again there against which bre is accredited by ucas and all of that aligns with your own understanding is that right that's correct
01:34:13 correct so no advice or guidance as to the design of a cladding test specimen should be or is given by the bre is that right
01:34:21 right that's correct did you ever give such advice or guidance even at a very early stage of your involvement in large-scale cladding testing [Music]
01:34:33 [Music] i'm not aware of giving advice or guidance into the design the specification procurement or installment of those cloud systems no no okay
01:34:43 okay now
01:34:44 now given the obligations uh which debbie smith has described and which you adopt in your own evidence um can you help us with this in the period from 2002 onwards did bre
01:34:55 period from 2002 onwards did bre employees receive training on how to remain independent and impartial at all stages of the testing process there was no formal training in that
01:35:06 in that way no did you receive any guidance at all of an informal nature about how you should go about making sure you remained impartial and independent through these testing
01:35:17 independent through these testing procedures
01:35:21 through meant through mentoring um and understanding the
01:35:25 the needs to remain independent of the as a process
01:35:29 process did you ever provide any impartiality training to staff involved in testing to bs 8414 for example phil clark or tony baker
01:35:42 i i do not recall formally um providing impartiality uh training no um the
01:35:50 the it would have been on a mentoring and discussion basis around what was um the normally expected behaviors yes when he gave evidence to this inquiry
01:36:01 when he gave evidence to this inquiry phil clark told us that he never received any such training while at the bre does that sound right to you in in formal terms yeah it would have been mentoring it would not have been a formal process
01:36:13 do you accept that the bre ought to have provided such training to its staff
01:36:22 i i felt that the mentoring that we were working within the teams was um providing that that guidance right did you ever have any concerns
01:36:33 right did you ever have any concerns about how to safeguard your impartiality when the bre was reliant on commercial testing as an income stream it's a challenge that all testing organizations face and that's part of
01:36:46 organizations face and that's part of the
01:36:49 development of the the processes and relationships we have with our with our clients right but did you did you ever have any concerns that your impartiality and independence
01:37:00 that your impartiality and independence was being compromised by the need to be carrying out this commercial testing activity uh
01:37:07 uh no because that's part of the the commercial testing activity is is always um in that challenged position that that is a
01:37:16 is a a factor that arises if someone is commissioning work from you um that's not unique to um to bre that is a challenge that all organizations undertaking yeah
01:37:28 organizations undertaking yeah that face i see and you mentioned mentoring who help us with this who was phil clark's mentor for the for these purposes
01:37:36 purposes there were a team of uh staff that that were working um within that group varying seniorities around that i would
01:37:47 varying seniorities around that i would have been part of that team um and and others in the group and who else are you thinking about that might have had that kind of mentoring role with him um
01:37:58 um he was with the group for quite a period so that there would be a number um debbie myself steve howard tony baker
01:38:09 debbie myself steve howard tony baker david hall yes
01:38:18 did anyone ever discuss or give consideration to whether there could be or might develop a potential conflict of interest in the bre carrying out tests designed to protect life safety for
01:38:29 designed to protect life safety for commercial gain was that ever a topic that was discussed within the bre
01:38:37 no no no not i'm aware of as i say
01:38:42 as i say any
01:38:43 any any testing organization it operates under those um requirements and they are um
01:38:54 they are um guided by those those requirements and those act for those activities right during the period in which you were involved in testing to 8414 and classification to br 135 did you ever consider the potential impact in terms
01:39:06 consider the potential impact in terms of safety of the fact that tests to bs 8414 which had not met the in br135 our failures were not published or reported did you ever think about or discuss the
01:39:19 did you ever think about or discuss the public safety implications of that in not
01:39:22 not revealing failed test data um
01:39:27 um no um it was it was not and it is not um practice to make public um private test reports of any um
01:39:38 any um any commercial testing be that from a small scale test to a to a large scale test to um structural testing that all all sit within that same framework
01:39:50 framework yes but did you ever think about the impact of that practice in terms of industry knowledge of what systems might be potentially hazardous in terms of public safety
01:40:06 no because um as i say
01:40:10 as i say structural tests are treated in the same way um
01:40:12 way um it it's
01:40:15 it it's it's also the the knowledge of whether the system that was tested and failed was actually a commercial system or a system that was put forward as part of a series for
01:40:27 put forward as part of a series for tests yeah um and therefore it was part of maybe a much wider piece of work that was going on with with the client in their own development so um
01:40:37 um publishing um any
