Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Evidence from Celotex marketing manager Jonathan Raper on RS5000 insulation product testing and marketing practices
00:00:14 uh would you ask mr roofer to come back in
00:00:28 please
00:00:34 right mr rep ready to carry on yes yep good thank you yes thank you mr chairman mr raper can i ask you please to be shown cel one one 40110 nine please this is the
00:00:46 one one 40110 nine please this is the first of august full test report from the bre in its final version
00:00:53 uh and can we go within that please to page six
00:00:58 page six the paragraph 3.2
00:01:02 under the heading description of the system
00:01:06 system in general and specifically description of product it says figure two shows the system during construction do you see that yes and then it says the system prior to
00:01:17 and then it says the system prior to test is shown in figure three full details of the system specification and installation details have been provided by the client and are summarized in the following section the system as
00:01:28 section the system as built comprised of and then there's a long list of bullet points and you can see what's there but also what's not there you can see that there's no mention either of the magnesium oxide
00:01:40 either of the magnesium oxide the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters at a marley eternity cladding is there no so when it says full details of the system specification and
00:01:52 of the system specification and installation details have been provided by the client that wasn't true was it no
00:02:02 now you say in your statement of paragraph through 7.13
00:02:08 7.13 if we can look at that at page 17 that
00:02:17 you looked at the draft test report now this is an earlier draft and i should just tell you the context of this is the meeting that you had with the nhbc on the 17th
00:02:28 you had with the nhbc on the 17th on the 19th of june 2014 as we've as we will come on to later but when you did review a draft test report which came in from the bre did you notice that it
00:02:39 from the bre did you notice that it didn't refer to the six millimeters magnesium oxide i did yes
00:02:43 did yes you did and did you think that they'd not referred to it in their draft because they hadn't been told about it or because phil clark had kept it a
00:02:54 or because phil clark had kept it a secret
00:02:55 secret or some some other reason so um after the second test um generally there's a period of
00:03:06 um generally there's a period of two or three weeks where the rig is deconstructed um jamie who wasn't present at the second test came down to the bre with me and spoke to phil clark and we looked at it
00:03:20 phil clark and we looked at it during deconstruction and it was phil clark's
00:03:24 clark's view that the six mil magnesium oxide wouldn't have made any difference and um the reason for the
00:03:36 um the reason for the test passing was the increase in the cladding panel from eight mil to 12 mil so
00:03:46 12 mil so i can only assume that he omitted that detail
00:03:51 detail because of his view on that day
00:03:54 do you remember any discussion with mr clark to the effect that he ought to admit that detail no let's look at the conversation we have i think something in that from mr hayes statement
00:04:05 hayes statement can i ask you to be shane that please it's cel00010154 and i'd like you to go to page 22 in
00:04:16 and i'd like you to go to page 22 in that document
00:04:22 and look at paragraph 67. he says there at a visit to the rig after the second test i recall a conversation between pc that's phil clark at the bre
00:04:33 between pc that's phil clark at the bre and jr
00:04:34 and jr that's you mr roper where when asked by john roper phil clark agreed that the rig had passed the second test so easily that he suspected that it would have passed even without the additional material
00:04:45 additional material i'm just pausing there the additional material is the six millimeters magnesium oxide and the eight millimeters eternity panel on the top of it
00:04:54 top of it yes just using the thicker cladding my recollection of the conversation is that it was led by jr and pc's opinion in this regard was expressed in agreement with jr we were on the second floor in an office
00:05:05 we were on the second floor in an office looking down at the second test rig we all got on well with pc and he was telling us about what it was like to work at the bre including that they had dealt with the burning of the cows when the mad cow
00:05:16 burning of the cows when the mad cow outbreak occurred do you yourself recall that conversation as mr hayes has recorded it here i do yes is there anything you want to add to what he said there or are you happy with his his recollection
00:05:27 are you happy with his his recollection as he's uh recorded it i think it's uh an accurate recollection right thank you well you could just help us to this extent uh
00:05:37 extent uh what he's suggesting is that it was you who
00:05:41 who uh expressed the opinion that um the uh test would have been passed even without the additional material to which mr clark ascended is that your recollection did you put
00:05:52 is that your recollection did you put that forward as the i think uh to take i think we had a conversation prior to uh jamie and i going down to the test rig i can't remember whether that was
00:06:04 i can't remember whether that was directly after the completion of the test or whether that was when i was on the phone to him rearranging to come down but he had mentioned that to me before
00:06:14 before prior to us attending and hence i prompted him to relay what he'd relayed to me before in front of jamie
00:06:28 can you explain who made the decision not to refer to the eight the six millimeters of magnesium oxide in the bre report uh phil clark
00:06:39 in the bre report uh phil clark phil clark uh and if we could look at if we go back to the report the test report that is to say uh i'd like to look at page seven that's uh cel401109 page
00:06:52 uh cel401109 page seven please let's look at paragraph 3.3.4
00:06:57 3.3.4 it says
00:07:00 there uh under rain screen an array of vertical carrier rails were fixed to the helping hand brackets with both l and t aluminium brackets used a single layer of 12 millimeters mali eternity board
00:07:12 of 12 millimeters mali eternity board was mechanically attached to the carrier rails with self-tapping stainless steel screws and washers again that was not true was it in the sense that it wasn't the whole
00:07:23 in the sense that it wasn't the whole truth was it no because there's no reference to the eight millimeters with a six millimeter magnesium oxide backing in those two places on the rig correct again who made the decision not
00:07:34 correct again who made the decision not to
00:07:35 to refer to the eight millimeters of mali attorney nature aboard in those locations in this uh test report right do you remember instructing phil phil
00:07:46 do you remember instructing phil phil clark to do that or leaving him to do it and you not correcting him uh leaving him to do and to be honest with you i was surprised when the test report came across surprised because
00:07:59 came across surprised because because he um clearly understood the components in full of the second test and hadn't detailed it
00:08:10 detailed it in the test report right so surprised that he was prepared to conceal those two elements of the rig even though in fact you were prepared to
00:08:21 even though in fact you were prepared to go along with their installation yes yes
00:08:26 yes yes can we look at page nine in the same document
00:08:38 under paragraph five which all section five which is entitled post test damage report there's a subsection 5.1 which is entitled external layer
00:08:49 5.1 which is entitled external layer and it says a schematic illustration of the damage to the system is shown in the condition of the cladding system after the test is shown in figure 18. it was noted that the insulation layer continued to burn past 30 minute
00:09:00 continued to burn past 30 minute with the flaming extinguished at 60 minutes
00:09:05 now note that there
00:09:12 if you now look at your witness statement please i'd like to go to page 18
00:09:16 18 in that document
00:09:24 and a paragraph 714 at the top of the page
00:09:28 page you say i did not know whether this was normal or not
00:09:35 and this was uh the presentation uh but was taught perhaps we should get back a little so i can put the question more fairly to you if we go back a page i'm so sorry but pick it up at the foot of the previous page
00:09:48 of the previous page um this is the meeting we've been looking at uh uh uh in june and noticing that the first draft of this test report hadn't referred to the magnesium oxide in the list of components
00:09:59 list of components and the sentence is the next sentence is my perception was that the board had a clear view as to how they wanted to market the product even before the test report was available so that was
00:10:09 was that's the background to the next sentence where you say over the page at paragraph 7.14 i did not know whether this was normal or not
00:10:18 or not but was told by paul evans that kingspan were thought to be purposefully emitting information about their bsa414 test from their sales literature this was celetex's intended approach
00:10:30 this was celetex's intended approach paul evans and paul reed made clear that celetex would not correct the information in the bre report now at this stage this is in the context of the 19th of june meeting that you'd had with or were having
00:10:41 had with or were having with the nhbc at celetex's premises in hadley
00:10:46 hadley yes in suffolk wasn't it so when you say this was celetex's intended approach was it clear to you at least at that meeting even though you were simply looking at the draft of the bre report at that stage
00:10:58 report at that stage that celetex were deliberately going to emit information about their bs8414 test from their sales literature yeah and that included this test report correct yes and they were doing so
00:11:10 correct yes and they were doing so because kingspan were thought purposefully to be doing the same yes deliberately that is yes yes yes
00:11:20 so to be clear the real purpose here was to conceal the presence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide and the eight millimeter panels from people who might be reading
00:11:31 panels from people who might be reading the test report as opposed to from the bre itself correct i see
00:11:38 and then you go on in that paragraph to say
00:11:43 say paul reed asked whether anyone was likely to pick it up there was some discussion about how often potential customers asked for the full test report and the conclusion was that this never happened
00:11:55 was that this never happened uh when you say or pick it up paul reed asked whether anyone was likely to pick it up what was the it there
00:12:04 um pick up the fact that the details were were emitted from the from the test report i believe right so the magnesium
00:12:15 report i believe right so the magnesium oxide
00:12:15 oxide six millimeters and the eight millimeter panel correct panels and you say that the conclusion reached it was the potential customers
00:12:25 never ask for the full test report i'm summarizing in a slightly different way what you've written there who was it who came to that conclusion um
00:12:33 um i think that was the general view within within the business i referred to um on thursday during my
00:12:44 um on thursday during my evidence there that
00:12:48 what happened quite commonly in the installation market is that one manufacturer would obtain literature of another manufacturer via
00:12:59 literature of another manufacturer via third-party distribution what was clear is that
00:13:04 is that the k-15 test report had never been discovered um and i guess people assumed that the only reason that the test report wasn't in circulation
00:13:16 the test report wasn't in circulation was because it was never issued to to customers never asked for
00:13:24 were you effectively i say you the three of you
00:13:28 of you celetex is the company effectively relying on customers apathy or lack of sophistication in seeking the full test report i think as was the case with many
00:13:41 i think as was the case with many test reports at the time celetex would do their utmost to avoid sending them out
00:13:49 it may be that this is my fault for not understanding something but at the moment i can't see how any customer
00:13:56 customer could detect the absence of material from the
00:14:01 from the bre documentation because what would they have to compare it with
00:14:08 sorry i don't i don't follow well it's suggested here that and you suggested your evidence that customers didn't ask for the full test report and that you could live with that risk that they might do
00:14:20 live with that risk that they might do so and thereby discover that there was information missing from it what i find it difficult to understand is how could they ever discover that
00:14:31 is how could they ever discover that there had been magnesium oxide boards for example on the test rig because it was never referenced in there yeah yeah i see um i i don't know
00:14:42 um i i don't know in terms of in terms of that i know that there was a wider discussion not only around the detail of the or the description of the test but equally
00:14:53 test but equally um some photographs that quite clearly to
00:14:57 to to me showed that there was magnesium oxide i think maybe that was where the discussion developed too
00:15:04 too um and the fact that it wasn't referenced in the the description but if you looked at the photographs alongside the test report you can
00:15:15 alongside the test report you can clearly see well i can clearly see that the orange 8ml panel actually ends up being shown as a whiteboard those photographs
00:15:26 photographs were were they included in the test report they were yes right yeah i could see that yeah mr jim we get we're about to we're about to come to those
00:15:33 those i'm sorry again no no it's not it it it's it's fine ahead of you don't i no it's it's in all respects uh can i just then take a slight run up to this just looking at the generalities in
00:15:44 this just looking at the generalities in paragraph 7.14 was it the case that because kingspan k15 had you thought deliberately concealed material information about their bs 8414 test in
00:15:56 information about their bs 8414 test in their sales literature and thereby gained dominance over the above 18 meter market for insulation seletax's plan was basically to follow suit in order to enter that market so i understood it yes that's the way you
00:16:07 understood it yes that's the way you understood it
00:16:12 now i think is it right you were asked by paul evans and paul reed to ask the bre to remove the final image in the test report that's correct yes now let's just look
00:16:23 that's correct yes now let's just look at the draft you were looking at at this meeting
00:16:25 meeting because i have been showing you the final version because in that respect it didn't change and indeed it doesn't but let's look at
00:16:34 cel401352 this is a draft or the draft of this report dated the 2nd of june 2014. we
