Building Research Establishment Evidence - Wednesday 23rd February 2022 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:19:56 would you ask dr smith to come back in please thank you

00:20:13 good all right dawg smith yes thank you good thank you yes mr miller thank you mr chairman dr smith uh we were looking before we broke at lunch at where things stood in the spring of 2016

00:20:25 stood in the spring of 2016 and the cwc meeting on the 17th of march 2016.

00:20:31 2016. now do you remember that in the january of that year the bre sponsored a conference for together with siderise about clatting

00:20:43 about clatting um

00:20:46 i i couldn't have told you what date it was or or anything but i'm going to take what you're what you're saying as correct well it yes it is yes correct because we've got a video we've got a transcript and

00:20:58 transcript and it certainly happened my question is do you remember it um i don't believe i attended the conference now do you remember the fact of it do you remember that it happened i think i was aware that there was a conference

00:21:09 that there was a conference right

00:21:10 right do you know who organized it from the bre's side um no i don't although i would expect that it would have been done in conjunction with our marketing team

00:21:22 conjunction with our marketing team right

00:21:23 right uh did you have any role at that time in arranging conferences or having any kind of involvement with them where they involved industry participants

00:21:35 participants no the only conference that i've been involved in organizing over the last few years has been the bre fire research conference

00:21:48 did anybody tell you after the conference

00:21:52 what topics had been covered what areas of concern had been raised on matters of that nature not that i can recall at the time no right did anybody show you the slides

00:22:04 right did anybody show you the slides that had been produced by some of the participants no they wouldn't have done did anybody tell you to see if this triggers a recollection that

00:22:15 that a gentleman called nick jenkins of booth murray had addressed the conference on the dangers of acm no i wasn't aware of that at the time i mean i'm aware of it now because as i

00:22:26 mean i'm aware of it now because as i say i've seen materials in preparation for this and in fact i don't think i was aware or knew nick jenkins until we did the

00:22:34 the dclg work

00:22:36 dclg work post the grenfell tower fire was there i mean given that the bre had assisted in putting this conference on if not sponsored it was any system at the time in the bre for disseminating

00:22:48 in the bre for disseminating intelligence or information that had come out of the conference such as a video of it or the transcripts of the speakers or the slides that speakers have presented not that i'm aware of no

00:23:01 not that i'm aware of no i'm going to show you an email and let's see if you can help with it at nhb two 4-0

00:23:07 two 4-0 six four please

00:23:16 now this is a long email chain uh which straddles january and february 2016 so the court before you became a little bit more distant as you put it

00:23:27 put it now and if we go to the foot please of page three i want to show you an email that nick jenkins of booth murie wrote to brian martin in response to his

00:23:39 to brian martin in response to his earlier email on the 16th of february 2016

00:23:43 2016 copied to stephen howard and sarah colwell

00:23:46 colwell re and you can see the subject use of acm cladding panels on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height and he says hi brian many thanks for your prompt response in light of the fires that have

00:23:58 response in light of the fires that have taken hold of a number of buildings clad in acm panels in recent years i also think that the core of acm panel should most definitely be considered as a filler

00:24:07 filler some acm calls meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk at present don't to the best of my knowledge there have been no full scale 8414 tests carried

00:24:20 been no full scale 8414 tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of acm panel i am aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to have such tests carried out this however unfortunately means

00:24:31 out this however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 18 meters tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such buildings and their numbers are growing

00:24:43 and their numbers are growing whilst i appreciate it is for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met i do think the current situation is of grave concern surely this justifies the requirement

00:24:55 surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules

00:24:59 rules with the above in mind do you think it would be worth setting up a meeting with the relevant bodies and experts represented to review the current presentation of the rules my first question is

00:25:11 is did you see this email at the time either copied on to you

00:25:15 to you uh or or forwarded to you by stephen howard or sarah colwell not that i can recollect no i think it's something you would recollect isn't it if in fact up to that

00:25:26 recollect isn't it if in fact up to that point you had you had thought that there were no acm panels above 18 meters anywhere in the uk built environment that's highly likely yes yeah yeah

00:25:38 so just taking this paragraph by paragraph

00:25:42 paragraph was it your did you have no knowledge at all as of mid-february 2016 that some acm calls meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk

00:25:53 however the ones commonly used in the uk present don't i wouldn't have known that no

00:25:56 no so you wouldn't have known that um

00:25:59 um did you know it i don't believe i did that's right here now

00:26:03 now the the difference may sound pedantic but it's important you say you wouldn't have known it what is the reason why you wouldn't have known it well i think i would remember if if if i'd have seen this and it would

00:26:15 if if if i'd have seen this and it would have um

00:26:16 have um you know i would have had a memory of that

00:26:19 that that i understand what i'm really asking is is there something in the way you worked and in the environment or in the system that you work which meant that there were good reasons why this would not have reached your ears or eyes

00:26:30 not have reached your ears or eyes um

00:26:33 i don't think i follow what you're what you're asking um you say uh

00:26:39 uh i wouldn't have known it is there a is there something in the way in which you were working um the hierarchy the environment the reporting lines

00:26:50 reporting lines your job

00:26:52 your job which meant or gave a good reason for why this intelligence didn't come to your attention

00:27:05 no i don't believe i don't believe that's the case um

00:27:11 um if

00:27:12 if people had felt that there was something particularly that they needed to bring my to my attention they they would have done so um but i'm not entirely

00:27:24 um but i'm not entirely um

00:27:26 um but i i say i don't know what discussions they might have had around this but i think you agree there was a clear recognition you know

00:27:35 you know the issues i think you just you agree though that there was no systemic or structural reason why this information wouldn't have come to your attention i

00:27:46 wouldn't have come to your attention i think oh no no absolutely yeah yeah and and looking at the second paragraph there's no blocker to that if no thank you looking at the second paragraph um in the

00:27:57 um in the uh third and fourth lines where nick jenkins says uh that there are no existing buildings in the uk over 18 metres tall that feature acm panels which currently meet the b4 requirements

00:28:09 which currently meet the b4 requirements again was there any reason why you wouldn't have become aware of that if if not known it already

00:28:25 well i was not aware of that that's not my question but i can't explain

00:28:30 explain you know the what reasons might have led to that if that's what you're asking me and similarly there are many such buildings in their numbers are growing

00:28:42 taking the statement at face value and allowing for its generality perhaps is there any reason you can think of why that

00:28:51 that fact

00:28:52 fact general though it be would not have come to your attention either before or at this time well other than it didn't again i can't provide any reasons as to why it didn't

00:29:04 why it didn't you're quite certain in your answer that it didn't are you sure about that as far as i can recollect i was not aware of this and as we've already said

00:29:15 aware of this and as we've already said if if i had been aware of it and i'm sure i would be able to say now that i was aware of it so it's um

00:29:23 um [Music]

00:29:24 [Music] in the next paragraph nick jenkins goes on to say that his view is that the current situation is of grave concern that's his opinion

00:29:34 opinion and he goes on to ask the question rhetorical question surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules is there any reason you can think of why

00:29:46 is there any reason you can think of why um

00:29:47 um elements of the industry such as nick jenkins regarded the statement of the rules as at all ambiguous

00:29:58 i can't speak for nick jenkins i don't know you know

00:30:04 you know what he had discussed and what he had presented but presumably would be evident from from that

00:30:14 did you know at the time by this time that there were elements of the uk cladding industry who regarded the relevant provisions of the approved documents as ambiguous and crying out

00:30:27 documents as ambiguous and crying out or calling for a a a less ambiguous statement no i don't recall that you don't recall it and again is there any reason why

00:30:39 any reason why you wouldn't have learned that at the time

00:30:42 time other than i don't believe i did know that i don't know any reasons um that would have blocked or prevented that

00:30:51 that however if it didn't happen then the communication was such that it didn't happen sarah colwell's reaction to this was one of um i think i've got this right

00:31:02 of um i think i've got this right without taking you to the transcript it was one of shock looking back on it and doing the best you can with your recollection do you not recall an occasion in mid-february 2016 when she came to you and

00:31:14 she came to you and said

00:31:15 said there are

00:31:17 there are in common use out there buildings over 18 meters with acm in them that don't meet the b4 requirements no i don't you don't remember her saying to you the elements of industry regarded

00:31:30 to you the elements of industry regarded that as a grave concern and we're calling for a less ambiguous statement of the rules i don't recall that i mean and it's more likely that she would have had any such discussion with brian martin i would

00:31:42 discussion with brian martin i would suggest who would be in a position to actually do something about it anyway yes and in fact we can see what happens for ourselves in the ensuing

00:31:53 for ourselves in the ensuing correspondence but that's a separate question what i'm really asking you to explain is why whether you can provide a good reason for what appears to be your complete inability to

00:32:04 to be your complete inability to remember

00:32:05 remember anything about this exchange or this issue or these questions i i don't think this was brought to my attention and is there a rationale a reason

00:32:16 and is there a rationale a reason objective reason why this topic would not have been brought to your attention

00:32:24 the reason why it wouldn't have been yes what was it about your job or the hierarchy or the structure of bre what you were doing at the time that would justify this issue not being

00:32:37 that would justify this issue not being brought to your attention well each of the

00:32:43 professionals working within the business were experts in their areas and they

00:32:51 they dealt with many many issues on a daily basis um

00:32:57 basis um that

00:32:58 that you know they did not everything that they did was never was not referred to me and i mean that's just the the facts around this

00:33:08 this um and if

00:33:11 um and if as i said earlier i mean from the earlier emails sarah was clearly in control of what she was doing and was an expert in her own right in this regard

00:33:27 and was no doubt taking the actions that she felt were appropriate in relation to this

00:33:33 this and my expectation was or is that she will probably have raised this with brian martin and would have been having a direct conversation

00:33:45 have been having a direct conversation with brian did you

00:33:48 did you at this time february 2016 have regular meetings with stephen howard or sarah colwell about the the work they were doing um

00:34:00 um in so far as they were business group managers we would have monthly meetings that reviewed the progress and the work that was going on within the areas but not down to you know all the specific

00:34:11 not down to you know all the specific details of the technical side of things it was a more generic 45-minute meeting with other people present where they were reporting back on kpis

00:34:24 reporting back on kpis performance problems they had in the business with lack of resources or whatever but it you know it wasn't a detailed technical discussion about everything

00:34:36 technical discussion about everything that's

00:34:36 that's going on

00:34:37 going on who was sarah caldwell's immediate line manager um

00:34:44 i'm not sure if this was me or julie breegler at that time who was stephen howard's line manager well that would have been similar right

00:34:58 you're not sure or you can't remember i can't i can't remember i'd have to go back and look at what point um

00:35:06 you know responsibilities were actually handed over right during the transition

00:35:16 and how confident are you that in your monthly meetings with both of these

00:35:24 these staff members mr howard and dr colwell neither of them mentioned this industry concerned which had arisen and was in the process of being discussed with government

00:35:36 discussed with government with you

00:35:39 how confident are you that that did not arise at all well i can't be 100 confident of course i can't

00:35:47 i can't but based on what you know you said earlier if if it had been put to me in the terms of there were lots of buildings out there and it was a major life safety concern i think i would have

00:35:59 life safety concern i think i would have remembered that

00:36:04 so we've got two documents we've now seen the

00:36:07 seen the july 2014 minute and this run of documents both of which involving

00:36:14 involving sarah colwell which

00:36:16 which made it quite clear if one reads them that acm and particularly acm with the standard corp pe was in common use

00:36:27 was in common use in the united kingdom built environment but your evidence is this right to the inquiry is that you knew absolutely nothing of that whatever i was not consciously aware that there was a major