01:40:40 um any test data that was not um ours was was not a an option to us no now we're going to move on to some questions now about kingspan and in particular their early testing to bs8414
01:40:52 particular their early testing to bs8414 can we go to a document kin3021657
01:40:58 this is an internal kingspan document
01:41:06 and it's got various entries uh in it and i want to look at the fourth paragraph down where there's a a bold heading june 2003 and we can see it says bre start heavily promoting bs8414
01:41:20 bre start heavily promoting bs8414 as the facade test solution do you see that yes do you agree that's what the bre were doing at that time heavily promoting 8414 as the facade test solution
01:41:31 solution we were
01:41:32 we were um
01:41:33 um making uh providing presentations um explaining what 8414 was and how it was was being used uh in
01:41:44 in how the test how the test method worked um
01:41:48 um and if that's how kingspan consider it as promotion then that would that would be their uh position on it it was not something we were um
01:42:00 we were um doing other than sharing that information in the wider wider industry right i see if we go down to the eighth paragraph there's a heading for march 2004
01:42:11 there's a heading for march 2004 towards uh second half of that page and we can see it reads um kingspan insulation perform an indicative sbi i think a single burning item test
01:42:22 sbi i think a single burning item test to gauge possible performance of k15 with the improved lam tech facing in the facade test sarah colwell states that it has a good chance if the right detailing is adopted
01:42:36 chance if the right detailing is adopted do you see that i do can you help what was your involvement in that testing i really don't know you can't help us with that i really can't help you with that i i don't
01:42:49 can't help you with that i i don't i don't understand what that
01:42:52 because what what seems to have happened is that doing an indicative spi to to test what the possible performance might be with uh
01:43:01 uh when they undergo the facade test and then sarah kohler states that it has a good chance if the right detailing is adopted
01:43:08 adopted on the face of it appears to read as though you thought that they had a good chance of of passing the 8414 test with the right detailing do you ever remember giving that advice to kingspan
01:43:22 remember giving that advice to kingspan it would never have been in in those terms it would have been a case that um as we'd said in 2003 the test was designed for looking at full
01:43:33 looking at full full um full systems and therefore anything that they chose to put on with the right detailing or
01:43:41 or as a system could be tested it's not um it would never have been to to make to put cast an opinion as to whether or not a product from the sbi could possibly
01:43:53 a product from the sbi could possibly pass
01:43:55 pass the 8414 test right you just would never have given that advice no so i think what you're saying is that whichever kings ban employee was writing
01:44:06 whichever kings ban employee was writing these notes has made it made a mistake yes
01:44:10 yes yes
01:44:12 yes what about the paragraph starting october 2004 if we go down the page just before the end of the page it says this due to the expense of pulling the block work down at garston and the questionable performance of
01:44:23 and the questionable performance of phenolic foam sarah colwell suggests that maybe doing a naked test first for a third of the full test cost will help us hit the nail on the head when we test to the draft of bs 8414 part 2 onto
01:44:35 test to the draft of bs 8414 part 2 onto a metsec steel frame did you give that advice in october 2004
01:44:45 no the
01:44:49 the the commentary to them at that time would have been that the face was available and if they wish to undertake a test that they could do so
01:44:59 but it would never have been in the context of how that would have been built up into a a system or in relation to other types of testing systems right breaking it down did you ever suggest that you maybe
01:45:10 down did you ever suggest that you maybe doing a naked test first might be a sensible first step did you ever give that advice
01:45:17 i would i would not have given them that advice if they had if they had asked me whether it was possible to do a naked test then i would have told them that it was possible to do a naked test yes right
01:45:28 right so again
01:45:30 so again i think what you're saying is king spam were wholly mistaken in in writing this record yes i think there was this particular spin being put on that record yes right do you accept that you were involved in discussions with kingspan during this
01:45:42 discussions with kingspan during this period of time yes about the testing of their products to 8414. i do yes now the inquiry is aware that kingspan carried out a test to bs 8414 part 1
01:45:53 carried out a test to bs 8414 part 1 on a system incorporating k15 on the 31st of may 2005 can you help us what was your involvement in that particular test i've looked back at the records and i
01:46:04 i've looked back at the records and i can see there were some exchanges around that time
01:46:09 that time and
01:46:11 and i believe the
01:46:14 booking in of the test and confirming the the dates in the program but um
01:46:23 but um i don't recall the test itself i have looked back i've tried to to find records of that and i can't see from my diary or my notes that i was present or there was anything particular about it
01:46:34 there was anything particular about it that i i recall but i have i have seen there was a series of exchanges that suggest i was yeah i was involved yes if we go to bre 3047572
01:46:49 on page one at the third email down there's an email from iva meredith dated the 14th of december at 5 10 to you copying in david hall