00:16:42 2014. we glanced at it earlier for the purposes of the chronology we went through before the break
00:16:47 the break and this is dated the 2nd of june 2014. and if we go to um page
00:16:55 if we go to the last page it's page 33 there are two pages i want to show you
00:17:06 there are two pages i want to show you page 33
00:17:09 page 33 that's figure 16. we'll come back to that later if we go to page 35 this is figure 18
00:17:23 and just to be clear for your benefit and for the chairman this became figure 19
00:17:27 19 in the final first of august version of the full report so there's no secrets here this photograph remained in the final version this is figure 18 and
00:17:38 this is figure 18 and in this report it's the final photograph um this is a picture of the rig being dismantled isn't it it is yes and i think you can see clearly there on the right hand side a layer of white
00:17:49 on the right hand side a layer of white material on top of the insulation just above the level two thermocouples is that right correct yeah and just i mean you don't have a pointer but for those looking at this document perhaps for the first time
00:18:01 perhaps for the first time that's the white rectangle above the charred material on the right of the rig is that right yes yes and then there's also white material running
00:18:13 also white material running along the top of the rig horizontally from right to left and then from right to left on the return is that also the six millimeter magnesium oxide yes so both of those are showing the the
00:18:24 yes so both of those are showing the the white
00:18:24 white six millimeter magnesium oxide correct yes and those would have sat uh behind the orange eight millimeter marley alternate natura boards right
00:18:37 now if we compare that and i think if you've answered this but it's useful to do it if you go back to page 33 for comparison purposes and look at
00:18:45 at figure 17
00:18:51 uh or 16 as one i was on a moment ago we can look at 17 if you like but 16 will do just as well we can see that there while the rig is still burning post test or smoldering perhaps
00:19:02 post test or smoldering perhaps you can see the orange strips and those are the mali that turn it eight millimeter panels aren't they yes
00:19:09 they yes so that's where they were
00:19:14 now is that the image that you say in your statement of paragraph 7.16 that paul evans and paul reed asked you to ask the bre
00:19:25 and paul reed asked you to ask the bre to remove
00:19:27 to remove um this image here yes so i'm so sorry can we go back to 18 on page 35 this image yes it was and did they ask you to remove
00:19:41 it was and did they ask you to remove that because it would have drawn attention to the construction of the rig and specifically the thickness of the cladding
00:19:46 cladding and the presence of the eight the eight millimeter cladding and the six millimeter manganese magnesium oxide yes yes now if we look at the bottom of figure 18
00:19:57 18 on page 35 you can see there's a little speech bubble and a one yes which looks like a sticky which refers to a footnote if you turn the page
00:20:04 page to page 36 please you can see there there's a
00:20:07 there's a there is a note and it's note number one author j and then a long number subject sticky note date first of july 2014 and there's the note can we change this
00:20:18 and there's the note can we change this image to the one i've attached with this email to show a close-up of horizontal fire barrier and the insulation below and above the brake
00:20:30 and the email itself it is at cel401350
00:20:44 and here's the email to uh phil clark it's uh at the bottom of page one
00:20:51 one and over to the top of page two it's the one i showed you earlier just before the break this afternoon and in the second paragraph you say as previously discussed
00:21:04 you say as previously discussed could you also replace figure 18 with the attached photographs as we want to show a close-up of the condition of our insulation below and above the fire break with the intumescent fired off if you feel you also have a suitable
00:21:15 if you feel you also have a suitable photograph then please include uh now the photographs that you attached i don't think there's any need to go to them but they they didn't show the magnesium oxide did they no
00:21:27 they no and the reason you're giving mr clark here is that you wanted to show a close-up of the insulation above and below the fire break was that the real reason no what was the real reason to um withdraw any reference to the
00:21:40 to um withdraw any reference to the magnesium oxide board why did you need to give mr clark a false reason when in fact as you say he knew the real reason um
00:21:51 knew the real reason um because i was instructed to by whom by paul and paul you were instructed to give him a false reason yes
00:22:02 reason yes even though you knew and is this right mr evans also knew that mr clark knew the real reason hence um the final report that came back still included that photo
00:22:15 still included that photo it did do i detect from what you're saying that you were instructed by mr evans to create a false record of the reasons why you wanted the change
00:22:26 reasons why you wanted the change yes i don't want to put words in your mouth because it's a serious point but what other explanation can you sitting there give as to why you would give mr clark a false reason i had to come up with a reason to
00:22:39 asks for that photograph to be admitted is it possible despite what you've told us and i have to put this to you that mr clark had no idea uh uh uh that you wanted to emit the
00:22:51 uh uh uh that you wanted to emit the eight
00:22:51 eight the reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide not oxide and the eight millimeter marley alternate boards uh and the he might and he might have thought that this was a genuine reason
00:23:03 thought that this was a genuine reason no i don't believe so and i believe that's why this figure 18 subsequently wasn't omitted from that test report and was was included in the
00:23:14 test report and was was included in the in the final report
00:23:19 so you were asking the bre to remove in asking them to remove that picture the only element of the report which should show the presence of the additional material yes that was
00:23:31 yes that was a deliberate attempt i would suggest to create a misleading test report yes except that i do yes and you say you're in no doubt that mr evans knew that is that right that's correct and what about mr clark
00:23:44 that's correct and what about mr clark mr clark um
00:23:48 i think knew that that was a deliberate attempt to remove that photograph and remove any reference to the magnesium oxide
00:23:59 now let's look at paragraph 7.16 of your statement
00:24:10 you are there giving your recollection of a meeting that was taking place with paul evans
00:24:21 paul evans on the 19th of june 2014 after the nhbc had had left about this report and you say that
00:24:32 about this report and you say that the reason we considered omitting the image of the cladding from the test report to be a medium risk it was because the chances of anyone looking at the full test report were low i was asked by paul evans and paul reed
00:24:43 i was asked by paul evans and paul reed to request the bre to remove the final image from the test report as it would have drawn attention to the construction of the rig specifically the type and depth of panel used had anyone seen the photograph and compared it with others in the report
00:24:55 compared it with others in the report and then you go on to say this there was some risk in asking for the deletion that it might prompt questions however although i did a email the bre had asked them to replace the photograph with another one and we've seen that the bre did not do
00:25:07 and we've seen that the bre did not do so in the version of the report which came back to the business i discussed this with paul evans and rob warren and it was decided not to press the point
00:25:14 the point for fear of drawing further undue attention to it under your attention from whom from the bre but if phil clark knew all about
00:25:26 the bre but if phil clark knew all about it why would any attention from him be undue
00:25:32 um
00:25:36 i think sorry can you rephrase that question yes if phil clark was in on it as it were he knew very well that you didn't want to refer
00:25:44 refer or any reference at all in the test report to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of mali eternity natura at the two locations and you knew you didn't want that what
00:25:55 and you knew you didn't want that what would be the problem of with pressing the point um that he changed his mind and included in the description right
00:26:06 included in the description right i see
00:26:13 i see if we then turn back to the final report as issued on the 1st of august at
00:26:22 cel401109 look at page 29 we can see what has now become figure 19 which is the same photograph as before slightly better version of it
00:26:34 slightly better version of it actually at least on this draft so we can take it that the photograph which was figure 18 that you wanted out as you told mr clark on the 1st of july
00:26:46 as you told mr clark on the 1st of july remained in the final report yes and as you've told us in your statement that was a risk you were prepared to live with
00:26:54 live with yes
00:27:00 and if we look back at paragraph 7.14 of your statement which we've looked at a moment ago with the chairman discussion about how often potential
00:27:12 discussion about how often potential customers ask for the full test report and the conclusions that this never happened
00:27:18 happened was the risk that the business was prepared to run that customers would buy rs 5000 uh without asking for the full test report
00:27:29 report i think there was um
00:27:33 a general view within the business that
00:27:37 it would be um only unlimited occasions where
00:27:41 where somebody would ask for a full test report um as i said previously i i don't think that celetex would have issued that test report as they
00:27:53 report as they didn't issue any test reports to my knowledge
00:27:59 so it was the real risk the business was to run
00:28:02 to run not not a risk to the customer but a risk to celetex that if somebody asked for the full test report and spotted from figure 19 that actually there was an undescribed material lying on the test rig they would ask
00:28:14 lying on the test rig they would ask start asking difficult questions yes and that was a risk that celetex was prepared to run wasn't it yes yes can we then go to the classification report cel402133
00:28:33 now this is the 12-page classification report itself now we've been through the mini chronology with this document this had an earlier issue date of the fourth of august with issue one and the issue two was a
00:28:45 issue two was a the subject of minor corrections and was issued on the 11th of august as we can see
00:28:53 excuse me if we look at page two of that document start with page two
00:29:03 it contains a warning
00:29:06 and it says this report is made on behalf of bre global and may only be distributed in its entirety without amendment and with attribution to bre global limited to the extent permitted by the terms and
00:29:17 to the extent permitted by the terms and conditions of the contract and it then goes on and contains various diagrams
00:29:23 diagrams showing the tested system and do you accept
00:29:27 accept and i can show you the whole of the document if you like that there is no diagram which shows the presence of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide that's right that's right for example perhaps we can show people
00:29:39 for example perhaps we can show people who are looking in on this uh page six and page seven let's have page six figure one if we can blow that up here is the diagram system has tested and there's there's uh well that's not if we can get
00:29:52 there's uh well that's not if we can get that bigger on the screen so that people can see the um the diagram and particularly the bottom left-hand corner
00:30:03 you can show right it may not be possible to do this but you're familiar with this document and you can take it from me and agree with me that there's no reference in there at all to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide
00:30:15 the six millimeters of magnesium oxide that's right nor indeed to the eight millimeter panels at the second level thermocouple or the top of the rig no no and we may be able to do better on page seven figure two if we can't um
00:30:28 figure two if we can't um we can't um construction of the system showing the key layers of the cladding system we can do better there in fact again we can see that the aluminium continuous rail the lay profile rivet 12 millimeters of malia turn it natural
00:30:39 millimeters of malia turn it natural panel
00:30:40 panel and 100 millimeters of celotex rs-5000 no reference to the magnesium oxide board of of six millimeters and no reference to the eight millimeters of um of malia
00:30:51 millimeters of um of malia eternity at the level two thermocouples or the top of the rig that's right
00:30:58 so if what if you take the test report and the classification report and ask yourself what what did the rig comprise they would be consistent but equally consistently omitting
00:31:09 but equally consistently omitting reference to both of those items yes thank you
00:31:19 now can i ask you to go to page 11 in this document
00:31:27 this is section 4 at the bottom of the page
00:31:31 page uh uh uh and it says under 4.3 observations mechanical performance and then in the second paragraph it says the cladding system exhibited localized combustion after the heat source was
00:31:42 combustion after the heat source was extinguished at 30 minutes this continued until it was manually extinguished at the conclusion of the test period at 60 minutes now i'd like if we can do this to keep
00:31:53 now i'd like if we can do this to keep that on the screen there and then pull up what i showed you earlier but didn't ask you a question about
00:31:58 about from the full test report ceo401109 at page nine paragraph 5.1 because i want to compare the two
00:32:12 that's very helpful um if you can see on the right hand side i showed you this before 5.1 external layer in the second sentence it says it was it
00:32:23 in the second sentence it says it was it was noted that the insulation layer continued to burn past the 30 minute with the flaming extinguished at 60 minutes but in the on the left hand side it says
00:32:34 but in the on the left hand side it says the cladding system exhibited localized combustion after the heat source was extinguished at 30 minutes this continued until it was manually extinguished at the conclusion of the test period at 60 minutes now unlike 5.1 on the right-hand side
00:32:47 now unlike 5.1 on the right-hand side the classification report doesn't refer to the insulation supporting combustion does it no do you know why that is no that's the first time that's ever been brought to my attention is that right
00:32:58 my attention is that right yes okay uh now um we can put those away and go to your statement again page 17.