00:36:40 consciously aware that there was a major problem though let's turn to a slightly different topic a different topic anyway and this is the research carried out in 2014 and 2015 on external fire spread by the bre

00:36:52 external fire spread by the bre now first can we go to bre three zeros four three seven five one

00:36:58 this is a report

00:37:10 which bears the date the 9th of january 2014 prepared for brian martin at the department entitled investigation of real fires external fast spread in multi-story buildings

00:37:21 multi-story buildings now um if we could turn to page two that we we see that uh the report was prepared by nathan cole kira holland martin ship and david crowder and approved by you on the 14th

00:37:32 crowder and approved by you on the 14th of january 2014. yes yes in fact the date's wrong as dr crowder has explained uh and it's more it's likely that the date should actually be 2015 not 2014. yes you do accept that

00:37:45 2015 not 2014. yes you do accept that yes i do yes did you read this report before you approved it yes i would have done did you undertake a detailed check of the report or was it a cursory read-through i would have read it through um it

00:37:56 i would have read it through um it depends what you mean by detailed as i say the

00:37:58 say the part of the approver is not to basically repeat the work but it's looking for um obvious

00:38:05 obvious um

00:38:06 um areas that don't make sense within the text that require further clarification it's at that sort of level yeah and uh did you make any comments on any part of the content of the report

00:38:18 part of the content of the report i'm sorry i don't recall i'd like to see the other after after it was completed and submitted to brian martin we um we know that two articles were published i just want to show you each

00:38:30 want to show you each first please clg three zero is one nine four four five clg three zero is one nine four four five

00:38:46 now that's the first page authored by keira holland dr crowder and martian ship and if we go to page two top right hand corner we can see the date april 2016 and if we go to the second

00:38:58 april 2016 and if we go to the second article please that's at clg triple zero one nine four four four

00:39:06 i'll show you these in quick succession um that's the second one is part two experimental research same authorship plus nathan cole and that is also if you go to page two please dated april 2016 as you can see

00:39:19 please dated april 2016 as you can see from the top right hand corner um taking each of those articles did you approve them

00:39:26 um as far as i can recollect yes i probably would have done yes that's dr crowder's recollection do you know why there was a gap of over a year between the report being submitted to the department in january

00:39:37 submitted to the department in january 2015 and the finalization of these articles in april 2016. i don't recall exactly i mean there's always a delay

00:39:48 exactly i mean there's always a delay um

00:39:49 um between the reports being delivered to the department and getting the approval back etc that you know you can actually go into the public domain with the content so there would have been some chewing

00:40:01 so there would have been some chewing and throwing and then obviously i guess there was some editorial work that needed to be done as well because depending on you know the way you're going to publish the article there may be some

00:40:12 the article there may be some some constraints around that as well but i i don't i can't explicitly say it's because of x it's it's likely to have been a sort of combination of different factors dr crowder told us that he thought one of the reasons for the delay

00:40:23 thought one of the reasons for the delay was these articles spent a long time with you

00:40:27 with you that's how he put it day 230 page 132 lines 9-14 are you do you agree i don't know whether they spent a long time with me or not i can't recall that

00:40:39 time with me or not i can't recall that um

00:40:40 um i mean we

00:40:41 i mean we we would know that from the date that they were delivered to me and then the date that i sent comments back i mean do you recall taking a long time undertaking a detailed review of the contents or or not um

00:40:54 no i mean i don't think these would have been given any special treatment if that's what you mean i wouldn't have reviewed these in a different way than i would normally re review a report of this nature i would have used the same

00:41:05 this nature i would have used the same principles right now dr crowder agreed in his evidence that the research and the experiments that were conducted for brian martin in 2014 and 2015 which would form the subject matter of that

00:41:17 would form the subject matter of that report

00:41:19 report and that these two articles were in part to provide an answer to the concerns raised by ronnie king regarding external fire spread is that right that's his evidence um do you agree well

00:41:31 that's his evidence um do you agree well i mean i wouldn't have known that firsthand

00:41:34 firsthand my knowledge of that would have come from what the fire investigation team had told me was the background to this research because i yeah i wasn't involved in any discussions with mr king or

00:41:46 or the department on that matter now in his third witness statement dr crowder that told the inquiry and for the reference this is bre 30 47668 page

00:41:57 the reference this is bre 30 47668 page 47 paragraph 186 i don't think we need to see it but he said that he accepted that the work carried out for the external fire spread reports was flawed uh

00:42:07 uh and then went on to say in his evidence orally to us that with appropriate resources a more a better piece of work could have been carried out

00:42:18 carried out and that's what he said and that the experimental work was conducted under significant constraints both budgetary and in terms of the time available so that it wasn't possible he said to give the work

00:42:29 said to give the work and particularly the experimental work the the proper attention that it deserved that was his his evidence was that your own understanding of the circumstances in which this work was undertaken um

00:42:40 undertaken um i'm not aware was not aware that david feels that that work was flawed i mean i want to understand more about why he has come to that conclusion

00:42:52 has come to that conclusion um

00:42:53 um basically the work that was carried out i mean obviously the first part is a literature review anyway so

00:43:00 anyway so that is

00:43:01 that is the evidence that was available and that was found and and was presented the experimental work was

00:43:10 was work that was in the program of work as i understand it was discussed and agreed between the department and the foreign investigation team in answer to a

00:43:23 investigation team in answer to a particular query that they were looking to resolve

00:43:29 the experimental program was small it was never as i understood it expected to be you know the answer to to everything it was looking at one particular aspect which is i presented

00:43:42 particular aspect which is i presented to me anyway i understood it was to be looking at the potential impact of having a board in the spandrel panel that was in some way

00:43:55 spandrel panel that was in some way fire resisting as opposed to having a reaction to fire classification whether that be i think class o or class iii

00:44:05 iii they were looking at and it was basically a comparative study to see whether there appeared to be any direct impact from that

00:44:16 direct impact from that and then depending on the outcome of that work it may may have necessitated or may have required you know further study so it was a it was a small piece of work

00:44:28 piece of work i do remember discussing with them at the time of proposal as to whether there was sufficient resources to do even what they were proposing to do

00:44:39 they were proposing to do given that we know you know it was based around and on the bs8414 rig and knowing that you know an individual test the real costs associated with that from

00:44:51 the real costs associated with that from just a bre perspective are of the order of 10 to 12 000 pounds so you know to propose to do three different experiments within the budget

00:45:02 different experiments within the budget that they had available to them there was a discussion around that but the the view was that you know they convinced me that yes they could do that work in a scaled down version and in a

00:45:15 work in a scaled down version and in a meaningful way and that's why the work went forward

00:45:23 there's a rather long answer i think the answer to my question is

00:45:28 is is yes

00:45:29 is yes isn't it

00:45:31 isn't it that you understood that there were constraints on the project absolutely yes thank you did dr crowder discuss those concerns with you before the project did he say it can't be done for the

00:45:42 did he say it can't be done for the money or it can't be done in the time no quite the reverse right

00:45:50 i see so

00:45:54 so with that answer you're disagreeing are you with dr crowder's evidence to the inquiry

00:45:58 inquiry i don't know what his evidence to the inquiry was okay

00:46:03 okay what i've just said to you is my recollection of the the events in that we had

00:46:08 we had and i don't know if it was directly with david crowder or or whether it was with keira holland as to what we could actually

00:46:15 actually do and whether you could achieve three experiments within the budget that was available

00:46:21 available and the response was that yes those three experiments could be run within the budget that was available did you agree that do you agree that the research was

00:46:32 do you agree that the research was flawed as dr crowder tells us well i don't know because i don't know in what context he's suggesting that it's flawed i mean the experimental work

00:46:42 work is

00:46:43 is just that it's a program of work a series of experiments were done three of them

00:46:49 them with the different spandrel panels the results the data were collected and the results reported so to that extent the report is a statement of what was

00:47:01 the report is a statement of what was done

00:47:02 done what the measurements were and what the outcomes of those experiments were now

00:47:09 now so

00:47:10 so it depends which context you're talking about you know as to whether they are flawed i mean there's nothing wrong with the report in the sense that it is reporting

00:47:20 reporting what was done and what happened when those experiments were carried out can we go to the published version of this article

00:47:29 article uh the the um

00:47:33 um the second article which is at clg triple zero one nine four four four and let's look at page nine

00:47:49 and you you can see the conclusion just above the blue word references and it says overall the findings from this research show that there is a clear and demonstrable need to ensure that the buildings are designed and constructed so that the

00:48:01 designed and constructed so that the fire spread across the external surface and within the external facade is inhibited as required by the building regulations there is adequate guidance available in the public domain to allow this to be

00:48:12 the public domain to allow this to be achieved

00:48:13 achieved [Music]

00:48:15 [Music] that last sentence there which i think you signed off on how did you understand that conclusion to have been drawn from this work

00:48:27 well that conclusion obviously is relating to the previous sentence also that you need to comply with the

00:48:38 that you need to comply with the requirements as required by the building regulations and that if the guidance is followed then um

00:48:49 then um to me that is saying that that you you will achieve that but class naught was still retained wasn't it at this time in approved document b as a classification for external fast spread yes it was and yet

00:49:00 external fast spread yes it was and yet you had known of its limitations as such for at least 20 years before this report so how could that last sentence be justified

00:49:08 justified so within the context of this report this was looking at the comparison of the fire resistance requirement not not requirement there

00:49:20 requirement not not requirement there wasn't one but where the fire resistance actually

00:49:24 changed anything in in terms of the performance of the spandrel panels compared with the class 0 and the class 3 spandrel panels that were being looked

00:49:35 spandrel panels that were being looked at

00:49:35 at but i

00:49:37 but i we've been through this at some length already but class naught was going to be phased out yes that was our expectation yes but here it was still alive and well in the proof document be in 2016 wasn't

00:49:48 in the proof document be in 2016 wasn't it

00:49:49 it yes at that particular moment yes yes did you not think to draw that to the attention of of government here and at least raise that as a reservation about the guidance um

00:50:01 um well i personally didn't no um the question is why not i don't recall at the time i i don't know why we didn't i mean we could have done

00:50:13 could have done but that was i guess yeah i don't know now i'd like to turn to a different topic which is testing to bs8414 in your evidence we've already examined

00:50:24 in your evidence we've already examined the effect of privatization on bre and bre's code of conduct at least from 2014 onwards is it right that the principles set out in that code of conduct

00:50:36 in that code of conduct applied to all of the bre's work so not only to research commissioned by government or other sponsors but also to testing carried out for manufacturers uh yes it would have done yet yes

00:50:48 uh yes it would have done yet yes for example testing done for manufacturers under bsa414 yes it would apply to all of the areas of activity it was a bre group

00:50:58 bre group document yes and we saw yesterday i think it was now um a presentation delivered by you and julie bregula uh to the department i think in 2004

00:51:09 uh to the department i think in 2004 in which you told them that the bre as one of its strengths was conscious of commercial agendas and tactics of manufacturers test houses and consultants you remember

00:51:20 test houses and consultants you remember that um yes now on the subject of testing rather than research work were there any particular tactics that you knew of employed by manufacturers

00:51:32 employed by manufacturers um

00:51:37 tactics employed by manufacturers no not not specifically i mean obviously a manufacturer would submit samples for testing

00:51:48 for testing if you talk about the bench scale for example

00:51:51 example and

00:51:52 and they would be tested and then the reports written etc i guess the bit that's always been the weak link from my perspective

00:52:03 weak link from my perspective is the fact that there is no audit trail back to

