Deborah Burger gives evidence about inheriting RS5000 product management at Celotex. She describes shock at learning test 'tweaks' including hidden magnesium oxide boards, the 'test get a pass launch' corporate culture, and how concerns about test manipulation were like 'a secret' she and Jamie Hayes couldn't discuss openly.
00:00:17 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to begin today by hearing evidence from i think the last of the witnesses who at the time were interested in was employed by celetics
00:00:30 interested in was employed by celetics yes good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel yes that's quite right so i now call miss debra berger please
00:00:49 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
00:00:54 truth thank you very much this is dharmas burger make yourself comfortable thank you all right there's some water there if you would like it and leave it to you to take it when you're ready yes mr miller
00:01:06 take it when you're ready yes mr miller yes mr chairman thank you mr first of all can i start by thanking you very much for coming today to the inquiry
00:01:13 inquiry and helping us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you uh if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i'm asking you or you want me to repeat them i'm very happy to either to repeat or to formulate the
00:01:25 either to repeat or to formulate the question in a different way if you need a break at any time please let us know we intend to take a break mid-morning for you and for the shorthand writer the short-hand writer is sitting to your
00:01:37 short-hand writer is sitting to your immediate right so please do try and keep your voice up so that she can get down what you're saying and can i just also add to that that if you nod or shake your head that doesn't come out on the transcript
00:01:48 that doesn't come out on the transcript so if you say yes or no as the case may be
00:01:50 be that would be very helpful now you've made a statement to the inquiry date of the
00:01:55 the 25th of october 2018 can i show you that yes it'll be on the screen in front of you but it'll also be in the file on the desk in front of you as well if you want to look at the hard
00:02:06 as well if you want to look at the hard copy
00:02:07 copy but we'll be working together from the screen in front of you looking at the documents as they come up thank you is that your is that your statement looking at the first page oh yes
00:02:16 yes yes it is yes and the reference is
00:02:21 five cel3010555 everybody's benefit um now if you go to page 70 in that document you can see a signature just above the date of the 25th of october 2018. is that your signature yes it is have
00:02:33 is that your signature yes it is have you read this witness statement recently yes i have now subject to some corrections that i know you've told us that you would like to make to it are the contents true yes they are now
00:02:45 are the contents true yes they are now so far as those corrections are concerned
00:02:47 concerned can i take you please first of all to page 93
00:02:51 page 93 which is a page for a page paragraph 93 at page 29.
00:03:00 and you'll see there that you are talking about the report in the second line
00:03:06 line uh the bre report and you say that it was sent to me by jamie hayes shortly before our conversation yes would you wish to make a correction to that yes please
00:03:17 that yes please what is the correction um on on on listening to um and reviewing jamie's evidence um i i just wondered
00:03:28 um i i just wondered if maybe he did send me the report so we queried it and it's and um john roper sent me the report so the correction you want to make is this right is to swap the name of jamie hayes
00:03:40 right is to swap the name of jamie hayes out and put the name of john roper in yes please right and we will come to a document into your course which shows that similarly
00:03:47 similarly if you go to paragraph 189 which you'll find
00:03:51 find on pages 50 and 51 and i think we start we actually pick the passage up in page 51. yes
00:04:01 51. yes uh you uh you say there um in the in the third line by reference to jamie hayes after he had
00:04:12 by reference to jamie hayes after he had sent me the 32-page bre report i believe he sent me that report on 27th of
00:04:17 of october and you go on to say that's because you've seen an email chain again is there a correction you wish to make to that paragraph yes i believe john roper sent me the email with the test report attached to it so
00:04:28 with the test report attached to it so again is the is the correction from the identification of jamie hayes to the identification of john roper instead as the person who sent you that report yes right thank you and finally
00:04:39 report yes right thank you and finally paragraph 190 if you look at that just below that you can see that in that paragraph you can see three lines uh up from the end of that paragraph you
00:04:50 uh up from the end of that paragraph you refer to jamie hayes there and then in the last sentence you say i had a more detailed conversation with jamie hayes after the 32-page report was sent to me on the 27th of october and just to be
00:05:01 on the 27th of october and just to be clear again is that a reference to the 32-page report sent to you in fact by john ropers yes it is and so that that sentence needs to be read in that light is that correct yes
00:05:14 read in that light is that correct yes please yes thank you very much now subject to those corrections uh are the contents of this statement true to the best of my knowledge thank you have you discussed the evidence that you're going to give today with
00:05:25 that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here only with my legal team right uh now uh now you joined celetex in january 2010 didn't you yes and your background was in customer services am i
00:05:36 background was in customer services am i right correct and is it right that initially you were employed as a technical services officer yes and i don't think you had any technical background though did you no so you learnt technical services as
00:05:48 no so you learnt technical services as it were on on the job yes and is it right that you then took over from jonathan ropa as product product manager on the 1st of october 2014
00:05:59 manager on the 1st of october 2014 yes and before you did that before the 1st of october 2014 who was your line manager uh mr rob warren
00:06:08 warren rob warren and after you took over the role of product manager who was your line manager mr paul evans paul evans and from october 2014 until you left celetex in 2018 i think
00:06:19 celetex in 2018 i think it is you were a product manager is that right
00:06:24 right from 2014 yes yes to yes to the time you left yes yes and in that role is it right that you were responsible for rs 5000 as a product yes
00:06:35 rs 5000 as a product yes yes now i want to ask you one or two questions about your familiarity with approved document b if you go to your witness statement which is on the screen at the moment and go to page 20
00:06:46 go to page 20 let's look together at paragraph 56 um underneath the heading regulations in the above 18 meter market and in in that paragraph you see that you say that your understanding of the
00:06:58 you say that your understanding of the applicable regulations were fairly limited and standard
00:07:02 standard and then you go on to say in the second line and was derived mainly from training given by jamie hayes in around october 2010 and then you refer to a document let's look at that document it's cel408500
00:07:14 look at that document it's cel408500 please
00:07:19 this is the document db9 which you exhibit
00:07:22 exhibit and you can see from the first page that it's a draft and is internal and is entitled incorporates buildings
00:07:33 and is entitled incorporates buildings above 18 meters requirements of compliance with fire regulations technical briefing and if you go to page two of that document
00:07:42 document you can see at the top right hand corner this is version two draft 26th of october
00:07:47 october 2010 and there are the contents there do you remember whether this is a document that was given to all tsos technical services officers at the time
00:07:59 at the time i think so right and was it used as a as part of a like a seminar or oral presentation exercise
00:08:10 i think what do you mean presentation was it was it handed out and then somebody spoke about its contents
00:08:17 contents i believe so yes right i think so let's look at page four i just want to ask you one or two questions about class naught and limited combustibility there if you look at page four halfway done
00:08:28 if you look at page four halfway done you can see that there's a a um a heading class naught which has been highlighted and there's manuscript on that page can you identify that manuscript the
00:08:39 can you identify that manuscript the writing is mine it's yours yes and if we look at class nord it says this means that the product has been tested to bs 476 part 7 surface spread of flame and bs 476 part 6 fire propagation and
00:08:52 and bs 476 part 6 fire propagation and achieves a suitable result the insulation board is therefore defined as class naught for the purposes of building regulations and then it goes on after that uh non-combustible has it has a heading
00:09:06 non-combustible has it has a heading there
00:09:09 and if you go a little bit further down you can see that there is a list of tests which are tests for non-combustibility
00:09:23 which are tests for non-combustibility yes you see that uh and then at the very bottom of the page if we can scroll down to that please
00:09:33 underneath those bullet point test lists it says rigid pir insulations such as celotex would not be suitable to be classed as non-combustible materials
00:09:44 and if you look a little bit up the page
00:09:48 you can see uh that this class naught set up above that as we've seen did you understand that there was a difference between class naught on the
00:09:59 difference between class naught on the one hand
00:10:00 one hand and the concept of non-combustible on the other
00:10:04 the other no you didn't understand i accepted they were different you accepted they were different
00:10:08 different yes right that's what i wanted to ask you yes now if you um look at the handwriting which you say is yours you can see looking back at class naught there's a reference there to fire propagation with a ring rounded
00:10:20 propagation with a ring rounded with a line out to the left-hand margin which says through the product you see that
00:10:24 that yes and then underneath it you've written um fire growth eg heat release and ability to accelerate fire growth yes now what did you mean there by through the product
00:10:36 by through the product do you remember no i don't remember i really don't know let's see how far we go with your recollection were you told do you think that
00:10:43 that this was the basis on which celetex marketed its products namely as class naught throughout are you are you referring specifically to rs 5000 or i'm referring to rs 5000 or fr 5000 as
00:10:56 i'm referring to rs 5000 or fr 5000 as it then was
00:10:59 i can only recall as talking about the product um rs 5000 is classified to class o i'm not sure if i understand that to referring or through the product right i don't i don't know now you can
00:11:11 right i don't i don't know now you can see from the text that there's a reference to surface spread of flame bs 476 part 7 surface spread of flame do you remember at the time whether you had any doubts about what the phrase
00:11:23 had any doubts about what the phrase class naught throughout actually meant whether it had any meaning no i didn't i that's through the product no i just i understood the rs 5000 is a
00:11:34 no i just i understood the rs 5000 is a composite product whereas it has a foil facer and a foam core and as far as i was concerned the surface spread of flame was on foil facer and the fire propagation
00:11:45 on foil facer and the fire propagation was the product it was just just i didn't unders i didn't separate the core from the phaser i don't think i did i see i'm just trying to get
00:11:56 trying to get to to understand the origin of where of why it was that you wrote through the product
00:12:01 product and who did anyone tell you that part six of bs476 fire propagation meant that the uh the fame itself
00:12:12 that the uh the fame itself was class naught
00:12:15 i don't recall right sorry now jamie hayes said in his evidence and then i can show you the transcript i
00:12:27 and then i can show you the transcript i perhaps ought to it's dave 74 page 35 lines 13 to 17. we can just look at that but his the basic point he said in his he made in his evidence was that
00:12:39 his evidence was that class nought on celetex's marketing literature was just a marketing proposition and had no technical relevance
00:12:45 relevance uh and i just want to put that to you if you look at lines 13 to 17 on that page yes the question is at line 10 what would class naught signify to a buyer what would it allow the buyer to do which without class
00:12:57 the buyer to do which without class naught it couldn't and his answer was nothing i don't believe i'm not aware of any application that celetex was offering products into where class naught or in fact fire performance in general had any
00:13:08 fire performance in general had any relevancy so i believe that the giving of the pr plot product class naught was solely a marketing proposition do you agree with that yes thank you now
00:13:19 do you agree with that yes thank you now mr hayes also told us just a little bit later in his transcript at page 36 uh and lines 22 to 25 is perhaps easier just to show you that
00:13:33 at line 22
00:13:37 uh the question was technically speaking did the concept of class naught throughout the entire product actually have any real meaning answer at line 25 no i don't i mean i can only assume that if you
00:13:49 can only assume that if you tested something to class naught you would submit your samples to the test body
00:13:53 body they would do whatever tests were correct to do and so actually to say it's throughout the product is again it's just a marketing proposition i think
00:14:00 think again ms burger do you agree with that i do thank you now with that background can i then take you to
00:14:08 you to an email in 2017 february 2017 at cel402064
00:14:14 cel402064 please
00:14:17 please and i'd like to show you the bottom of page two in that email run
00:14:23 which is an email to you from joe mahoney
00:14:28 mahoney on the 7th of february 2017 and he asks the question or states in the product sheet data sheet we state has class
00:14:37 has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with bs476 and if we turn the page he says i am sure the wording was chosen
00:14:48 he says i am sure the wording was chosen carefully and i know what we are trying to say but to me it risks being misleading since the court is not class naught what do you think and if we then um look up you can see that you you
00:15:01 um look up you can see that you you answer
00:15:02 answer can you and you say to him on page two next day
00:15:06 next day i thought it was class naught joe isn't it fr
00:15:10 it fr now first of all do you remember what the context was in which he was asking you that question and you were giving him the answer i do not
00:15:20 they weren't uh do you know why he was raising this question with you no can we just go back to his his email did it you know he says at the top
00:15:32 email did it you know he says at the top of the next page
00:15:35 it risks being misleading since the core is not class naught did that concern you at the time did you did you begin to be worried that no marketing literally not at all why is that i'm aware that
00:15:46 that i'm aware that um after um june 14th 2017 i was aware there was lots of different information coming out of celetex and one of them was about class o
00:15:57 class o and that was really the first time that i realized there was a problem with the class o test i i literally i didn't have
00:16:09 i i literally i didn't have i didn't read anything into this email i didn't think anything about it right i really didn't i just assumed it was an it was something to do with something technical with the product something to do with
00:16:21 product something to do with i don't know lots of different things happened with the product in the development team i thought it was just something else i had no idea what he was referring to right did he not concern you as product
00:16:32 right did he not concern you as product manager at the time that celetex is marketing literature was at risk of being misleading in this respect
00:16:45 i'm not sure i'm not sure at the time i'm not sure at the time i understood it to be misleading no but he did he thought there was a risk of it being misleading and i'd
00:16:57 risk of it being misleading and i'd wanted to know whether given that joe mahoney
00:17:01 mahoney who was a senior executive or certainly senior to you is that right yes given that he thought that the marketing literature risked being misleading since the clause class not i just wondered whether
00:17:12 not i just wondered whether you had any reaction to that and and thought that it might be necessary to change the marketing literature so as not to mislead customers the the class the classification of the
00:17:24 the the class the classification of the products
00:17:25 products being class o is something i um i wouldn't know how to change i wouldn't know how to approach that subject with
00:17:36 subject with with people i mean joe joe has sent me this email and i've reviewed it in my evidence leading up to this inquiry but
00:17:48 this inquiry but i didn't i'm sorry i didn't see it as i either missed the detail in my time reading this email or it doesn't it just
00:17:59 reading this email or it doesn't it just doesn't register with me as anything right it just doesn't register with me right i may have i may have just misled i'm not i'm reading that sorry i may have just
00:18:12 reading that sorry i may have just not i don't know i just haven't seen the detail right i don't know what happened you don't know what happened do we take it from that you although you'd seen this email you weren't concerned about it at the time sufficiently to raise the matter with
00:18:23 sufficiently to raise the matter with your
00:18:24 your immediate line manager i think i should have been absolutely 100 i'm not i looking at this detail now i absolutely yes perhaps i should have
00:18:35 i absolutely yes perhaps i should have been
00:18:36 been like raising it with my line manager mr paul evans but at the time it seems that i may have missed this detail or
00:18:43 detail or i didn't feel it was my something that i could
00:18:47 could cope with or something i could deal with or something i perhaps i didn't know how how to go about it i don't know just on that it sounds as if you're saying that there
00:18:58 it sounds as if you're saying that there was a some sort of cultural system in celetex whereby if an employee in your position had discovered that something was wrong and that marketing literature was
00:19:09 and that marketing literature was misleading customers there wasn't really anywhere you could go with that now that's my reading of what you've just told us is that fair or is that not fair
00:19:20 i think it's i think that i think there have been
00:19:23 have been i've had two different experiences within cenotex where i've been able to escalate and talk about things which aren't right um and the first time didn't go very