00:33:10 to your statement again page 17. and look at paragraph 17.13 please this again and i'm sorry to keep coming back to this um meeting but this was again the meeting of the 19th of june 2014 in your hadley office uh and um
00:33:23 in your hadley office uh and um you say here there was a short break in the meeting and that was the meeting with nhbc
00:33:27 with nhbc whilst i went to print off the draft test report received earlier that morning
00:33:31 morning but just to be clear that's that's the first draft of the test report uh the second of june uh and brought it back to paul evans office paul evans paul reed and i looked at it together and noted that it did not refer to the
00:33:42 and noted that it did not refer to the magnesium oxide board in the list of components my perception was that the board had a clear view as to how they wanted to market the products even before the test report was available now i've shown you that before
00:33:55 and if you go over the page to page 18 and look at paragraph 17.17 7.17 at the bottom of the page you say i did not escalate my concerns about the
00:34:06 did not escalate my concerns about the test report beyond the discussion which i had with paul evans and paul reed on the 19th of june as described above my understanding at the time was that the decision not to refer to the magnesium oxide board had been taken by
00:34:17 magnesium oxide board had been taken by the board and i was following instructions did somebody tell you that the board had taken that view or that decision um no i think that was that was my view
00:34:29 no i think that was that was my view after what paul had discussed with me after the management action group meeting on the 14th um 14th of may
00:34:40 14th um 14th of may right the month month before i see and did that include a view or your understanding that the board had decided to conceal the full details of the design of the
00:34:51 the full details of the design of the rig
00:34:51 rig for the second test in may 2014 from the test report and indeed the classification report no because i don't believe it at the time of the
00:35:00 of the management action group the test report wasn't i don't think anybody had seen a draft
00:35:06 draft report of the of the test report right
00:35:12 now we move forward then to ceo 409742 please we can see that the final version of both the test report and the classification report was sent to you on
00:35:23 classification report was sent to you on the 5th of august 2014 and if we go to page 2 of that email run we ought to see that
00:35:38 uh and i've given you a wrong reference it's cel409724 please 9724
00:35:49 and if you go to page two there you can see
00:35:55 if we go to page two yes thank you we can see that on the 5th of august 2014 debbie kent of bre sends you the test report and the classification report in
00:36:06 report in in their full form copy to stephen howard and tony baker at the bre and if we scroll up to the bottom of page one
00:36:15 we can see that you you forward those reports to paul evans on the 11th of august 2014 and you ask him a question can we discuss what we want to use as proof
00:36:27 discuss what we want to use as proof that we have passed br 135 please why did you ask him that question
00:36:33 question because those discussions had taken place
00:36:37 place since the successful result at the at the second test
00:36:43 as i said initially all of the concerns were
00:36:47 were firstly how do we pass the test and then how do we market that and what what do we use as as proof
00:36:56 and i think at the time i probably didn't understand that you got a separate
00:37:01 separate classification report to accompany the the full bs8414 test report so um i was asking him
00:37:12 um i was asking him as it as it states what did he want the business to use as as proof i follow so just to be clear you weren't asking you were asking him which of those two documents you should use yes as opposed
00:37:23 documents you should use yes as opposed to should we use these documents and if not these documents what else yes so it's the former of those is it it is yes which of these two documents i should use yes i see now he responds to your question
00:37:37 now he responds to your question higher up page one with an email if we just flick up to that please of the same day do we have any understanding of what kingspan do
00:37:48 understanding of what kingspan do did you have a discussion with him about that question um i would suggest i did yes i would suggest you did you recall having such a good discussion
00:38:00 having such a good discussion i don't recall no right do you answer him did you answer his question
00:38:08 question um i would yeah i would imagine that was a
00:38:11 a face-to-face conversation that took place right did you come to a conclusion between you as to what you should in fact use for the purposes of showing potential customers that you
00:38:23 of showing potential customers that you had passed a br 135 test yes and what was that
00:38:30 the message was that there was some reluctance to issue customers with any reports and that an abridged version of the br135 report
00:38:43 an abridged version of the br135 report should be
00:38:44 should be should be cut down for for use if pushed by a customer i see a cut down version of the or on the bridge version of the bl-135
00:38:56 or on the bridge version of the bl-135 report so that's the classification report is it the short yeah the shorter the 12-page one not the 35-page one yeah yes right now
00:39:07 did did you understand at that point that
00:39:11 that he by answering your question and you answering it in his question in turn we're both agreeing to follow kingspan's approach and to give the customer any customer as
00:39:22 and to give the customer any customer as little information as you could possibly get away with i knew that was going to be their approach yes who's celetexes right following kingspan yes right now look at cell40208 please
00:39:43 yes right now look at cell40208 please this is an email uh which we looked at before
00:39:47 before um and we looked at the one at the foot of page one i now want to show you the email at the top of page one this is from you
00:39:55 from you to lizzie seaton on the 14th of august 2014
00:40:00 2014 and you say hi can you give me a call about this tomorrow morning please thanks john roper
00:40:07 why did you do um that was because it'd been agreed that there would be an abridged version created and lizzie was a
00:40:18 created and lizzie was a um well far more proficient in cutting down a pdf than than i was
00:40:28 right so the the conversation you wanted to have with her was about abridging the the classification report correct and she called you uh i believe so yes
00:40:39 she called you uh i believe so yes uh we can see i think the results of of that at cel40 is 9725 please
00:40:52 that at cel40 is 9725 please this is an email from her on the 15th of august the next day hi jonathan as requested by john please find attach the classification report for rs 5000.
00:41:03 report for rs 5000. now this is an email to jonathan room i think
00:41:07 think but we can see that it is copied to you are you the john in her message i think so yes right now we know that she sends jonathan room a an abridged
00:41:21 jonathan room a an abridged version of the classification report that ran to four pages uh and we'll look at that in a moment uh was that what you'd asked her to do yes let's look at it ceo4030 is 11965.
00:41:34 yes let's look at it ceo4030 is 11965. please three zeros one one nine six five this is the um the the document that was attached to that email and i just want to flick through it with
00:41:45 and i just want to flick through it with you you can see the first page which is identical to the classification report in its second version you'll remember there was a small amendment between the 4th of august issue 1 and the 11th of august issue 2.
00:41:55 issue 2. that's the first page and then we look at the next page um we can see that
00:42:06 um we can see that you have introduction details of classified product running to paragraph 2.2.2 and then the next page page 3 in this run
00:42:16 run jump straight to section four test reports in support of classification and then the next page on
00:42:27 is the signature page
00:42:33 do you know how this was actually produced this document
00:42:38 in terms of software or in terms of software or hardware how did lizzie seton actually go about producing this four-page abridged version of the 12-page full version of the classification report i believe it was
00:42:49 classification report i believe it was just with a pdf editor or right did you ever see an original version of this of the full page yes um
00:43:04 of the full page yes um as a hard copy as a hard copy no
00:43:09 did you ever try hard to decipher what was it the header and the footer of each of these pages which has been obscured by the process of its pred its creation no
00:43:23 if you look at the very foot of page three
00:43:27 you can just about make out on the right hand side
00:43:31 hand side at the foot of the page on the right it says
00:43:35 says page 11 of something could be 12. yes clearly the third page of this document was the was the was the 11th page of the original
00:43:46 original so it looks it looks to the naked eye as best we can we can observe without the original here uh
00:43:54 uh that what she had done was either make a pdf
00:43:57 pdf of this document or else or else simply print it all off pull out the pages she wanted and made a make a pdf run of the relevant pages yes do you think that's what she did yeah how did she know which pages
00:44:09 yeah how did she know which pages to um pull out from the 12-page version and
00:44:13 and compile into the four-page version yeah that was a conversation that i had with paul
00:44:17 paul and i'm not too sure why those four pages were chosen and what was overly sensitive around the remaining eight pages of the br 135
00:44:30 remaining eight pages of the br 135 report
00:44:31 report right
00:44:34 do you accept that this four-page version
00:44:41 doesn't even identify the eternity panel used as the rain screen whether it's eight millimeters or twelve millimeters because it cuts off at the foot of page two
00:44:53 two no i didn't realize that no uh well we can go through it it's quite straightforward to do that if we start with page one we have the front page let's just do that page two
00:45:05 let's just do that page two uh shows you the list of the description of the product and you do have 12 millimeters magnesium oxide sheathing board there and the 12 millimeters malia turn it natural panel there
00:45:17 well then if you go down to the cladding system
00:45:20 system where the details are set out you don't actually even get the actual identification of the of the of the panels you do in the list i accept in the bullet point list but you don't under the details of the
00:45:31 but you don't under the details of the cladding system in fact it jumps straight to section 4 and has no section 3 at all
00:45:38 did you notice when you received this abridged version that it had this yawning gap in it um no as far as i was concerned i knew that
00:45:49 no as far as i was concerned i knew that the um
00:45:53 the um images of the construction were not present either um the diagrams of the
00:46:00 of the construction right it also excludes the disclaimer on page one of the full report that i read to you that the report can only be distributed in its entirety without amendment
00:46:11 in its entirety without amendment with the bre aware that you have created this document no i don't believe that right
00:46:17 what would be the point of this filleted version as opposed to the 12 page version what was it in the 12 page version that you wanted to bridged out yeah i don't know
00:46:28 out yeah i don't know what was so commercially sensitive or confidential about that 12-page report because from my knowledge the only contentious issue ie that photograph that we discussed earlier
00:46:40 photograph that we discussed earlier wasn't included in the br135 classification what i would say is that um the majority of the test reports that celestex had in the
00:46:51 reports that celestex had in the business at the time were amended in one way or another
00:46:57 i can i can only refer to this being one of them classo reports had black felt tip going through certain sections of
00:47:08 going through certain sections of reports that were issued as well so um this was an uncommon practice for them but i don't think you could answer my question as to the rationale for
00:47:19 for omitting the pages from the 12 page version that are not included in the four page version yeah i don't know the rationale behind that did you intend that jonathan room should send this filleted version of the class
00:47:31 send this filleted version of the class classification report to his customers if they asked for one i think that was the
00:47:35 the um point of the abridged report that would be the first report that would go to to customers should they should they push for those did you send it to the rest of the sales team for them to send to customers or
00:47:47 team for them to send to customers or just a jonathan room i don't know i don't know right now did you know that jonathan room sent this on to harley on the grenfell tower project on the 27th of august i do though i do know that yes did you
00:47:58 i do though i do know that yes did you know that at the time no you didn't did you know at the time that he was deploying it with his customers as early as the end of august 2014 now
00:48:24 now in fact it's right isn't it that in late august and after late august 2014 some customers were specifically asking
00:48:33 asking for the test report for rs 5000 yes and that so that that came pretty quickly after the launch earlier in august didn't it
00:48:39 didn't it yes yeah and uh if we look at uh pay at ceo three zeros one zero eight zero five
00:48:52 this is uh an email at the very foot of the page
00:48:57 the page from anthony harris to jonathan rhuman to you
00:49:02 to you good afternoon guys as per the email from robbie taylor below we are trying to secure a 6 000 square meter rs 5000 for a large vinci construction project in stratford
00:49:13 vinci construction project in stratford the engineers need the full test report as the bre global test report 295 255 issue 2. you sent me as some pages missing
00:49:20 missing it jumps from points 2.2.2 to 4 and within this is the information the engineers want to see and you go back to him uh the same day and say anthony please
00:49:32 uh the same day and say anthony please find attach the full version of br 135 classification report i've also attached the thermocouple data from test report 295 255. as discussed there is a full 45 page version of test report
00:49:43 version of test report 295 255 for the salient information is replicated in the br 135 classification
00:49:55 did you mean test report 295 369 of the 2nd of august 2014. the full version of which is sorry first of august the full version of which is
00:50:07 of august the full version of which is 33 pages
00:50:08 33 pages is that what you were referring to yes i believe so right in fact it's not correct is it that the salient information was replicated in the br 135 classification report was it
00:50:19 classification report was it uh no even the 12-page version no and certainly didn't whether in its filleted version that mr harris had received
00:50:28 received or the full 12-page version have included the photograph which was the only thing from which it was possible to tell that there was six millimeters magnesium oxide present that's correct and and
00:50:40 that's correct and and orange panels yes can we go to cel402131 please this is the story in october 2014
00:50:53 this is the story in october 2014 and uh here we see uh on the 17th of october at the foot of the page
00:51:00 the page stephen howard of the bre writing to debbie berger and you classification report from the for the cladding that he says we had a conversation a while ago regarding the content of the classification reports and the level of
00:51:12 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 have come up with a way of doing it do you recall that conversation i don't know do you remember what he was