00:52:12 the main production of that product you just test whatever is provided to you you write the report accordingly um

00:52:23 um and there there is nothing that links that back to necessarily what is being placed in the market by a manufacturer right now you say that was a weak

00:52:34 a weak always the weak link from your perspective when did you first regard what you've just told us as the weak link um

00:52:42 um all throughout pretty much my career and i mean it's well known i mean it's always relied on the manufacturer and

00:52:53 and their

00:52:54 their integrity in terms of submitting samples for tests

00:52:59 for tests that are representative of what they are actually selling and that's well known and it's been discussed

00:53:07 discussed and i've had discussions in the in the past

00:53:11 past with the department about that especially as the european systems were coming

00:53:18 coming on board

00:53:19 on board where

00:53:22 where all right because because well basically the uk was operating at a level called attestation level

00:53:28 level four

00:53:29 four at one point and then it was visibly obvious that the uk yeah i think we've got the answer which is always next question

00:53:36 question uh what did you do at the bre about that problem

00:53:39 problem we we discussed that with the department and it was discussed in various other industries for at length especially as the european system was beginning to

00:53:50 system was beginning to bring some changes but not going far enough why did you rely on the integrity of manufacturers well i didn't the system was set up to rely on it well indeed uh why

00:54:02 it well indeed uh why and why was that well that was vested in history i mean i i've no idea why was set up like that in the first place i i don't know okay but did they not come a time when

00:54:14 okay but did they not come a time when you became skeptical about the

00:54:19 the manufacturer's integrity and wanted to make absolutely sure that you did have an audit trail absolutely which is why we have always offered um since 2000 since

00:54:30 since bre started offering testing

00:54:33 testing services we've we've always offered certification services alongside that which does provide that link and does provide that integrity but that is voluntary there is nothing that

00:54:46 that is voluntary there is nothing that requires anybody to do that so you know a manufacturer has to volunteer to opt to go down that system

00:54:55 now thinking about full-scale testing to bs8414 in the period before june 2017 was the bre alert to the risk that manufacturers might

00:55:08 manufacturers might attempt to game any aspect of the testing system well that was always possible as i say you know it was always known that you might get a sample that was submitted that was not representative of what was actually

00:55:19 representative of what was actually being provided to the market right so that was uh interesting so that was your it was a known risk at least to you from back from 2000 yeah i mean we had no um clear evidence base to prove that one way or

00:55:31 evidence base to prove that one way or the other but it was clearly and it was self-evident that that was a possibility and how did you ensure that given the commercial pressures post privatization

00:55:42 commercial pressures post privatization on the bre the bre maintained its independence and objectivity in line with the principle set out in the code of conduct when it came to a manufacturer who wanted to game a test

00:55:57 well i say the the scope of the services that we offered were the same as any other testing laboratory in the sense that you take the sample you take the description that they've

00:56:08 you take the description that they've provided to you and that is what you can report in the in the test report and the classification report if somebody willfully cheats

00:56:19 cheats then the test laboratory has no way of knowing that they have willfully cheated you would have to rely on potentially

00:56:30 rely on potentially that being picked up by trading standards

00:56:33 standards on rare occasions competitors might actually inform trading standards that they had concerns about another manufacturer's product but the testing laboratories

00:56:45 product but the testing laboratories themselves are not not in a position really to to be able to do anything other than faithfully report

00:56:53 report the results of the of the test well is that right why couldn't you have a system whereby you had a second pair of eyes on every single piece of the rig that came into the burn hall

00:57:06 of the rig that came into the burn hall or into the storage area it was checked off and then every single piece of or component on the rig that was the subject of an 8414 test was looked at

00:57:18 subject of an 8414 test was looked at and examined by a second pair of eyes to make sure that it can it corresponded exactly with the drawings why couldn't you do that well so there's two things there so if we're talking about eight four one four i mean

00:57:29 talking about eight four one four i mean the the process as i understand it that was adopted in the laboratory for the 8414 was indeed to check off the um materials as they were delivered however when it comes directly from a

00:57:42 however when it comes directly from a manufacturer it will come with their description on it so you still have to take that as face value so if they are doing something different

00:57:54 different you've got no way of knowing you can't tell by just looking at it no i understand that and that obviously if a manufacturer tells you that what they are testing is x but it is in fact why then i

00:58:06 x but it is in fact why then i understand what you've said what i'm really more interested in is the other components of the full-scale test so the rain screen the fixings the rails the backing

00:58:19 the backing which all comprise different components yes is there not a way in which those could have been audited objectively and robustly by bre staff in the storage

00:58:30 and robustly by bre staff in the storage room or the burn hall to make sure that what went up onto the rig as part of the full system was exactly as known uh and corresponded with the um with the list

00:58:41 corresponded with the um with the list and with the um the plans i understand what you're saying and it is my understanding that that was normal practice right now um is it right that the bre had a direct

00:58:52 it right that the bre had a direct financial interest in carrying out bs 8414 tests um

00:58:57 um of course it was it was run as a commercial operation if that's what you mean we did testing and we charged um a fee for it yes and that was a revenue stream

00:59:08 revenue stream a valuable revenue revenue stream for the bre post privatization it's a value it was a revenue stream whether it's valuable or not is a mute point but anyway well yeah whether it was enough or not it's

00:59:19 whether it was enough or not it's another matter but it was it was a revenue stream but you didn't want to lose put it that way it was of importance to the bre wasn't it or or was it not um as part of the overall

00:59:30 as part of the overall um aspect of what we were doing it was important but in its own right it was not so significantly important now when finite nine was introduced

00:59:43 now when finite nine was introduced first as we saw in the 2000 amendment to adb

00:59:47 adb as an alternative route to compliance alternative to the linear route for buildings over 18 meters do you remember did you or any others at the bre give any consideration to the fact

00:59:59 bre give any consideration to the fact that that would inevitably be of financial benefit to the bre um

01:00:05 um i don't think that was a primary consideration certainly wasn't one of mine i wasn't particularly involved in that area at the time but i don't think it was

01:00:13 it was one of the primary considerations i mean clearly the parliamentary inquiry and the work that was being done around supporting that etc was

01:00:24 etc was was the work that was going on and the research that was going on as i say you know the and as i've already said

01:00:35 said bre was not reluctant in any way to provide fire note 9 to bsi so that it could be made into a full british standard

01:00:45 standard um

01:00:46 um and you know the consequence of that if you like is then it's in the public domain and it's open to anybody to actually

01:00:53 actually carry out those tests it wasn't one of the primary considerations but was it not

01:00:58 not a consideration even if not the dominant one was it not a i doubt that right i doubt that was there any any other organization in the country who was

01:01:09 who was doing

01:01:10 doing bs8414 tests to be our 135 criteria in 2000.

01:01:16 2000. well nobody was because obviously the standard hadn't been published well far note 9 yeah was anybody else doing 589 tests um not that i'm aware of no not at that time because it was still

01:01:27 that time because it was still almost like a research type um test without really any um

01:01:34 um end use if you like yes

01:01:38 yes now in his evidence to the inquiry last year phil clark you remember remember him um told us that he was unaware of whether or not the bre had been involved in pushing is his word perhaps my word

01:01:52 in pushing is his word perhaps my word pushing br 135 but he said he would be very surprised if not and thought you might have been involved in that that's for our reference transcript day 95 page 40

01:02:03 transcript day 95 page 40 1-15

01:02:05 1-15 um can you assist is that right um no that's not right i mean as you'll see from um the previous evidence

01:02:14 evidence i mean my first involvement with um br 135 if you like was at the start of the research project cc 1924 and that had already been agreed and

01:02:26 had already been agreed and um

01:02:28 um contracted if you like it was at that point that i first became involved so there was already a decision that had been taken that bs-8414 was going to be produced and

01:02:40 bs-8414 was going to be produced and that there would be a classification system

01:02:43 system um to sit alongside that to to make it um

01:02:48 um you know of a value really so you've got pass fail criteria clearly identified so no i was not involved in that decision or in moving that forward

01:02:59 or in moving that forward uh did anyone at the vre ever consider whether

01:03:02 whether there could be or might develop a potential conflict of interest within the bre

01:03:07 the bre carrying out these tests uh while bre employees were responsible for writing the bre classification indeed the criteria for paying clients

01:03:19 for paying clients no because i i would well i don't know is the answer but i wouldn't have thought that was the case because at that particular time until br 135 was

01:03:31 that particular time until br 135 was actually published there was no um no recognition of that or couldn't be and until bs8414 was also published

01:03:41 published which obviously came um at the end of that project or towards the end of that anyway at that time let's take that then as the start point 2003 second edition of br135 was there

01:03:53 2003 second edition of br135 was there any consideration of that question then um

01:03:58 um i don't recall there being one i think it was just um

01:04:04 do you remember sorry no concern do you remember any discussion internally within the bre at any time or with government at any time about whether it was in the public interest

01:04:15 whether it was in the public interest that fire safety testing of building products

01:04:18 products for the purposes of meeting the building regulations and approved document b should be the stocking trade of a private business

01:04:28 there may very well have been discussions with government i mean bre didn't offer any commercial testing per se until

01:04:39 testing per se until the acquisition of the lpc testing laboratories in 2000. yes

01:04:46 yes and after that yes do you know from your own knowledge was there any discussion either internally or with government about whether it was in the public interest

01:04:57 interest that private businesses should sell fire safety tests for money i don't know i mean and i would have imagined that there would have been discussions between

01:05:09 between the bre management and the department in the lead up to the acquisition of the lpc testing and certification business

01:05:20 testing and certification business but i wasn't involved in that so i can't say definitively but i think it would be quite

01:05:25 quite um surprising if there wasn't and do you remember whether there was any

01:05:32 any consideration of making sure that the bre in as an organization and its staff individually

01:05:44 its staff individually kept at the absolute forefront of their mind the need to make sure that tests were conducted ruthlessly rigorously independently

01:05:55 independently and without regard to the commercial interests of bre or its clients well my my um

01:06:06 well my my um experience is that that was that was absolutely clear to all staff at all times and

01:06:14 and you know staff were expected to

01:06:18 to to work in the way that you suggested let's then look at some documents bre 3011333

01:06:30 this is a series of emails in february 2008 between you and sarah colwell

01:06:38 and if we start on page one by looking at the second email on that page from dr colwell

01:06:43 colwell excuse me to you uh dated the 28th of february 2008 subject passive activates this week

01:06:56 now um what um

01:06:58 what um we need to look at there um is under certification uh and then if you look at that she says in the third line the

01:07:10 that she says in the third line the market for the certification business is buoyant and selling the service should be easier if we can get delivery times down the recruitment of colin's replacement is now critical to the performance of this income stream once

01:07:21 performance of this income stream once we've cleared some of the backlog we'll be focusing on the key income sectors which deliver profitable testing and certification income to the group such as lps 1181 lps 1581 and the seal

01:07:32 as lps 1181 lps 1581 and the seal packages the potential ppg contract has highlighted the need for good response times if we are to win the business from bwf and also the potential to deliver sizable profitable test programs into the business

01:07:44 the business you see that yes and then the next one under clatting failure of the part of part of the test rig during a test this week has put the programs back a week which will impact on ni

01:07:55 on ni and this month and that's net income isn't it uh yes i would earn this month done ten thousand pounds this has delayed kingspan's installation on the next two faces and so you sled up the rest of the programmer

01:08:07 rest of the programmer uh and then um if you turn the page please after the table you'll see in the paragraph there it says uh if all these potential leads are taken up