00:19:34 um and the first time didn't go very well
00:19:34 well at all but the second time there was a product after the grenfell there was a product and i was able to i was asked to talk to someone about a complaint
00:19:45 complaint on one of the products and when i saw the complaint i knew instantly what was wrong
00:19:50 wrong with with the projects and what happened and when i shared what i knew with the director i think the following day the product was taken off the market right so that was
00:20:03 right so that was that was an experience of where if when i was doing my job and reporting things in
00:20:08 in it was being noticed but previously when i have done my job and reported things in
00:20:13 in i don't think i don't know it was just it was
00:20:17 it was it was very busy it was very it was very difficult to collect i don't know it's very difficult to articulate right now i understand just unpick that a little bit and this so this is after the fire
00:20:29 so this is after the fire yes the complaint had come in about a particular product yes what was the product um it was a flat roofing product was it fr 5000 or fr 4000 i don't know it wasn't to do with
00:20:42 4000 i don't know it wasn't to do with the fire performance of the product it was another technical detail to do with the product and what was the nature of the complaint um well can i i'm not can i say i mean
00:20:53 well can i i'm not can i say i mean like yeah i mean basically the roof blew off and the roof blew off in anglesey right and my memory of it today because it was three years ago some as i
00:21:04 because it was three years ago some as i reclaim
00:21:05 reclaim as i recollect it today
00:21:08 there was a problem with how the facer was adhered to the foam on the product and it wasn't failing it was it wasn't it was failing the tests it was something i was involved with
00:21:19 was something i was involved with because we were working towards a bba certificate and it was one of the criteria that the facer was attached firmly to the foam otherwise if it was glued down it could blow off and that's exactly what
00:21:30 blow off and that's exactly what happened
00:21:31 happened on this particular project so when i was asked to
00:21:34 asked to view it and this i think this was probably early 2017 to sorry yeah early early 2018 sorry um when i was asked to view it i
00:21:47 sorry um when i was asked to view it i i thought well i know what's happened there i think i know what's happened there and then when i shared it and then when i shared the story i actually got a little bit upset because i said it's like rs all over
00:21:58 because i said it's like rs all over again
00:21:59 again and they said what do you mean and i said well who who would i tell who do i tell when these things go wrong and they and the director at the time said well you can tell me he was the director it was the finance
00:22:10 he was the director it was the finance director there's a female finance director at the time who was that oh i can't remember right i think i think
00:22:21 i think i think i really can't recall her name i'm sorry okay but anyway you said it was like rs all over again what do you mean by that it was just that there were times when i
00:22:32 it was just that there were times when i had tried to talk to i found things out um things had been shared with me after my post into product management and i looked after rs 5000
00:22:44 in the first three or four weeks really things were shared with me about the testing of the product
00:22:51 and then when i tried to be honest and open about it and talk to people about it um it didn't really go very it didn't go very far okay we'll come to the detail of that
00:23:02 the detail of that later on i think this morning um you said there were i think two instances i mean the first one didn't go very well that's the one i'm talking about yeah did you right well just and we will come to the detail but did
00:23:14 and we will come to the detail but did you try to escalate your concerns at the time
00:23:17 time this is late 2014 i think no i didn't because um i didn't try and escalate my concerns because i didn't know how to if i'm honest with you
00:23:28 honest with you i didn't know i was very new to the job i was new to i've never been involved with testing before i never never viewed a test certificate before i was very very new to the job
00:23:39 before i was very very new to the job and i relied on people around me to really help me with that what was it that didn't go well
00:23:48 you said it the first time it didn't go well i thought i was doing the right thing
00:23:51 thing by reporting the tweaks i found on the design of the 8414 part 2 test i thought i was doing my job by reporting those tweets by
00:24:03 reporting those tweets by telling mr evans about those um as i as i remembered them at the time yeah i thought i i thought that was i thought that was news
00:24:14 thought that was news right i really did what did he say do you remember i can't remember if i'm honest
00:24:18 honest i think the emails i can only it's it i'm not sure it's the emails that have
00:24:25 have that i've used to really job my memory and bring this order you know into my statement now you've heard you said tweets you referred the tweets to him what's that a reference to
00:24:36 that a reference to the things that um some of the things that mr roper revealed to me in the handover and also some of the things mr hayes revealed to me in the handover okay well we'll come to those
00:24:48 okay well we'll come to those very shortly uh just just bef just coming back to where we were uh
00:24:56 i i think you could just go to the head of this email run there's one further question i think all set of questions i've got for you on this
00:25:06 this um he responds to you on the 8th of february on page 1 by saying yes but not throughout the product product and you then say at the top okay we can discuss later when we meet
00:25:17 discuss later when we meet do you remember whether you did have a discussion with you i really don't you don't
00:25:20 don't i don't remember now you can see that the topic um or subject matter of this this email run is rs fire claims what was that about you know
00:25:34 i know in early 2017 i don't i don't know
00:25:37 know i don't recall this email um specifically but um as i look at this now and i speak to you now about this i think i do remember in early 2017
00:25:49 i think i do remember in early 2017 we were doing um there was some call from the market for a european fire class so at that time the product had only a classo fire performance i
00:26:00 had only a classo fire performance i think
00:26:01 think for fire engineers they wanted if i remember this correctly and i think fire engineers wanted more information and as such the euro class um we needed to test the
00:26:12 the euro class um we needed to test the product to and i think fire claims i don't know i'm i'm trying i don't know i think maybe it's to do with that right but you don't okay you don't know
00:26:23 right but you don't okay you don't know i don't know for sure no it's not concrete in my mind now i just want to ask you about the corporate culture at celetex we've covered a little bit of that can we go to your statement please
00:26:34 that can we go to your statement please at page 12. and let's look together at paragraph 25. you say there sang about acquired celetex while i was working there it i felt there were different working
00:26:45 it i felt there were different working cultures between celetex and sangoban and i think it took a while for the two cultures to bed in together and that this spanned the buildup to the launch of rs 5000 and continued for some time after that as well
00:26:57 after that as well and in the next paragraph paragraph 26 you say this i felt that the approach to product development was very different my understanding of the celetex approach was along the lines of test get a past
00:27:08 was along the lines of test get a past launch
00:27:08 launch in contrast my understanding was that the sango ban approach was along the lines of test pass fail learn retest pass fail learn some more and launch 150 certain in other words testing to
00:27:20 150 certain in other words testing to understand its point of failure yes and and then you say i found the celetex culture under which i worked influenced the way i approached my job pre-june 2017
00:27:31 pre-june 2017 and then you go on to explain what happens after june 2017 with the appointment of the new technical director
00:27:37 director yes uh and you learned more about the way the sanker band did things another way of doing yes another way of doing things uh to be clear do you mean here the celotex culture of test get a
00:27:49 here the celotex culture of test get a pass launch really continued for you during your whole time as product manager yes thank you now you told us before that you took over as product manager
00:28:00 that you took over as product manager for rs 5000 from mr roper on the 1st of october 2014 but you had a handover from him in september of that year yes and you deal with that at paragraph 61 and following of your statement of
00:28:11 61 and following of your statement of page 49
00:28:14 page 49 and let's just look at paragraph 61 just to remind you what you say in that paragraph page 49.
00:28:32 uh
00:28:37 and uh you you say that i inherited rs 5000 as product manager on the first of october 2014 and in the third line you referred to mr roper planning a handover meeting during
00:28:48 roper planning a handover meeting during september 2014 while i was still working as a technical services officer officer and then you've got an email there and then a written summary is what you refer to in paragraph 62. let's just
00:29:01 62. let's just look at the written summary then this is a cell401024
00:29:09 that's the email he sends it he sends to you
00:29:12 you which is blank that's the one you refer to in your statement the handover document itself is that cel401025
00:29:20 cel401025 so that gives you the date the email gives you the date this gives you the document
00:29:25 document do you remember seeing this document at the time you do and it's entitled celetex rs 5000. just on that did you have any handover specifically in relation to any other product or just celetex
00:29:36 product or just celetex rs5000 um i had a handover on the oh yes there was another product that was handed over to me which was that
00:29:44 that it was a um it was in development it was a fulfill
00:29:48 a fulfill cavity wall um right solution and was there a similar document like this that john rapid prepared for that for that that product maybe i can't recall it but i'm sure there was right i see
00:29:59 i'm sure there was right i see yeah um and under overview it says celetex rs 5000 was launched on 5th of august 2014 following successful testing to bsa414 part 2 2005
00:30:12 testing to bsa414 part 2 2005 as celetex is premium solution for rain screen clouding applications below and above
00:30:16 above 18 meters the exclusion of celetex solutions in buildings above 18 meters in height
00:30:21 in height has historically been one of the main product gaps against phenolic and accounts for about 15 million pounds of kingspan's cool therm annual turnover celetex rs
00:30:32 cool therm annual turnover celetex rs 5000 passed on the second attempt of testing after a slight variation to the construction was made second time around
00:30:42 now you say in your statement that mr rayford talked you through the changes at that meeting did he tell you about the addition of a six millimeter magnesium oxide
00:30:53 of a six millimeter magnesium oxide panel at the level two thermocouples and also at the top of the rig no he didn't it didn't now let's look at the handwritten notes i think you did from that meeting
00:31:05 from that meeting uh this is cel4025555
00:31:13 cell402555 please are those those notes are those your notes of them yes they are now you can see the date in the top left hand corner 26th of september 2014.
00:31:24 september 2014. is that correct that's the date you refer to a paragraph 63 of your statement
00:31:29 statement uh yes and you can see at the top of the page that it refers to bs 8414 part 2 2005 defines test parameters br 135 assesses the results of fire test
00:31:40 br 135 assesses the results of fire test and gives the parcel fail yes is that something that mr roper explained to you yes i think he would have i think he well by my notes there i've written down um that there was a
00:31:52 i've written down um that there was a test
00:31:53 test and then there was a document which had the past fair criteria was this news to you this technical detail or was it something you'd had some training on in the past i was aware as a technical officer i was aware that
00:32:06 as a technical officer i was aware that these two documents but yeah yes and he then goes on a third of the way down the page to cover kingspan's k-15 product do you see it says kingspan 2006 tested
00:32:18 do you see it says kingspan 2006 tested to part one retested to part two recently in last three months cool firm 60 million pounds per year
00:32:30 cool firm 60 million pounds per year and then it says something same can you read that
00:32:35 can you can you read the source source comment
00:32:39 comment it's the source of the information that jonathan has john roper has found that information right what does it say source what comment intel it could be or could it be confidential
00:32:50 confidential no it's c-o-m-e-t comet and intel comet intel what what is comet intel
00:32:56 intel is it a a database an intelligence database
00:32:59 database oh yeah i think it might be i don't know for now right and then k15 15 million pounds biggest contributor to to something created a market and no one challenged it when you say created a market and no one
00:33:11 when you say created a market and no one challenged it what does that mean that's that i've written it down as he said it to me right did you understand him let me just take
00:33:22 did you understand him let me just take this slowly did did you think that john raper meant that
00:33:27 that k-15 had no commercial competitors above 18 meters
00:33:32 18 meters or did you think that he meant that no one had challenged the genuineness of the basis on which k-15 had acquired and maintained its market dominance do you think i think it was the first one you said
00:33:42 you said first right now underneath that on the right hand side of the page it reads nhbc historically yes 2014 not sure
00:33:53 yes 2014 not sure do you remember what that was about
00:33:59 oh yeah i think um nhpc historically have always accepted um but after sort of 2014 they perhaps weren't sure one so sure about
00:34:11 perhaps weren't sure one so sure about k-15 well you're in september 2014 uh and you say in your answer just now sort of
00:34:20 sort of but after sort of 2014 perhaps weren't so sure yeah do you remember what john roper was telling you on the 26th of september about what's happening in 2014 with the nhbc
00:34:32 what's happening in 2014 with the nhbc yes i think he was i think he was i think the 24 i think the 2014 is is references now right so at that time now currently um they weren't sure and what is what were
00:34:44 they weren't sure and what is what were they not sure about do you remember um well as i as i wrote that down i don't know but i i later went on to learn in my time
00:34:56 i later went on to learn in my time working with the product and engaging with the nhbc i later learned that um you know they had questions about the test so questions about who's test sorry i've
00:35:07 so questions about who's test sorry i've got confused so they had questions they had reason to question
00:35:13 question um the market the k-15 right so i see
00:35:22 i see and underneath that it says lobbying 8414 set criteria and set a standard pass fail was
00:35:33 and set a standard pass fail was what was that a reference to
00:35:38 again i've written it down as he said it to me i'm sure he's i'm sure he's put a set of words around that which is why which is why i've written it down but whether i've understood that or i
00:35:49 but whether i've understood that or i don't remember today i don't remember but i'm i'm sure if i've written it down he must have explained something to me right just above that i should have shown you this first it says tested masonry
00:36:00 masonry external k15 cement particle board cladding
00:36:03 cladding do you remember what that was about yeah that's the build up of the um that's the build-up of the 8414 test that kingspan did right as i understood
00:36:14 that kingspan did right as i understood it
00:36:15 it was it in that context that you wrote down or he said to you lobbying 8414. sorry yes right yes that is so who do you think was lobbying again i don't know if the the honest
00:36:27 again i don't know if the the honest answer is it's not it's not that i don't know i'm sure he would have said something
00:36:31 something it's whether it's stuck it's whether i've been aware of it or whether i've taken it in i don't know just i know it's
00:36:39 it's difficult to recall precisely a meeting six years ago but it was your impression at the time that the lobbying was being done by kingspan in relation to k-15 or whether it was whether celetex
00:36:51 or whether it was whether celetex had to go out and lobby no no i don't understand what he means there by lobbying i really don't and it certainly wasn't anything to do
00:37:02 and it certainly wasn't anything to do with celetex lobbying all right well let's pick this up a little bit later in the document if you go to page five please you can see two thirds of the way down the page on page five
00:37:11 page five uh that there is uh a box uh uh which says eight four one four provisions revisions and there is arrow lobby
00:37:22 revisions and there is arrow lobby with ks uh what's ks kingspan and what what was the reference to lobby with ks do you remember no no when um when
00:37:34 no no when um when i had this handover i was still working in
00:37:37 in the technical services team and there was a lot of new information a lot of technical information which was coming my way some of it i wrote down and i was present when jonathan
00:37:48 present when jonathan john roper was talking to me about this but i can't be sure that i took it all in and i can't be sure that i understood it and as i've written it down i can't be sure i fully understand what he said to me right
00:38:00 he said to me right and then let's see the next line down there's a
00:38:03 there's a little heading says benefits pir phenolic
00:38:07 phenolic accepted outside of a system test all competition on a level playing field yeah i don't know what that was about no i do
00:38:14 i do i spend time working with rs 5000 and understanding exactly the reality of what
00:38:21 what how the reality of how it was used on projects and on the commercial side of things you know i can put some meaning to these to these two lines but i when i wrote
00:38:32 to these two lines but i when i wrote this
00:38:32 this i i don't recall what he means by that i'm sure he was telling me something but it didn't register with me um what did you then come to learn later at celetex which which
00:38:44 celetex which which would enable you to explain these entries
00:38:47 entries now um
00:38:53 well i think the biggest the challenge the biggest challenge i experienced working with rs 5000 was how do people use it outside of its tested system so i can only i can only as i've reviewed these