00:51:25 i don't know do you remember what he was referring to by we have come up with a way of doing it no i don't
00:51:32 right if we look at the top email from debbie burger on the 20th of october she responds and says hi i'm going to set up a meeting with steve howard
00:51:42 howard early next week and when i say she responds it's a it's an internal actually to you and paul evans and jonathan room i'm going to set up a meeting with stephen steve howard early next week to
00:51:53 stephen steve howard early next week to talk about how to detail our bre rs 5000 fire report so as it gives us the relevant commercial info without the sensitive stuff he's got some ideas that could help us would you like to come to this meeting i
00:52:04 would you like to come to this meeting i would value your input if if so will you give me access to your diary so i can schedule a meeting do you know what she was talking about when she referred to the sensitive stuff um yes i think she was referring
00:52:20 um yes i think she was referring to the photograph that was that was contained right
00:52:28 did to your knowledge did debbie berger know all about the presence of six millimeters magnesium oxide behind the eight millimeters marley alternate nature aboard in the test rig
00:52:40 alternate nature aboard in the test rig i can't say for sure right if she knew about the photograph do you refer to the photograph at figure 19 in the final report or figure 18 in the draft that you saw the one we
00:52:51 in the draft that you saw the one we looked at before which shows the white panel repeat the question yes
00:52:58 when i asked you a moment ago about the sensitive stuff you said i think she was referring to the photograph yes that was contained is that the photograph that was figure 18 in the draft report and which
00:53:09 figure 18 in the draft report and which became figure 19. yes the one that you and paul evans and paul reed wanted to have removed correct right do you know why she thought that was sensitive
00:53:20 thought that was sensitive um because
00:53:24 of the fact that it was six mil magnesium oxide that wasn't referred to in
00:53:28 in any of the literature or the test description itself does that tell us that she knew at least this much
00:53:36 this much that the test had included a six millimeter magnesium oxide board behind eight millimeters of malia to eternity and
00:53:47 malia to eternity and that was to use her was a sensitive subject yes
00:53:54 yes do you know whether there was a meeting which then took place with steve howard i don't know don't know did you go to one i don't believe so right now i want to go
00:54:07 right now i want to go now at last to visit the meeting i say at last i don't mean that's the last topic but i say it last because we've dipped in and out of the subject in your statement
00:54:16 statement with a meeting with the nhbc on the 19th of june 2014 which i think you've covered extensively in your witness statement at section seven
00:54:25 seven and we've already seen quite a bit of that already because we've dipped into it
00:54:28 it now that meeting followed your message to graham perry or and dave white of the nhbc on the 15th of may and you've referred to that in your statement of paragraph 7.1 and i don't need to show you that
00:54:40 and i don't need to show you that necessarily unless you want to see it but
00:54:42 but did you tell them during that message that celetex passed a bs 8414 part 2 test i think you did yes yeah and you did you say that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the above 18 meter project
00:54:55 to discuss the above 18 meter project and also some concerns that nhbc had raised about the quality of another celetex
00:54:59 celetex product is that right yes what was the product
00:55:03 product the the other product um from memory i believe it was uh product for cavity wall insulation right
00:55:13 right yeah some relations they're not an above not an above 80 meter no no now to set the scene as i think we now
00:55:19 now know you had received the draft bre report
00:55:23 report version one dated the second of june half an hour before that meeting began you got it at 10 30. we can see that we've seen that from the emails yes and you say you'd only skim read it
00:55:34 and you say you'd only skim read it before going into the meeting yes do i take it from that you didn't give them the draft report at the meeting no
00:55:44 now if we go to your statement at page 16
00:55:47 16 we can dip into a bit more of your evidence about that meeting at paragraph 7.4
00:55:53 7.4 you you say no mention was made in the meeting with the nhbc of the test celetex had commissioned in february 2014
00:56:00 2014 nor that a magnesium oxide board had been used to reinforce the fire barriers in the test conducted in may after graham and dave from the nhbc had left
00:56:08 left paul reed and i reflected on the fact that the nhbc did not seem particularly impressed
00:56:13 impressed and david not been friendly the reason they were not impressed was that they thought the test had been over engineered by using a 12 millimeter cladding panel in large format
00:56:24 what did you tell graham and dave about the bs-8414 test um what i was told to tell them was that we've used a 12
00:56:37 tell them was that we've used a 12 millimeter range screen tested to bs 8414 part two
00:56:45 and made no reference to the fact that there was a first test or the fact that the second test consisted of um eight million six ml magnesium oxide at certain levels
00:56:56 at certain levels did you show them any documents uh relating to the build-up i don't believe so i think there was a presentation now you say that the reason they weren't impressed was that they thought that the
00:57:08 impressed was that they thought that the system had been deliberately over engineered yes i say deliberately over-engineered um over-engineered did they think that that was deliberate yes right did they actually voice that
00:57:21 yes right did they actually voice that concern
00:57:22 concern yes they did right did they explain why they thought that was a problem uh they thought it was unreflective of a typical typical planning system
00:57:35 a typical typical planning system right did you think yourself that that was a fair criticism yes now following their departure we know that you then
00:57:46 their departure we know that you then had a meeting immediately afterwards in paul evans office i think because you've gone to say that yes that's right and is it right that during that meeting notes were made on a whiteboard correct and i think we have a photograph of that
00:57:58 and i think we have a photograph of that whiteboard taken by paul evans if we go to cel402517
00:58:06 this is a photograph
00:58:10 which he says he took on his telephone that's right can you confirm that yes and if we look at the whiteboard contents the top line headings in the chart that he created
00:58:23 headings in the chart that he created our nhbc concerned stroke challenge and then a ranking cx that celetex response action required and risk
00:58:33 and risk was he the person who put all those um columns and words up on the whiteboard or was or was it you know it was paul for the majority other than point six
00:58:42 point six i see slightly different handwriting in point six is whose is that that's mine right
00:58:48 right now looking at item six under under column nhbc concerned stroke challenge is calcium silicate at level two is that a reference to the magnesium the
00:58:59 is that a reference to the magnesium the magnesium oxide layer yes right why did you put calcium silicate um
00:59:04 um that the terms were used interchangeably in terms of yeah calcium silicon magnesium oxide though now clearly you hadn't mentioned the presence of magnesium oxide to the nhbc at the meeting
00:59:15 at the meeting and was that for the same reasons that we've gone through today yes and could you just articulate those in a sentence um that the message from the 14th of
00:59:26 that the message from the 14th of may as i've said was no reference to magnesium oxide from that point um so i had to stand up in front of two individuals
00:59:38 stand up in front of two individuals from the nhbc and lie essentially right
00:59:44 and this whiteboard the description um and the responses and the notes that are surrounded um and and detailed on that whiteboard the
00:59:57 and and detailed on that whiteboard the first five are concerns at the nhbc raised at the meeting
01:00:02 meeting [Music]
01:00:04 [Music] and they had obviously a number of concerns as you can see and my comment to paul in the presence of paul reed was they're not happy with how the test has been engineered and we're not
01:00:16 been engineered and we're not we haven't even disclosed the real test to them
01:00:19 to them hence the calcium silica at level two
01:00:26 under cx response confidence in fire barriers to expand i think is that is that your writing that is that you sorry is that what is that how we should read your writing
01:00:37 that how we should read your writing that's yes that's right that's what it says and
01:00:40 says and was that the justification that you would have given to the nhbc have they found out about the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or might later ask yes
01:00:52 oxide or might later ask yes who came up with that idea um uh paul and and i really i mean it was looking back at it now it's it's a crap
01:01:03 looking back at it now it's it's a crap crap response it's it's an excuse to
01:01:09 try and hide the fact that there was calcium silica there in the first place so you were quite content you and paul evans and paul reed to mislead
01:01:20 evans and paul reed to mislead the nhbc about this i wasn't content no well not content in your heart but um content as a group that's that's the nhpc approval
01:01:34 that's that's the nhpc approval was they perceived as critical to the success of that product
01:01:40 yes so you were prepared to stand up and lie as it were to the nhpc in order to get their approval which was critical to its success yes yes yes
01:01:51 yes yes yes okay and then under action required it says remove last image of test report was that a reference to the the photograph on page 35 figure 18 as it
01:02:04 photograph on page 35 figure 18 as it then was
01:02:04 then was that's right yes we know we know then the story about that and looking at risk median on the right hand side did you you wrote that in i think
01:02:14 think and you say because that was because the chances of anyone looking at the full test report were low yes we've seen your report so it was a medium risk based entirely upon the
01:02:26 based entirely upon the betting on no one asking in essence correct yes
01:02:35 now if we move on to cel 403180 please
01:02:44 i just want to ask you some questions about plans we may be able to take this quite quickly this is an email um from you to luke creswell and graham smith at simcoe
01:02:55 creswell and graham smith at simcoe on the 23rd of june 2014 and you ask you tell them that in the second paragraph following our meeting with nhbc
01:03:05 with nhbc they require our drawing annotations to be technically accurate in line with what we actually tested therefore we need file attached above etcetera to be updated with the 12 millimeter turn it panel as shown on a 12
01:03:16 turn it panel as shown on a 12 millimeter sheathing board now it's clear from that that you didn't instruct them to insert the six millimeter magnesium oxide board and the reference to the eight millimeter malia
01:03:27 reference to the eight millimeter malia natura
01:03:28 natura turn and again that's for the same reasons isn't it they didn't want the diagrams to give the game away correct yeah
01:03:40 and in fact cutting a long story short they never did produce such drawings did they they never did produce drawings which showed either of those things
01:03:47 things i don't believe so no and that was deliberate on your part not to ask them to do so because you didn't want drawings which did show those items
01:03:56 correct [Applause]
01:04:04 can i just then ask you to look at
01:04:09 an email slightly later in the story uh in july 2014 at cel 50991
01:04:18 this is an email of the 29th of july 2014
01:04:22 2014 at the bottom page one um sent by craig chambers to you at 1448 and he says john how are we
01:04:33 at 1448 and he says john how are we progressing on nhbc approval i see this is an important move on this range
01:04:39 range you see that and then you responded to him
01:04:45 at the top and let's just look at the whole email you say craig and hbc do not offer an approval as such for this application but may allow us to use a statement going forward such as accepted by nhbc
01:04:58 going forward such as accepted by nhbc subject to conditions set out in nhbc standard 6.9 due to delays at the bre we're still waiting for the official test report to be signed off this should be with us by tomorrow once received we can
01:05:09 with us by tomorrow once received we can then go back to the nhpc with the test report our finalized product literature for rs and updated test drawings and alleviate any initial concerns they had i've been in contact with regular updates to them and have
01:05:21 updates to them and have informed them that they can expect the report and drawings by close to play this week
01:05:25 this week the message to the sales team next week on building control will be we have achieved labc approval which account for 75
01:05:31 75 of the market and nhbc is work in progress but unlike our competitors we have been transparent from the beginning
01:05:39 beginning now the claim that celetex had been transparent from the beginning was simply not true was it no why did you write it because that was the
01:05:49 the message that i was told to relay i think that message actually came straight out of the initial explanation by paul to
01:06:02 the initial explanation by paul to suggest that any references to the six ml magnesium oxide should be should be null and void um they were happy to progress with
01:06:13 they were happy to progress with trying to use transparency as a competitive advantage albeit had been completely the opposite right well that answers my question uh
01:06:24 right well that answers my question uh which i was going to ask you next um can we then go to ceo50s
01:06:37 which is an email from you of the 30th of july
01:06:43 where you send to dave white and graeme perry
01:06:47 perry of the nhbc your final bre test report now at this stage i don't think you've actually received the final version
01:06:58 actually received the final version because the final version only came in the first few days of august didn't it but you say i'm in now in a position to issue you our final br 135 classification along with the updated construction drawings
01:07:09 updated construction drawings and product literature for celetex rs 5000 please find these attached
01:07:17 and then you go on to say
01:07:20 uh we are due to launch this new solution to our sales team next tuesday
01:07:27 and then in the last paragraph in the last sentence you say i apologize for the delay in getting the revised test report over to you detailing exactly what was tested but due to holidays that the bre time scales were pushed back slightly
01:07:40 scales were pushed back slightly now your reference there to detailing exactly what was tested that's not correct is it you weren't showing them a revised test report showing
01:07:48 showing exactly what was tested no in fact what you sent them
01:07:54 was lacking wasn't it because it didn't have the additional material it was yes
01:08:04 and what you sent them in was the or included the revised drawings we've just been looking at and i don't need to go back to those because they're difficult to read on the screen but we know that those drawings did not
01:08:14 did not include reference to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of malia turning natura did they that's
01:08:22 correct so in sending what you were sending uh to the nhbc at this stage uh you were taking a chance weren't you
01:08:35 uh you were taking a chance weren't you that they might spot something amiss from the photograph of figure 18.