01:08:16 taken up we will have delivered 19 of the 20 faces we predicated in the plan lead times are therefore a serious concern operational efficiencies in the burn hall may help to improve the position but we may need to look at

01:08:27 position but we may need to look at subcontracting this work to other labs it keep the market moving but this has potentially serious concerns when the market turns down after the initial interest has been met

01:08:40 now let's look at your response to that please if we go to the top of page one the next day 29th of february 2008 and in the first paragraph you are asking sarah colwell for clarification

01:08:52 asking sarah colwell for clarification about whether all of the work secured falls within one financial year yes yes which financial year is it coming in exactly and then in the second paragraph you say if this is the position we really need to think creatively about

01:09:04 really need to think creatively about how we can try to increase the efficiency and throughput on the cladding rigs is there something we can do to reduce the rig occupancy time obviously we can't discuss this by email but this is some but it is something we

01:09:16 but this is some but it is something we need to look at seriously now on the positive side this is great position to be in

01:09:22 be in did you did you go on to discuss this set with sarah colwell offline as it were um i guess i probably did and i would have we would have involved other people as

01:09:33 we would have involved other people as well and what was the up what was the upshot i i don't recall i mean at this time

01:09:39 time we maybe had just two rigs and at some point we um we've now got the bre has now got four rigs

01:09:50 four rigs so that may have been the final conclusion that there was very little that could be done to

01:09:56 to satisfy the turnaround times that we were looking to achieve and why was this something that could not be discussed by email um maybe because it was too complicated

01:10:08 um maybe because it was too complicated well maybe i mean you know there's a lot of a lot of factors in all of this right and it would require other people as well to be inputting in terms of the operational throughput and so on right did the bre

01:10:20 throughput and so on right did the bre in fact make any changes to its processes or procedures due to commercial pressure to increase the efficiency and throughput on the cladding rigs as you put it no no they wouldn't have done

01:10:32 i'd like to turn then to a topic of impartiality and independence can we start with your statement please at bre405624 page 12 paragraph 42.

01:10:49 and you say there as with any other test the test sponsor is responsible for the design specification procurement and installation of their specimen onto the test rig the bs en i say iec is 17025

01:11:01 test rig the bs en i say iec is 17025 accreditation standard and you attach it which bre is required to comply with obliges the test laboratory to remain completely independent and impartial and also to safeguard the test sponsors proprietary information see clause 4

01:11:13 proprietary information see clause 4 2017.

01:11:15 2017. you see that yes i do yes

01:11:19 only information that both the test laboratory and test sponsor have agreed can be made public if the test laboratory were to become involved directly with the installation of the test specimen it would be difficult to demonstrate that the requirements in

01:11:30 demonstrate that the requirements in clause 4 had been met and there would be the potential for one test sponsor to allege that its proprietary information had been shared with others further if the cladding system failed the test in the sense that the performance criteria set out in br 135

01:11:42 performance criteria set out in br 135 were not met it could also be alleged that the test laboratory was in some way responsible for that failure due to incorrect installation now um looking at the first part of that if we go back please to page page 12 at

01:11:53 if we go back please to page page 12 at the bottom of page 12 in paragraph 42. um

01:11:59 um you refer to bsen 17025 there yes given those obligations did bre employees receive training on how to remain independent and impartial at all stages

01:12:10 independent and impartial at all stages of the testing process training was provided yes so at all stages of the testing process um

01:12:19 um well the training is would have been across all of the business so it would have explained what people needed to do depending on who ran the training i

01:12:31 depending on who ran the training i think as we discussed yesterday different examples might have been given and different case studies who delivered that training um the compliance and quality team

01:12:44 compliance and quality team and who was that headed by um well it varied over the course of the years of course let's take the period 2012 to 2016. um so 2012 2016

01:12:55 the period 2012 to 2016. um so 2012 2016 that was probably um scott palmer would have been the director then it may have overlapped a little bit with stephen phillips scott scotty scott palmer palmer

01:13:09 scott scotty scott palmer palmer right and at what intervals was that training delivered um i don't think there was a sort of regular you know it wasn't done on the first friday of every month or something like that i

01:13:21 of every month or something like that i mean it would have been run as part of a program or it was run as part of a program of presentations that the quality and compliance team gave to

01:13:32 the quality and compliance team gave to the staff on the friday morning meetings phil clark told us that he never received any such training while at the bre

01:13:41 bre can you explain if he's right about that well first of all is he right about that i don't know if he's right about that or not

01:13:47 not i say the training was offered i suppose one of the weaknesses i would have to say now on reflection is that we would not

01:13:58 we would not um

01:14:01 get people to sign in and sign out to that training so there is the possibility that people never attended and and did not receive that training right

01:14:13 that training right so one improvement that you could make would be to require that right

01:14:18 right so

01:14:19 so it could be could it that phil clark either

01:14:23 either was slipped through the net or just

01:14:26 just didn't go to training or perhaps miss some training yes that's possible

01:14:37 did you ever have any concerns about how to safeguard in circumstances where bre was reliant on commercial testing as an income stream

01:14:48 um no i mean i i felt that and have always um been clear that

01:14:59 been clear that and i believed that the staff understood that you need to basically remain completely independent and

01:15:07 and and impartial from the work that you're doing and we never applied any

01:15:15 incentives or

01:15:19 financial or any other where staff were forced to do so many tests within a certain period or or anything like that so the guys in the laboratory the staff

01:15:30 so the guys in the laboratory the staff that were undertaking the work um

01:15:34 um you know just worked their way through the work that they'd got and um you know that there were never any as i say incentives or anything like that to achieve certain targets or goals

01:15:46 to achieve certain targets or goals so

01:15:50 and actually i i'm not aware of anybody ever raising any particular flags or concerns around this until of course the the

01:15:59 the what you're going to come on to now no doubt now

01:16:02 doubt now well we'll see what we come up to dr smith um the inquiry has seen no training logs uh for anybody at the bre which would indicate that they had actually received the training you've described

01:16:14 the training you've described is that right there weren't any training logs well there were but individual staff are responsible for their own training logs and what there wasn't was a centralized

01:16:26 and what there wasn't was a centralized training register i see

01:16:32 now coming back to paragraph 42 of your statement

01:16:35 statement um you say in the

01:16:39 in the sixth line down on that page that there was an obligation to safeguard the test sponsors proprietary information you see that yes i do is it your understanding that that requirement accounts for the fact that it's not standard practice for

01:16:51 fact that it's not standard practice for information about tests on systems which did not meet the br 135 criteria to be made available to industry more widely yes it is

01:17:02 to industry more widely yes it is now you're referring i think that specifically to the 2017 edition of bsen17025 aren't you um yes yes and you exhibit that um

01:17:13 um if we go to that please it's a bre four zeros five five six five

01:17:23 and if we that that's that's the first page of this document yeah and it's the 2017 edition as you can see uh which i think was amended in march and june 2018 and if we go to page 11

01:17:34 and june 2018 and if we go to page 11 you can see clause 4 which you've referred to and it's divided into two parts four one and four two

01:17:41 two under the general requirements impartiality and for two confidentiality yes yes um do you consider that any part of clause 4 would have been incompatible with the

01:17:52 4 would have been incompatible with the decision

01:17:53 decision by the bre to publish or disseminate information about failed tests

01:18:13 let me see if i can help you i mean i don't want something sorry i'm reading it so okay but if you want to yeah but i was going to point out 4.2.1 okay does that help

01:18:37 yes i mean that's that's part of it yes yes and another part if we can just turn the page

01:18:44 the page maybe 4.2.4

01:18:49 you see that personnel including any committee members contractors personnel of external bodies or individuals acting on the laboratory's behalf shall keep confidential all information obtained or created during the performance of laboratory activities yes

01:19:00 performance of laboratory activities yes except required by law yes yes yes so are those the two parts that you were referring to in your statement yes yes thank you now if we go up to page two of

01:19:10 two of uh this edition of the standard if we go to that and look at the bottom of the text and five lines up from the end of the text there you can see the date you can see that in fact it was published on the authority

01:19:21 fact it was published on the authority of the standards policy and strategy committee on the 31st of december 2017 so that's post fire yes

01:19:30 um yes yes yes yes clearly and you can also see um at the very top

01:19:39 very top uh of page two three lines down that that edition superseded the 2005 edition yes

01:19:44 yes can you just explain to us why it was that when you came to your statement you referred to an edition of the standard not published until six months after the grenfell tower fire

01:19:55 i don't recall why

01:19:58 why why i took that decision at the time

01:20:03 i think from recollection the changes are not that um significant in that regard between the 2005 and the 2017 version uh in fact it's right isn't it the the

01:20:14 uh in fact it's right isn't it the the addition relevant to the testing to be safe yes it would be yeah from 2005 to the date of the fire was the 2005 version yes it would be let's go to that it's a bsi 401726

01:20:29 and you can see the addition date in the top right hand corner there 2005. yes and i take it you're familiar with this edition of the accreditation standard yes

01:20:38 yes um well familiar as in i know of it and i would have it available to me if i needed it i mean i'm not familiar with it in the con in the sense that i can take you to different clauses and whatever now

01:20:50 different clauses and whatever now given that in the entire period before the grenfell tower fire the bre was the only

01:20:55 only organization in the country with the facilities to carry out the s8414 tests was any consideration given to making it a requirement of testing to bs8414

01:21:06 bs8414 that the bre would be entitled to disseminate or make available the results of tests which had not been successful in the public interest um no i don't think it was i think it was treated

01:21:19 was treated after 2003 as any other test and classification standard so not not treated in any special way but treated in the way that everything else

01:21:30 treated in the way that everything else was treated i'm not aware that it was ever given any special consideration right do you know why it wasn't given any special consideration given the unique position held by the vre

01:21:41 held by the vre um

01:21:43 um privileged i think is the word used in the right yeah i don't know why um i mean i suppose it could be argued that you know there could have been other areas as well that would potentially

01:21:55 potentially warrant special consideration as well but i'm not aware of any discussion on that point no do you agree that it would have been

01:22:05 have been beneficial for public safety in relation to the bre's work quotes in the service of wider society i'm quoting from the code of contact we've looked at to

01:22:16 to insist that failed tests be put into the public domain

01:22:21 um

01:22:23 i mean it's very difficult subject area around failed tests whether it's bs 8414 or not i mean because you could argue that there's a public interest element

01:22:34 that there's a public interest element and a safety element around any failed test

01:22:37 test whether it's fire resistance reaction to fire whatever it might be [Music]

01:22:44 [Music] so

01:22:47 you know in from where i sit right now if you were going to do that i think you'd have to do it for everything well you don't have to do it for everything but given the bsa414 role that the bre had

01:22:59 given the bsa414 role that the bre had and the importance of the tests

01:23:02 the tests the outcomes of the tests do you agree that it would have been beneficial for public safety to have insisted well it may have been and but i i go back to what i've just said i mean i think you could argue similarly that

01:23:15 i think you could argue similarly that um some fire resistance failures could be equally important in terms of you know not um the the information that that conveys about maintaining compartmentation within a building

01:23:28 compartmentation within a building um in a fire scenario so

01:23:31 so that's really what i'm what i'm trying to say you i'm sure there are other areas as well but i'm just trying to focus on this one have you ever considered the potential impact in fire safety terms of the fact that bs 8414 results which had not met the br135

01:23:45 8414 results which had not met the br135 criteria

01:23:46 criteria uh were not published or reported the impact of keeping those secret

01:23:53 secret um

01:23:54 um no it was not something that we actively considered we we took the view and my colleague who would have been responsible for the fire testing and classification area at the time

01:24:07 classification area at the time would have taken and did take the view i'm

01:24:10 i'm absolutely certain of

01:24:15 following the same principles and the same rules and the same constraints that were followed in all other areas of the testing business

01:24:24 business now i want to go back to a topic we touched on before in a little bit more detail which is impartiality when it comes to the design installation and checks of a test rig can we look please at paragraph 45 of

01:24:35 can we look please at paragraph 45 of your statement again which is a page 13.