01:47:00 you copying in david hall yep
01:47:01 yep just remind us who david hall was a colleague in the group yes and it reads um sarah perhaps if we could um just expand it on the screen sarah after much discussions we've
01:47:12 sarah after much discussions we've decided to follow your guidance regards the facade testing therefore i would like to block book the block work rig to perform a full test part one using phenolic onto block work behind a
01:47:23 phenolic onto block work behind a non-combustible board mounted onto a cladding rail system please let us know what dates you have in mid feb o5 you mentioned you had some diagrams regarding the vertical cladding rail construction anything that can be
01:47:35 rail construction anything that can be of assistance please send yes yes um
01:47:40 um is it right that the test to 8414 in may 2005 was carried out on your advice as mr meredith has written in this email
01:47:51 mr meredith has written in this email the
01:47:52 the test i believe was carried out in in may but
01:47:55 but with regarding uh advice i don't
01:48:00 i don't know what what he is referring to in that in that um email i have looked back on that i have looked back on my notes again to try to determine what he is referring to but i
01:48:11 what he is referring to but i i don't i don't have a recollection or an understanding of of that at that point in that sense so you can't help as to what guidance he's referring to there no because as
01:48:23 he's referring to there no because as say um
01:48:27 they um they requested a series of tests and we
01:48:33 and we we discussed the date options with them and
01:48:37 and the um
01:48:40 the um the mechanism by which they wanted to to undertake that and he's come back and said we finally decided to to go forward with that that was that was how i understood it yes
01:48:52 that was how i understood it yes is it your evidence that all you discussed with kingsfam was date options or do you accept that you have gone further than that in the discussions you had with them they would have they would have come to us um and said they had a a
01:49:05 have come to us um and said they had a a wide range of things that they wanted to achieve and we would have discussed the program with them to to cover what they wanted yes in that we don't see a response from you coming back saying hang on what do you mean guidance we
01:49:16 hang on what do you mean guidance we haven't given any guidance do we no and i wouldn't have expected to to do so that
01:49:23 that he's um
01:49:26 the email exchanges that are running constantly with with clients in in those sorts of of ways i wouldn't i wouldn't have pulled up that particular comment of that okay did you end up sending him
01:49:37 of that okay did you end up sending him any diagrams or anything else which could be of assistance as he asks yes we would have sent him the layouts for the rig so that he could have designed his his systems to be installed on them right
01:49:48 on them right um and you were asked by the inquiry if you actually attended this test and you said in your witness statement that you had no recollection of having done so yes no that's correct that's page 747 paragraph 294 is there any reason why
01:50:00 paragraph 294 is there any reason why you would not have attended the test having been involved in the discussions leading up to it taking place
01:50:09 potentially i didn't attend every test that was was taking place by that time that there were a team of um competent um individuals involved in that so um if i had had other commitments i would
01:50:22 if i had had other commitments i would potentially may have attended part of it or it may not have attended at all yes in his evidence and inquiry phil clark told us that he thought it was highly likely that you did attend the test
01:50:34 likely that you did attend the test um let's see if a document can help if we go to kin404791
01:50:41 this appears to be an email from iva meredith to you and david hall on the 30th of may 2005. so that's the day before the test yes and we can see that iva meredith lists all of those who will
01:50:52 iva meredith lists all of those who will be attending from the kingspan side the next day
01:50:56 next day and if we look at the penultimate paragraph he also writes please could you only discuss the results with myself or my boss philip heath i don't know whether there will be a few moments after the test to do this
01:51:07 after the test to do this after attendees four to seven have left or whether we could fit this in on wednesday do you see that yes i do do you agree this does seem to indicate
01:51:18 do you agree this does seem to indicate at least at this stage that iva meredith understood that you would be present at the test
01:51:23 the test yes
01:51:24 yes um as he said he's he's written it to both david and myself so he's extending in
01:51:29 in invisibly
01:51:30 invisibly envisaging that we would be present yeah or at least one of us and can you help us what was happening on wednesday had you pre-arranged that there would be a meeting
01:51:40 meeting at which you might be able to discuss this test or that you had a meeting already arranged about something else can you help us with that i'm sorry without reference back i can't
01:51:51 i'm sorry without reference back i can't that they would have had at that time a number of different tests going on
01:51:56 going on both uh full scale and and uh small scale so it may well have been that he was on site for something something different yeah now we know that the test report for this system was not prepared in its final form by the bre until the 8th of
01:52:09 final form by the bre until the 8th of december
01:52:10 december 2005.