00:39:05 i can only as i've reviewed these documents because i think once i've written this there's very few times i would have revisited what i've written here in my time as a product manager but in reviewing the documents i've seen this and my understanding
00:39:18 this and my understanding you know is is probably along the lines of
00:39:23 of i don't know you know
00:39:30 it could be that the kingsman were trying to
00:39:33 trying to you know find a way to get the systems all accepted
00:39:40 i am struggling to put some meaning behind that now let's go back to page two and that sets out rs 5000 yes there and you can see that it says 50
00:39:51 there and you can see that it says 50 000 pounds sales in two months rs 5000. on what you knew at the time was that a lot 50 000 pounds worth of sales in two months no i didn't know that you didn't know
00:40:03 no i didn't know that you didn't know one way or the other no i didn't know i followed i just wrote that and then you can you can see that the whole page um you can't see the whole page but it's got a test one at the top of the page thank you and paid and test two at the
00:40:14 thank you and paid and test two at the bottom of the page test one failed and you can see the build up underneath that and test two passed and you can see the build up under that if we look at the diagram of the second test
00:40:25 the second test um you can see there that the build up is um
00:40:29 is um listed
00:40:32 but there's no reference there to magnesium oxide or to the use of eight millimeter eternity panels is that because mr raper didn't mention that to you at this meeting
00:40:40 meeting that's exactly right did he tell you about any discussions that he'd had with the bre about the test rig used for the successful second test no
00:40:51 successful second test no did he tell you anything of celetex's involvement in the bre test report and how it came to be finalized
00:41:00 no did he tell you about any plan to make sure that the bre test report didn't refer to the presence of a layer of magnesium oxide
00:41:11 oxide or the presence of eight millimeter eternity
00:41:14 eternity no it wasn't a topic at all and it's happening
00:41:18 happening no um now
00:41:21 no um now if we look at your witness statement of page 23 paragraph 68 please i'll just pop back into that you say there
00:41:33 uh john rape highlighted nhbc concerns with the test the cladding thickness orientation and sheathing board the cladding thickness concern was because the boards tested were thicker
00:41:44 because the boards tested were thicker and were therefore not representative of what is commonly used the orientation concern
00:41:47 concern was because when installed there were fewer joints i.e fewer gaps between the cladding boards and therefore it was understood there would be less airflow within the cavity to fan of fire
00:42:00 did you take from that that the nhbc's concerns in particular were whether the rig as tested or at least as they understood that it had been tested
00:42:12 understood that it had been tested was properly representative was a properly representative system yes yes if we can then go back to your
00:42:23 yes yes if we can then go back to your note please
00:42:28 uh at page two uh we can see at the bottom right hand corner nhbc concerns three points cladding orientation sheathing board so that picks up that point and then at page five
00:42:40 point and then at page five we can see nhpc outcome at the top of the page agreed temp test build up engineered to get a pass
00:42:52 build up engineered to get a pass and what was what did you understand that was a reference to build up engineered to get a pass that the
00:42:59 the um the lack of ventilation gaps between the cladding boards um was the lack of ventilation gaps
00:43:10 um was the lack of ventilation gaps may may mean that the fire didn't have a chance to
00:43:14 chance to or the test the fire within the test didn't
00:43:17 didn't really um get a chance there wasn't the correct air flow going into the cavity in order to feed the fire
00:43:25 the fire right what about the thickness of the panels
00:43:28 panels yeah the 12 millimeters they were thicker than um so the orientation of the board so they were installed in a way which limited the amount of air gaps and the thickness of the board
00:43:39 the thickness of the board as well i believe was was questionable now you say in your statement of paragraph 84 and there's no need to go to it i don't think that after this meeting you then sought further meetings
00:43:50 meeting you then sought further meetings with
00:43:50 with jamie hayes in order to get a more detailed technical picture yeah was the purpose of you wanting a deeper technical understanding so that you could equip yourself adequately to
00:44:02 you could equip yourself adequately to be able to deal with fire engineers and specialists who might ring up and ask about the tests um it was yes i think i had been asked to
00:44:12 to um comment on a canal drawing um which i knew nothing i wouldn't wouldn't have known anything about the technical side of the 8414 part two test
00:44:23 8414 part two test and i spoke i asked jamie to i showed jamie the drawing and i asked him well his thoughts because i
00:44:31 because i wasn't involved with the fir either of the two celetex tests um and it just came from there and i thought well i ought to really know about
00:44:39 about a little bit more about eight four one four part two and the br3 so i asked jamie to um i arranged some time to sit down with jamie and he talked me through it yes and
00:44:51 and he talked me through it yes and if we go to uh
00:44:55 page 50 of your witness statement please paragraph 189 i think you set out there the background in a bit more detail yes and then at the foot of the page
00:45:07 yes and then at the foot of the page you say in paragraph 189 for clarity i believe it was on 24th of october that jamie hayes had first told me about his concerns about the celetex test this happened because i'd raised
00:45:18 test this happened because i'd raised the nav test with him and then we go into the sequence and we'll look at that in a moment
00:45:23 moment um and then you spoke a couple of days later
00:45:28 later you say that your impression was that he was concerned about the test what what gave you that impression do you remember yeah his whole he's just demeanor his body language the fact um jamie and i worked
00:45:41 the fact um jamie and i worked together for four fight i can't remember how many years now four years and you know we were he very comfortable talking
00:45:49 talking so he didn't really hesitate in telling me what he knew about the test but he did approach it in a way which made me think
00:46:00 made me think what's happened then you know what's going on where were you sitting physically in the office he told us he was downstairs yes the rape was upstairs yeah informally the canal
00:46:11 informally the canal drawing i would have spoken to him informally about so i would have either emailed him or printed it off and gone down to to speak to him informally um about it just for his comments
00:46:23 um about it just for his comments and and then he and then i and then we arranged one of the meeting rooms we were in one of the meeting rooms when we had the test report um the method he
00:46:35 we had the test report um the method he had i think he had the 8414 methodology and the br 135 report as well and we were in we were actually in a meeting room right when you say methodology what are you referring to uh
00:46:47 methodology what are you referring to uh just like the eight four one four bs document
00:46:50 document the british standard the eight for one foreign five the publication yes i think he probably would have had that with him as well now um if we um go to paragraph 87
00:47:02 of your statement uh you you say there
00:47:14 uh you you say there um in the build up to the preparation of this statement i've read reread and reconsidered some of the documents from this period including documents
00:47:21 documents relating to the cavity barriers specifically db14 and db15 both of which date this meeting with jamie hayes he drew document c which is db14
00:47:33 he drew document c which is db14 and i annotated document c db15 now those have numbers for the inquiry but we'll come to them in a moment on reviewing these documents i now recall that something had happened to do with the far cavity fire barrier
00:47:46 to do with the far cavity fire barrier detail and this was mentioned by jamie hayes in my meeting with him my recollection is that he told me the only sign of it in the test report is in the photographs at the back of the test report i'm pretty sure in hindsight
00:47:59 test report i'm pretty sure in hindsight that he mentioned six millimeters oxide board while at the time i recognized he was concerned about this amongst in amongst all the new learning for me at that time its significance genuinely didn't sink in properly with
00:48:10 genuinely didn't sink in properly with me
00:48:11 me from my handover with john roper the separate issue of the nhbc concerns such as gaps between the cladding is the main thing which stuck out in my mind
00:48:20 mind and that's what you say there let's look at the diagram can we go to cel double four zero two six eight six cell four zero is two
00:48:31 two six eight six cell four zero is two six
00:48:31 six eight six
00:48:35 eight six is this the diagram db14 that used that mr hayes drew during yes the conversation yes it is was it on the 24th of october 2014 at the meeting that you referred to
00:48:48 the meeting that you referred to i don't know if i'm honest i can't i don't know when he drew this i don't i think i think on the 24th it was informal and we sat down more seriously when i had the
00:48:58 had the when we had the 32-page test report i i genuinely can't recall right i generally don't know if that was then or he wouldn't have done that informally this was i think when we sat
00:49:10 informally this was i think when we sat down
00:49:11 down how long after the 24th of october which is i think for the meeting you refer to did you sit down with jamie hayes
00:49:19 it wouldn't it would have been shortly after i would have thought shortly after you got the full report yes yes which was on the 27th of october i would have thought so yeah yes i see so these these two meetings were only a few days apart is that right i think there was
00:49:31 apart is that right i think there was something to talk about so yeah we sat down yes i see okay now just looking at this document here on the screen
00:49:37 screen do you remember if the hatched section with the thick black line is where he told you the six millimeters magnesium oxide was when you say hatched uh cross hatch
00:49:49 a third of the way down the drawing yes i think that i think that i think that piece of the drawing refers to where the cavity fire i barrier i think all of the hard lines are referring to
00:50:00 are referring to areas um are referring to the same areas right
00:50:09 now you you said in your statement that mr hayes told you something about a cavity barrier visible only at the back of the test report and you're pretty sure in hindsight that he mentioned six millimeters magnesium
00:50:20 he mentioned six millimeters magnesium oxide
00:50:21 oxide do you remember was that the first time that anyone had told you about the presence of six millimeters of magnesium oxide on the rig yes right and what was your
00:50:33 on the rig yes right and what was your reaction to that i was shocked right i was a little bit hey i didn't i didn't think celetex would do that to start with i didn't think celetex i didn't i didn't believe
00:50:44 didn't i didn't believe i didn't believe celetex and the company i was working for would would do what we you know would would do that
00:50:55 you know would would do that right i trusted
00:50:59 and and just to go back we'll come back into the detail in a moment but just on that answer did you seek to take your concerns your shock as you've
00:51:08 you've described it to mr evans i did i took it to him in and not i i don't know if i don't know if i took it to him verbally because jamie
00:51:21 verbally because jamie shared this information with me i didn't know what to do with it if i'm honest with you
00:51:25 with you but the whole of me learning about this came into the context of the canal system
00:51:31 system so when i was asked to comment on the canal system i shared what i'd learned i shared what i'd learned about the test to to to the management
00:51:44 about the test to to to the management of celetex and i shared it there was an email i think i've written which i've seen in evidence
00:51:49 evidence um but i wrote that email with jamie's support jamie would have helped me write that email right do you remember when that was no right i don't know without looking at the evidence i
00:52:00 without looking at the evidence i couldn't okay we may come to that but um did you
00:52:03 did you for did you go back to john roper yeah and ask him why he hadn't told you about the six millimeters magnesium oxide at your hand over meeting no i didn't
00:52:12 didn't no i didn't did you seek to go to paul evans
00:52:15 evans and have a meeting with him or a discussion with him no i didn't why is that because
00:52:23 at the time when i learnt this information it was i think when i learned this information i was about three or four weeks into my new post
00:52:35 weeks into my new post um i just
00:52:38 um i just i didn't know what to do with it if i'm honest with you i i i wish it is a regret of mine now there are many regrets that i've had you know in reviewing this evidence and there's lots of opportunities i think
00:52:50 there's lots of opportunities i think where i wish i had taken paul evans to one side and and sat him down and said look not just a 10 minute not just a section of 10 minutes at the end of our monthly catch-up meeting but actually in
00:53:02 monthly catch-up meeting but actually in those perhaps in that time i could have said to him with rs we need more time than 10 minutes please can we sit down and put an hour to it and i i wish i'd invited jamie and i wish
00:53:13 wish i wish i jamie and i because we didn't really talk about it much jamie and i it was like a secret i don't know it was just something that we didn't talk about but i wish i wish we had
00:53:24 we had i really do did you get the impression from anything jamie hayes said to you at the time
00:53:29 the time that paul evans didn't know about the presence of the six millimeter i don't i don't recall i don't recall jamie telling me about who knew and who didn't know i really don't okay now going back to
00:53:40 i really don't okay now going back to uh the documents can we go to cel40s 9742
00:53:52 at the we need i think page two please of that and this is an email from you on the 27th of october 2014 to
00:54:04 from you on the 27th of october 2014 to john roper subject full 32-page file report
00:54:07 report hi john will you please email the full 32-page file report for rs 5000 and then if we just scroll up page 2
00:54:18 then if we just scroll up page 2 a little bit to the bottom of page 1 you can see that he responds the same day to you attaching the full 32-page fire report yes uh so that's the date when you
00:54:31 yes uh so that's the date when you received it from john roper and that that's the basis of the correction you made to your witness statement yes give us your evidence yeah now if you go to cel408507
00:54:42 to cel408507 this is the report itself in fact i think it's 33 pages and it's number 295369
00:54:53 and it's number 295369 dated the first of august 2014 and if you go to page 13 on that we can see that there's a photograph
00:55:04 we can see that there's a photograph captioned figure 3 the system prior to testing now this is i'm afraid of black and white version but that i think is what you receive did you receive this in black and white
00:55:16 black and white i think i did right yes you can see just looking at the rig uh that
00:55:22 that there are two two colors of a panel there's a white uh a series of white sections of panel and then
00:55:32 then darker sections towards the top of the rig and at the very top of the ring did you notice that at the time
00:55:40 i must have done right and on the right hand side of the page well let me just tell you we know from mr roper's evidence that that was where the eight millimeter marley eternity
00:55:52 the eight millimeter marley eternity panels were and they were orange as opposed to white uh uh you can see on the right hand side although it's not entirely clear what order it's to be read in you've put
00:56:05 what order it's to be read in you've put wtf
00:56:06 wtf mgo six millimeters plus eight millimeter marley a turn it panel yes now just dealing with the measurements
00:56:17 now just dealing with the measurements first in your statement and i don't think it's necessary to go to it it's paragraphs 1888 say sorry 89 and 90 on page 28 you say that your understanding of the tested
00:56:28 that your understanding of the tested system
00:56:30 system now is that a 12 millimeter cladding board was used throughout the rig and you say that your annotation suggests that you didn't fully understand that at the time um in fact i think you did know didn't
00:56:42 um in fact i think you did know didn't you
00:56:42 you because mr hayes had told you that there was an eight millimeter malia turnip rig at those two points yes right did he tell you that before or after you received the report
00:56:54 i i think it's difficult it's difficult to know i think he he told me about um he told me
00:57:07 it's difficult to recall i've i think he must have said to me i don't think he told me in that specific detail i think he probably listed some things including the orientation of the board
00:57:18 including the orientation of the board the lack of gaps and some reinforcements to yeah some reinforcements i don't think he went into that specific detail i don't if he did i don't remember it
00:57:29 i don't if he did i don't remember it when you sat down with jamie hayes the second time did you discuss this report yes you did is can you recall the context or occasion
00:57:41 can you recall the context or occasion on which you wrote these words on this yes we were going through he was we were going through the report he was you know going through and then we we got we got to the photographs
00:57:53 then we we got we got to the photographs and stuff
00:57:54 and stuff and that's when he showed me because obviously this picture you can you can see right so is can we take it that mr hayes
00:58:05 is can we take it that mr hayes explained to you and you recorded that there was a six millimeter magnesium uh oxide board at at that point on the rig behind an eight millimeter
00:58:16 on the rig behind an eight millimeter panel of malia turnip yes so with that in in mind can i just ask you to look at paragraph
00:58:24 paragraph 90 of your statement 89 and 90 on page 28 you probably need both
00:58:32 both and you say there i'm thinking back and putting all of this together it's my understanding today that in the retest a 12 millimeter cladding board was used throughout the fire test rig and it's separating floors where a fire cavity
00:58:43 where a fire cavity a cavity fire barrier was installed this was reinforced with six millimeters magnesium oxide board at those junctions however i wasn't present at the test and so i don't actually have direct knowledge of what happened i note the document c which is what
00:58:54 i note the document c which is what we've been looking at i've written six millimeters at eight millimeters seen notes at page 12 of the document this suggests to me that i did not fully understand this at the time since based on my understanding in the preceding paragraph