01:24:41 and you say there bre is responsible for the production of the test report in accordance with the requirements of the standard the construction of a cladding system onto the test rig can take several weeks during this time bre staff

01:24:52 several weeks during this time bre staff will make periodic visits to record construction information they're not present to witness the construction process all of the time it is also not possible to know details such as the chemical composition of

01:25:03 such as the chemical composition of materials products or components of systems that are delivered to bre for testing as explained in clause 3.4 referred to above for such details including trade names and component descriptions beyond what can visually be

01:25:16 descriptions beyond what can visually be visually recorded or measured for example dimensions or color the test report has to rely on the information provided by the test sponsor it is their responsibility to ensure that this information is correct especially as

01:25:28 information is correct especially as they may rely on the test report to make performance claims in the market if the information is incorrect or misleading it is my understanding that this would fall within the legal enforcement responsibilities of trading standards

01:25:40 responsibilities of trading standards that's quite a long passage i've read to you and i just want to break that up now first when you say that the test report has to rely on the information provided by the test sponsor beyond what can

01:25:51 by the test sponsor beyond what can visually be recorded or measured for example dimensions color were bre staff required to make records of those details

01:26:03 yes they were

01:26:06 they were and i mean i think you can see from a lot of the information that has been um sent to yourselves there are lots of photographic records with dimensional

01:26:18 photographic records with dimensional measurements rulers etc taken in shot to give that very

01:26:25 very um level of detail well we'll we'll of course

01:26:28 course look at that in with interest but my question for you is what details specifically were bre staff record required to record

01:26:41 um [Music]

01:26:44 you mentioned dimensions and color what else

01:26:48 else were they required to record well they would record the um

01:26:53 if it got a trade name if it was a fixing for example the name of the the trade name of the um fixing um

01:27:01 um lengths of any uh batons or aluminium supports with the dimensions and what they what they were made from [Music]

01:27:12 [Music] as much detail as they could glean from what they had in front of them basically and at what stages would bre staff record those details um on delivery of the samples

01:27:26 um on delivery of the samples to site

01:27:27 to site and how would the

01:27:30 the piece of paper if you like or perhaps enter on a computer of what's delivered to site then go to the bre employees involved in the test um

01:27:41 um so generally that information would be captured and was captured within the electronic files on the shared archive space and and that had

01:27:53 archive space and and that had okay has restricted access but the access is restricted to those people in the team that need to know it wouldn't be free access to everybody at bre it would just be to the people

01:28:05 bre it would just be to the people working on that particular project right

01:28:11 and you say that

01:28:15 say that um

01:28:17 bre staff would make pr periodic visits to record construction information what do you mean by periodic there so that's my understanding i mean they would

01:28:28 they would so some of them were resident down in the laboratory anyway so their offices were [Music]

01:28:37 [Music] alongside the laboratory and they would it's part of their job if they are running the test to

01:28:47 to go and check at various points during the construction of the rig um and take records of you know what's going on yeah but i'm asking you what do you mean by periodic

01:28:58 asking you what do you mean by periodic let's ask you now about what you mean by various points how frequently would the burn hall staff check

01:29:07 check what was going up on the rig a number of times a day but i mean it's not a fixed you have to go every five minutes you have to go at the

01:29:18 you have to go at the stages during the construction where something

01:29:22 something new is in effect happening and were there particular stages of the installation in which it would be particularly important for bre employees to go and witness

01:29:31 witness um

01:29:32 um well i don't think any one bit would be considered more important than the other i mean you need to see the construction at its various stages

01:29:43 the construction at its various stages you know as it is going on the wall before something becomes covered up so you would want to see the the installation of support frame first say

01:29:54 first say and then

01:29:55 and then that might be covered up the next time you go and you'd want to see that during the the process and

01:30:01 and how would a bre staff member in charge of a test um know that a new stage which required his or her presence to observe

01:30:12 or her presence to observe was coming up and presumably with the person building the rig he might be a contractor come and alert them and say i'm just about to put the cladding on or i'm about to put the cavity barriers in come and look how would it work yeah i mean i i i don't

01:30:24 would it work yeah i mean i i i don't know from first-hand experience how that worked um i would expect it to be a communication between the contractor and the project manager right at that job so

01:30:35 the project manager right at that job so it's quite ad hoc in a way um just left to the two of them to work out between themselves well i mean given that some rigs take three or four weeks to build and others take two or three days

01:30:48 take two or three days you know you have to have an approach that is flexible to allow that to allow you to nevertheless achieve those gateways and those observations now you

01:31:00 gateways and those observations now you say that the purpose of the periodic visits

01:31:04 visits was to record construction information i've read that to you yes yes um is that separate from recording details of components which could be visually recorded

01:31:15 which could be visually recorded yes i think it is i mean in my mind anyway and how would that be recorded

01:31:19 recorded what the the construction information how so largely it was done by um handwritten notes supplemented by um photographic records

01:31:37 and the purpose of that was what the purpose of recording the construction information was what um

01:31:44 um that was then um [Music]

01:31:47 [Music] required for the preparation of the test report

01:31:50 report if we go to page 22 of your statement just a little a little bit on it paragraph 80 you say this

01:32:00 and the question at the top is who if anyone is responsible for any checks of or comparison between the actual test riggers installed and the detailed drawings provided by the test sponsor your answer is again as i

01:32:13 test sponsor your answer is again as i explained in my answer to question 2a above the responsibility for the comparison of the installed test specimen cladding system with the detailed drawings provided by the test sponsor remains with the test sponsor

01:32:24 sponsor remains with the test sponsor itself it is the test sponsor's responsibility to accept the installed cladding system and sign it off prior to handover to bre's project leader now is it correct that the

01:32:35 now is it correct that the responsibility for the comparison between the installed test specimen cleaning system and the detailed drawings provided by the test sponsor is the test

01:32:46 provided by the test sponsor is the test sponsors

01:32:47 sponsors is that really right um yes not the mres well there's a responsibility there because invariably the test sponsor is employing in general terms

01:32:58 in general terms a third party to carry out the installation on their behalf so

01:33:04 so there has to be that connection made they have to say yes this is what i want to test you have constructed what i

01:33:15 you have constructed what i am wanting to test and that is a contract between those two parties okay

01:33:23 okay that that i understand but what is the purpose of the test sponsor providing to the bre

01:33:29 the bre detailed drawings of the system if the only organization carrying out checks on those drawings as against the rig as built is the test sponsor itself well bre then

01:33:40 sponsor itself well bre then my understanding is does a high level check so that you are identifying basically the the key component parts

01:33:51 basically the the key component parts but you know it's said in the test report as well as far as i understand that

01:33:57 that um because the bre staff the guys doing the actual tests are not architects they're not trained architects and they're not designers

01:34:08 they're not designers and so it's it's difficult to expect them to be able to read a drawing and fully understand whether

01:34:19 a drawing and fully understand whether what's been installed exactly complies with that so again you're then relying on the manufacturer's input in terms of accepting responsibility for

01:34:31 in terms of accepting responsibility for what is being presented for test but isn't the bre anxious in the extreme to make sure that what goes up on the rig corresponds exactly with the drawings

01:34:43 exactly with the drawings it's been sent for its own reasons well insofar as bre has been able to check it they do but i say i can only go back to what i've just said and it's my understanding

01:34:55 i've just said and it's my understanding that

01:34:56 that um

01:34:58 um you know we are not taking um responsibility for the the specimen as um

01:35:06 um as presented that is the sponsor's responsibility but why aren't you taking responsibility in your own interests and self-protection to make sure

01:35:17 self-protection to make sure that the

01:35:18 that the system

01:35:20 system as erected is the same as that drawn

01:35:25 drawn in the drawings with which you've been provided well i say there's a certain level of checks that go on but

01:35:33 it is not within the uh competence of the guys that are doing this the test the standard fire test to read architects drawings what's the point of the bre

01:35:46 drawings what's the point of the bre having the drawings then

01:35:49 well the drawings are then presented as the system for test i mean i say high level checks are done if they've said they've used this insulation of this

01:36:00 they've used this insulation of this thickness and so on that sort of check can be um

01:36:04 can be um done in comparison with the information that's been collected in relation to the products that have been delivered to site i mean in fact it's not right any of this is it because

01:36:15 it's not right any of this is it because in the reports we've seen certainly the classification reports the drawings themselves and the list of components is set out in detail i don't i'm not aware that there are any drawings in the classification report

01:36:29 all right

01:36:32 so jeff is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll have a break now dr smith will come back please at 25 to 4. okay and as before please don't talk to

01:36:44 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you very much

01:36:54 thank you 25 to 4 please

01:55:55 um

01:56:00 uh would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:56:13 all right dr swiss yes thank you yes thank you yes mr mr chairman dr smith can i ask you please to be shown cel401329

01:56:23 [Music]

01:56:37 and this is uh as you can see the bre

01:56:42 the bre test report dated the 11th of august 2014 2014 for celetex

01:56:49 celetex report number 295-255 yes some people listening to that this inquiry that number will be resonant uh and uh you if you turn police to page six

01:57:01 police to page six um you'll see there okay a drawing system as tested and figure one says construction of the system showing the key layers of the

01:57:12 system showing the key layers of the cladding system and if you go to page seven you'll see um

01:57:17 um uh

01:57:18 uh the same yes slightly different yes i do just looking at that is right isn't it and in fact the test reports do the classification yeah they do set out yes they do they do yes

01:57:32 so your answer before the break i think well my recollection was not right yes okay now let's um uh go back to your witness statement please bre 40 5624

01:57:49 and you'll see that paragraph 90. when you went we need to go to page 25 please

01:57:56 please and go to paragraph 90. and there you say this once the report has been drafted it is sent to a technically competent bre approver who has been trained in relation to the bsa 414 test methods and signed off through

01:58:08 414 test methods and signed off through demonstration of competence to undertake the task

01:58:13 the approver checks that the correct report template has been issued correct any typographical errors and that the system description is consistent with the information provided by the test sponsor they also check the test data analysis and the observations recorded

01:58:25 analysis and the observations recorded by the bre test engineers during their periodic visits to the laboratory during the construction process but if you go on a little bit further please to page 26 paragraph 20 paragraph 93

01:58:39 paragraph 20 paragraph 93 you're you're explaining the process for writing br 135 classification reports and you say this

01:58:47 uh before a br135 report is issued it is sent to a bre approver to be quality checked for errors including typographical errors see that yes uh

01:58:58 uh the approver ensures that the correct report template has been used and the test report number i.e the number of the test report which the classification relies upon test data analysis and field of application sections are all

01:59:10 of application sections are all consistent they will also check that the product description is consistent with the information that has been provided by the test sponsor and the observations recorded by the bre test engineers during their periodic visits to the

01:59:21 during their periodic visits to the laboratory during the installation process

01:59:24 process now in both cases both paragraphs i just read to you to what extent are the two separate pieces of information so the information from the test sponsor and the information from the bre's

01:59:35 and the information from the bre's periodic visits relied upon by the author of the test report or the classification report the author or the approver sorry the approver

01:59:46 sorry the approver um

01:59:47 um that's really down to the approver um as to what they want to check and what they do check i mean and what set of information would you consider to be the more comprehensive