01:52:12 2005. can you help us with why was there a delay
01:52:15 delay i'm sorry no i don't know do you remember having any involvement in the test report that was actually produced not not explicitly no let's go to a document bre 408634
01:52:32 we can see that on the 28th of september phil clark is sending you and david hall a draft to sign off or amend as required
01:52:44 or amend as required do you see that yes the subject is kingspan report and if we look at another document bre 408799
01:52:53 in another email we can see that phil clark on the 29th of november 2005 since to you copying in david hall and um he says hi
01:53:04 and um he says hi um all attached is the report for i of iver is there any chance you could look at it and if content with its contents i'll get it printed and signed and sent off
01:53:13 off so it's seeking your approval for the contents yes yes
01:53:17 yes let's look at the test report it's at bre402511
01:53:23 and we go within it if we could go to page six we can see here section three is a description of the products and various details of the tested system
01:53:34 and various details of the tested system are recorded and if we look at the paragraph with the bold heading fixing details three paragraphs down we can see it tells us that 600 millimeter thick cool therm k15 phenolic
01:53:47 millimeter thick cool therm k15 phenolic rain screen insulation board which were and then it gives certain dimensions was mechanically fixed to the block work substrate
01:53:56 substrate and then it says um 1 200 millimeters by 900 millimeters by six millimeter thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac
01:54:06 uac were mechanically fixed at 600 millimeter centers to an aluminium railing system which is also mechanically fixed yes now we know from evidence heard during
01:54:17 now we know from evidence heard during module two of the inquiry's work that kingspan now say that in fact what's described as the overcladding was not cement particle boards but with cellulose fiber cement board
01:54:28 cellulose fiber cement board can you help us as to what was actually tested in this test do you remember what the board was no
01:54:35 no i with without reference back to the to to the records i i couldn't i couldn't tell you do you recall having any discussions with either maribeth about what they were going to use for this first 8414 part 1 test with k15
01:54:48 first 8414 part 1 test with k15 no i don't do you remember um considering whether or not the system that was tested was representative of a real world application i a system that could actually be used on a building or
01:55:00 could actually be used on a building or did you understand that this test was done on a system which wasn't likely ever to be used on the exterior of a building
01:55:10 my my understanding was that they
01:55:15 they felt it was a a test that would give them information about their product um how that
01:55:23 how that how they
01:55:26 how they chose to use that going forward was a decision with within themselves would um
01:55:35 yes i see but the test would only give them information about the system tested yes that's correct test no well well unless they were choosing to develop something around
01:55:46 choosing to develop something around that i've no idea i can only comment that this is what they tested and how they chose to then use that
01:55:53 use that going forward would be their commercial decisions right when your colleague tony baker gave evidence to the inquiry on this matter in module two he said he didn't believe the type of board that was used could be
01:56:05 the type of board that was used could be used as an external weatherproof board and he also told us that although the test was a full test it was only tested as an indicative system and therefore wouldn't really be applicable for a br135 classification
01:56:18 applicable for a br135 classification did you have that understanding at the time
01:56:23 yes yes i did yes that this was testing some kind of indicative system yeah this was testing something to enable them to move forward yes yes i see so it was part of a
01:56:35 yes i see so it was part of a a planned program of different tests that's how i understood it yes yes
01:56:42 and in reality um no br 135 classification report was produced for for some considerable time 10 years yes i believe that's the case yeah yeah and was that the reason why no br135
01:56:55 and was that the reason why no br135 classification report was issued at the time because this was an indicative test
01:57:02 i'd um
01:57:05 um i don't i don't know if one was one was requested
01:57:09 requested at that time or um as i say the it would be it would be a statement of uh it's a test report and it would be a classification of that test report so it
01:57:21 classification of that test report so it would be statements of fact right
01:57:24 right in your witness statement paragraph 295 page 47 you say you don't have any knowledge about the discussions that took place between employees of kingspan and employees of the bre during or after the
01:57:36 employees of the bre during or after the test is that is that right i i wasn't um aware of
01:57:40 aware of any discussions post that that particular test i can't recall the actual result from that test
01:57:53 but i'm assuming if if a classification was released released subs at some point subsequent to that it it must have met the requirements of it right
01:58:03 right let's go to a document bre 403280 and i want to look at the second email from the top of the page we can see on the 29th of november 2005 at 0-0 35 hours
01:58:17 2005 at 0-0 35 hours ivor meredith sends to phil clark copying you in you and david hall he says this how are you getting on with the test report does this get automatically assessed in accordance with bre 135 or is that
01:58:29 accordance with bre 135 or is that something we need to look at separately do you see that yes i do so it would appear that you are copied in on emails discussing this very topic yes no thank you for sharing that yes i can see that now yes
01:58:40 now yes and your response your response at the top of page one you say this on the 29th of november same day 9 52 either br135 can be considered at
01:58:52 9 52 either br135 can be considered at the same time we will need to look at the design details to see how it can be covered i think you mean covered i'll chase the report from this end yes yes yes
01:59:03 yes yes so yes it was requested yes and you were involved at the time you're going to chase for the report yes
01:59:13 and what did you mean when you said to see how it can be covered to see what description of the the system would be put into the to the report right
01:59:24 report right and if we go to kin four zeros five one six five and i want to go to the very bottom of page two we can see that there's an email sent by iva meredith to you on the 24th of march
01:59:36 meredith to you on the 24th of march 2006 at 1635 and in the first two paragraphs he says this
01:59:42 this sarah i hope all is well further to our meeting last month have you progressed with the k-15 assessment to bre-135
01:59:50 bre-135 and then over the page
01:59:55 he says we could do with this asap please let me know predicted time frame and costing and he says also you said you would send across your anime animated facade test
02:00:06 across your anime animated facade test powerpoint slides with firemen and any text you have for promoting the bs8414 part one
02:00:13 part one i have a presentation coming up to train our internal sales force so it'd be very useful
02:00:18 useful and had you met with iva meredith a month earlier because he says further to our meeting last month do you remember having a meeting with him that would be in
02:00:26 in february 2006.