00:59:05 understanding in the preceding paragraph it seems i got the figures wrong in fact isn't it correct given what you've told us today looking at the test report and your notes on it and looking at the sequence
00:59:16 notes on it and looking at the sequence again
00:59:16 again actually your statement is incorrect and that you did understand what mr hazel told you which you then wrote down correctly on the on the report
00:59:24 report no i i think the my statement says 12 millimeter cladding board
00:59:31 board because when when i reviewed these documents
00:59:35 documents that is that is how i understood it when um it says i didn't know i honestly honestly did not know how that that detail was put together
00:59:48 that that detail was put together and i wrote eight millimeters and six millimeters i did but once i i probably never revisited i probably put that i probably put that document into a draw
01:00:00 i probably put that document into a draw and i never looked at it again and there was lots of things going on at that time
01:00:08 that time when i learned about these details and i think the the detail itself as jamie explained it to me um over time it receded from my mind it
01:00:20 um over time it receded from my mind it it didn't
01:00:21 it didn't it didn't stick in my mind for whatever reason
01:00:24 reason and it is only when i reviewed these documents
01:00:27 documents um to assist the inquiry that i've shown these documents i was shown a few documents and then bells started ringing and i was yeah something happened at the cavity fire
01:00:39 something happened at the cavity fire barrier
01:00:40 barrier for me the thing the thing that i took away from
01:00:44 away from that period of time and moving forward were the nhbc concerns we can may come to that later just on this point though you say in paragraph 90
01:00:53 90 that um where you've written six six millimeters and eight millimeters uh you say it seems i got the figures wrong
01:01:02 wrong in fact what i'm asking you is whether that's really right because yes i think i've written eight and six millimeters down and i think at that time when i was sitting with jamie
01:01:13 sitting with jamie he would have said to me eight and six millimeters and i've written it down exactly so you wrote them down correctly i wrote them down correctly yeah right so what figures have you got wrong i've got my 12 millimeter figure
01:01:25 wrong i've got my 12 millimeter figure right right thank you that clarifies it now going back if we can to the um the report at page 13 of ceo408507
01:01:39 we've covered the figures um but you've also marked it up wtf is that a shorthand for surprise and alarm
01:01:49 alarm it's shock shorthand for shock that yes this could have happened yeah now paragraph 92 of your statement if we can just dot back to that
01:02:03 you say the reinforcement is not mentioned
01:02:07 mentioned in the test report or the marketing literature did that occur to you did that observation occur to you at the time no
01:02:17 no it didn't and you said paragraph 93 by reference to the annotation wtf or the bre report you say my a quarter of the way down my
01:02:28 you say my a quarter of the way down my writing wtf clearly shows that i recognize there was a concern about this area
01:02:32 area i assume i don't need to expand on what wtf stands for as i've said while at the time i recognized jamie hayes was expressing concern about this and my annotation reflects that in amongst all the new learning for me
01:02:43 in amongst all the new learning for me at the time its true significance genuinely didn't sync in with me uh but in fact you were shocked because jamie's concern reflected your wtf reaction didn't it
01:02:57 reflected your wtf reaction didn't it sorry could you say that again is it right that in fact jamie hayes concerns as you
01:03:01 as you could observe them was consistent with your own reaction wtf so you were both concerned about the same thing i think we were i think
01:03:12 same thing i think we were i think yes i mean i can only we were shocked i was shocked that i was just i was shocked that it happened when you took over from jamie from john
01:03:24 when you took over from jamie from john roper
01:03:25 roper did you have an opportunity to review the launch presentation material that all the sales executives had been given in early august no i did not right did you look at any
01:03:37 no i did not right did you look at any of the marketing literature which was which had been designed by celetex and was then being used to sell rs 5000 into the market yes i was first introduced to the
01:03:48 introduced to the marketing the sorry yeah the literature for rs 5000 when i was a technical service officer right when you discovered the presence of six millimeters of magnesium oxide and eight millimeters of malia turnip panels on the test rig
01:04:01 of malia turnip panels on the test rig did you compare that knowledge what you learned
01:04:04 learned with what was actually stated about the build up of the components of the test rig in the marketing literature
01:04:13 is i i did not i didn't it didn't occur to me
01:04:18 to me to not do that did there come a time after this period after october 2014 when
01:04:24 when it occurred to you that in fact the marketing literature being used by celetex
01:04:28 celetex made no mention at all of the presence of the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the
01:04:32 or the eight millimeters of malia turn it the the whole the whole topic of the six and eight millimeter around the
01:04:44 six and eight millimeter around the cavity receded from my mind it it really didn't imprint itself i didn't there was a lot of technical information that i was being shown at the time
01:04:57 that i was being shown at the time and you know i remember jamie well i remember talking about this and there was a lot of technical information
01:05:09 there was a lot of technical information some of it stuck some of it didn't i thought to myself is jamie being the detail i didn't understand it we didn't i didn't deal with cavity fire barriers
01:05:19 barriers as a technical service officer and i suppose somewhere in the back of my mind you know i thought well it's passed it's passed a test so i didn't honestly
01:05:31 it's passed a test so i didn't honestly i it just it genuinely receded i i i could i could better understand and take on board and absorb the nhbc concerns that were raised
01:05:42 concerns that were raised in terms of the orientation of the board the gapping the ventilation that as i say i think i say in my statement that's i took that on more easily because that's something that i was
01:05:54 that's something that i was the amount of ventilation is something that i would have considered in a u-value calculation but also those facts went to secret were they
01:06:02 they no no that's no they weren't they weren't really a secret they were talked about they were talked about that's exactly right can you just explain for us why or how come
01:06:12 come something was so shocking when you discovered it could could recede from your mind
01:06:19 your mind i don't know i don't know other than i haven't it's not something i deliberately wanted to hide it's something
01:06:30 wanted to hide it's something because i think i would have if i had recalled it and and known about it i would have shared it with um with the management of celetex because i shared other
01:06:42 of celetex because i shared other details
01:06:43 details some which you know weren't talked about i still was open about those so i think i honestly think that if i had if i had understood that and logged it i would
01:06:54 understood that and logged it i would have shared that as well i wasn't i wasn't afraid to share difficult information so why didn't you show this because it didn't register with me it just didn't even though the the wtf is there and i have
01:07:07 the the wtf is there and i have explained
01:07:08 explained my shock i wonder if you know i think my shock
01:07:11 shock was more to do with the fact that my god the test it's been like you know how did they do that why did they do
01:07:23 how did they do that why did they do that did that occur to you did you ask yourself the question what was the point of the six millimeters of magnesium
01:07:32 it's really difficult because i've obviously i've been able to so much more has been revealed to me as i've been reviewing other celetex people's wit statements and things and evidence
01:07:44 and things and evidence and at the time it's i can just i can honestly say that that detail did not stick with me i didn't understand it there was it was another layer of technical information i was
01:07:55 layer of technical information i was taking
01:07:56 taking in i was taking in about eight four one four part two test methodology the positioning of thermocouples and other things that go on in that and this was another detail
01:08:07 this was another detail and it and some of other details of the fire test have stuck with me more easily but this one didn't [Music]
01:08:15 [Music] what was it you remember that was so shocking about the presence of six millimeters i didn't think celetex would would do this i didn't think celetex would i thought celetex was a good
01:08:26 would i thought celetex was a good company i thought celetex was prided itself on doing the right thing being honest and i was really shocked by this do you say do this do what well um what was the what was the core
01:08:38 well um what was the what was the core of the
01:08:39 of the reason for your shock well it it appeared to me that celestex had engineer had taken some materials and installed them
01:08:50 taken some materials and installed them to pass the test that occurred to you at the time did it yes
01:08:59 and did that occur to you at the time as a particularly serious and misleading act there were there were in in my mind at the time there were a handful of things about the
01:09:12 there were a handful of things about the test
01:09:12 test which had been used to engineer a past so to speak in and in my opinion that you know at the time i thought the 12 millimeter thickness of
01:09:23 i thought the 12 millimeter thickness of the board
01:09:24 the board the orientation of the board the lack of cladding i remember jamie talking to me about how there was some reinforcements around the actual fire chamber and all of these
01:09:35 of these all of these details i have been very open about and in my they were part of they were part of this story this part of the story
01:09:44 story but the detail about the cavity fire barrier i did not it did not register with me right
01:09:55 now if we go to paragraph 96 of your statement please uh it's a long paragraph on page 30 there but if we if we just
01:10:07 there but if we if we just uh uh look please at the first quarter of it you say in the second line i'm also able to recall jamie hayes saying at the meeting i describe above
01:10:19 saying at the meeting i describe above paragraphs 84 and 85. and then that's the second meeting i think that there have been a request that the photographs showing the reinforced cladding should not be included in the report
01:10:31 report did mr hayes explain why
01:10:36 no he just he it was it was a he didn't explain why he it was just he was just telling that part of the story to me i think
01:10:47 the story to me i think he was just saying um they try to hide him
01:10:51 him maybe that's maybe that's the why who's the they who's who tried to hide it i i don't
01:11:01 i i don't well the people that did the testing oh is that was that what you understood uh the people from celetex that did the testing
01:11:09 testing right sorry
01:11:14 you go on to say the reinforcements around the cavity fire barrier were not described in writing or diagrams within the report and since i was not involved in the test
01:11:25 i was not involved in the test i'm unable to assist as to how or why this is so but jamie hayes told me that because of this the bre representative said he couldn't leave the photographs out hence they remained in the report it's a
01:11:37 hence they remained in the report it's a long sentence but what is the this that you're referring to that jamie hayes said jamie hayes told me that because of this the bre representative said he couldn't leave the photographs out
01:11:48 leave the photographs out what is this
01:12:14 i don't know it's hard to explain i don't know just leaving aside the text of the of the statements casting mariah away from it
01:12:23 it do you remember what reason jamie hayes gave you for the bre representative saying that the photographs couldn't be left out
01:12:48 oh i mean i can
01:12:54 i mean as i i can look at it obviously after i can when i look at it today it seems obvious to me why the bre would would say that
01:13:06 why the bre would would say that because they wanted to you know show evidence
01:13:10 evidence of the tested system as such but at the time
01:13:13 time but at the time how jamie explained it to me and this
01:13:21 and this it's very i honestly can't recall i genuinely cannot recall exactly
01:13:29 that did you read the report or rather that part of the report
01:13:38 report that spelt out what the components of the test rig were we must have done we must have looked
01:13:45 looked at it did it strike you as what did you notice
01:13:49 notice that in that description there was no reference there to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of malia turn it panels i think
01:14:00 of malia turn it panels i think uh
01:14:04 i'm i don't know it's the honest answer i
01:14:07 i honestly don't recall whether we looked at that
01:14:11 at that and and jamie said look this is where it should have been i think it's you know from what how i've learned about things moving on
01:14:22 moving on the cavity fire the cavity fire barrier detail would have a separate wouldn't be included in the main drawing of the
01:14:30 of the 8414 it wouldn't be a cross section through it i don't yeah
01:14:40 so you can't remember you can't remember comparing
01:14:43 comparing the list of the details of the components with what you then learned about the the actual true components of the rig
01:14:55 i think if i if i had
01:14:59 i don't know i would have i think i would have put it in my statement i don't know if i had remembered it right
01:15:08 do we take it from your evidence that's uh that you took no steps to alert any of your colleagues or or or anybody else that the test report incompletely described the may 2014 test
01:15:20 incompletely described the may 2014 test rig build-up that's correct and again why is that because i'm i'm not sure i knew how to talk about it at that time in i i said i wish i had
01:15:31 at that time in i i said i wish i had taken
01:15:32 taken i had organised a separate meeting and taken people in to a meeting room and talked about it more formally but this the whole the whole knowledge of me coming up with this
01:15:44 understanding the test as such is to do with the canal drawing so now from this time onwards you're
01:15:55 now from this time onwards you're clearly aware as you've told us that of the presence of the magnesium oxide and the eight millimeters of maria turn it can we take it from what you're saying that from that time onwards you knew
01:16:06 that from that time onwards you knew that the marketing literature was was misleading in that it didn't refer to either of those elements of the build-up either
01:16:16 as as i sit here now and having reviewed all the evidence then yes right and similarly the test report itself yes as i sit here now and having reviewed all the evidence and discussed this with other people
01:16:29 and discussed this with other people then yes
01:16:31 then yes now mr chairman that's probably a convenient moment i'm going to turn to a different topic yes well it probably is in that case isn't it good thank you miss burger we're going to have a short break now
01:16:41 break now we'll come back and continue at 25 to 12 please and i'd have to ask you while you're out of the room not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it yeah right right would you like to give
01:16:52 yeah right right would you like to give the article thank you
01:17:04 thank you 25 to 12 please
01:33:56 yes would you ask this burger to come back in please thank you thank you
01:34:09 yes right you ready to carry on mrs burger thank you good thank you yes mr ms burger can i ask you to be shown back please the full report the full test report
01:34:21 ceo408507 yes and i want to get back please to page 13 in that
01:34:29 and your manuscript on the right hand side
01:34:32 side now we can see that you've written down the six millimeters in the eight millimeters and then the wtf just above that um the wtf was that a reaction to the picture the photograph that's on the
01:34:44 the picture the photograph that's on the page there or was it a reaction to what mr hayes was saying do you remember i don't think it was the picture i think it's to what mr hayes was telling me right and your reaction
01:34:58 right and your reaction or surprise or shock um was that a reaction
01:35:01 reaction to uh the substance of what he was saying
01:35:05 saying namely the very presence of yet another feature of the rig that would assist it to pass
01:35:12 to pass assist it past the test or was it the fact that it was a secret
01:35:20 i think the first right thank you
01:35:31 [Applause] can i then turn to your involvement with the labc is the next topic um if you go to page 30 sorry paragraph 35 of your witness statement please
01:35:51 you can see there that you top of page 15 you can see that you say regarding compliance with safety standards the labc
01:35:58 labc 2016 certificate if you exhibit is db2 referred to compliance this was created by a third party independent of celetex and you say in the next sentence that it
01:36:09 and you say in the next sentence that it was signed off by john roper now if it was signed off by john roper that was obviously before 2000 and before you took over in for 2014 or is that wrong that's how i understand it yeah right
01:36:20 that's how i understand it yeah right now let's just take it in stages um let's go to cel 709 please
01:36:34 this is a labc registered details drawing and document list
01:36:40 which was issued in august 2014 when mr roper was product manager and which was current i think when you took over
01:36:49 over are you familiar with that document um not overly no no you're not saying are you or are you maybe you are but he signed that he signed off the 2016 version
01:37:03 he signed off the 2016 version or are you talking about this document i don't know which document mr rope has signed off right did mr roper ever discuss kingspan's labc certificate with you during your handover
01:37:14 handover not that i can recall right do you remember whether you ever looked up kingspan's own labc certificate at any stage
01:37:20 stage um
01:37:24 i don't think so no right let me just show it to you and see if it's familiar nhb 50798
01:37:35 nhb 50798 this is labc's this is the labc certificate for kingspan k15 which they issued on the 20th of august 2014. so only a few weeks before you took over as product manager at
01:37:46 you took over as product manager at celetex
01:37:47 celetex just looking at it now on the screen and looking at the dates is this a document you think you've seen before i may have done but i don't recall it
01:37:54 recall it um did you never seek to find out how the labc were describing k-15 when working out how you you would think that the labc should describe celetex rs
01:38:05 that the labc should describe celetex rs 5000.