01:08:41 um yes i guess so yes well to be fair to you i'm just wondering whether that's right because you're sending them the classification which i think doesn't have the photograph in it no
01:08:52 photograph in it no so but not the test report um so in the last sentence perhaps you can help me when you say i apologize for the delay in getting the revised test report over to you were you referring to the test report or
01:09:04 were you referring to the test report or were you referring simply to the classification report i think that's the classification right i see in fact therefore my question wasn't correct there was no chance that they would spot something in this because they wouldn't
01:09:15 something in this because they wouldn't see the photograph no and does that does that did you ever send the nhpc the full classification report including figure 19 with that photograph um
01:09:26 figure 19 with that photograph um i don't believe i did no right
01:09:31 and do we take it from that but you were very alive to the risks that if you did say they would certainly spot what would be very likely to spot the presence of something a white panel and ask
01:09:42 something a white panel and ask questions about it yes and i want to turn to a different topic altogether which is the marketing of the rs 5000 and this is one question that's slightly
01:09:53 that's slightly troubling me which i didn't want to interrupt your flow to ask but i'd quite like to get some help on it um and it concerns what prompted mr clark
01:10:05 clark to issue the bre's first version report not making any reference to the magnesium oxide board or the eight
01:10:16 the magnesium oxide board or the eight millimeter mali eternity and really what i would like your help mr referees did you have any conversation
01:10:27 conversation yourself with mr clark which either expressly or by way of what one might call a nod and a weak indicate him that celetex did not want
01:10:38 indicate him that celetex did not want any reference made to those parts of the rig
01:10:41 rig in any report no because i don't believe at the time that um i think regardless of whether that test report came across with the correct description as i was
01:10:53 with the correct description as i was fully expecting it to um i think they would have just attempted to conceal that test report from the market altogether um i think when it came across emitting
01:11:07 i think when it came across emitting the magnesium oxide and the eight mil marlia turn it from the description the focus was then can we remove this see once you've got that report but what i'm the interested knows whether
01:11:19 what i'm the interested knows whether you did anything or said anything to mr clark in the course of the various conversations you had with him to lead him to think that celetex did not want
01:11:31 celetex did not want any reference made to those parts of the test no i think the the only thing that
01:11:38 that perhaps i implied was i i did once he'd commented on the fact that six mil magnesium oxide perhaps wouldn't have made a difference to the result
01:11:49 have made a difference to the result i think looking back at it now the only um time that i sort of asked him to re-emphasize that was when jamie came to the the test rig but
01:12:01 jamie came to the the test rig but no i i didn't i didn't try and manipulate him to emit a description of a test right so as far as you're aware he did it of his
01:12:12 as far as you're aware he did it of his own initiative did he he did yes all right thank you very much
01:12:19 do you want to follow that up at all mr minute uh
01:12:27 no mr chairman that that is consistent with what with the answers that i got earlier i think on the near enough the same topic um right thank you well i just wanted to
01:12:38 um right thank you well i just wanted to clarify yes no thank you mr raper can i just go back on something because i may inadvertently have led you down a a blind alley and i apologize if i if i have um can i ask you to go
01:12:50 if i have um can i ask you to go keep an eye on this email where you say in it i'm in a position to issue our final br 135 classification and product literature and then you refer to the revised test
01:13:02 and then you refer to the revised test report
01:13:05 report in the last paragraph in fact if you go to cel 50933 i think we can see what it is you attach
01:13:16 i think we can see what it is you attach to this email we just go to that
01:13:22 that's it i'm sorry 993 i'm sorry 993
01:13:30 my my fault and you can see there that this is
01:13:35 this is the 30th of july 2014 global test report which becomes the first of august version as final so it looks as if what
01:13:48 version as final so it looks as if what you were sending him and we've had to work this out by a documentary route that isn't immediately obvious
01:13:54 obvious but i think you have to take it from me that what you were sending him was indeed the global test report okay which does include the photograph okay so to be fair to you that's actually the correct way of looking at
01:14:05 actually the correct way of looking at the record um can you do you remember sending at the nhbc this document no i don't right but i think my question
01:14:18 no i don't right but i think my question then comes back to the same question in sending the nhbc this document were you taking the risk that somebody at the nhbc might spot a strange-looking white panel in what
01:14:31 a strange-looking white panel in what became figure 19 and ask questions about it
01:14:33 it yes right was that a risk that you discussed with paul evans i think post our meeting it was clear that the nhbc had numerous
01:14:45 it was clear that the nhbc had numerous concerns
01:14:47 concerns without understanding the true system details
01:14:50 details and from paul's side and from the businesses side they saw the nhbc's approval as critical um and i can only imagine that i've sent
01:15:03 and i can only imagine that i've sent this report because that's what's been requested from either dave white or graeme perrian right and there's the risk when we saw on the whiteboard the allocation of risk
01:15:14 whiteboard the allocation of risk under item six to this problem being medium
01:15:18 medium was was it the assessment of a medium risk relating to the risk of the nhbc coming back and asking questions i think that was um a general medium
01:15:29 i think that was um a general medium risk of
01:15:30 risk of issuing that report to anybody right can we then go to the marketing of rs 5000 um if we go first please to cel 403125
01:15:44 cel 403125 um this is an email from mr evans paul evans to you on the 27th of may 2014. uh just saying just a quick note to
01:15:55 uh just saying just a quick note to request we get five mins tomorrow to discuss approach with jonathan on friday if i send this as a chance between us we won't forget is jonathan jonathan roon there
01:16:06 is jonathan jonathan roon there um no i don't believe it is i think it's jonathan of sangerban oh right jonathan who jonathan
01:16:19 cheeseman he's uh he's he's a legal representative from sangaban right i see so this has got nothing to do with marketing then is it um it has got something to do with the
01:16:30 um it has got something to do with the marketing yes i think um paul had a conversation with jonathan cheeseman at sangaban to run the literature by him right as early as may 2014
01:16:42 right as early as may 2014 i believe so yes right um if we go to well do you know what was said do you know what was said no i wasn't i wasn't present at that meeting um i've also what i do know that from
01:16:56 i've also what i do know that from that meeting that took place the disclaimer around the the onus on the is on the building control or building owner which is referenced in the marketing literature came from came from that
01:17:07 literature came from came from that meeting i believe thank you can we then move to ceo409598
01:17:14 please and this is an email from lizzie's lizzie seaton uh to uh you on the 16th of june 2014
01:17:25 uh to uh you on the 16th of june 2014 forwarding to you an email she had received from kelly slochak which says in the middle of the page there we just go back a little bit down on page one we
01:17:37 go back a little bit down on page one we can
01:17:37 can scroll down hi lizzy please see attach the first draft of the rs 5000 press release for your approval and
01:17:48 she's sending that to you for your thoughts
01:17:52 thoughts and if we look a little bit lower down to page two we can see how this begins on the 12th of june
01:17:59 of june you send lizzie seton a few salient points which should help the cfa start to put together a first draft of the press release for rs 5000
01:18:07 5000 and in the long list of bullet points there
01:18:11 there you see that you say in the fifth bullet point
01:18:14 point celetex rs 5000 also benefits from having successfully tested and approved to bs 8414 part 2 2005. meets the criteria set out in br 135 and
01:18:25 meets the criteria set out in br 135 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height now that language do you remember where you got that from that was taken directly from kingsman's
01:18:37 that was taken directly from kingsman's literature i was wondering about that perhaps i should show you that um can you please be shown cel408510
01:18:56 and this is a kingspan document called cool therm k15 rain screen board insulation for rain screen clouding systems and then if you look at the
01:19:08 systems and then if you look at the third bullet point down it says successfully tested to bsa414 2002
01:19:15 2002 and can meet the criteria within br135 and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters is that where you got your wording from yes you'll note that it's dated march
01:19:26 yes you'll note that it's dated march 2011.
01:19:28 2011. so you're three years three and a half years
01:19:31 years down the track yes do you know whether that language that you've taken from that document changed between the march of 2011 and you're using it in in the june of 2014.