02:00:30 um if he's referencing a meeting that took place then yes i'm sure that that meeting took place and can you remember the broad topic that you discussed with kingspan so this is after they've done their 8414 test they haven't yet got any
02:00:42 their 8414 test they haven't yet got any bl-135 classification can you recall what that meeting was about
02:00:47 about i'm very sorry but um given the passage of time no i i don't have a direct recollection of that that conversation right
02:00:57 right but it does look like you're meeting with and discussing this test with mr meredith at the time yes it looks as though as i say there were a number of projects going on with uh with
02:01:08 number of projects going on with uh with them at that time so i'm sure that would have been part of the conversations that were ongoing given the email that you've just shared then yes that that would suggest it was part of that conversation right
02:01:19 right if we um sorry can you remember actually working on a br135 classification report can you actually remember mr meredith seems to think you're progressing that
02:01:30 progressing that were you actually progressing it at the time
02:01:33 time in march
02:01:34 in march 2006. i would have spoken to um
02:01:39 um phil and um david about whether about that um development of that document yes right yes and if we look back to page two of
02:01:51 yes and if we look back to page two of this string and to your response to mr meredith
02:01:56 we can see that you said on the 24th of march 2006 back to him hi iva thanks for the email i'll sort it for you on monday have a good weekend yes yes
02:02:07 have a good weekend yes yes so that i would have spoken to um
02:02:11 um given that i suspect that that's a friday afternoon i would have spoken to david and
02:02:16 david and um uh phil to ask him to regret it right you don't remember yourself actually starting work on a report no i wouldn't have done right why wouldn't you have
02:02:27 have done right why wouldn't you have done that
02:02:29 done that um
02:02:30 um that was generally done by um by the members of the team i see so at the time you weren't writing these bl 135 classification reports uh
02:02:41 these bl 135 classification reports uh generally not no i see now we know it wasn't sorted at any other time until the 28th of september 2015
02:02:49 2015 and it was not until then that the br135 classification report was produced do you know why that was can you help us with that i'm sorry no i can't did you ever have
02:03:00 i'm sorry no i can't did you ever have any further discussions with mr meredith or anyone else from kingspan about that br135 classification report i
02:03:08 i don't believe i did no
02:03:11 no if we can go to another email string bre 3011446
02:03:17 at the top of page one this is an email tony baker forwards to you on the 8th of july 2008. he says see requests from kingspan below and if we go at the bottom of page one
02:03:28 and if we go at the bottom of page one at the very bottom there's an initial request has come from alan maclin of kingspan
02:03:33 kingspan on the 8th of july 2008 at 1314 for a letter if you read if we go to the top of page two
02:03:42 two he says would it be possible to obtain written confirmation of successful completion of the above test carried out in 2005 for issuing to prospective clients
02:03:51 clients we are reluctant to issue the entire test report so a letter from yourselves would be of great benefit and then he gives the test reference yes yes
02:04:02 yes yes now
02:04:03 now what was the outcome of that was a letter provided i
02:04:08 i i don't know
02:04:12 do you know whether it had been decided by then i july 2008 that no classification report would be issued i don't think i'm not aware that any formal decision
02:04:23 i'm not aware that any formal decision around that was ever made
02:04:27 you say in your witness statement if we look at that again page 48 paragraph 299 you tell us at 299 i recall there being general
02:04:38 at 299 i recall there being general discussions about the purpose of this test being to investigate the performance of the insulation when tested with a generic board as far as i'm aware such a classification of the system was not provided
02:04:49 system was not provided um when you talk about there were general discussions about the purpose of this test general discussions between who
02:04:56 who what are you referring to there
02:05:01 the conversation when uh kingspan were pulling their program together right
02:05:10 and conversations with kingspan when they were pulling their program together yes you were involved in those discussions about that program of testing they presented us a series of tests and
02:05:22 tests and their initial test was going to be a generic test on that board which is what they
02:05:26 they undertook right and how did you understand that testing something generic was going to be of assistance to kingspan
02:05:36 so i they would gain an understanding of their insulation i i imagine right do you know what they mean by a generic test to 8414 what
02:05:50 there's reference to a generic board so that that would be that external board that they used for that that test in may 2005
02:06:00 2005 yes i see
02:06:01 yes i see if we go to um kin408847
02:06:06 this is a kingspan internal document dated the 7th of january 2008. it related some to some later testing to bs8414 part two on a steel frame system now
02:06:18 system now and we'll come back to it but for now if we go to page five and look at the top of the page this report reads following many unsuccessful and heavy discussions with the bre about increasing our scope of