01:38:08 sorry can you repeat that yes did you did you ever seek to find out how the labc were describing k-15 when looking at the question of how the labc should describe
01:38:21 the labc should describe celetex rs 5000 i don't recall doing so all right
01:38:28 now i want to ask you about your involvement with the labc between the august
01:38:32 august 2014 certificate we've just looked at and the issue of the 2016 certificate that you've referred to in your statement
01:38:40 statement can we go to cel40 please and look at page two
01:38:50 this is an email run in early november 2014 between uh celetex and sam lee of the labc and on page two halfway down that page you can see
01:39:01 can see that there's an email from samli on the third of november 2014 to john roper and the subject is important changes to your labc registration ew
01:39:12 registration ew 491 celetex celetex rs 5000 pir insulation board
01:39:20 and if you look at the heading there's the reference register details for celetex rs5000 and then the text of the email says this as part of the recent improvements labc
01:39:32 as part of the recent improvements labc has made to the registered detailed schema website there have been several important changes made to your registration and then the reference to the new certificates and if we look at the new certificate
01:39:43 and if we look at the new certificate that was sent this is at labc40312
01:39:50 if we can have that up
01:39:59 and you can see that this is uh certificate number ew491 for rs 5000 and at the very bottom of the page you can see that under the heading validity it says this
01:40:10 under the heading validity it says this certificate was first issued on 21st of august 2014 and is valid until 21st of august 2015 issue date 13th of august 2014. are you familiar
01:40:21 13th of august 2014. are you familiar with this document yes yes and in the main box at the top of the page or towards the top of the page just opposite the um image it says description of product
01:40:35 um image it says description of product and it says this is an assessment of a pir insulation board by celatex designed for use within rain screen construction rs-5000 is a textured aluminium foil-faced pir board that comes in thicknesses of between 50
01:40:46 comes in thicknesses of between 50 millimeters and 150 millimeters and goes through the same manufacturing process as the cellatex rfr5000 product the difference being that it has been
01:40:58 the difference being that it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135 2013 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height see conditions of certificate for more information
01:41:11 and if you go to key factors assessed it identifies the second one of those as safety in case of fire and if we go to page two of that
01:41:22 and if we go to page two of that document
01:41:24 document you can see the scope of registration
01:41:29 celetex has provided test reports and undertaken by bre and bba to verify the product from both performance in fire and thermal properties and it goes on the product is much the
01:41:41 and it goes on the product is much the same as the as their fr 5000 board but it's specifically tested to be used with rain stream constructions above 18 meters the board comes in various thicknesses and can be used with a variety of cladding systems including masonry or
01:41:52 cladding systems including masonry or rain screen systems and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with the sheathing board or direct back to masonry celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 2005.
01:42:05 tested to bs 8414 part 2 2005. meets the criteria set out in br 135 2013
01:42:08 2013 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height
01:42:13 in height subject to matching the specification criteria of the bre fire test report two nine five two five five carried out as alternative complies to adb
01:42:23 were you familiar with that text at the time and i say at the time from the time that it was um it arrived with you in november 2014
01:42:35 with you in november 2014 not overly familiar with it no right uh there are conditions of certificate which are at the bottom and i'll just pick up one or two parts of that it says for use in rain screen
01:42:46 of that it says for use in rain screen wall construction including above 18 meters height and then three lines down it says celetex rs 5000 can be used with a variety
01:42:56 variety of cladding systems including masonry or rain screen systems that can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry and then just before
01:43:05 before just halfway down that block of text four lines up from the bottom it says this classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in section two of the
01:43:16 detailing outlined in section two of the bre far test report two nine five two five five
01:43:19 five five including the associated details found in section four test reports as an alternative compliance to adb a full copy of the report should be made available by celetex again were you familiar with that
01:43:33 again were you familiar with that those conditions of that wording not overly not bad okay now going back to the email run and i've read that in detail to you ms burger because we're going to look at it in a bit more detail but
01:43:44 it in a bit more detail but looking at how this got to you um if we go back to the email run at cel402021 please we go to page one
01:43:55 we can see that um john roper at the bottom of page one sends that to you on the third of november he forwards it to you and he says debs for you and then he
01:44:06 and he says debs for you and then he says please go back to labc and ask to take out any references that rs 5000 is the same product as fr 5000
01:44:15 do you know why he asked you that question
01:44:20 question what why he asked me yes why did he ask you to ask the labc to remove the reference to the fact that rs 5000 was the same product as fr 5000
01:44:31 rs 5000 was the same product as fr 5000 no he was just something no that i felt i thought they'd made a mistake by putting far 5000 in i thought oh they've put fr 5000 and it needs this rs that's been tested to above 18
01:44:43 this rs that's been tested to above 18 meters
01:44:45 meters did you know the time that in fact rs 5000 was fr 5000 yes i knew that you did
01:44:52 did so given that you you knew that did you not ask yourself why it was that john roper wanted the labc to remove the references to the fact that rs 5000 was the same
01:45:04 to the fact that rs 5000 was the same product as fr 5000 i thought it was completely normal i thought it was completely completely normal that you know fr 5000
01:45:16 you know fr 5000 had been used in um num you know other applications as well the product had been used for cavity wool um and it was being used for rs i didn't i didn't know
01:45:27 i didn't know i didn't know anything different that that was how it was i just accepted this this is what he wanted me to do
01:45:43 when you say it was completely normal
01:45:46 i'm not sure if i followed that let me just see if i can take it in stages you say you knew that rs 5000 was the same as our as fr 5000
01:45:57 5000 did you know that in fact the um marketing launch slides shown to the marketing teams in early august had described rs 5000 as an additional product
01:46:12 yes and and it could be my lack of experience or my naivety i don't know but this is the first time i've been a product manager and this is what this is
01:46:23 product manager and this is what this is what happened and i accepted that did you know or perhaps come to understand that the marketing teams had not been told that rs 5000
01:46:35 had not been told that rs 5000 was the same as fr 5000 but just rebranded
01:46:38 rebranded the marketing teams the marketing teams sales teams i thought i thought it was common knowledge i thought they knew right okay what was the point of asking the
01:46:49 okay what was the point of asking the labc to take out the references to to the fact which was true that rs 5000 was the same product as fr 5000. just because this was the product that
01:47:01 just because this was the product that was being marketed for the above 18 meter
01:47:04 meter um the above 18 meter market right but did it not occur to you that by asking the nabc to remove those references readers of the labc
01:47:17 those references readers of the labc certificate might think that rs 5000 was a new product
01:47:26 i i've heard this i've heard this being discussed in evidence well no never mind the evidence i'd like to know whether at the time you understood mr roper to be
01:47:37 roper to be asking you to tell the alabc to remove rs 5000
01:47:42 rs 5000 the references to to fr 5000 and and the fact that it was the same product as rs 5000 at the time it did because that might lead a reader otherwise
01:47:55 that might lead a reader otherwise of the certificate to think that it was the same product which was in fact the case it i didn't understand i didn't i didn't see anything
01:48:07 see anything i honestly didn't i just i just did not see anything underhand in it i just saw oh fr 5000 is a multi-purpose board used in lots of different applications 5000 is specifically for the above 18
01:48:19 5000 is specifically for the above 18 meters
01:48:20 meters so and that's what they'd asked me to do so that's exactly what i did right and did it occur to you that by doing that if the labc had had complied with the instructions that mr
01:48:31 complied with the instructions that mr robert was giving to you the labc certificate would be misleading so could you repeat that the labc certificate would be misleading if they removed those references because they would it would then give
01:48:42 because they would it would then give the impression that rs 5000 was a new product as opposed to the truth which was that it was the same product as fr 5000 i i was not aware of that at the time right
01:48:53 right it was not you were not aware of what what you of what you just said that fr5 that it could be misleading that rs was a new product right
01:49:04 rs was a new product right now at the top of page one is your email to sam lee of the 6th of november 2014 and you say hi sam please find attach some paragraphs of text to suggestions for use in your nabc
01:49:15 for use in your nabc certificates and fact sheets for rs 5000 and you
01:49:18 and you you have three of them they're summarized um let's look at the document you attached it's cel402022
01:49:35 and looking at this these are some detailed changes aren't they and looking at point one uh where you say under the description there's
01:49:48 you say under the description there's quite a long text there and in the last sentence you're proposing the following language it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135 for use in rain
01:49:59 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height
01:50:01 height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate now do you accept that that was misleading yes and and thank you and and is that
01:50:12 and and thank you and and is that because
01:50:13 because it suggests that it can be used in any ranged green system and not certainly the system tested yes yes and you knew that at the time i i wasn't
01:50:21 wasn't i was uncomfortable with the wording um yeah i was uncomfortable with the wording it didn't it didn't match what i had well the skill set that i
01:50:32 what i had well the skill set that i brought to the role of product management was from the technical team and i understood the importance of a tested system i understood the importance of eight four one four part two and its entirety
01:50:43 four one four part two and its entirety well not
01:50:44 well not obviously not the methodology but i understood that the materials used on the test should be replicated if not um so i understood the importance of a tested system and when i read that back then yes i did was uncomfortable
01:50:57 back then yes i did was uncomfortable with that wording did you draft the wording i i i don't know it's the honest answer i don't remember doing this on my own i feel
01:51:05 feel i don't feel i would have had the knowledge
01:51:08 knowledge to have done that on my own i can't see myself
01:51:12 myself having written those words myself you know who did if it wasn't you i i i don't i don't there's a child i don't know whether i have created this document but i've copied and pasted
01:51:23 document but i've copied and pasted something
01:51:24 something and put it in while i was being asked to remove
01:51:27 remove the word fr for clarity i don't know whether i've copied and pasted these paragraphs put them on a document and then sent them right and you say you were uncomfortable um you were
01:51:39 were uncomfortable um you were uncomfortable i would suggest because you knew it was misleading is that right yes i i think i think that's correct right and were you also uncomfortable because you would have known by this stage that the test
01:51:50 the test as described in the test report was not as it as in fact described sorry can i put that question again no i understand the actual test i understand buildup of the rig was not described in the as it was in the bre
01:52:01 described in the as it was in the bre report yeah i mean
01:52:06 in my time work in my time working as a product manager i
01:52:12 it the test i don't know i don't know it wasn't
01:52:20 in my own it just wasn't just wasn't forefront of my mind it just really wasn't and looking at point two
01:52:33 you see that it says in the uh first sentence celetex has provided test reports undertaken by bre and bba to verify the product from both
01:52:46 and bba to verify the product from both performance in fire and thermal properties was there a bba certificate there's that's not true of rs 5000 but the bba
01:52:54 the bba is true of fr 5000 right but if you'd remove the reference to fr 5000 it only referred to rs 5000 the reader of the certificate would think that a bba certification applied
01:53:06 think that a bba certification applied to rs 5000 wouldn't they i yes i agree and i i have not i have not i have not done this very
01:53:18 i have not i have not done this very well
01:53:19 well well do you agree that when it refers to the
01:53:22 the to bba verifying the product from both performance in fire and thermal properties that was untrue yes i i agree it's untrue
01:53:35 so why did you put this text forward both under paragraph one last sentence and the paragraph two reference to the bba if you knew it was untrue
01:53:54 you knew it was untrue sorry to the labc yeah
01:54:00 i think i mean i don't want to make excuses for myself but i was there was a lot going on i was very early on in my role as a product manager i'm not sure i've attended to the detail
01:54:11 i'm not sure i've attended to the detail as as i should have done
01:54:17 it's it's um it's uncomfortable for me to say but i i probably i don't think i've i don't think i have i've been asked to do something i've copied and pasted i wouldn't have done this on my own i
01:54:29 i wouldn't have done this on my own i would massively i would i would have sought support from somebody within the business to talk to about this and i felt uncomfortable about it and
01:54:40 uncomfortable about it and it's it's gone off i haven't felt very i've felt great about this you see the second paragraph goes on to say celetex rs 5000 is a premium performance pir
01:54:51 rs 5000 is a premium performance pir solution for use in rain screen cladding applications and suitable for use in building above 18 meters in height and then it continues the board comes in various thicknesses and can be used with
01:55:02 various thicknesses and can be used with a variety of cladding systems including masonry and rain screen systems and could be fixed back fixes there's an error there back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct backed masonry
01:55:16 sheathing board or direct backed masonry did it occur to you that coming after the sentence about suitability for use above 18 meters those two sentences there ran the risk of creating the impression that rs 5000
01:55:27 of creating the impression that rs 5000 could be used in a variety of cladding systems above 18 meters
01:55:34 yes i was uncomfortable with the wording and you were uncomfortable i would i'm bound to suggest you because you knew it was misleading i think yes and you knew that at the time
01:55:47 time i think i think have i had a conversation with some of jamie about this and we we talked about it but i'm not sure
01:55:58 we talked about it but i'm not sure i i wouldn't know how to challenge i don't think i knew at the time how to challenge it but yes i i agree i do agree with you that at the time
01:56:08 time i discussed it with jamie and we felt uncomfortable about it and it is misleading right was it in fact the impression that you wanted to create deliberately
01:56:20 that you wanted to create deliberately namely
01:56:20 namely that this was a system this was a product that could be used in a variety of systems and not only that tested no i i think i think this was
01:56:31 no i i think i think this was this was already the product was already in the market it was launched it's not something it's something i inherited
01:56:39 inherited this is something that i probably didn't feel i could change the direction of the product it was in the market and it was launched i would not i would not if i
01:56:50 i would not i would not if i if i had if i had been developing this product if i had been the product manager
01:56:54 manager that was given the idea then i would have done
01:56:57 have done i would like to think i would have done things differently and i would not intentionally have done that so
01:57:04 that so you say this was something i inherited do you mean that what jamie what jonathan roper described as the fraud on the market was something you inherited yes and then you accepting that by
01:57:15 yes and then you accepting that by continuing with that with the labc you're furthering it i i i was not aware i was not aware of the marketing strategy which i've obviously learned a lot more about
01:57:26 i've obviously learned a lot more about recently
01:57:27 recently i was not aware of the marketing strategy
01:57:30 strategy that it was deliberate i i just i just thought
01:57:35 thought it's not great it's a really poor set of words
01:57:39 words it's misleading at that time i was unaware that it was all it's all misleading although that detail has only been revealed to me
01:57:50 that detail has only been revealed to me recently if you didn't draft these words yourself
01:57:55 yourself but they were provided to you and you can't be clear about that do you not remember going to the person who'd provided you with these words and saying to them look i can't put this out