01:19:45 in the june of 2014. i don't believe it did right now getting back to your email if we can cel409598 please page two
01:19:56 you don't after that reference there in that bullet point don't suggest that attention should be drawn in the marketing literature to the limits of the bs8414 test do you no why is that uh because
01:20:09 do you no why is that uh because that had been discussed um that the prominent message would be
01:20:15 just just that fifth bullet point really that it's it's successfully tested and approved and as i said before i had a feeling very earned very early on in the development that the message around systems
01:20:28 the message around systems would be diluted um and that sort of became apparent during the the launch process really right so diluted does that mean
01:20:39 right so diluted does that mean that you let me try differently you can see
01:20:43 see the words and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height did you intend to give the impression to the reader of that bullet point that because celetex had passed this
01:20:55 that because celetex had passed this test
01:20:56 test it could therefore be used in buildings generally above 18 meters in height um i think that's what they wanted to convey yes yeah but but you wanted to convey with your words so your words yes
01:21:08 convey with your words so your words yes um under instruction from from that business
01:21:12 business but i understand that i understand that qualification but the answer to my question is yes yes yes
01:21:21 and and that's what you mean by dilution is it
01:21:24 is it uh yes yes and then you say in the penultimate bullet point supported by labc approval and acceptable for use on nhbc product projects in fact is it right that the labc at this stage this is mid-june 2014
01:21:38 labc at this stage this is mid-june 2014 hadn't yet issued registered details i'm not sure of the the exact dates but um
01:21:47 um that would have just been put forward to i don't know when the launch was actually planned but it would have been put forward as a optimistic um achievement right an optimistic
01:21:59 achievement right an optimistic achievement and even more optimistic was the statement that it was acceptable for use on nhbc projects correct and given the dates you hadn't even yet had your 19th of june meeting
01:22:10 even yet had your 19th of june meeting with the nhbc let alone the discussion with with them about the report had you that's right
01:22:18 now if we look at ceo409599 we can see that all of these bullet points including the two i've identified to you
01:22:27 to you were all picked up in the press release
01:22:32 ceo409599 there it is did you draft this press release um no i don't believe i did do you know who did
01:22:40 who did i think the majority of the um press releases came from an external agency right did you ever check it did you ever check
01:22:51 did you ever check it did you ever check this document i would have checked it yes alongside alongside paul right well we'll come we'll come back to it in a moment because i've got a number of points on it
01:22:59 it um but am i right in thinking that your wording you gave to lizzie seton um finds
01:23:07 um finds its home in this press release in these second and fourth paragraphs because we can see
01:23:11 can see that it says there um in the second paragraph you refer to the test and it says
01:23:17 says making it acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height so again that's another way of putting the same
01:23:24 the same kingspan originating dilution of the message yes yes and then in the penultimate paragraph
01:23:30 paragraph uh you say supported by labc approval and acceptable for use on nhbc product projects so leave aside the labc approval it was simply not true that it was acceptable for use on nhbc
01:23:42 that it was acceptable for use on nhbc projects was it not at that stage no no we probably ought to be giving mr roe for a break absolutely let's do that it's probably
01:23:54 absolutely let's do that it's probably not a very convenient point but i don't suppose it'd be a better one uh there is not there is no self-evident mooring point all right in the near future i think we have a break at this point then mr rocha we'll
01:24:05 point then mr rocha we'll we'll come back at 20 to four and uh please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out okay thank you thank you we'd like to go to the usher please
01:24:24 all right 224 then please
01:40:25 yes would you ask mr rover to come back in please
01:40:41 ready to go on this river yes yeah thank you very much yes mr millet and mr roper can i just revisit one question with you and that's your request to the bre on the 1st of july 2014
01:40:53 2014 to remove the photograph of figure 18 in the then
01:40:56 the then draft you remember the photograph figure 18.
01:40:59 18. do you remember having asked bre to remove that photograph whether they actually gave you a response i don't believe they did no you don't believe they did so you don't remember getting a reaction
01:41:10 so you don't remember getting a reaction from the bre as to why they wouldn't remove it as we know they didn't no i think the um the next correspondence was the the next draft or the the version of the
01:41:21 the the version of the the test report on the 30th of july i believe so yes right and by that stage as i think you've told us he'd already decided with mr evans not to press the point correct right and can we then go back to
01:41:34 correct right and can we then go back to the marketing literature and i've shown you the press release which uh we'll come back to um can i go to cel401213 please
01:41:46 cel401213 please this is an email from you to paul evans on the 1st of july 2014 and you attach a marketing action plan
01:41:58 and you attach a marketing action plan and you say as discussed folder j-roper under m drive has everything to do with rs
01:42:03 rs in thanks it's a bit of a cryptic message but let's look at the document uh it's at ceo401214 please
01:42:16 and we can see there that uh the front page first page is marketing action plan product cell text rs 5000 launch date 5th of august 2014. did you draft this document um i believe
01:42:27 did you draft this document um i believe i
01:42:28 i did yes did you do it with anybody or was it just you most likely with paul because by the looks of it this is the first marketing and the only marketing action plan i think i
01:42:39 plan i think i ever carried out right
01:42:44 so you think you drafted it with paul did you do the first draft or did he um i don't know i think he would have probably explained what a marketing action plan looked like and he would have probably ran
01:42:56 and he would have probably ran through the details with me initially because um it's the first time i'd have seen that right
01:43:02 right um if we look at uh objectives it's the first item on page two please the first item there is to launch
01:43:14 the first item there is to launch celetex
01:43:15 celetex rs 5000 at northern and southern regional meetings week commencing 4th august 14. then you go on to say leverage celetex
01:43:27 then you go on to say leverage celetex 5000 series and its associated performance benefits into new market opportunities and then you say present rs 5000 to celetex is primary range screen application offering to
01:43:39 range screen application offering to compete directly with kingspan k15 and rockwell duo slab
01:43:45 and then at the last bullet point leverage celetex rs-5000 to campaign celetex's focus on third-party certification just on that what does campaigning celetex's focus on
01:43:56 campaigning celetex's focus on third-party certification meaning mean what does that mean yeah so um it was the same from from when i joined the business really that they
01:44:07 joined the business really that they the only way that or one of the ways that they tried to differentiate from other insulation manufacturers was um by having third party approvals there are a lot of manufacturers in the
01:44:18 are a lot of manufacturers in the marketplace that didn't have too many third party approvals and that was one of their competitive advantages as they saw right and the third party approval would
01:44:29 right and the third party approval would be something from the labc or the nhbc or the
01:44:32 or the or bba or yes yeah right and then under under uh concept if you look a little bit lower down the page you can see that there's a proposition the first pir insulation board tested
01:44:44 the first pir insulation board tested and approved to be r135 and therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height and again that that's the same dilutive mantra if you like that you got from the
01:44:57 mantra if you like that you got from the kingspan data sheet and now finds its way in the marketing action plan correct with the same misleading impression correct
01:45:05 and then you see you say positioning second bullet point class naught fire performance and tested on a typical rain screen cladding system to bs841 for
01:45:17 cladding system to bs841 for that's incorrect isn't it because there was nothing typical about using 12 millimeter fiber cement board as the rain screen panel was there there was nothing no nothing typical about using the
01:45:29 about using the six ml magnesium oxide yes right okay um nothing typical about using six millimeter magnesium oxide absolutely what about nothing typical about using twelve millimeter fiber cement board as the rain screen panel
01:45:41 cement board as the rain screen panel um or was that more typical i think that was deemed as is more typical yes right [Applause] then if we can look at the marketing material itself is it right that the main pieces of marketing material
01:45:53 main pieces of marketing material were the specification guide and the rain screen cladding compliance guide there were others we'll look at those but those were the two main ones yes is that right yes and were you involved in producing the wordings for
01:46:04 involved in producing the wordings for those
01:46:05 those um i believe i was yeah we've been a we've been within a team that consisted of the the entire marketing team and um a few members of the the technical
01:46:16 um a few members of the the technical team as well right was there anybody in the
01:46:18 the marketing team that you knew who knew more about the testing and the classification of the rs 5000 and you um i wouldn't say there was anybody that
01:46:30 um i wouldn't say there was anybody that knew
01:46:31 knew more but equally there were um at least three individuals in the room that knew as much who were they uh jamie robin paul right okay you're
01:46:42 uh jamie robin paul right okay you're including them in the marketing team okay so jamie is jamie hayes correct yes um can we go to cel403179 please
01:46:59 uh this is something called a comms action plan uh for the launch date fifth of august and you can see
01:47:10 and you can see there on that there are seven sections to it
01:47:15 to it and the third one is communication activities can we go to page four please
01:47:25 and on that page we can see second item down rain screen clouding specification literature writing content and then two initials jh and jr
01:47:35 and jr that's jamie hayes is it and you correct yeah right so do we take it from that that the responsibility for drafting or wording the rain screen cladding specification literature was yours and mr hayes
01:47:48 correct
01:47:56 and if we go to cel 6012 please we can see the compliance guide
01:48:09 and this is the version as finalized and if we get a page two in that please you can see that it sets out uh at the top of the page some text which says this document provides guidance
01:48:20 guidance on complying with approved document b2 adb-2 for external wall cladding systems fixed to steel frame or masonry constructions it provides a step-by-step guide to an alternative route to compliance for adb2
01:48:32 alternative route to compliance for adb2 through meeting of performance criteria set out in br135 through testing to bs8414 part 1 2002 or part 2 2005. now it expressly says that
01:48:43 part 2 2005. now it expressly says that as we can see that it's a step-by-step guide to compliance and if we go to page three
01:48:50 we could see the steps br br135 is there on the top left hand corner and then the performance criteria are there set out and then if you look at the right far
01:49:01 and then if you look at the right far right hand column uh in the guide it says this under the three
01:49:06 three pink arrows the classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when
01:49:19 it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application
01:49:26 did you see and approve that language um i i don't believe i did i think i've seen that from [Music]
01:49:39 [Music] i don't know i thought the um the disclaimer came from sangaban legal but i may be incorrect
01:49:46 incorrect right okay did you know that it reflected the language in annex b of br135
01:49:56 of br135 um
01:50:01 no no okay did you at the time did you read that when you saw either this final version or an earlier draft of it and note the disclaimer as you
01:50:12 of it and note the disclaimer as you call it
01:50:13 call it uh yes you did yes did you have any doubts about what it meant
01:50:19 no was it quite clear to you looking at what you call the disclaimer and what i think i've called with mr roon the caveat it doesn't matter which we call it was
01:50:30 it doesn't matter which we call it was it quite clear to you that the the br criteria and the bs8414 test was for a full-scale test of a system and not for a product in application correct yes did you
01:50:43 in application correct yes did you see any wriggle room for any interpretation of this language to suggest that a building designer could use rs 5000 with any component of a system
01:50:52 a system other than what was tested and still be covered by the classification report no no and does that answer apply to this same statement in all the other marketing literacy used by
01:51:03 marketing literacy used by celetex to market rs 5000 yes yeah i think it stems from back from the commercial versus technical argument i think there were certain individuals that wanted this to
01:51:14 certain individuals that wanted this to be more prominent than than others right and it looks well you tell me looking at this uh disclaimer here in its place in this
01:51:25 disclaimer here in its place in this document
01:51:26 document who won the argument commercial or technical
01:51:30 technical uh on this page technical right and how do you account for it being on page three of this document as opposed to the first page
01:51:40 um
01:51:43 sorry can you rephrase well let me try it differently did you regard this as small print to be found only by the most scrupulous readers of this document or did you think that this was a fair presentation and location of the disclaimer
01:51:54 disclaimer that you've called it yes i think it was i think it was fair right now
01:52:03 right now you can see uh if you look uh on to page four of this document the middle column
01:52:14 of this document the middle column which sets out the system that was tested
01:52:18 tested and we've now got the by now familiar list of
01:52:21 list of parts of the system you've got the 12 millimeter fiber cement panels those are the mali eternity 12 millimeter panels the rails the celotex the 12 millimeter
01:52:32 the rails the celotex the 12 millimeter sheathing board the sfs system and the plasterboard but no reference there to the layer of six millimeter magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of malia turnip natura over it is there no
01:52:45 over it is there no and again if we look at diagram four below
01:52:50 below um again do you accept that that doesn't show the layer of six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of malia turn it correct correct and do you accept that those emissions
01:53:01 those emissions make the statement of what the system tested was and the drawing thoroughly misleading yes
