Evidence from Celotex product manager Jonathan Roper on RS5000 development for above-18m market. Details on training, building regulations knowledge, BR135 understanding, and commercial pressures from acquisition by Saint-Gobain.
00:00:08 yes mr millet mr chairman thank you i now call mr jonathan roper please
00:00:27 okay i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth thank you very much mr roper sit down
00:00:38 thank you very much mr roper sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:00:48 mr chairman yes mr roper can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry today and giving evidence to us we are
00:00:55 we are very grateful to you if you have any difficulty understanding my questions or you would like me to put the question in a different way i'm very happy to do that we'll repeat the question if you need a break at any particular point please let
00:01:07 break at any particular point please let us know
00:01:07 us know we are going to take scheduled breaks halfway through the morning and afternoon sessions so there will be a break coming up at around about 3 20 or so this afternoon okay can i also ask you to keep your
00:01:18 okay can i also ask you to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your right can get down everything you're saying and also just warn you that a nod or a shake of the head doesn't go down on the transcript so you'll need to say
00:01:29 on the transcript so you'll need to say yes or no as the case may be okay now um you made one statement to the inquiry dated the 12th of october 2018 can i take you to that uh it'll be in a
00:01:40 can i take you to that uh it'll be in a folder on your desk in front of you but it will also appear on the screen a cel
00:01:45 cel 6 f301052
00:01:52 and we're going to be looking at all the documents that i'm going to show you on the screen as opposed to in hard copy okay
00:01:59 okay can i ask you to go to the first page there you have is that the first page of your witness statement it is yes and can i ask you to go to page 21 where there will be a signature
00:02:09 signature underneath the statement is that your signature next to the date it is here have you read this witness statement recently i have yes can you confirm that the contents are true it is yeah
00:02:20 true it is yeah and have you discussed the evidence that you're going to give to the inquiry today with anybody before coming here no now you joined celetex in may 2012 i think
00:02:30 think as an assistant product manager didn't you yes so that was effectively a sales role was it no um it was a analytical role within the marketing department
00:02:42 within the marketing department an analytical role within the marketing department i think i'm right in saying is this right that this was your first job since leaving university correct yes and i think at university you'd studied business studies haven't
00:02:53 you'd studied business studies haven't you that's right the university of east anglia correct did you have any relevant experience in the insulation industry no none at all um did you have any specific scientific qualifications no
00:03:06 specific scientific qualifications no um now you say i think that you were provided with no specific training before beginning your job that's right did that mean you got no training at all in relation to celetex products
00:03:16 products um no i got some some training soon after i joined um on a general overview of the current product range as it as it was then right did you get any training in
00:03:29 right did you get any training in specifically in relation to the scientific products thermal thermal behavior
00:03:34 behavior fire performance of specific products in the celetex range as part of my induction i would have spent
00:03:42 spent some time with the factory and within research and development um but that would have been a very brief overview of the basic formulation of
00:03:53 overview of the basic formulation of pir products did you get any training in relation to fire safety no i didn't know did you get any training in relation to the building regulations and approved document b again an overview from the technical
00:04:05 again an overview from the technical manager an overview from the technical manager
00:04:08 manager was that jamie hayes no um at the time it was rob warren rob warren right can i ask you to go to your witness statement please at page two
00:04:17 two and you'll see there at paragraph 2.4 you say
00:04:21 you say at the very bottom of the page i was not given any specific training in my roles at celetex but i was micromanaged by paul
00:04:28 paul who would give me daily tasks and would check all the work if you go over the page
00:04:35 i produced paul and i would have would have regular ad hoc meetings where he would check on the work i'd done so far i would regularly email him providing him with updates on what i'd researched to see if he wanted me to research
00:04:46 to see if he wanted me to research anything else or to get his views when you say he micromanaged you can you just tell me what you mean by that um he was my direct line manager at the time