01:58:07 saying to them look i can't put this out to the labc it's all downright misleading i didn't feel i could do that why didn't you i just i i didn't i didn't feel that the product was
01:58:19 the product was on the market i was very new to my role i didn't have a lot of experience i actually i've i saw the labc as an authority
01:58:27 authority i just didn't feel that i could i was in the process of working to try and understand how the product could be used with different planning materials
01:58:39 different planning materials but you understood the importance of the labc didn't you i'm not entirely i i'm not sure i did at that stage i'm not entirely sure i understood it i
01:58:50 i'm not entirely sure i understood it i had
01:58:50 had when when i came to post a product manager
01:58:54 manager i had i didn't have a lot of commercial experience i didn't i really didn't understand the commercial side of things i had i could get to grips with the technical
01:59:05 could get to grips with the technical side of things and the tested system and the fact that it was only tested to one cladding and i don't know how on earth they were supposed how that was the problem for me but then the
01:59:17 that was the problem for me but then the commercial value and the commercial side of things
01:59:19 of things i didn't i was very poor i was very weak in that knowledge
01:59:28 well i'm really seeking to get to the bottom of ms burger is is why despite the fact that you knew that these words you were putting forward to the nabc an authority were misleading
01:59:42 why you you you just didn't follow through with that and go to the people who'd asked you to put these words forward and say i'm sorry i can't do that i think i was go i was i was
01:59:54 i think i was go i was i was i was going along with things i was going along with what was had been launched and created without perhaps fully understanding to
02:00:05 without perhaps fully understanding to the level of detail that i do now you know as i've said and that's that's i didn't feel i could challenge the way the product had been launched i
02:00:16 the way the product had been launched i didn't feel i could challenge this right and is that because of something in you
02:00:29 and is that because of something in you or because of something in celetex i think something within me okay now um can we look back at the email run please this is cel40s
02:00:41 please this is cel40s [Music]
02:00:43 [Music] you go to
02:00:46 you go to [Applause] the further up the email chain page one we can see that you send this wording
02:00:59 we can see that you send this wording to sam lee at the labc on the 6th of november
02:01:03 november but we see who has copied in on this as well as john roper we can see that paul evans is copied in on this so far as you were concerned did you have any
02:01:16 you were concerned did you have any doubts in your mind at the time that paul evans had seen the suggested text did i have any doubts that he had seen it yes you'd copied him in on this email
02:01:27 it yes you'd copied him in on this email oh i assume so i i don't know i don't recall did you have a discussion with paul evans about the wording that you were sending to the labc
02:01:37 labc i don't recall so right i think i think the only people i spoke to about this would have been
02:01:46 um jamie do we take it that paul evans never came back to you and told you that you should withdraw these suggested amendments no you seem you your
02:01:58 no you seem you your your answer no in that way no it was quite dismissive is it because that was a
02:02:02 a that was unthinkable yeah it's um well it's having a lot further down the track and having seen a lot more a bit more of the story
02:02:13 seen a lot more a bit more of the story which i was not aware of at the time you know for me in hindsight i can look back on all of this now and see that there was a very strong divide between what was a system and what was technically correct
02:02:24 what was technically correct and what was commercial and what was for sales and that's why i went no because i think you know i think predominantly perhaps this product was treated as a product
02:02:37 product was treated as a product and set up commercially so it could be sold
02:02:41 sold easily to to certain projects regardless of the risks to public safety absolutely right now if we go to cel408691 please
02:02:59 right now if we go to cel408691 please this is an email chain uh same day uh and i'd like to look at page two please top of page two i think we need the bottom of page one in fact for the date and the identities
02:03:11 in fact for the date and the identities of the recipients this is debbie this is you debbie berger to sam lee uh copied to john roper paul evans etc and if we go to the top of page two you
02:03:22 and if we go to the top of page two you can see
02:03:24 can see um that you say to her hi sam i've just noticed the website is live with a certificate and fact sheet is it possible to limit visibility or better remove these until we've sorted out the wording why did you go back to her with that
02:03:38 because somebody had asked me to i would have thought do you know who no i can't remember
02:03:43 remember and then on the page above if we can go back to page one we can see sam lee's response same day at 1313
02:03:55 same day at 1313 hi debbie sorry for the delay in getting around to your emails no problem at all i will check with my colleague who deals with the website if we can make your landing page not visible to members of the public i will check with my manager to see if
02:04:06 i will check with my manager to see if we can make the suggested changes in your attachment on the certificates and website
02:04:12 website was it your understanding that although new form certificates had been issued to you
02:04:16 you and you'd gone back with these suggested revisions
02:04:19 revisions those were not generally available until the wording was sorted out
02:04:29 i think i think if i've understood your if
02:04:32 if i've understood your question correctly the product was live the certification was live i've been asked
02:04:39 asked to change the wording from rs to fr so i simply and i was i wouldn't have thought to have i don't think
02:04:49 think in i don't think i would have thought i don't think i would have thought to have emailed sam to take it down i think it was just something i was
02:05:00 i think it was just something i was asked to do right the next contact from the labc seems to have been on the 12th of may 2015 so six months later
02:05:11 2015 so six months later and let's look at an email to that effect cel401286 please
02:05:22 this is an email from david ewing of the labc
02:05:26 labc to you on the 12th of may it's quite a long email
02:05:31 and it goes also to john roper and paul evans
02:05:35 evans before we look at the text of it can i just ask you do you remember whether anything
02:05:39 anything happened as between celetex on the one hand
02:05:43 hand and the nabc on the other between november 2014 and may 2015. i don't i don't i don't remember and i've relied on documents that have been
02:05:56 i've relied on documents that have been given to me to prompt my memory and i i genuinely
02:05:59 genuinely i don't recall without seeing right in it we'll come to this in a moment but in the meantime did you remember what the labc certificate was
02:06:11 what the labc certificate was during that six month period on the basis of which celetex was trading rs5 yes i think i i became i became aware of i think there was some i became aware
02:06:23 of i think there was some i became aware of the importance of the labc certificate in my time gradually over over that period of time okay and let's just see if we can identify the labc certificate concerned it's cell
02:06:36 labc certificate concerned it's cell 709 we looked at it at the start of this topic
02:06:40 topic and this is the labc certificate dated the 21st of uh august 2014 is this is that the certificate on the basis of which rs 5000 was being sold
02:06:51 5000 was being sold i didn't i i'm not as familiar with this this certificate as i am the previous certificate right no did you during that period become
02:07:02 did you during that period become familiar with it no you didn't i don't think so did you get a chat did you have occasion to look at it at all
02:07:16 um i don't remember doing so when you were
02:07:19 were revising or engaging with the labc in november 2014 about revising the nab certificate did you not have a chance to look at this one to see what it was that was already out there
02:07:31 no i didn't i don't i don't remember i don't remember doing that right you don't remember doing that no
02:07:41 let's go back to mr ewing's email then ceo401286
02:07:49 and he says in the second paragraph labc were contacted in connection with the wording used in earlier registration detailed certificates there was concern that the certificates
02:08:00 there was concern that the certificates implied a global approval to the use of thermosets above 18 meters this had never been the intention but as a result of this and also proposed amended national guidance wording within certificates has been
02:08:11 wording within certificates has been altered to clarify the acceptability of the use of thermoset insulating products when a classification report demonstrated compliance with br135 through testing to either bs eight four one four part one or bsa four one four
02:08:23 one four part one or bsa four one four part two
02:08:23 part two has been undertaken which is pausing there
02:08:27 there in fact it's right isn't it that the impression uh that he is uh talking about is precisely what celetex has been seeking to achieve through its registration and indeed in your amendments the previous november
02:08:44 i i i there was a lot of detail that i have missed
02:08:51 missed in my time working on rs 5000 there is a lot there's a lot of detail that i've missed and um the time i had to work on rs 5000 i'm
02:09:02 the time i had to work on rs 5000 i'm not i don't want to make excuses again but
02:09:04 but the time i had available to work on rs5000 was 15 20 of of my time the majority of my time was spent working on so
02:09:16 working on so i there was there was so much i was not aware of
02:09:19 aware of and i think i relied on others to help me with the detail at times when you received this statement from mr ewing
02:09:28 ewing did you not think to go back to the certificates then in circulation and see whether he was right or wrong in his concern that specific the certificates implied a global approval to the use of thermosets
02:09:39 global approval to the use of thermosets above 18 meters
02:09:47 no it didn't
02:09:50 and when he says this had never been the intention in fact that's not true is it that had exactly been the intention of celetex to to lead people reading certificates to think that there was a global approval
02:10:01 think that there was a global approval to the use of rs 5000 above 18 meters i think i inherited that intention maybe but
02:10:08 but did but that was the intention you were there at the time yes i yes uh
02:10:18 and he's now saying i think but let's look on actually he he he he goes on to say uh the the question of the adequacy of
02:10:30 uh the the question of the adequacy of the thermosetting materials was raised at
02:10:32 at a national building control alliance meeting in december and then goes on to say in the next paragraph as such i attach a revised certificate incorporating your requests
02:10:43 certificate incorporating your requests together with additional inserts clarifying the method taken to demonstrate compliance ie approved document b 12.5 or option 2 on the attached bca guide
02:10:54 option 2 on the attached bca guide apologies that this has not been achieved sooner but the proposed amendments to the guidance have taken much longer than anticipated
02:11:02 uh and then goes on to draw your attention to the notation on the certificate
02:11:09 uh um and then at the end he says i trust that you will find this acceptable uh the wording used as the same as that contained in the kingspan k15 registered detail
02:11:20 k15 registered detail and would be included with any future thermoset product seeking rd status that's registered detail and intended to be used above 18 meters if you could confirm this i can post the new certificate onto the website for you
02:11:33 certificate onto the website for you now let's so he says that and let's see what he attaches it's ceo403741 please
02:11:42 so this is what he's sending back to you now mid-may 2015 and his stamped draft on the first page and the rest of the pages throughout the
02:11:53 and the rest of the pages throughout the document
02:11:54 document and if we look at page one in the block of text to the left of the image in the last sentence under description of product there it says it has been assessed by the bre
02:12:06 it says it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height
02:12:12 height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate see conditions of certificate for more information
02:12:21 so that's the same caveat isn't it that we saw before
02:12:28 and it also refers to the bre test is it right that by this time this is now may 2015 you knew that the bre test had involved the
02:12:40 that the bre test had involved the magnesium oxide panels at the places identified to you by mr hayes on the test report in the meeting that you'd had with him in late october 2014. yes so you knew
02:12:52 yes so you knew that the bre assessment what was incomplete to put it at its lowest
02:13:00 lowest because it didn't refer to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of maori yes i did i did know that right and therefore
02:13:07 therefore is it right that just looking at that anybody picking up this certificate and and reading it would think that the bre assessment could be taken at face value
02:13:18 assessment could be taken at face value whereas that was not in fact true
02:13:21 no i yeah yeah now let's look at the conditions referred to because it is right to say that there is an asterisk and it says see conditions a
02:13:33 an asterisk and it says see conditions a certificate for more information if we turn to those please if we go to the next page we pick those up at the bottom of page two um we can see uh the particular
02:13:45 um we can see uh the particular conditions that are referred to
02:13:49 uh in the second half of that block of text it says for use on buildings do you see
02:13:54 see yes it's a bit difficult to pick it up the use on buildings with the floor more than 18 meters above above ground level celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bsa414 part 2 2005
02:14:05 to bsa414 part 2 2005 and meets the criteria set out at nxb of br135 2013. the classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in section 2 of the bre classification report 295 255
02:14:19 of the bre classification report 295 255 including the associated details found in section 4 test reports as an alternative compliance to adb a full copy of the report should be made available by celetex the tested system comprised and then there's the list
02:14:30 there's the list two layers of 10 millimeter wall board on simcoe efs 100 millimeters light steel frame system 12 millimeters magnesium oxide sheathing board with aluminium helping hand brackets
02:14:41 brackets l and t rails lamithim cw rhs horizontal intumescent and cw rsv vertical non-expanding fire brakes 100 millimeter celotex rs-5000 insulation board
02:14:52 insulation board and 12 millimeters maria turning mature decorative rain screen bought no reference to the magnesium oxide no reference to the eight millimeters of marley eternity so you could see couldn't you if you when you got this that the tested system
02:15:04 when you got this that the tested system described there was misleadingly incomplete yes as i look at it now i i accept that and as you looked at it then
02:15:15 and as you looked at it then as i looked at it then as um i knew about the details of the cavity fire barrier and the use of the eight millimeter and the six millimeter board
02:15:26 the six millimeter board but as i've said it it just didn't stick with me it just didn't it just didn't come with me well let's see how far we go if you look at page four of this document this draft document we can see that the
02:15:38 this draft document we can see that the bre classification report under supporting documentation you can see that it's the last item in that list bre classification report in accordance with requirements of br135 2013
02:15:49 2013 ref 295 255 issue 2. now this certificate was presenting that classification report as reliable support for the certificate wasn't it yes and you knew at the time
02:16:03 wasn't it yes and you knew at the time that that classification report which is a separate document from the test report was similarly materially misleading because it also made no reference to the six millimeters magnesium oxide board
02:16:15 six millimeters magnesium oxide board or the eight millimeters of malia turn it
02:16:19 it yes and we can look at the classification report if you want but take it from me that there is no reference in there no no and you knew that at the time i assume
02:16:27 assume i knew what at the time there was no reference to the eight millimeter no there is no reference now and then if we go back uh to page two please
02:16:39 uh i i read this to you a minute ago but you'll see that in the last but one paragraph at the very end
02:16:46 very end and it is block text but about five lines up from the very bottom of the page it says a full copy of the report should be made available by celetex you see that yeah um did you understand
02:16:57 you see that yeah um did you understand that to be a reference to the full test report i didn't even know that was i didn't i hadn't even noticed that detail
02:17:03 detail right did you know that at the time celetex's policy was to refuse any requests to foresight of the full bre classification report yes
02:17:16 full bre classification report yes do you know why the labc was allowed to say
02:17:20 say that a full copy of the report should be made available when in fact celetex would refuse when asked i think this detail got missed it just it just got missed in fact it gives a thoroughly misleading
02:17:31 in fact it gives a thoroughly misleading impression because it gives the impression that celetex were prepared to disclose the report when in fact the opposite was the case yes were you aware of whether that was ever
02:17:42 ever issued this document before celetex renewed its registration in september 2015.