01:59:59 consider to be the more comprehensive would it be the test sponsors detailed drawings

02:00:01 drawings uh as against construction information recorded by bre employees

02:00:07 employees on their way through the burn hall now and again um well

02:00:13 well i don't have first-hand experience of this but sitting here today i would rely more heavily on the eyes and ears and the observations etc and the records

02:00:24 and the observations etc and the records that have been taken during the construction of the rig by the bre test engineers

02:00:30 engineers during the construction yes right i don't think there are any photographs of the construction process or records of the construction process as opposed to the deconstruction process

02:00:41 as opposed to the deconstruction process set out in the reports is there um there are in the electronic files yes but not in the reports that go out to the market

02:00:52 that go out to the market that may be correct yeah i'm not sure about that but certainly the um in writing the reports and that you know that that information is collected and does sit in the in the electronic

02:01:03 does sit in the in the electronic archive and what would well what should yes of the report well what should the author of the report do in in the event of any conflict between the information from the test sponsor and the information

02:01:15 the test sponsor and the information from the bre's visits the bre staff's observations in the burn hall the author or the approver well let's take the author now um

02:01:26 um if the author is aware of a particular deviation

02:01:31 deviation then it is incumbent on them i would say to go back to the test sponsor and query that and what about the approver same um well the approver i would go to the author of the

02:01:42 approver i would go to the author of the test report i think and initially and say look i've spotted this what

02:01:48 what what's going on but the approver is simply somebody looking at the four corners of the report and checking for typos and obvious errors yes and anything that they spot and if they spot

02:01:59 anything that they spot and if they spot something they would query it and and want it to be resolved yes now if we go back to page 21 of your statement please paragraph 77 you you say this

02:02:10 say this as explaining my answer to 2a above bre's role during the installation of a test specimen onto a test rig is strictly limited by the standards to which it is accredited namely in iso iec 17025

02:02:22 iso iec 17025 the design and installation of the test specimen is entirely the responsibility of the test sponsor now going back then to page 12 and paragraph 42

02:02:33 paragraph 42 you say there foot at the foot of page 12 three lines up if the test laboratory were to become involved directly with the installation of a test specimen it would be difficult to demonstrate that the requirements in

02:02:44 demonstrate that the requirements in clause 4 had been met and there would be the potential for one test sponsor to allege that its proprietary information had been shared with others further if a cladding system failed the test in the sense that the

02:02:56 the test in the sense that the performance criteria set out in br135 were not met it could also be alleged that the test laboratory was in some way responsible for that failure due to incorrect installation we've seen that before before the break

02:03:08 we've seen that before before the break yes now breaking that down and those two paragraphs i've just put before you down dealing first with what you say about clause 4. can you explain how would any involvement by the bre itself

02:03:19 involvement by the bre itself in the installation of a system onto its own test rigs make it difficult for the bre to demonstrate compliance with the confidentiality requirements in clause 4

02:03:33 so i mean the situation is test engineers see many different systems being installed in many different ways it's not unusual

02:03:45 in many different ways it's not unusual for them to see a manufacturer installing something or a whoever it might be the test sponsor at least and

02:03:56 and during the course of the construction they might think themselves well i know that is going to fail there's a weakness in the way that that is being installed but that's based on

02:04:08 is being installed but that's based on their historic knowledge and evidence that they've gained an experience they've gained from watching other tests so what they can't do if they're acting impartially and independently

02:04:21 impartially and independently is

02:04:22 is go along and say if you do don't do it like that do it like this

02:04:29 so that that then you know removes that weakness from that installation so if they were actually doing the installation themselves i

02:04:40 i i

02:04:41 i struggled to see how you would prevent that sort of unconscious bleed of information across from one test system to another

02:04:52 one test system to another and in effect the sharing of that um proprietary information and i think that's what the accreditation standard is is seeking to do to ensure that you know that does not

02:05:05 do to ensure that you know that does not that does not happen and cannot happen and

02:05:08 and forgive me um why isn't it as simple as the bre staff simply taking the components as listed and as

02:05:19 the components as listed and as delivered

02:05:20 delivered the plans as delivered and supervising the build

02:05:28 the build in accordance with those two pieces of information why would that involve any risk of breach of confidentiality to the bre okay so that's different from what you

02:05:39 okay so that's different from what you just asked in terms of why did bre not do the installation well no i'm your words are let's go back

02:05:50 well no i'm your words are let's go back you say bre's role during the installation of a test specimen on the test rig is strictly limited by the standard and was entirely responsible for

02:06:01 and was entirely responsible for entirely the responsibility of the test sponsor

02:06:04 sponsor and if the test laboratory were to put it to become involved directly with the installation of the test specimen there might be a breach of clause for that that's what you you said in your statement and i i don't understand why

02:06:15 statement and i i don't understand why that is so i'm just seeking to get to the bottom of your explanation as i'll put the question again why isn't it why does

02:06:27 why does uh

02:06:28 uh the involvement of the bre to the extent of ensuring that what it is told is to be rigged is actually rigged something which might involve any risk of breach of

02:06:39 involve any risk of breach of confidentiality well

02:06:41 well our view has always been i believe that you need to be you need to take a step back from that if

02:06:51 if the test sponsor and or the installer are doing the the installation then they are doing the installation apart from taking notes and photographs

02:07:03 apart from taking notes and photographs and observing what they are doing then um

02:07:07 then um bre can't be involved beyond that because there is then always that opportunity for them to impart information to

02:07:18 impart information to that installer or the test sponsor that could help them in some way pass the test that i that last part of the answer i understand what i'm struggling with dr smith and i i just like your

02:07:30 with dr smith and i i just like your help with this is why the risk of giving advice so to speak or helping to pass the test is one which is necessarily inherent in following the instructions

02:07:42 following the instructions inherent in the list of components as delivered

02:07:45 delivered and the plans as delivered what's the problem well i think to some extent that is what what they are doing but they're not sort of they're not signing off the

02:07:58 they're not signing off the the installation they are watching it they are recording it and then they are writing the report and detailing what they actually witnessed

02:08:11 what they actually witnessed so

02:08:12 so you know that section of the report and the details that are in the test report about where the fixings were and what type of fixings for example and when the insulation was put on whether there are

02:08:24 insulation was put on whether there are any sheathing boards and this that and the other and what they were are

02:08:29 are as they have observed

02:08:33 wouldn't it have been possible for installation to take place as a joint task between the bre and a test sponsor

02:08:41 no i don't think that would provide sufficient distance between the test sponsor and the the laboratory undertaking the work well wouldn't it have been possible in

02:08:53 well wouldn't it have been possible in order to avoid the risk you've just identified for the bre to make sure that the test sponsor checked the rig during the process and before the test started and signed off by the test sponsor to verify that the

02:09:04 by the test sponsor to verify that the rig was complete in the correct correct configuration as per the plans and that the bre were not to be held responsible in the way in which you suggest in the event of a poor result

02:09:19 i i don't see i'm struggling to understand why there is a problem with bre following the construction of the

02:09:33 rig and then reporting that factually in the test report i'll answer your question because of the risk that in following

02:09:46 because of the risk that in following bre is following at too great a distance and allowing unscrupulous test sponsors to sneak something past the bre up onto the rig which helps pass the test that's

02:09:58 the rig which helps pass the test that's the risk okay and i accept that in the case that you're talking about that should not have happened and it should not have been possible for it to happen um but it did happen it did happen well

02:10:10 um but it did happen it did happen well maybe be careful yeah um there is evidence that might be seen as suggesting that it did and if that is so if that is so um

02:10:21 um does it not tell you something about the defects in following as you put it as opposed to co-partnering well i mean the the other thing i would say is you know there's been a lot of scrutiny and

02:10:33 know there's been a lot of scrutiny and examination of reports and information within bre since then and we have not come across any other example of that failure or that failing

02:10:49 example of that failure or that failing in that way to that extent in any of the other information we've looked at and i can't explain and i mean it's not for me to try to explain

02:11:00 it's not for me to try to explain what may or may not have happened in in that

02:11:03 that particular case

02:11:05 case but i don't think the processes and procedures that were normal were actually followed in that particular test uh on that what is what processes

02:11:18 test uh on that what is what processes and procedures that were normal were not followed in that particular test there is a lack of um to be clear we're talking about the celetex section of a test on rs5 yes um

02:11:30 test on rs5 yes um just to be clear for the record you and i in my questions are making assumptions about absolutely what that evidence shows yes to be clear yes yes and with no first-hand experience

02:11:42 yes and with no first-hand experience so the answer to my question i'll put it again is what processes and procedures that were normal were not followed in that particular test yes so from my observations

02:11:53 from my observations there is a lack of photographic record

02:11:57 record of the different stages during the construction process and there's actually a lack of detailed photographic

02:12:08 detailed photographic record during the deconstruction process

02:12:14 and can you account for that i can't account for that now in what way did any part of clause 4 of the 2017 edition of of i say 17025

02:12:25 17025 let's assume it had applied during the period

02:12:28 period 2005 to 2017. how would that have precluded comprehensive checks being carried out on the installation and full records being met by bre in the way you've just identified full photographs

02:12:40 photographs um it didn't preclude that i mean we did as a normal process

02:12:45 process full

02:12:46 full and detailed photographic records were taken

02:12:49 taken and notes of course we've also already mentioned so we may be able to cut through this i think you and i agree that there's nothing in either the 2005 or the 2017

02:13:00 or the 2017 standards about impartiality that would have precluded the bre from taking full photo full suite of photographs to make sure that what is said to have gone to the rig did go onto the rig and i agree with you

02:13:15 [Applause]

02:13:32 in devising the policies and procedures in the way in which you and i have just been discussing including the full suite of photographs was

02:13:42 was bre conscious of the temptations or possibilities that commercial manufacturers whose priority was sales

02:13:54 manufacturers whose priority was sales to

02:13:56 to try and sneak something past you um

02:14:03 were we conscious well we were conscious that that was a possibility which is why um you know factual records observations and photographs are taken

02:14:15 yes

02:14:24 did you perceive it any time that it might be all too easy because of the importance to the bre relative importance to the bre of the revenue stream derived from bsa414 tests

02:14:39 revenue stream derived from bsa414 tests to lapse into slackness whereby habits grew up and that of any divergence between the test drawings and the list of components has

02:14:50 drawings and the list of components has delivered and the rigors built might be overlooked no i wasn't aware of that and that didn't occur to me that that would be happening i mean we had a

02:15:01 mean we had a obviously ucas carried out third party oversight of the various testing activities including bs8414 and you know there were internal audit

02:15:12 and you know there were internal audit programs as well which i would have expected to have signaled any particular issue that might have been occurring within

02:15:22 within within that area or any other area in fact

02:15:26 fact and what about the giving of advice or the making of observations about the conduct or performance of a test as it was happening

02:15:37 test as it was happening was that allowed um well it would depend what the observations were if there are a statement of fact like we've just i don't know terminated the test because

02:15:49 i don't know terminated the test because we've put water on the crib then i mean clearly that's that's an obvious statement of fact what about you might want to try you might want to try some magnesium oxide boards up there that's not permissible

02:16:02 boards up there that's not permissible and

02:16:03 and so far as you're concerned was that something that your staff absolutely knew as an article of faith through yes can we go to page 17 please paragraph 60.