00:04:57 time there was a a marketing director as well um
00:05:00 um who oversaw the department more generally
00:05:04 generally but paul given that i had no insulation knowledge at all when i first joined um he sat down with me regularly um more than more than once on a daily
00:05:15 um more than more than once on a daily basis to make sure the tasks that i was carrying out were well as he saw would you say that you didn't do anything or say anything at least publicly without his approval great uh
00:05:28 approval great uh would he set your key performance indicators or kpis as they're called very for the yeah uh initially it would have either been paul
00:05:39 initially it would have either been paul evans or chris king
00:05:42 right and what were the significance what was the significance of the kpis to you
00:05:48 you when you joined my understanding of the kpis were to focus on certain work areas and as my time at celetex progressed
00:06:00 and as my time at celetex progressed those kpis were linked to a financial bonus as well well i was going to ask you what would have been the consequences of failing to meet the kpi objectives um mainly financial in terms of uh right
00:06:12 um mainly financial in terms of uh right does that mean not getting a bonus or being deprived of something you otherwise would not getting a bonus not getting a bonus and can you give us an idea of the scale of the bonuses if you met all of your kpi targets
00:06:24 you met all of your kpi targets uh i can't recall what the what the scale or the or even the percentage of the bonuses it wasn't it wasn't a huge amount of money but um it was it was primarily their kpis were
00:06:35 it was it was primarily their kpis were there to
00:06:36 there to to focus the mind on on work areas really that the business wanted carried out
00:06:41 out now i think it's right that in september 2013 you began a new role that of product manager is that right that's right yes and that had previously i think been paul evans his role yes and he i think
00:06:52 paul evans his role yes and he i think then stepped in a little bit later perhaps to the role of of um head of marketing yes he was promoted to head of marketing and then subsequently that left a vacant
00:07:03 then subsequently that left a vacant position for a product manager yeah and you i think still reported to paul evans yes yes that's right uh can we go to your statement at page three please which we're on and look down below at paragraph 2.7 you say that in my role as
00:07:16 paragraph 2.7 you say that in my role as product manager i still did not attend board meetings paul continued to do so i attended other meetings with those working stroke assisting on the same projects and paul would also attend now at this stage uh
00:07:29 would also attend now at this stage uh you're
00:07:29 you're appointed i think in september 2013. so you would have been about what 23 or 24 years old at that stage uh 23 yeah 23
00:07:38 yeah 23 right and uh
00:07:42 you say you still didn't attend board meetings uh why were you not permitted to attend board meetings given that paul evans had done so previously when he was product manager
00:07:53 product manager um i don't think he did overly regularly i think primarily when chris king was the marketing director he would have attended the board meetings it was the most senior individuals within that business and
00:08:05 individuals within that business and that continued when i was promoted to product manager the heads of the department would be the only individuals that would take take part in those meetings is it
00:08:16 take take part in those meetings is it right that really despite your promotion you were still effectively in the same role that you had occupied when you joined celetex i was carrying out very much the same tasks yes i see can i turn to the um
00:08:29 can i turn to the um topic of the properties of celetex pir products
00:08:34 products um can we look first please at max50216
00:08:44 this is the data sheet for celetex's fr5000 product and you'll see if you look at the top right hand corner of the document that it's issue 2
00:08:55 of the document that it's issue 2 january 2012. you see that yes and this is a pir board isn't it yes and it was called fr 5000 um were you familiar with this data sheet
00:09:07 were you familiar with this data sheet when you when you joined when i joined yes when you joined obviously not before that but when you joined did you become familiar with this fairly quickly yes you did um it's called fr 5000 did you understand what fr stood for
00:09:20 did you understand what fr stood for um i think that it stood for fire resistant
00:09:23 resistant that's what you thought did you ever have a discussion in celetex about what it stood for that would have been part of my initial training when uh paul and chris would have went through the product range
00:09:34 through the product range the 5000 range generally consisted of two or three different products of which fr was one of them i think fr was fire resistant