02:17:48 2015. sorry say that again what happened to this draft do you know i don't know um i honestly don't know and again if you look at today on page two but scroll up to the top you can see
02:17:59 two but scroll up to the top you can see under conscious registration it still says what it says in there celetex has provided test reports undertaken by bre and bba to verify the product they're just
02:18:11 to verify the product they're just pausing there we looked at the draft wording that had gone to them on the 6th of november 2014 and i showed you the reference to the bba in there we we have we have your evidence about that
02:18:23 we have we have your evidence about that but it looks as if that reference has gone into this scope of registration so it looks as if the labc had simply taken what you told them at face value about the bba verifying the product
02:18:37 about the bba verifying the product yes did you notice that no not really received this document from mr ewing in mid-may
02:18:44 the the biggest when we received this document in mid-may the biggest thing for us it's like an appropriate classification report and or supplemental report must
02:18:55 supplemental report must evidence suitability of the proposed makeup that was as i said i i didn't i'm not sure i was able to
02:19:07 i'm not sure i was able to deal with this certificate in its detail in the time up until those amendments were put through i'm not sure
02:19:17 not sure i was qualified to deal with those i'm not sure i could have if i was i'm not sure who i would have spoken to about my concerns other than someone my peer
02:19:30 it's um it's a very you know this is not this is it's excuse me it's almost it's almost i feel i feel quite embarrassed that this this
02:19:43 i feel quite embarrassed that this this was not
02:19:44 was not done properly and i have not paid enough attention to the detail of this
02:19:50 this i'm not sure i had the time i'm not sure i had
02:19:53 i had the qualification i'm not sure i was capable i'm not sure i'm not sure i was you know without support
02:20:02 support i'm not you know i just it's an important document i understand that did you
02:20:12 actually read this document when it came to you from the labc i don't think i i've yes we would have i would have taken it printed it and shared it
02:20:24 taken it printed it and shared it and i would have discussed it not i doubt i would have looked at that on my own
02:20:28 own i would have i recognized that you know by that i was so overwhelmed with rs 5000 at that stage i'm not entirely sure i could have
02:20:42 i'm not entirely sure i could have i would have printed it and shared it with someone
02:20:47 but as i said to you whether i had paid attention
02:20:50 attention to all of the detail would be i can't be sure i did i can't be sure i did and that's and that is
02:20:59 that is that's the fault of mine did you have a discussion with john roper or paul evans about this draft i must have had a discussion with john roper it's not something i remember because john roper has copied
02:21:10 remember because john roper has copied on
02:21:10 on all of the emails so i may have had a discussion with him but i generally can't remember my go-to for technical support was something that i carried over from my
02:21:21 something that i carried over from my time
02:21:21 time which i learned with everything which was with um was with jamie
02:21:28 um now let's move on to the next uh set of correspondence in july 2015 ceo403739 please
02:21:45 if we start on page four i'm afraid we're going to have to roll up this document a bit but here we see an email from sam lee who's now become sam lee muller on the 6th of july 2015 to john ropin
02:21:57 6th of july 2015 to john ropin and nobody else which is about the registration renewal quotation for uw-491 celex
02:22:08 renewal quotation for uw-491 celex rs 5000 and it says the above registered details registration expires on the 21st of august
02:22:13 of august whereupon it will become due for renewal and then if we go to page three um we can see what happens uh
02:22:25 um we can see what happens uh sam lee then gives john ripper a prod about a week later hi john this is a reminder that your labc registration will be expiring next month on the 21st
02:22:36 will be expiring next month on the 21st would you like to renew and that's page three and the page two we see an email of the 22nd of july from sam
02:22:44 sam lee to john roper this time it's copying you in
02:22:48 you in hi john you're at labc registration will expire on the 21st of august can you please confirm if you'd like to renew your registration with us and for how long
02:22:56 long and then if we go to page one we you we can see your reply at the bottom of that email chain on that page sorry bottom of that page in that email chain uh on the fifth of august you go
02:23:07 chain uh on the fifth of august you go back to sam lee and you say hi sam yes we would like to renew labc registered details for rs 5000 for one year to start and let's just just
02:23:16 just turn back to the top of page two to show you kind regards debbie burger that's how it ends uh and uh and then if you go back to page
02:23:26 page one a little bit higher up we can see sam lee's response hi debbie thanks for confirming i will prepare the invoice now for you i've attached the email david originally
02:23:38 i've attached the email david originally sent with the amended certificate for your reference please let me know if this is fine you see that yes now that's well let me ask you was that a reference to david ewing's email of
02:23:49 a reference to david ewing's email of the 12th of may 2015 we saw earlier at ceo401286 i can't be sure right do we take it that there'd be no further correspondence
02:24:00 there'd be no further correspondence about the amended certificates but certificate between the may of 2015 and uh late july early august 2015.
02:24:12 late july early august 2015. right we can't fight we haven't got any record of that no i and i can't remember um i can't be sure
02:24:19 sure right now there was a slight delay reissuing due to payment issues i think and we don't need to go to that but do you recall do you recall that in in general terms what with the delay
02:24:30 in general terms what with the delay yes because the payment um not really no right but but in the event do you recall that certificates new certificates were issued in september 2015.
02:24:42 2015. i would have i would be relying on documents from that time to jog my memory
02:24:46 memory right let's go to cel 50389 and look at a document to jog your memory this is the september 2015 reissue of the labc certificate ew491
02:25:00 of the labc certificate ew491 and you can see uh again now we could spend time going through this let me just show this to you again you see in the text on the left hand side opposite the image last sentence it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br 135 for use in
02:25:12 and complies with br 135 for use in range screen applications above 18 meters
02:25:15 meters in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate see conditions of the certificate for more information and then if you go over the page you see the scope
02:25:25 of registration and yet again we see in the first line celetex has provided test reports undertaken by bre and bba so again that
02:25:36 error error has found its way into this version
02:25:40 version the final version and then the conditions of certificate are identical to the draft sent by david ewing on the 12th of may other than the the fact um
02:25:54 other than the the fact um uh that the the the bold has not been used
02:25:57 used on a part of the text in the middle of that
02:26:01 that uh did at the time when you received this document did you read it
02:26:09 i can't be sure at the time at the time when you received this document did you not seek to check it against the draft that david ewing had sent you in mid-may to which samli specifically refers
02:26:22 to which samli specifically refers this is the first time i've seen i i i honestly can't be sure what was the purpose do you think of you receiving these these emails and these documents
02:26:32 documents from nabc if you weren't going to read them and
02:26:35 them and verify them well i i i understand what you're saying it again
02:26:52 i just i would like to think that i opened the email printed them off read them and showed them to someone else for
02:27:03 else for for confirmation or for clarification but as i sit here today it was i'm not i can't be sure i did that i can't
02:27:14 can't it doesn't jump out in my mind as something
02:27:17 something that um you know at the time perhaps there was some i i don't know i don't have an answer unfortunately now you can see the foot of the conditions
02:27:28 you can see the foot of the conditions of certificate to which the reader's eye is expressly drawn on the first page by reference to the asterisk by reference by the asterisk there's exactly the same text as
02:27:39 exactly the same text as as we saw in the draft including exactly the same test in relation to the tested system
02:27:45 system you see at the bottom of the conditions of certificate yeah and again the omission of any reference to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide and the eight millimeters of gnarly so can we take it that you at least and
02:27:58 so can we take it that you at least and indeed nobody else at celetex had thought fit to correct the inaccuracies in that respect at the very least
02:28:05 least no from the dra the draft that had been sent in maybe
02:28:25 it's i i just i just i don't know i can't recall i'm sorry i mean is it because actually celetex was embarked on a a a scheme
02:28:38 on a a a scheme to mislead the labc as best it could into the nature of the test which rs 5000 had passed i think by by not being very open about
02:28:50 i think by by not being very open about those details from the start yes yes i think yes and where the labc were making errors knowingly and deliberately not correcting them such as the reference to the bba
02:29:01 the bba verification
02:29:06 yes i think there are
02:29:11 i think yes there are people that knew about what was going on myself included although how much i understood about is you know but i did
02:29:22 but i did it's black and white i did i didn't know about that i was told it now let's get your statement at page 45 paragraph 163
02:29:34 you say uh
02:29:39 that this is by reference to the email at db41 includes a proposed set of words
02:29:47 and then you go on to say from the documents i provided i cannot be confident that this was the final version of sent to the labc but i believe i was involved in adapting the labc wording from an earlier version and then you say i remember feeling
02:29:58 and then you say i remember feeling uncomfortable with this text and i said this to both jamie hayes and john roper pointing out that it was different to our literature did you did you point that out to them in a conversation or in an email or a
02:30:09 in a conversation or in an email or a document
02:30:10 document do you remember
02:30:14 probably a conversation i would have thought
02:30:17 thought right and
02:30:20 right and you're describing here the test the text of that those suggested revisions we looked at earlier and
02:30:29 do you know what they said to you in response what was what jamie hayes or john roper said to you in response when you raised the inaccuracies in the proposed set of words the
02:30:38 words the these this is all i don't remember talking to john roper about it at all i really don't i don't recall talking to john roper but i do remember i remember speaking to jamie and i
02:30:51 i remember speaking to jamie and i remember us saying that we were uncomfortable with this but
02:30:55 this but when the paragraphs in my statement that you can see are from an email that was dated sort of november 2014
02:31:06 dated sort of november 2014 so um yeah and and you say you don't remember talking to john roper in your statement of paragraph 163 you'd say you did tell john roper that you're uncomfortable with it
02:31:17 uncomfortable with it is that not right
02:31:22 i just possibly yes i don't remember speaking to john roper about it as i sit here today i can't recall that conversation you did when you wrote your statement
02:31:33 when you wrote your statement can you can you account for that can you account for why it's in your statement but now you can't recall it no right
02:31:43 no right um did you yourself realize that the possible effect of not correcting the the draft labc certificate that you'd received in the may of 2015
02:31:56 you'd received in the may of 2015 or indeed the final version sent to you as we've seen in august 2015 was that anyone who read the labc certificate like a building control officer
02:32:07 officer would be misled into thinking that the system
02:32:10 system within which rs 5000 had been tested so as to produce the br the bsa414 report
02:32:19 report was as it was stated when in fact that wasn't true did i did i had i considered that yes did you realize that the possible effect
02:32:30 did you realize that the possible effect of the labc certificate remaining uncorrected in relation to the description of the test would be that anybody reading it like a building control officer would be misled as to the as to the true nature of the test build
02:32:42 as to the true nature of the test build up
02:32:45 i think as i sit here today now and i speak to you then yes i can see that but it didn't occur to you at the time that that might be uh a consequence no it didn't was it not obvious it wasn't
02:32:56 obvious it wasn't i was it wasn't i was completely overwhelmed with rs 5000 and working on rs5000 the immense pressure there was from the
02:33:07 the immense pressure there was from the sales team to you know that was put on sort of product management if you like on how to use the product um the amount of time i had available i
02:33:20 um the amount of time i had available i i the rs 5000 needed its own resource it needed its own product manager if i'd had all the time for all my time was only for rs 5000 then perhaps
02:33:31 was only for rs 5000 then perhaps perhaps some of this detail would not have gone missed perhaps i would have become more aware of certain things which i am now fully aware of having you know come this far down the track into the inquiry
02:33:43 into the inquiry let's look at the 2016 version which is i think what you're referring to paragraph 35 of your statement is that there are two documents here there's first of all for cel402061
02:33:56 cel402061 which is a fact sheet
02:33:59 that's the document you refer to in your statement
02:34:03 statement that's right isn't it that's what you're exhibiting um
02:34:10 and this is the the fact sheet okay and you can see the issue date is the 19th of august 2016. if you go down to the third the second
02:34:21 if you go down to the third the second pink box
02:34:22 pink box uh you can see there's an issue date there yes
02:34:26 there yes and again the description on the left hand side opposite the image it's exactly the same as the draft may 15 and
02:34:34 15 and final version from 2015 assessed by the bre complies with br 135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate sea conditions
02:34:45 substrate sea conditions certificate for more information and then if we go to the certificate itself
02:34:54 itself which i think is a separate document that's at cel4020
02:35:03 and there again is the certificate this time if you look at the validity it under
02:35:12 it under at the bottom of the page under validity this certificate was first issued on the 21st of august 2014 that was the first one i showed you which you said you'd not seen and is valid until 21st of august 2017
02:35:25 and is valid until 21st of august 2017 issue date 19th of august 2016. now is these are documents that i take you would have seen when they were issued yes
02:35:36 when they were issued yes and if you look at page one we can see that again it's identical to the 2015 draft and final versions yes yes and if we go to page two
02:35:50 yes yes and if we go to page two we can see the conditions well actually we can see both the scope of registration and conditions on scope of registration yet again in the first line celetex has provided test reports
02:36:02 celetex has provided test reports undertaken by bre and bba to verify the product from both performance in fire and thermal properties so yet again that erroneous reference to the bba has found its way now into this version
02:36:15 has found its way now into this version 2016.