02:16:16 you explain there um

02:16:19 um testing and classification provides consistent means for benchmarking the fire performance of systems against each other and a defined baseline and if you look at the last three lines of that paragraph you say as i've explained above in the case of clouding

02:16:31 explained above in the case of clouding systems bs8414 and br135 it is the cladding system that is tested and classified and not the individual components which make up the cladding system

02:16:41 system do you agree that in order for a test to operate as a consistent benchmark against which performance could be measured the information reported about their test would need to be accurate um yes

02:16:53 um yes particularly with respect to what it was that had actually been tested yes and if you look at page 18 please the next page you can see it paragraph 66

02:17:05 next page you can see it paragraph 66 you say in the third and fourth uh fourth lines there that um the whole basis of bs8414 and br135 is to provide a snapshot of the

02:17:17 br135 is to provide a snapshot of the particular cladding system tested bs bre does not have and is not required to have by any regulations or standards any ongoing role in relation to the cladding system if the snapshot is inaccurate again the

02:17:29 if the snapshot is inaccurate again the wrong picture being provided then the whole system falls down doesn't it yes that that test becomes invalid so does that tell us that

02:17:39 that the ability of the testing and classification system under the whole edifice of bs8414 and br135

02:17:48 and br135 to operate as a reliable benchmark depends entirely on the provision of accurate information by the test sponsor um

02:17:58 um well and the observations that the test engineers are taking the test the testers in the laboratory in terms of you know what's actually going on to the rig it's both both aspects yes

02:18:11 it's both both aspects yes and that that would mean that your equipment would have to be regularly and properly calibrated so that it was yes accurately recording yes

02:18:20 now i want to ask you some questions about kingspan and bre's testing of k-15 insulation starting in 2004. now

02:18:31 now take take it from me the kingspan carried out their first what what i might call full bsa414 test on the 31st of may 2005. okay um did you have any

02:18:42 of may 2005. okay um did you have any involvement in that test or that aspect any aspect of that test no i didn't uh in 2005 i think i think you were head of rick the reaction to fire team weren't you

02:18:52 you um

02:18:54 um probably i you say so in your statement that's correct i did a proper audit to prepare my statement so yeah yes uh did that role include any

02:19:05 yes uh did that role include any involvement in any aspect of testing to bs8414

02:19:09 bs8414 not directly no what about in terms of supervising others

02:19:13 others um insofar as some of those people reported into me not not all of them um

02:19:21 um right

02:19:21 right now we know that before kingsman carried out the test on the test on the 31st of may 2005 they had done what they called an indicative test

02:19:31 test on the insulation alone in december 2004 did you have any involvement in that aspect of that test no i didn't were you aware of it at the time i don't recall being aware of it

02:19:42 being aware of it did you have any involvement in any discussions with either either meredith or any kingsman employees in 2004 or 2005 about testing k15

02:19:53 2005 about testing k15 to to

02:19:54 to to to bs8414 i don't believe i did um i don't think i actually met iva meredith until quite a lot later right did were you ever aware of the bre working with

02:20:06 you ever aware of the bre working with kingspan or any kingsman company on potential field of application parameters for or following any particular bsa414 tests um

02:20:16 um well obviously field of application is part of

02:20:20 part of the classification depending on what you're doing

02:20:25 the direct field of application is part of the classification report so in so far as people are required to do that then

02:20:34 then of course

02:20:36 of course bre staff would have been writing those reports but i don't know if that's really what you mean i'm talking there about direct field of application in his evidence either meredith told us

02:20:48 in his evidence either meredith told us that he and possibly phil heath his um

02:20:53 his um manager had a number of discussions with sarah colwell and possibly david hall about a test to bs 8414 uh on the 31st of may 2005 and the way

02:21:05 uh on the 31st of may 2005 and the way in which that test result could then be used after that now first question is do you know anything about those discussions no i don't um who was david hall

02:21:15 hall david hall was

02:21:20 another tester

02:21:23 tester that worked in well various areas across bre during his time

02:21:29 time but no longer there now now either meredith told the inquiry day 75 page 70 lines five to nine there's no need to see it but he told us that kingspan had not intended

02:21:42 told us that kingspan had not intended the system that they tested in may 2005 to be representative of a real-life cladding system which would be used on a building instead that what they wanted was an external boards to be used to represent

02:21:54 external boards to be used to represent in general terms a system of the non-combustible outer layer but that's what he he said right and the reason he gave for that was that the bre advised he says that if we tested behind

02:22:06 advised he says that if we tested behind a non-combustible building board they would give a scope to say that the system tested could meet br 135 requirements when used behind all combat non-combustible cladding types

02:22:18 non-combustible cladding types and he went on and said unfortunately after the testing successfully the bre moved the goal post and retracted this statement leaving us a little in the lurch

02:22:29 little in the lurch quoted

02:22:30 quoted with some gaps there from his statement

02:22:34 he thought that the advice had been given by sarah colwill or david hall and then after and then retracted by either sarah colwell richard colwell or david hall

02:22:44 hall that was his evidence do you know anything about that no i don't do you agree that any suggestion that testing with one non-combustible cladding panel meant that you could based on that test

02:22:55 meant that you could based on that test use any non-combustible cladding panel would defeat the entire purpose of classification to br 135 in the first place yes i do were you overseeing sarah colwell's work at that time

02:23:07 colwell's work at that time um

02:23:09 in terms of line management possibly

02:23:14 possibly i would have to i would have to go back and check did that include her work on bs8414 um

02:23:20 bs8414 um it would have included if i was a line manager it would have broadly included everything right although you know depending on as as we said yesterday i think depending on what the nature of a query was you would go to others as well

02:23:34 query was you would go to others as well to discuss any particular technical aspects of the work right and she never discussed

02:23:39 discussed uh either position of the goal posts as it were anytime with you not that i recall no

02:23:44 recall no now moving on in time we heard that in 2007 and in 2008 there were four tests to bs8414 part two which were carried out on systems incorporating k15

02:23:56 incorporating k15 do you recall having any involvement in any of those tests no i don't when you were aware at the time that those tests were being carried out

02:24:07 that those tests were being carried out um

02:24:08 um i would have had a yes i would have had knowledge that they were in the sense that in that at that time the rigs had then been moved from cardington to um

02:24:19 cardington to um our site at gasoline and were then in the burn hall so i would have had an awareness that work was going on in the burn hall i i wouldn't necessarily have known the details of that but i would have known

02:24:31 details of that but i would have known which rigs were being used and what other work was going on as well i'd have had an overarching appreciation is what i'm saying did you hear anything from sarah colwell or other colleagues about the results of

02:24:42 other colleagues about the results of those tests um no not

02:24:45 um no not not directly no indirectly um

02:24:50 um i don't recall at all i mean i wasn't involved in the day-to-day testing right um on the cladding side so you don't think or don't remember that anybody told you that they had all failed

02:25:01 failed no i don't now i ever merited this evidence was that in respect of at least one of these tests um he had received from the bre official and unofficial comments on the reasons for failure

02:25:14 comments on the reasons for failure and he thought that that those had come from phil clark just for our purposes that's day 75 page 109 159 lines 20 to 25 and page 160 lines one to seven

02:25:26 lines one to seven that's what that was his evidence were you aware that either meredith had asked bre employees on more than one occasion for their official and unofficial comments and opinions in relation to

02:25:37 comments and opinions in relation to particular tests no i was not nobody raised that with you at the time no

02:25:43 no can you help was it common practice at the bre for employees to provide unofficial comments to sponsors in relation to bsa414 testing not in my experience no was it permitted

02:25:55 experience no was it permitted no was it banned is it is it prohibited i don't know about i mean not permitted is the same really as being banned that's that's that is correct was it was it prohibited

02:26:07 it prohibited yes right what safeguards were in place to make sure that um

02:26:13 um those in charge in the burn hall of tests under 8414 did not give unofficial comments to test sponsors what were the safeguards in place well it's the same as um the

02:26:25 place well it's the same as um the provision of advice and consultancy right it's you know it's the same principles that apply to that right did

02:26:35 right did did you ever come across an occasion when

02:26:38 when uh one of your bern hall staff perhaps might have demonstrated an ignorance of the difference between

02:26:48 between uh

02:26:49 uh giving advice and

02:26:52 and stating facts observed not that i can recall no did you ever come across an instance where

02:27:00 where you're one of your bre staff in the burn hall

02:27:03 hall um

02:27:04 um thought they weren't giving advice but were

02:27:08 were giving comments or observations about what they were seeing um in other words the benefit of their expertise

02:27:16 expertise in a more general sense not directly no um but as we just explored a little bit earlier you know that

02:27:25 that certain observations are permitted when they're a statement of fact you know you can see it it's self-evident but you can sort of confirm that yes i've now terminated the test because i've

02:27:37 terminated the test because i've extinguished the crib um

02:27:40 um i mean there's nothing wrong with saying that but then it's it's that line that you cross and as far as i was aware people were clear

02:27:50 clear that they were not to provide sort of any assistance to test sponsors that might in any way assist them in

02:28:01 in um passing passing a test you say as far as you were aware people were clear what led you to think that people were clear that they were not to provide any sort of assistance to certain test sponsors well i never had any evidence

02:28:13 sponsors well i never had any evidence to show they weren't so i mean it was a case of

02:28:16 case of um

02:28:18 um it's difficult to prove something if it's not happened but you know in general discussions with people i mean people would would say that back to you people

02:28:30 that back to you people um

02:28:31 um obviously the training was carried out as well and and people would in conversation would say that the things well that you were expecting them

02:28:42 things well that you were expecting them to say nobody said anything that sort of contradicted that and led me to think hang on a minute this this person doesn't understand what they're talking about can you explain why we've never

02:28:55 about can you explain why we've never seen a record of any bre employee ever telling iva meredith that unofficial comments could not and would not be provided

02:29:04 provided no record of that what there's no record of the record of the bre going back to kingspan and say i'm sorry we don't we're not in the business of providing unofficial comments you'll get our test report

02:29:17 comments you'll get our test report well i'm not sure that was ever raised by kingspan was it i'm not

02:29:21 i'm not were any of our staff aware that they were being it was being suggested they were giving unofficial guidance because if we if they weren't then we're not going to go and write to somebody to say

02:29:34 go and write to somebody to say for the record we don't give unofficial um

02:29:38 um observations or whatever well the answer to your question since you asked me about the evidence is yes uh and my answer my question to you back is

02:29:47 is given that kingspan asked the bre for their unofficial comments can you explain why no bre employee went back to them and said i'm sorry we're not in the business of giving unofficial comments you'll get

02:29:59 of giving unofficial comments you'll get our report no can we then look at the ways in which kingspan used their test to be s8414 part one from may 2005 in the marketing of k15 um first let's go please to kin four

02:30:11 um first let's go please to kin four zeros five one seven nine this is an internal kingspan email chain from june 2006 so just over a year after their bs8414 part one test in may 2004 and

02:30:25 bs8414 part one test in may 2004 and five and if we go to the email at the very top of the chain it is an email from iva meredith to kilpb technical services

02:30:32 services k-15 promotional literature and it says please note the k-15 what's lurking behind your facade for layer has been withdrawn by the marketing department partly because it's

02:30:43 department partly because it's considered not a good sales tactic to highlight the fact that you don't need class naught below 18 meters also the bre have complained about the use of the word approved and certification in our text these are

02:30:55 certification in our text these are privileged the privileges that would cost us an extra 20 an additional 20k now

02:31:01 now that's an internal kingspan email if we look at the marketing flyer that he's talking about it is at kin40s 5350 and if you look at that under the first red section of text that document reads

02:31:15 red section of text that document reads kingspan

02:31:17 kingspan uh

02:31:18 uh cool firm this is just below halfway down kingspan cool therm k-15 rain screen board has not only been tested by the building research establishment bre and awarded certification to bs 8414