01:53:08 yes and there's no mention of the eight millimeters a turn in the same location so does that tell us that the statement 12 millimeters fibre cement panels is also misleading because in the two locations we've seen
01:53:19 because in the two locations we've seen from the photograph those panels were eight millimeters over six millimeters of magnesium oxide making 14 millimeters correct so again thoroughly misleading in that respect yes
01:53:30 in that respect yes so any designer looking to follow your words of warning celetex his words of warning and to replicate exactly the cladding system that celetex was describing here in this marketing literature as having passed
01:53:41 marketing literature as having passed this test
01:53:43 this test would in fact be designing a cladding system that had not passed correct yes now those admissions and misdescriptions were not accidental were they
01:53:50 they no they weren't they were they were entirely deliberate yes they were and if you had faithfully described the test components as actually used it would have given the game away as to how the pass had been achieved wouldn't it correct and the actual
01:54:04 wouldn't it correct and the actual system that had passed was not commercially viable at least as a competitor to k-15 that's right and do you accept that in approving this document you were dishonest
01:54:15 dishonest i do yes as i said earlier
01:54:20 i felt entirely uncomfortable but but equally
01:54:24 equally useless in the in the in the whole lead up
01:54:27 up from testing through to marketing through to launch it was one of the contributory factors for me leaving my role as product
01:54:38 for me leaving my role as product manager because i felt so uncomfortable to date with what was being published and what was being launched and i knew there was going to be a level
01:54:50 and i knew there was going to be a level of questioning that came into the business post launch that would essentially mean that i would have to lie for commercial gain again so i left um
01:54:59 um my role as product manager and moved into into area sales right and again just on this was there anybody you could go to within celetex and and as it were blow the whistle or
01:55:12 and and as it were blow the whistle or or this was take your concerns too this was
01:55:16 was um common practice
01:55:20 i didn't know i didn't know it at the time
01:55:24 time as i said all of the members of the management action board i believed were present when when paul um presented the
01:55:35 the the truth um and the decision was made i've subsequently
01:55:41 um heard and seen that this isn't the only manipulation of test data that that business has had um i think there were issues around the class 05 report i
01:55:52 issues around the class 05 report i think there were issues around the thermal performance of their entire product range um it was clearly within the culture of that business at that time and i i'm sorry for for my partner it's it's
01:56:05 i'm sorry for for my partner it's it's something that i should have maybe well definitely expressed uh more of a concern about let's look at the specification guide
01:56:17 let's look at the specification guide cel6013 please
01:56:27 if we look at page five in that document
01:56:31 it says celetex rs 5000
01:56:37 this is just under the heading building above 18 meters celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs8414 to 2005 and again underneath
01:56:48 to 2005 and again underneath that after the brackets meets the criteria
01:56:52 criteria set out in br 135 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height and again we see the mantra there so lifted from case back king spans k-15s to march 2011 data sheet straight into
01:57:04 to march 2011 data sheet straight into your compliance cabin compliance guide um sorry specification guide um
01:57:12 it goes on to say the system tested was as follows and again no mention there of the eight millimeters of eternity or the six millimeters of magnesium oxide same questions again and you knew that
01:57:25 same questions again and you knew that and that was dishonest for the same reasons we've discussed in relation to the specification guide correct yes right
01:57:36 and again uh that was deliberate yeah what's yes
01:57:45 and if you look at page three
01:57:50 and the way these are similar iterations of the same point in the last paragraph there it says
01:57:59 rs 5000 is uniquely positioned to help meet these goals celetex rs 5000 is a premium performance pir solution for use in rain screen cladding applications
01:58:10 cladding applications and suitable for use in building above 18 meters in height and again that was misleading wasn't it because it suggested that the rs 5000 could be used in any buildings above 18 meters in height that's right yes and that was intentional and deliberate
01:58:22 and that was intentional and deliberate and misleading correct and then at page five again same mantra we see in the last part of the paragraph
01:58:34 the paragraph uh above the details of the test therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters again same question that also might lead a reader to believe that rs 5000 was suitable generally in
01:58:47 that rs 5000 was suitable generally in combination with any system and be misled by that that's right and again that was deliberate correct
01:59:01 now i think celetex drafted a handy guy produced a handy guide to its products didn't it were you familiar with that document
01:59:09 document uh yes i was here that's cl for four zeros
01:59:13 zeros four sorry five zeros four three seven five zeros four three seven
01:59:21 and if we go to page eight in that document
01:59:27 product descriptions and here we have celetex rs 5000 it says it has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product
01:59:38 product and then in the second paragraph it says uh is acceptable for use above 18 meters in height
01:59:48 in height after the reference to the br-135 criteria
01:59:52 criteria again that gives the impression that rs 5000 is generally suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height so again do you accept that it was deliberate and dishonestly misleading i
02:00:03 deliberate and dishonestly misleading i do yes
02:00:06 now you referred a moment ago to this being a common problem throughout celetex
02:00:10 celetex with class naught as well what were the problems around class naught you were referring to um i don't know the specifics all i know is um i've seen announcements on the on the
02:00:23 um i've seen announcements on the on the website
02:00:24 website um since the tragic events of grenfell that
02:00:28 that indicated that they've perhaps come clean about a couple of other issues one being class o
02:00:35 o and and one being thermal performance but i don't know the specifics right you say thermal performance is that a reference to the shenanigans with the lambda correction i'm sorry to use that expression but
02:00:47 i'm sorry to use that expression but it will become obvious perhaps with other witnesses what that was but you were familiar with that were you i was a familiar of the the announcement yes i wasn't familiar with that right
02:00:57 can i then show you the data sheet
02:01:02 cel407961
02:01:06 this is another one of celetex's marketing documents was this a document that you had a hand in drafting
02:01:19 in drafting um probably again with the with the same the same individuals it was you know the marketing team the technical team right and was this a document that you would or you did intend to send out as
02:01:30 would or you did intend to send out as part of
02:01:30 part of celestex's marketing efforts for rs 5000. that would have been distributed yes
02:01:35 yes and if we look at this document it's not a long document it's any three pages we can see that there's a pink header at the top of each page that reads celetex rs 5000 premium rain
02:01:46 that reads celetex rs 5000 premium rain screen cladding board suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height and that is is repeated in the pink banner at the top of all three pages of this three-page document isn't it yes that's right now there's no
02:01:58 yes that's right now there's no qualification there to this thrice repeated statement taken at face value it was entirely untrue wasn't it it was yes and it comes back to the original point
02:02:09 original point of individuals within celetex trying to dilute that system messages as much as they possibly could yeah just just for to say everybody understands it was untrue
02:02:20 everybody understands it was untrue because it wasn't suitable uh unless the building over 18 meters was going to have the same cladding system and exactly the same build-up as that which had been tested
02:02:31 tested yes correct yeah and anybody not reading the small print on page three the disclaimer as you call it would think that rs 5000 was as it says suitable for use on all buildings above 18 meters correct yes
02:02:45 and again we can see in the second bullet point down and i'm sorry i keep asking you these questions but it says again now the by now mantra expression therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters again
02:02:57 buildings above 18 meters again thoroughly misleading deliberately put forward and dishonest yes yeah
02:03:06 [Applause] and i suppose we need to finish this off if we go to the next page please we can see there that there are technical data there uh
02:03:18 technical data there uh with the surface spread of flame is class one and then on the next page we can see um the certification and an and an
02:03:29 certification and an and an identification of the system tested and the ingredients of that system and again that was misleading because it emitted any reference to the six millimeters magnesium oxide and the eight
02:03:41 magnesium oxide and the eight millimeters marley are turning natural bored over it correct yes and therefore the words the fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed above
02:03:52 relates to the components detailed above would itself be thoroughly misleading because the components detailed above were themselves incomplete correct yes and that was put forward deliberately and dishonestly by celestex yes and i include you in that yes yeah
02:04:05 yes and i include you in that yes yeah can we finally turn to the press release which we looked at before ceo 9599
02:04:22 now in the first paragraph it describes rs
02:04:26 rs 5000 uh as a new premium performing pir solution for rain screen cladding applications that was untrue wasn't it because it wasn't new it was simply a rebranded
02:04:39 wasn't new it was simply a rebranded simply rebranded fr5000 yes yeah and it was
02:04:43 was um it was only rebranded rs 5000 to go towards new product sales and that target that we spoke about previously on
02:04:54 we spoke about previously on on thursday yeah and when in the second paragraph it says the latest addition to the high performance best in class 5000 series
02:05:02 series and that suggests that rs 5000 was a new product being added to your range doesn't it that's right yes but it wasn't was it it was the old fr 5000 rebranded
02:05:13 rebranded yes so this was a full statement uh correct yes yes and if you go to the top of page two of this document it says again it's the same point with the
02:05:24 again it's the same point with the addition of celetex rs 5000 to an unrivaled pir insulation product range
02:05:30 range etc that was again a false statement wasn't it
02:05:34 wasn't it yes because this was not a new product no no
02:05:39 and then and i do now apologize for laboring this point if you go back to the first page please same point again second paragraph in third line after the
02:05:52 second paragraph in third line after the reference to the bs-8414 and br-135 criteria making acceptable making it acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height again that was deliberately and
02:06:03 again that was deliberately and dishonestly misleading wasn't it yes for the reasons we've discussed yes
02:06:16 yes for the reasons we've discussed yes now rs 5000 was launched on the 5th of august 2014. wasn't it correct you had a regional sales meeting yes and at that meeting i think you gave
02:06:27 yes and at that meeting i think you gave a presentation didn't you yes and we there was a slideshow which accompanied your presentation and that's at cel408668
02:06:48 uh and uh these are your slides did you did you speak to them did you present them as you went through them and speak as you went through them yeah i believe i did yes you did yeah
02:06:59 i believe i did yes you did yeah and let's start with the legislative background first of all paragraph or page four slide four
02:07:07 and we can see that the presentation addresses the legislative background of the use of insulation above 18 meters and
02:07:16 and there is adb2 bs8414 and br135 did you explain
02:07:22 explain those pieces of guidance and legislation if you like as part of your presentation i believe at hs you did and
02:07:34 i believe at hs you did and if you go to page seven or slide seven there is a sliding scale of risk categories with british standards and euro classes
02:07:45 with british standards and euro classes do you know where you got that from um no i don't to be honest with you no did you draft this um yes i believe i did yeah um
02:07:59 you see the reason i'm asking is because in the in the top line you've got non-combustible british standard four seven six four and 11 and indeed that's correct because those are the
02:08:11 that's correct because those are the tests for combustibility with an equivalence of a1 and a2 but then you've got the next line down low class naught and that would tend to
02:08:22 low class naught and that would tend to suggest
02:08:22 suggest that class naught had something to do with combustibility whereas in fact it doesn't
02:08:27 doesn't do you accept that um yes i do but i don't know where i got that table from whether that was part of a training presentation that was given to me i don't know did you
02:08:38 to me i don't know did you explain to the sales teams present that class naught was a different concept from combustibility limited combustibility i think that was generally accepted at the time yes right that wasn't something
02:08:51 the time yes right that wasn't something in respect of which anyone within celetex was in doubt was that right
02:08:58 and then if we look at page 16 this is entitled annex b 84142 2005 br135 and you can see on the right hand side there is b2 performance criteria and
02:09:11 there is b2 performance criteria and classification method and here we can see what you later come to call
02:09:16 to call your disclaimer the classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the systems tested
02:09:27 the details of the systems tested system has tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check
02:09:32 check that the classification documents cover the end use application and there's an arrow pointing to it and it says system classification this suggests that this presentation did highlight to the sales teams the fact
02:09:43 highlight to the sales teams the fact that br 135 only applied to the system and not individual components that's right yes yes but if we then go on to slide 25
02:09:54 but if we then go on to slide 25 which you would have come to not long afterwards during your presentation i guess
02:09:59 guess we can see headline points there and
02:10:05 there and these are the key properties of rs 5000 and if you look down there you can see in the penultimate bullet point suitable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height now taken as a standalone statement i
02:10:17 now taken as a standalone statement i think we've already established that that's misleading because it wasn't suitable for any building above 18 meters was it no no and
02:10:28 no and there's a very heavy caveat that would apply to a statement like that which simply doesn't find its way into this slide
02:10:34 slide why is that um again it goes back to like commercial versus technical argument i'm afraid um i felt it was important to bring the