02:06:31 the bre about increasing our scope of approval of k15 and a rain screen construction tested to eight four one four part one and two we were loosely advised that if we tested with an approved rain screen system we could
02:06:42 approved rain screen system we could then go to market and say we were tested with approved components therefore if you use approved components the construction will meet the criteria laid out in the various uk's building
02:06:53 laid out in the various uk's building regulation documents in respect of the 18 meter rule do you see that and then it goes on in the next paragraph in 2005 kingspan tested to the new british standard formally known as
02:07:05 new british standard formally known as fire note 9 bs 8414 part one and based on the advice of bre we used a non-combustible board as cladding as the bre stated
02:07:16 bre stated if you test with a non-combustible cladding then you could state the system works with all non-combustible cladding systems after successfully passing this test the bre moved the goal posts and stated that
02:07:28 bre moved the goal posts and stated that we could only say that our system works with that specific non-combustible board however the test result met the criteria of eight four one four part one and br135 and is a very useful document when
02:07:41 br135 and is a very useful document when securing specifications for facades above 18 meters where the substrata is masonry
02:07:47 masonry now just focusing on that first paragraph of this uh internal kingspan report
02:07:54 report did you give any loose advice that if you tested with an approved rain screen system you could then go to market and say that they were tested with approved components no
02:08:06 with approved components no what about the advice in the second paragraph where it's recorded that the bre stated that if you test with a non-combustible cladding then you could state that your system works with all non-combustible cladding systems did you
02:08:17 non-combustible cladding systems did you give that advice no because the test reports state exactly what is tested that there is no
02:08:28 uh basis on on which that type of statement could or would have been made right but you yourself and your witness statement do you describe this test as being carried out on a generic board
02:08:40 carried out on a generic board why else would kingspan have been testing a generic board if not in the hope of being able to use data from that test
02:08:47 test to show that kings that k15 could be used with any non-combustible outer cladding
02:08:53 cladding i can't speak for their development of their test programmes um
02:08:57 um for the the route that they had in mind it
02:09:01 it it is um
02:09:03 it is um also potentially possible that when you're testing these type of systems you use an element that you know will not contribute to the fire load so that you can see the influence of the insulation of it on its
02:09:14 influence of the insulation of it on its own within the system to have an understanding of of what their their product in in isolation um does
02:09:22 does but i i can't speak for them um in terms of what they uh they did or why they took the route that they chose to take i see mr meredith told this inquiry that this is what he'd understood from you is he
02:09:34 is what he'd understood from you is he wrong about that i believe he is yes right if we look at the last sentence at the end of the second paragraph of the report it records there that kingspan
02:09:45 report it records there that kingspan was one of the first to test a ventilated rain screen construction is that right that kingspan was one of the first to test a ventilated rain screen construction
02:09:57 a ventilated rain screen construction no
02:09:58 no no it accurate to say that the bre was still learning about this test at the time
02:10:10 every test undertaken is a learning step we had developed that test from 94 onwards so i wouldn't describe it as learning no
02:10:22 right i see now let's move on you were asked by the inquiry whether you had read or reviewed any of kingspan's marketing material for k15 and in your witness statement at paragraph 305 page 49. you said as far
02:10:35 paragraph 305 page 49. you said as far as you can recall you did not read or review any such material prior to the grenfell tower fire is that right that's correct
02:10:43 correct you also tell us paragraph 310 on page 49 of your statement that you don't recall even discussing any kingspan marketing literature with any bre colleagues or with anyone else is that
02:10:54 colleagues or with anyone else is that right i don't recall any of their marketing literature being subject to conversation no right let's look at an email now kin405180
02:11:06 this is an email from iva meredith to richard colwell and copying you in yes yes now who is richard colwell he was a member of the bre team right
02:11:20 he was a member of the bre team right and is he or was he your husband is that right um
02:11:29 yes nice sorry just take a moment if you'd like to thank you
02:11:36 thank you now this document is dated june 2006. yes
02:11:42 2006. yes are you okay are you right would you like a bit of a could i just take a short break yeah thank you
02:11:49 thank you you guys should look after you
02:12:03 i think um
02:12:06 um i was wondering whether we might just sit here for a moment because i didn't sense that this will need very long
02:12:13 long okay
02:12:24 all right yes sorry about that
02:12:28 now that that's
02:12:31 quite right and um do you apologize if we're nearly at the end of the afternoon anyways so no i'm fine to carry on honestly are you sure yes absolutely thank you very much okay thank you yes