02:36:17 2016. it's come from celetex in the draft we saw you sent went into the draft in may 2015 and the final version of 2015 and here it is again
02:36:27 again in august 2016. so this is a perpetual perpetuating or self-perpetuating error isn't it it is and can you explain how that was that error was repeatedly
02:36:39 how that was that error was repeatedly made
02:36:40 made on the face of this certificate
02:36:49 no i i i don't know why this other than perhaps
02:36:56 this this set of words but as it evolved has been it just went unchallenged it went unchallenged very much like lots
02:37:07 it went unchallenged very much like lots of things went unchallenged um it just went unchallenged what else went unchallenged the well the um
02:37:18 the well the um the test reports went unchallenged you know the marketing strategy the proposition behind rs 5000 you know
02:37:29 behind rs 5000 you know that that's gone unchallenged as well and this this is stuff this is things i can this is this is only
02:37:36 only now then it was like you couldn't see the wood for the trees there was so much going on and yeah but this isn't trees this is wood isn't it actually this is i mean the fact that there is a
02:37:48 this is i mean the fact that there is a statement
02:37:50 statement that the bba have done test reports on rs 5000
02:37:54 rs 5000 isn't isn't isn't a minor detail which might get lost that is a an important representation which was completely false
02:38:05 yes yeah and underneath the conditions of certificates tested system comprised it's the same question again ms berger detailed list there of what the tested system comprised
02:38:16 the tested system comprised but no mention there of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of mali yes so again the same misleading omissions
02:38:26 omissions yes
02:38:30 and so we've seen now that the labc have put out with celetex is not just knowledge but encouragement i would suggest a thoroughly misleading
02:38:42 i would suggest a thoroughly misleading certificate you accept that with encouragement from celetex
02:38:48 celetex well let's take it in stages i think you do accept that the lab certificate yes both both in 2015 and 16 was thoroughly misleading in the respects we've covered yes and that i'm suggesting to you that the
02:38:59 the labc did so with the knowledge and as we've seen the encouragement of celetex
02:39:14 yes and the celetex knew that it was misleading and deliberately never took steps
02:39:19 steps to tell the labc or ask the labc to correct
02:39:23 correct those the misleading statements that we've identified um yes
02:39:30 um yes yes sir i agree can i then turn to a different topic which is your involvement with the bre uh in the latter part of 2014 so that's some months after the test
02:39:42 months after the test now do you remember that just after your discussion with jamie hayes you had a meeting with stephen howard of the bre in early november 2014 yes 4th of november to be precise yes
02:39:52 yes and i think jonathan room also attended he did because he'd set up the meeting haven't he can we look at um an email run ceo402131 please this is stephen howard's email to
02:40:06 please this is stephen howard's email to you and i want to look at the foot of page one
02:40:08 page one which is there on the page uh his email to you of the 17th of october 2014 copy to john roper classification report for the cladding and he says we had a conversation a
02:40:19 and he says we had a conversation a while ago regarding the content of the classification reports and the level of technical detail they contained we need to put a lot of info in but you don't want your competitors to see it we've come up with a way of doing it do you remember when that conversation was
02:40:31 you remember when that conversation was that he's referring to that
02:40:37 no i don't you don't remember what you discussed with him
02:40:52 no i don't do you remember ever having a discussion with the bre about the presence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide
02:40:59 oxide i've never had a conversation with the bre about the presence of the six millimeter or the eight millimeter he says in that little uh perhaps rather cryptic second paragraph we have come up
02:41:10 cryptic second paragraph we have come up with a way of doing it um did mr howard explain to you at the meeting
02:41:15 meeting on the 4th of november 2014 what the way of doing it was so we had a conversation a while ago
02:41:29 my honest my my objective to speaking with stephen howard was to um take our 32-page test report down and ask him
02:41:42 test report down and ask him how how can we use this how can rs 5000 be used with other cladding materials is there any way of taking the data from within this report
02:41:54 taking the data from within this report to to validate how other cladding materials might perform in the system right that was your objective in speaking to him yes did he explain to you what his way
02:42:05 yes did he explain to you what his way of doing it was that he's referred to here no he no did you ask him at the meeting no i'm not even sure i understood that at the time well i understand i understand why that
02:42:16 well i understand i understand why that might be so did you ask him to clarify what he meant there
02:42:23 he says we had a conversation a while ago regarding the content of the classification i mean i'm no i don't i don't recall i i don't recall that i
02:42:34 i don't recall i i don't recall that i really don't we could see your response to him or rather i'm sorry your response internally which is i'm going to set up a meeting at the top of the page if we go to the top of page one we can see how you deal with that on the 20th of
02:42:47 how you deal with that on the 20th of october
02:42:47 october hi i'm going to set up a meeting with steve howard early next week to talk about how to detail our bre rs 5000 by report so as it gives us the relevant commercial info without the sensitive stuff he's got
02:42:59 without the sensitive stuff he's got some ideas that could help us um what was the sensitive stuff i think the sensitive stuff i would have referred to there
02:43:11 stuff i would have referred to there would have been thermal couple details the pictures you know taking out sort of trying trying to make it perhaps more easily
02:43:22 trying to make it perhaps more easily understood so the fire report taking out all of the stuff which was complicated and technical and and trying to find something which was you know more useful well you didn't say without the
02:43:35 useful well you didn't say without the complicated stuff all the technical stuff you said the sensitive stuff what was sensitive about the report that you wanted to remove
02:43:51 that you wanted to remove i mean this
02:43:54 this email um i didn't know about the stuff to my knowledge i did not know about
02:44:02 about the tweaks or the use of different materials
02:44:06 materials on on within within the br 135 test at this stage so my when i look you know i would have thought
02:44:20 when i read that and i've reviewed these documents you know my idea there is to try and make the report something that can be used with other
02:44:31 something that can be used with other cladding systems now in your statement you say and this is you don't need to go to it it's paragraph 174 on page 47. you say that that was a reference to areas which were thought to be commercially sensitive
02:44:42 commercially sensitive that's how you've explained it in your statement what were those what did you think was commercially sensitive
02:44:54 i think what i've said there to give it gives the relevant commercial info without the sensitive stuff i think what i'm referring there is like the details of the test and how it can
02:45:06 the details of the test and how it can be used with other cladding materials i see now did you ever ask mr howard what he meant with his way of doing it that he'd referred to you in the evening which you were which you were circulating not to my
02:45:17 which you were circulating not to my knowledge
02:45:18 knowledge no now there's a note of the meeting i think or after the meeting ceo401260 this is the note that you prepared after the meeting incorporating comments i think from mr
02:45:30 incorporating comments i think from mr room that he'd sent you is that right after the bre meeting after the after the we've been down to see mr howard yeah right and uh it uh let's just let's just
02:45:42 right and uh it uh let's just let's just pick up
02:45:43 pick up the email i'll just show it to you it's cel401259
02:45:52 just to be clear that mr room had incorporated his own comments in into this
02:46:00 yes um and then or rather he'd sent you a message on the bottom of that page and then at the top of that page you then send a short
02:46:11 top of that page you then send a short summary feel free to add or amend if we go back to the note cell401260
02:46:21 we can see under the first block of text market growing uncertainty technical application emotional what was that about
02:46:32 um there's a lot of feeling around the this is feedback i was getting from uh mr howard and he was telling me there was a lot of um
02:46:43 was a lot of um there was some you know there was quite a lot of strong feelings about the the 8414 the k50 the k-15 market as i was
02:46:53 i was as i'd call it um strong feelings about the 8414k15 market can you just elaborate what do you mean what did he tell you do you remember
02:47:06 what did he tell you do you remember about strong feelings i think
02:47:11 it's i can only go by what my notes here say but i you know these bullet points are an overall overall impression that i that i got that you know people were getting a little bit
02:47:23 were getting a little bit their approvals were sensitive to insulation being about sales well i was going to ask you about that but before i do i just want to get a sense of what emotions or emotional means and what when you say
02:47:35 or emotional means and what when you say there were strong feelings out there what that really was about what why were what did people feel strongly about i think
02:47:44 i mean it's just it was just emotional there was just like there was some concern i think about the market it was concerned that
02:47:55 concerned that you know products were being used um where they shouldn't be concerned by the bre or concern in the market
02:48:10 i'm trying to think i'm trying to remember
02:48:15 remember i meant by that um
02:48:23 i think it i think it was a combination i think it could be a just combination of the two i don't know i i honestly can't remember this could be something that's coming from
02:48:33 from this this is that this this level of this this um report here is it's come from that meeting on the 4th of november so i really met i
02:48:46 on the 4th of november so i really met i can say that this has come from that meeting
02:48:49 meeting i'm just trying to work out what the source of the strong feelings is whether it's the bre expressing their own concerns about how they see the market or
02:48:58 market or concerns from the market that mr howard is
02:49:01 is relaying to you just trying to work out what the source is
02:49:12 what the source is i can't i don't know it's an impression it's an impression i got from that meeting and i can't pinpoint it into
02:49:19 it into if it's come from the bre or if or what i can't pinpoint it all right third bullet point down you refer to bre stroke bba stroke nhbc approvals
02:49:30 approvals sensitive to insulation being about sales
02:49:33 sales yes what did that mean what was that about
02:49:38 that's exactly that was that was bra bba and hpc approval sensitive to installation being about sales it's like it was as if they were um learning or becoming more aware
02:49:50 becoming more aware that perhaps you know things weren't as honest as they should be right
02:50:02 is that something that mr howard said i would have thought so because i wouldn't have known that right and underneath that
02:50:13 right and underneath that the last bullet point uh it says burnt by k-15 approvals in the past what was that about uh just the k15 had the king's ban
02:50:27 uh just the k15 had the king's ban um tests and the bba certificate had um was being used um quite freely really outside of its tested system
02:50:39 well uh burnt by k-15 approvals in the past who had been burnt as it were i think the nhbc bba
02:50:52 they've been burnt by whose approvals their approvals yes right
02:51:00 and in what sense have they been burnt did you understand by giving approval to k15
02:51:10 i think that perhaps um i think that perhaps you know um
02:51:22 i think that perhaps you know um k-15 had been used um incorrectly and the
02:51:33 and the the bodies like nhbc um had accepted it while it had been used incorrectly
02:51:44 right
02:51:55 and and that's was your impression that these concerns that mr howard was expressing had come from perhaps confusion caused by kingspan's
02:52:06 perhaps confusion caused by kingspan's wide acceptance in the market
02:52:12 i think i think confusion is a good word um
02:52:15 um but whether this is my impression or whether this is something that mr howard has has said i don't know i can't be
02:52:26 sure can we then just look on a bit um in to a different topic scope of the use of rs 5000 and can we look at an email run ceo 403366 please
02:52:42 look at an email run ceo 403366 please uh and uh just at the bottom of page one for the time stamp please and then over to the top of page two this is an email sent by nigel waring
02:52:51 waring within celetex to you and john roach the 7th november 12 57 and over the top of page two he says
02:52:59 says debbie has discussed you see that the re solution is tested as per the attached document
02:53:04 document etc uh and then he goes on to say
02:53:14 if the bre tested solution is per the attached document and the jonathan room's email stating that many rs companies are reluctant to use the product of the test since adb states the product used must be in accordance with the tested application
02:53:27 accordance with the tested application then he goes on to say if this is the case this is not the smoke screen that many would make it out to be accepted that blanket approvals for this are rare since the components differ widely
02:53:36 widely therefore it makes sense either to have a bre applied certification and therefore acceptance to the test provided that all components adhere to a certain euro code or file performance themselves in the same way that steel frame construction or also
02:53:47 that steel frame construction or also the methods to secure and fasten these elements have to conform to en numbers or we could not have the product accepted as part of the lpc the approval etc um
02:53:59 now when he says this is not the smoke screen that many make it out to be what did you understand by that
02:54:10 i don't know can we then look at your reply page 1 20 20 22 31 on the 10th of uh november 2014 and you say in your second paragraph
02:54:21 second paragraph this is copied for paul evans and john roper i should say we have spoken to the bre
02:54:25 bre about writing us a field of application report demonstrating acceptance of materials with the same fire class as part of our tested system but they are asking for more test data not just from us but from the industry as a whole before they confidently give
02:54:36 as a whole before they confidently give the okay to different types of clouding to be used even though they have the same fire class
02:54:42 when did you have that conversation with the bre
02:54:45 the bre where they about writing a field of application report i could only i must have had that with them at the meeting that we that we went to
02:54:54 to i see and the fourth i see that's not reflected in the note that we've seen anywhere sorry which note the note of the meeting the 4th of november
02:55:01 november 2014 meeting with stephen howard that fact
02:55:05 fact it's not in the note
02:55:11 can i go back to the note please yes uh ceo401260
02:55:23 and that's the first part of it the second part of it is lower down you see anything in the note there which could be a reference to you asking vre for uh a field of
02:55:36 you asking vre for uh a field of application report that was the objective of the meeting and this is the response we got it wasn't we didn't get an answer about right i see now if we go to page 38 of your
02:55:50 now if we go to page 38 of your statement and look at paragraph 136 please
02:55:55 you say there that bottom of the page the first sentence after a few months as a product manager and working more closely with the sales team i really felt the product needed to get back into
02:56:06 felt the product needed to get back into development yeah i did and let's just pick that up at cel401273 is an email on the 20th of january 2015
02:56:20 i think you refer to in the pa in the second sentence of paragraph 136 as you can see there yes ceo four zero is one two seven three is that email there it is hi richard to summarize the conversation
02:56:33 richard to summarize the conversation earlier
02:56:34 earlier and then you can see that you say short term
02:56:37 term there's three bullet points and under the under that you say one of the challenges rs-5000 has is its field of application the market is changing as is more knowledgeable about the turret about the technical requirements
02:56:49 turret about the technical requirements of insulation and ventilated facades above 18 meters the build-up tested or its current field of application doesn't represent what is commonly specified in the field
02:56:58 the field and limits specification and sales opportunities is that why you felt the product needed to go back into development oh i think so yes right now you say that the field of application was a challenge
02:57:10 the field of application was a challenge because the market was becoming more knowledgeable about technical requirements was it your view at the time that previously the product had accepted been accepted more readily because of a lack of such knowledge no
02:57:22 because of a lack of such knowledge no i think the um i think the it's something i had very little commercial knowledge and very little commercial experience when i
02:57:33 experience when i started work as a product manager um and i didn't honestly i learned from the sales team i mean there was it was difficult because
02:57:46 mean there was it was difficult because i was
02:57:47 i was trying to engage with experts to try and understand how the product could be used and i appreciate that we now know the test was not correct i appreciate that but at the time we were trying to engage
02:57:59 but at the time we were trying to engage with engineers experts to try and understand how the product could be used with different cladding materials and that was kind of my that was my focus that was what i wanted to do but on the other side there was the
02:58:10 but on the other side there was the sales team that wanted to use the product and they were
02:58:14 were a force they were the amount of inquiries
02:58:18 inquiries i had from the sales team about well this is
02:58:22 this is so i was learning a lot about what the market was saying from the people that i was visiting such as the bre and also from the sales team and it was it was it was well
02:58:34 it was it was well yes what you're telling us is that actually you were able you were observing a process whereby the market was going from the dark into the light they were becoming starting from a position of relative ignorance yes i'm
02:58:45 position of relative ignorance yes i'm moving to a position absolutely the product was launched with a certain strategy which i became more aware of as i went along
02:58:53 along but obviously the market had changed and they were looking for i don't know why i'm not entirely sure why the market changed but it did and did you get the impression
02:59:05 it did and did you get the impression that when this product was originally launched it was relying to some extent on the lack of knowledge about the above 18 meter requirements at the time i didn't know that but now 100
02:59:15 100 right mr chairman that's a convenient moment i'm not quite at the end of my questions as you can probably tell uh but i am in my estimate is that i am about
02:59:24 about about 30 minutes perhaps a little less than that from the end right i'm afraid of slightly i don't know whether you were hoping to be released at this stage i would like to be no no i would i would
02:59:35 i would like to be no no i would i would like to carry on and finish it and i think everybody needs a break at this stage and if mr millet says he's got half an hour of questions it's likely to be a bit more than that um at least
02:59:46 um at least in my experience um so we're going to break now
02:59:50 break now uh we'll all get some lunch including you
02:59:53 you we'll come back at 2 o'clock and resume then please and um while you're out please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right
03:00:03 right thank you very much thank you all right we'd like to go to the usher
03:00:16 right two o'clock then please
03:00:36 you