02:10:48 i felt it was important to bring the sales team up to speed in terms of what the actual regulations were and the system classification but equally
02:10:56 equally in the back of my mind i was conscious that i had two individuals in the room as a sales director and a head of marketing that were equally trying to push
02:11:08 push a product in in application rather than a system
02:11:12 a system um does that tell us that although your slideshow referred to the disclaimer as it were as small print quite early on
02:11:23 quite early on the bigger message you wanted to get across to the sales teams was that they should be selling this for more general application that was the um view of
02:11:34 that was the um view of numerous individuals in the business including craig chambers i think he wanted that 18 meter message to be much more prominent than what they classed as technical
02:11:46 what they classed as technical um technical jargon to to associate alongside right that product launch and now you
02:11:53 now you you referred to cave chambers i was asking you i mean this is your slideshow and i appreciate that you're as it were operating under instructions i understand your evidence about that but was it your intention that you
02:12:04 but was it your intention that you wanted
02:12:05 wanted although to have the disclaimer there in the slideshow to make that less prominent but to make it more prominent to the sales team that this was a a product suitable for youth in
02:12:16 a product suitable for youth in buildings above 18 meters in height without the disclaimer um i don't know what i wanted from the presentation to be honest with you i wanted
02:12:26 wanted i wanted to get across the message that
02:12:30 it was a system and i was clear in my head that it was a system um but i equally had a members of the management group that were in that room
02:12:41 were in that room that didn't want that message to be so prominent so right that's it so the reference to br135
02:12:49 br135 and the disclaimer in the early part of the slides was there to give celetex plausible deniability in the face of a clearer message that this was a
02:12:59 a material or product suitable for use more generally above 18 meters yes yes
02:13:07 and then if we go to the next slide on 26 the message we see in the penultimate bullet point we've just been looking at is then compounded by
02:13:19 is then compounded by the mantra therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height so that then reinforced the message about the general nature of the application of this product despite the fact that the test was a
02:13:31 despite the fact that the test was a narrowly prescribed one correct yes
02:13:38 can we go back a little bit in the slide pack to slide 18. latest addition to 5000 range and you can see that there are five
02:13:49 and you can see that there are five balloons or bubbles uh celetex fr5000 multi-purpose solution cinetex cg 5000 cavity wall solution
02:14:00 cinetex cg 5000 cavity wall solution celitex gd5000 plasterboard laminate and dab
02:14:03 dab celetex gs 5000 plasterboard laminate mechanical fix cylitex rs 5000 range screen cladding solution
02:14:11 solution and that rather suggests that celetex rs 5000 is a
02:14:15 5000 is a new product being added to the existing range which included celotex fr 5000 doesn't it yes that was untrue wasn't it it wasn't a new formulation
02:14:26 a new formulation um but in context of that slide uh the differences between fr 5000 and cg 5000 the the first two products that were listed
02:14:37 the first two products that were listed there
02:14:38 there the only difference there was board size one was cut down to a to a smaller board size so
02:14:43 size so that same formulation followed through one two
02:14:47 one two four of those products were exactly the same
02:14:51 right my point is slightly different that celetex rs 5000 was simply fr 5000 rebranded wasn't it it was yes and therefore
02:15:00 therefore rs 5000 wasn't a latest addition to the 5000 range because it was already in the 5000 range in the guys of fr 5000 yes but it was marketed that way because
02:15:11 yes but it was marketed that way because um because of this drive towards a percentage of turnover coming from new product development if it fell within if they if they retain the fr 5000
02:15:23 fr 5000 product name for use in buildings above 18 meters
02:15:27 18 meters it wouldn't have contributed to the new product
02:15:30 product development turnover hence it was rebranded
02:15:34 rebranded rain screen 5000. i i see so it was was a deliberate choice of celetex to pretend to have two different products
02:15:43 products whereas in fact it was the same product yeah and that was an uncommon um across the whole of the range there are universal products that in formulation are exactly the same
02:15:54 the same but there are um differences only really by the by the name right
02:16:02 did you tell your sales team uh that in fact
02:16:06 fact rs 5000 was not a new product at all it was simply rs 5000 rebranded so as to be able to get into the above 18 meter market no that was not the message they wanted me to convey
02:16:18 me to convey why is that because um with any new product range they always wanted it to be perceived as brand new um despite the fact that
02:16:30 brand new um despite the fact that the formulation right remained exactly the same
02:16:33 the same so you and those from whom you took your orders
02:16:37 orders were content even to go so far as to mislead your own sales team um in this respect yes
02:16:48 and then make the same point again i think on slide 46 if we can go to that please page 46.
02:16:56 and we can see e shots and then a mini slide within it celetech's launch above 18 meter board celestex rs5000 and then the first paragraph says committed to ongoing product development
02:17:09 committed to ongoing product development celetex has launched rs 5000 specifically designed for rain screen cladding applications and the latest addition
02:17:15 addition to the 5000 series that was not true was it because it hadn't been specifically designed
02:17:21 designed at all no it just it's gone through a a test at the bre so this statement that celetex rs 5000 had been specifically designed
02:17:33 specifically designed for rain screen applications was intended to mislead not only your sales team but the public for the customer with whom any of your sales teams innocently made this
02:17:44 sales teams innocently made this statement
02:17:45 statement it was intended to um yes to be perceived as a as a brand new solution right and by not telling your sales teams were you protecting them from a charge of deceit which a customer
02:17:56 from a charge of deceit which a customer might make to them when they did discover that this wasn't in fact a new product at all um i don't think that was taken into consideration right why not simply tell
02:18:08 right why not simply tell your sales team look this isn't actually a new product it's an old product rebranded
02:18:14 rebranded um i think the view was that it would confuse the confuse the message um what what was clear at the time is that saying when sangaban took the
02:18:25 is that saying when sangaban took the business over is that selatex had numerous products that were applicable to
02:18:31 to multiple applications ie floors walls roofs the same product iefr5000 what they wanted to focus on was application specific product ranges
02:18:44 application specific product ranges and rs 5000 was the first opportunity to create a new application specific product
02:18:51 product why not just say well you can now use fr 5000 anywhere on the building below or above 18 meters because it wouldn't have contributed to the new product sales so in order to contribute to the new product sales you had to lie about it
02:19:02 product sales you had to lie about it i had to rebrand it and then tell your sales team and through them any any customers something which wasn't true um from from a formulation perspective
02:19:13 um from from a formulation perspective yes
02:19:13 yes well from that statement on the page specifically designed for rain screen clouding applications that wasn't true um no so do you accept the point i'm
02:19:24 um no so do you accept the point i'm putting to you i do yes yeah thank you then if we go to slide 27
02:19:32 this is a diagram of the system celetex and br135
02:19:37 and br135 and we can see there the by now familiar
02:19:41 ingredients or components of the system purported to have been tested no reference there to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide and no reference there to the eight millimeters uh of mali eternity natura
02:19:55 uh of mali eternity natura and and again that slide for those reasons was misleading wasn't it so again you didn't even tell your own sales team about the true makeup of the rig that was tested successfully that's right why
02:20:07 successfully that's right why why didn't you tell them that um because that was the decision that that had been had been taken in the business not only didn't they want to disclose
02:20:19 not only didn't they want to disclose the
02:20:20 the true test um later on when the product was launched and there were requests for that test report i think
02:20:31 requests for that test report i think the majority of the time the sales team will refuse such such information
02:20:37 was it your intention that the celetech sales team should not be aware of the fact that the test rig for the bsa414 test
02:20:43 test was not in fact as shown in the marketing literature or on this slide it was you know celtics was an intention of which i admit i was a part of and what was the
02:20:54 admit i was a part of and what was the reason for not telling your sales teams the truth um in that respect
02:21:02 i don't know i don't know i think that's that decision was was made above was made above me right
02:21:14 if we go to slide 32
02:21:20 this refers to
02:21:23 three things celetex rs 5000 included in br135 labc approval and presented to nhbc
02:21:35 labc approval and presented to nhbc unique product code for product chat project tracking and then incurred substantial development costs in fact it's right isn't it that the only development costs were those for testing and marketing correct there weren't any r d or or
02:21:48 correct there weren't any r d or or chemical
02:21:48 chemical or analysis uh product costs were they no
02:21:54 no so to that extent incurred substantial development costs is apt to mislead because it rather suggests that this is a new product which on which money had to be spent in in development um
02:22:06 in in development um yes i guess the the cost of the two tests and the marketing were substantial in relation to previous developments that had taken place and that's why that statement was was in there now we've seen nothing in
02:22:18 was in there now we've seen nothing in these slides which even mentions the first
02:22:20 first test which was unsuccessful in february 2014
02:22:23 2014 that's right isn't this correct why was that because of the um decision to emit any reference to that first test and subsequently admit
02:22:34 that first test and subsequently admit any reference to the magnesium oxide so just summarizing where we've got to on your launch day do you accept i think you do
02:22:42 you do that you didn't tell your sales team three things first of all that they'd been an earlier bs8414 test that had failed
02:22:49 failed or that the second test had only passed by reason of the presence of a six millimeter magnesium board behind the malia turner eight millimeter rain screen in two places which wasn't in the literature or the
02:23:00 which wasn't in the literature or the test report or the drawing or even the third thing which is that rs 5000 was simply fr 5000 rebranded that's right isn't it that's right yes and each of those emissions taken
02:23:11 and each of those emissions taken separately or altogether made your own presentation of rs 5000 to your own sales marketing teams thoroughly misleading correct yes and you knew that i knew that yes
02:23:22 that yes it was your idea that they would then innocently practice the same deceit on celetex's intended customers for this product in order for better to sell it certainly wasn't
02:23:32 wasn't my idea no um all right was it was the idea of those from whom you took your instructions so far as you could tell that the sales teams would then innocently practice this same deceit in
02:23:44 innocently practice this same deceit in these three respects on celetex's intended customers the better to sell this product i think so yes
02:24:06 did who else in celetex knew that you were planning to mislead your your sales team who else yes
02:24:20 paul rob
02:24:23 paul reed obviously knew the details of the
02:24:27 the uh the actual test um i can only presume that all of the members of the management action group but nobody ever confirmed that to me did any members of the management action group
02:24:38 members of the management action group ever actually see this slideshow uh yes i believe there were numerous um directors of or heads of the department that were present at that
02:24:49 that were present at that that launch who were those who were they please um sales director head of marketing head of technical i don't know whether
02:25:00 head of technical i don't know whether craig was was present at that that launch or not right can you just give me their name sales director who was that paul reed head of marketing paul evans head of technical rob warren okay so the
02:25:13 head of technical rob warren okay so the same people as you told me before but possibly craig chambers but you can't recall i can't remember whether very well
02:25:22 uh i'd like to turn to the subject of your relationship with the nhbc and and look at that now mr chairman i'm not sure i'm going to finish this tonight but i don't have that long
02:25:33 tonight but i don't have that long it may be convenient just to stop now i'm conscious that the witnesses had a long day he has we could start and um if we're going to turn to a new topic maybe he and others might like a respect
02:25:45 maybe he and others might like a respect at this stage because you're going to ask him to come back tomorrow i am yeah can you give me any of how long you think he might be yes i may be able to shorten this
02:25:56 yes i may be able to shorten this overnight a little bit but it it it's it's unlikely i would think probably an hour tomorrow morning and then a break and then follow-up questions which history shows us doesn't
02:26:07 questions which history shows us doesn't take that long but one has to allow proper time yeah and that's tough because i'm sure mr rover wanted to know quite what his what time was required tomorrow but i think it's better to stop at this point very good we're going to
02:26:19 at this point very good we're going to call a halt uh for the day at that point mr oprah as you heard me say to mr millett i'm afraid we are going to have to ask you to come back for a little bit longer tomorrow
02:26:29 tomorrow i don't suppose you had that factored into your timetable but i'm afraid that's the way it is okay so um we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:26:39 tomorrow mr millett's best guess is that uh he'll take about an hour with you there'll be some follow-up things after that so um if you're planning your day tomorrow
02:26:50 um if you're planning your day tomorrow you might be wise to uh not to expect to leave here much before midday can't guarantee what what the time will be but that gives you some idea of where we're going
02:27:01 we're going that's fine yeah all right yeah okay um all right well if you'd like to give the action now um we'll see you at 10 o'clock tomorrow and again please don't talk to anyone while you're away from the hearing about your
02:27:12 away from the hearing about your evidence or anything to do with it that is that's fun all right yeah thank you very much
02:27:28 indeed thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow then
02:27:42 please you