02:31:30 certification to bs 8414 part 1 2002 but it has also been assessed and approved in accordance with br135

02:31:37 br135 now that language is to be blunt inaccurate and misleading is it not yes it is um bs 8414 doesn't certify anything does it no it does not it's a test method absolutely and a

02:31:48 it's a test method absolutely and a product can't be tested to be s8414 or approved to be r135 can it no it can't only a system can can't it correct have you seen this document before i don't recall

02:31:59 recall do you know who it was at biari who made the complaint that either meredith refers to about the content of this marketing flyer not off the top of my head no

02:32:07 head no in his evidence attorney meredith told the inquiry it's day 75 page one two four line seven that it might have been tony baker okay uh he told us that that wasn't the case and he would

02:32:18 that that wasn't the case and he would have assumed that it was either you or sarah colwell who dealt with that that's day 100 page 54 lines five to nine is that right was it you i don't recall that right and certainly

02:32:29 i don't recall that right and certainly the person that was running the testing and certification business within um the bre group at that time it may well have been him him being tony baker no philip field

02:32:42 him being tony baker no philip field phillip field yes i'm sorry because your name didn't that name didn't come up on the in your answer you think about it with philip field who contacted

02:32:53 philip field who contacted uh

02:32:53 uh who contacted kingspan yes and told them off it may be right

02:32:58 right but you don't know no i i don't know did this incident do you remember give any rise to give rise to any wider concerns within bre about kingspan's approach

02:33:08 approach and and tactics in the market um

02:33:13 um well as i think we've already touched on there were concerns about the way that the con the insulation industry were

02:33:25 um aggressively marketing and challenging each other in the market in the marketplace so we we had an awareness that there were issues particularly in the insulation industry

02:33:38 particularly in the insulation industry um

02:33:39 um and an awareness but um you know beyond that i can't really comment right i mean being more specific do you remember

02:33:51 being more specific do you remember whether there were any concerns within the in the bre about the way kingspan presented

02:33:57 presented k15s fire safety credentials to its market

02:34:03 market well i mean clearly there would have been around this yes and that led to to to the complaint that you're referring to

02:34:11 to and did that give rise to wider concerns about its attitude um

02:34:17 um i would guess it would have done yes let's move on then to some correspondence from february 2008 at clg one triple zero three five seven six

02:34:28 one triple zero three five seven six this is an email exchange between philip reid

02:34:32 reid of euroclad and eurobond uh

02:34:36 uh and

02:34:37 and uh

02:34:39 uh uh well sorry not of he was representing them in fact and brian martin who at this stage uh i think is this right was still with

02:34:50 uh i think is this right was still with the bre

02:34:51 the bre it's early 2008 um i'm not sure um you're not sure no uh if you look at the first email in the chain

02:35:02 chain um we can see that it comes we go up up up the chain to the top you can see that it comes to you from brian martin yes yes and you can see below that brian

02:35:14 yes yes and you can see below that brian martin's response back to philip reid and let's look then at the substantive email that philip reed sends which comes

02:35:25 email that philip reed sends which comes to you from brian martin for info and he says this in the third paragraph we have serious concerns about the fire safety surrounding certain types of composite panels and feel

02:35:36 composite panels and feel that the current standards and regulations need to be reviewed to ensure people's lives are not put at risk unnecessarily there is a belief that there are loopholes in the existing framework that allows some manufacturers to offer products that are misleading in

02:35:47 to offer products that are misleading in their sales documentation and are a genuine fire risk for the public i have attached a very basic briefing paper which covers some of the issues in more detail

02:35:57 detail obviously the issue surrounding lps 1181 is an issue that you understand well

02:36:03 it would be excellent to receive your views on the mata whilst we recognize the standard emanates from the insurance sector we feel some manufacturers are misusing the standard in terms of fire safety we are very interested to find

02:36:14 safety we are very interested to find out the position on this issue from the relevant divisions within the dclg if possible it would be would it it would also be useful to meet with the right people to see how this can be pursued i look forward to hearing from from you

02:36:26 i look forward to hearing from from you in the near future now uh

02:36:29 now uh this appears to have if you look at the first paragraph to have followed a discussion on the telephone between them earlier that day yes and brian martin looking up at the next email responds

02:36:41 looking up at the next email responds some 15 minutes later

02:36:46 to mr reed telling him to take the matter up with trading standards that's the thrust of it yes i as you can see

02:36:57 as you can see yes yes and then it comes to you from him saying debbie for info do you know why brian martin ford did this in his email to you um

02:37:06 um no i don't have you been discussing any of the the issues mentioned in philip reid's email with brian martin before he forwarded the email to you um i don't

02:37:17 forwarded the email to you um i don't recall that um [Music]

02:37:21 [Music] and the reference to lps 1181 is is somewhat

02:37:25 somewhat odd

02:37:26 odd why is it odd um because that's an insurance standard and it's nothing to do with the approved document or the building regulations

02:37:41 uh well we could explore that a little bit more but i think time is short and i don't think we need to but but um did this email chain come out of the blue to you or had there been some sort of discussion with brian martin before this

02:37:53 discussion with brian martin before this which would have meant that you would have understood the in what all this was about i don't recall do recall at some point and i think i put that in my witness statement because there was a

02:38:04 witness statement because there was a question around um marketing claims and so on and i put in there that i do recall having had a call with from advertising standards

02:38:18 but i'm not sure when that was and it was around

02:38:24 definitions and so on of limited combustibility and non-combustible and so on and it may be that that was all part and parcel and wrapped up with this as well

02:38:36 as well now in that third paragraph i read to you where he refers to loopholes in the existing framework did you go back to brian martin and ask him what he understood all that meant i don't remember what the discussion with brian

02:38:47 remember what the discussion with brian was directly on this did you agree in 2008 that such loopholes existed um

02:38:59 yeah i mean i don't know what those loopholes were so it's difficult for me to um to answer that really did you not want to ask brian martin given that at this time this stage he was still i think at the bre but but

02:39:11 still i think at the bre but but certainly by this time had been uh

02:39:14 uh was embedded in the department three days a week so he had some kind of insight into what was going on in government did you not want to ask him well what are these loopholes in the existing

02:39:25 are these loopholes in the existing framework that offers that allows some manufacturers to offer products that are misleading well i may have done but i don't recall what the nature of that discussion was

02:39:36 were you aware of any manufacturers creating misleading sales documentation as philip reid says in his email um well in so far as the advertising standards authority were

02:39:49 the advertising standards authority were concerned i mean they spoke to me in very generic terms on the telephone they didn't

02:39:54 didn't name

02:39:55 name individual companies but it was clear that there was something evidently going on [Music]

02:40:04 [Music] but they were asking in a very generic way

02:40:06 way about definitions and and so on and where where they could find those

02:40:15 if we go and look at brian martin's response to philip reid in detail he says many thanks for your email as i explained today if you're concerned that a manufacturer is deliberately

02:40:26 a manufacturer is deliberately misleading people with its literature then this is something that should be taken up with the relevant trading standards authority i understand that europe bond have already made such a complaint to the advertising standards authority and this has in part been

02:40:37 authority and this has in part been upheld

02:40:38 upheld what was your reaction when you read that

02:40:42 that um

02:40:43 um that that's the correct route that any uh misleading claims and so on should be brought to the attention of the trading standards authority did you

02:40:54 the trading standards authority did you know anything about eurobond's complaint to the advertising standards authority not specifically no if we then go to bre 4940

02:41:03 4940 and go to page three this is an email of the 14th of february 2008 so you can see 1528 and we can see that philip reed who's the author

02:41:14 who's the author is is writing to in fact this is david sugden at the pfpf subject fire safety concerns in public buildings

02:41:25 buildings and if we move up the email chain to the very end of page one we can see that on the 25th of february 2008

02:41:35 at the very foot of the page that email um goes to carol atkinson i think he was the bre ceo at the time yes um the bre global ceo right yes yes

02:41:48 the bre global ceo right yes yes and that then gets if you look up the chain forwarded to you by angela richards on her behalf on the 26th of february yes yes and she asks you to prepare a response asap to send to

02:42:00 prepare a response asap to send to philip reed yes yes and then the next email up in the chain we see an an email from uh angela richards to you

02:42:09 you was she um carol atkinson's uh pa or um well part of her office and not her pa and such but part of her team she had a team all right supporting

02:42:21 team she had a team all right supporting and she says in her email uh uh

02:42:26 uh uh she says we have had second thoughts it would be better to invite philip reed in i will do this tying typing up with your diaries and then your response at the top

02:42:40 and then your response at the top on the 26th of february 2008 to angela richards

02:42:45 richards is

02:42:46 is angela we need to think about this and be very careful this is eurobond waging war against kingspan which is a constant battle that never goes away for long happy to talk through in more detail tomorrow debbie

02:42:58 tomorrow debbie yes

02:42:59 yes how have you concluded that this complaint related to kingspan i don't know at the time i mean all i can say is you know we were aware of this battle that was going on in the insulation industry

02:43:11 insulation industry in general and

02:43:13 and you know it was constant but as part of this battle did you know by now that kingspan were making claims of the kind that we saw in the

02:43:25 saw in the flyer about which bre had complained i don't recall seeing that i mean i remember seeing some of the advertising material

02:43:37 advertising material um

02:43:38 um which

02:43:39 which all in all got quite shoddy um involving dead rats and so on um

02:43:48 rats dead rats what was that about um it was one part of the insulation industry or one

02:43:58 one company

02:44:00 company trying to convey the view that they're one of their competitors insulation was toxic

02:44:07 toxic whereas theirs wasn't you know it was all

02:44:11 all right well we don't need to investigate the mammals um yeah

02:44:19 um yeah why did you need to be very careful as you say

02:44:21 you say um

02:44:23 um it was important that we did not become entrenched in those battles and did not want to be partisan with any one particular side we

02:44:36 partisan with any one particular side we had to make sure that we were impartial and independent and maintained um our you know the right position we didn't want to be um you know stepping

02:44:48 didn't want to be um you know stepping stepping into one area or the other did philip reed get an invitation to come in and discuss these matters i'm not sure i'm not sure whether he did or not and i'm not sure if i would have

02:44:59 not and i'm not sure if i would have been directly involved in that because as you can see so when i was talking about philip field earlier that's the he's copied into these emails as well

02:45:15 right um

02:45:18 um mr chairman i'm still in this quite long topic but i'm going to change to a different document there's there is no chance we will finish this evening i'm afraid well is that a better point at which to stop it might be it's been a

02:45:29 which to stop it might be it's been a long a long day and i'm conscious that the witness has had an awful lot of questions and there's many documents to look at and it may be more sensible before we plough on with this topic to give her a break well dr smith

02:45:41 give her a break well dr smith you were probably hoping that you'd finish your evidence today and perhaps we were hoping that as well but i'm afraid it hasn't worked out that way you can't be very sure about these things so i'm going to have to ask you to come back

02:45:51 back and continue giving evidence tomorrow yes

02:45:55 yes can you give us any idea how long we might be tomorrow i could say this much looking at my notes and subject to any further questions overnight uh we will we are most unlikely to go beyond lunchtime

02:46:07 most unlikely to go beyond lunchtime tomorrow with this witness well they are there's some indication okay i don't think you can hold us to it but

02:46:13 but we'll do our best all right well we'll break there we'll resume then please at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning okay and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break okay all right yes thank you very

02:46:24 break okay all right yes thank you very much when you go to the usher then please

02:46:36 thank you very much mr minute 10 o'clock tomorrow