02:12:42 thank you yes so it's dated the 9th of june 2006. and in the first three paragraphs it says richard further to our discussions on tuesday this week with regards to the beguards the incorrect referencing of
02:12:54 beguards the incorrect referencing of the bs 8414 testing we perform with our cool firm k-15 phenolic project product at your facility we are pleased to confirm the following
02:13:05 confirm the following and then they say we've tracked down the piece of rogue marketing and have removed it from circulation we have also advised our sales force and technical departments of the correct terminology
02:13:17 departments of the correct terminology when referencing this test result kingspan are very interested in the marketing of this test method as we believe that all materials used above 18 meters should be tested and not just
02:13:29 meters should be tested and not just those that do not meet the limited combustibility criteria as stated in adb do you see that yes
02:13:37 yes now um so it's beginning with further to our discussions on tuesday this week had you been involved in any discussions so this is
02:13:47 this is in june 2006 about their marketing material i don't recognize it i don't recall it no you don't recall it um no i don't i'm sorry
02:14:05 yes
02:14:09 and then if we could go to another email kin405179
02:14:16 this is an internal kingspan email chain from june 2006 so just after a year after they've four one tested part one in may 2005
02:14:28 part one in may 2005 and in the email at the very top of the chain
02:14:31 chain uh sent at 1pm on the 8th of june so the day before his email to you and richard colwell we can see that iva meredith writes this please note the k-15 what's
02:14:42 writes this please note the k-15 what's lurking behind your facade flyer has been withdrawn by the marketing department partly because it's considered not a good sales tax tick
02:14:51 tax tick to highlight the fact that you don't need class naught below 18 meters and then it says this also the bre have complained about the use of the word
02:15:02 complained about the use of the word approved
02:15:03 approved and certification in our text these are privileges that would cost us an additional 20k do you see that i do yes
02:15:15 do you see that i do yes now just to set this in context if we look at that flyer that either meredith's talking about at this point that's at kin405350
02:15:26 we can see where we've got that first red section of text
02:15:31 of text that the document reads perhaps you can blow it up cause it's quite small writing
02:15:38 writing it reads kingspan cool firm k15 rainscreen board has not only been tested by the building research establishment and awarded certification to bs 8414 part one
02:15:48 part one but it has also been assessed and approved in accordance with br135 do you see that i do yes now that language is inaccurate and misleading yes
02:16:01 misleading yes what date is this so this flyer well we know they're discussing it in june 2006 yes that would be incorrect yes
02:16:13 yes so
02:16:13 so 8414 doesn't certify anything does it it's a test method correct and a product cannot be tested to 8414 or approved to bl-135 can it
02:16:27 so it says the that cool firm the product k15 has not only been tested but it has also been assessed and approved in accordance with br135 now that just can't be right can it because
02:16:39 that just can't be right can it because it's a system that's approved it it is only the system and it is only classifieds 135 yes yes do you remember
02:16:50 do you remember seeing this document at the time and looking at the claims that kingspan were making in this document i don't recall this no
02:16:58 this no i've
02:17:00 i've others obviously had because it was raised with them and taken forward but yes
02:17:04 yes i don't i don't personally recall it no no
02:17:08 no so you don't remember being involved in raising this complaint with kingspan or meeting with them to discuss this complaint i don't know it it may well have been others um
02:17:19 have been others um such as uh richard or um david that we're dealing with that yes i see
02:17:25 see and in his evidence ivor meredith told the inquiry that it might have been tony baker but tony baker said in his evidence that that was not the case and he would have assumed that either you or debbie smith helped with this
02:17:36 debbie smith helped with this so
02:17:37 so um but but you can't help us any further i'm sorry i can't help you any further with this no do you remember there being um concerns around this time about kingspan's approach in the
02:17:48 about kingspan's approach in the marketplace and and the claims it was making in its marketing literature
02:17:55 i i if i if i was aware of it i wouldn't have been surprised by it no right now in your witness statement page 48 paragraph 300 you tell us that you don't
02:18:06 paragraph 300 you tell us that you don't recall being involved in any other tests to 8414
02:18:10 to 8414 on a system involving k-15 and you've not identified any documentation to suggest otherwise i don't recall being part of any other k-15 test no no so just the 2005 one
02:18:22 just the 2005 one by that time um there was a very um uh
02:18:28 uh competent team who were undertaking the test on a regular basis so i would not have been involved on a day-to-day uh basis with the with the testing to eight four one four at that time yes i see if we can go back to kingspan's internal
02:18:40 we can go back to kingspan's internal report that we looked at earlier this is it
02:18:43 it on page two you can take it from me that this section of the report is dealing with a test carried out by the bre to 8414 part two this time on the 20th of december 2007.
02:18:56 on the 20th of december 2007. now that test was sponsored jointly by sotek met second kingspan and the system was k15 with aluminium cassette rainscreen panels do you remember that test
02:19:08 do you remember that test in december 2007
02:19:18 yes i can recall i can recall a test on a metal system yes because if you look at the heading test witnesses just below the middle of that page
02:19:27 that page we can see you're listed uh along with a number of others as one of the test witnesses yes does that help jog your memory that in fact you did attend this test if if
02:19:38 in fact you did attend this test if if it states that i was present then i would have been well yes i have no reason to to assume otherwise did you have any involvement in discussions with so tech metsec or kingspan about the
02:19:50 so tech metsec or kingspan about the arrangements for this test
02:19:57 i can recall the test taking place um
02:20:05 i didn't um i i didn't recognize it as a kings fan test in that sense so i thinking about it it's um it was the metal-faced
02:20:16 it's um it was the metal-faced testing that we were we were looking at yeah
02:20:19 yeah yes i see
02:20:21 yes i see um if we go to an email bre 405034
02:20:36 bre 405034
02:20:48 we can see in the second email down at the bottom of that page there's an email on the 2nd of november 2007 from james gallia of metsec and it's
02:21:00 and it's sent to you and to others to john eggington either meredith phil clark tony baker and the subject is 2007 update on msk
02:21:11 and the subject is 2007 update on msk group fire test do you see that yes
02:21:17 so and and james gallia appears to be um giving quite a few details about the arrangements for this test can you see that below i can yes yeah
02:21:29 you see that below i can yes yeah again does that help you remember a little bit about this test
02:21:36 i don't remember the details of that test i can remember that a test with a metal face panel on it was uh it was it was um it was something different so that's why i remember the
02:21:48 i remember the the test itself yes if we go back to that kingspan internal report we were looking at and we can see the list of components for the tested system towards the bottom of the page headed construction tested
02:22:01 of the page headed construction tested from inside to out do you see that we've got a list of components there yes
02:22:08 yes at the fifth line of that section we can see that the insulation was k-15 100 millimeter new technology yes
02:22:17 yes do you remember any discussions about new technology k-15 at this time no i say i remember it being a test around
02:22:27 around the
02:22:28 the facade not about the insulation right system being used on that yeah so did you ever become aware that the k-15 they were testing in this test was different from the one
02:22:39 this test was different from the one they tested in 2005 no
02:22:44 no if we look at the bottom of page two under the heading results we can see that it says by 17 minutes the top fire barrier had breached and the raging inferno moved up to the top
02:22:55 raging inferno moved up to the top thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of br135
02:23:02 of br135 do you see that yes so it would appear and it was philip clark's evidence to this inquiry that this test failed quite catastrophically do you remember that i remember it failing yes
02:23:14 i remember it failing yes and if we go over to the top of page three we can see that the report goes on it says this the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was
02:23:26 extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory do you remember that i remember it was extinguished yes and if you look down page three about two-thirds of the way down
02:23:39 about two-thirds of the way down we can see a a section which starts comments from the bre it's towards the bottom of the page as we're looking at it do you see do you have that yes and we can see it says this the official line it's a system failure no individual
02:23:52 line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure however unofficial comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and
02:24:04 surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that last time
02:24:13 last time do you see that i do yes now can we agree that it would be wholly inappropriate for the bre to give official and unofficial comments wouldn't it absolutely
02:24:26 an insistent in this instance do you agree that the unofficial comments are to the effect that although it's a system test the insulation involved in the test
02:24:35 the test uh had had really got involved in the test
02:24:39 test and that any such comments would be doubly inappropriate because they're constituting advice on product performance yes
02:24:48 i i find it
02:24:52 i find it i i find it odd to see that written in that way because i can't envisage a position where that conversation would have been held right
02:25:00 right can you help us as to who at the bre was responsible for these official and unofficial comments as i say i can't envisage your position where that conversation um would have taken place
02:25:12 conversation um would have taken place tony baker in his evidence the inquiry thought that they were likely to have come from phil clark or from you phil clark thought that either tony baker or you may have been responsible for the comments
02:25:23 for the comments sounds as though everyone is um i i i can't um
02:25:30 um i can't envisage where that conversation would have taken place or why that conversation would have taken place okay so you simply can't contemplate that that could have occurred i there would be no reason for any of of
02:25:44 there would be no reason for any of of the the team present to have made those comments right i see mr chairman i'm mid topic but that is a good moment to say yes thank you i think i think that's time right well we're going to stop there for the afternoon scott dr colwell
02:25:56 there for the afternoon scott dr colwell thank you um i'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to come back tomorrow but i think you were expecting that absolutely so we'll look forward to seeing you at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning please thank you and again i have to ask you please not discuss your evidence or anything relating to it over
02:26:09 evidence or anything relating to it over the years
02:26:10 the years yeah thank you very much all right thank you if you'd like to go to the usher we'll see you tomorrow okay thank you thank you
02:26:28 thank you very much for strangers 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:26:48 you