00:09:45 i think fr was fire resistant did they tell you that they did yes they told you it was faster for fire resistance not flat roof no right was there a sense of confusion did you detect in celatex
00:09:56 detect in celatex as to whether fr stood for fire resistant or flat roof um no i think um most employees were clear that it was fire resistant
00:10:07 resistant right and why was it fire resistant did you understand uh during my interviews with celetex and then soon after joining i learnt that they had two
00:10:19 joining i learnt that they had two different ranges they had a standard range of insulation products which was known as the 4000 range then and they had a 5000 range and that was the
00:10:29 the their way of differentiating from not only the standard range but equally competition that were in the marketplace at the time uh well we'll come back to that um we
00:10:40 uh well we'll come back to that um we can see that the data sheet here refers to fr 5000 as having class north throughout the entire product in accordance with bs476 you see that in the middle paragraph yes
00:10:53 in the middle paragraph yes what did you understand the significance of fr5000 having class naught to be i was told during my training that to achieve class naught or class zero as
00:11:05 to achieve class naught or class zero as as it was referred um you had to carry out two individual tests of british standard 476 and from memory
00:11:16 476 and from memory one was on the face of the insulation and one was on the core of the insulation and if you met those two
00:11:22 those two tests the result of that would be class o
00:11:27 o and what did you understand the expression uh class naught fire performance throughout the entire product to signify i think that referred to the fact that
00:11:38 fact that you test the both the phaser and the insulation core itself right was that a view or understanding that you had at the time it was a yeah it was um
00:11:49 the time it was a yeah it was um part of my training that's that's how it was explained to actually now it's right to think isn't it that fr 5000 was later rebranded to rs 5000 that's right did you understand that fr
00:12:00 that's right did you understand that fr 5000
00:12:01 5000 was the same product as rs 5000 yes yeah and it's just the rs 5000 was now to be marketed at the over 18 meter market yes yeah um and of course fr 5000 hadn't
00:12:14 yeah um and of course fr 5000 hadn't done that
00:12:14 done that because it hadn't passed an 8414 test correct yeah so the answers you've given about class naught will that apply also to rs 5000 yes the formulation of the product stage
00:12:25 yes the formulation of the product stage exactly the same yes and we'll come back to revisit that in question in more detail later but in terms of the manufacturing process for fr 5000 rs 5000 as the same product were you
00:12:36 rs 5000 as the same product were you aware that they were manufactured on two different production lines uh yes yeah it was the same for many of the products that celetex manufactured
00:12:48 manufactured if the product was from from the thinnest range of 12 mil up to i believe 90 mil that would be manufactured on one production line and 100 million above it
00:12:59 production line and 100 million above it would be manufactured on a on a second production line right now just help me these two lines were called hiption and hennika weren't there that's right hip chin and henika was hip chin the line for the thinner or
00:13:11 was hip chin the line for the thinner or the thicker yeah the thinner the thinner yeah so if you were manufacturing something on did you want it to be 100 millimeters or 150 or 160 millimeters you would use hip chin would you
00:13:22 chin would you uh sorry 50 did you say 50 and 60 ml no 100 or 150 or 160 millimeters it would be manufactured on the henniker line that would be hennika so for hiption it would be anything under 100 is that right generally
00:13:34 under 100 is that right generally although some products um were only solely manufactured it's not not as simple as
00:13:40 simple as distinguishing between the thicknesses there were some products that were manufactured purely on henniker purely on hypshum that came down to the development chemists what was rs5 sorry
00:13:51 sorry fr 5000 manufactured on i believe it was manufactured on both lines on both lines if you wanted to produce uh an fr 5000 or an rs 5000 of 100
00:14:03 uh an fr 5000 or an rs 5000 of 100 millimeters thickness or depth which line would be used i think the henniker line helicopter
00:14:11 yes i want to turn to the origins of the project relating to the above 18 meter market it's right isn't it that when you
00:14:22 it's right isn't it that when you started in may 2012 celestex did not have an insulation board which could be sold for use above 18 meters that's right but it wanted to develop one
00:14:33 right but it wanted to develop one yes correct and that desire to develop one did that predate your arrival i believe so yeah and when you arrived what did you understand the driving force behind that desire to be
00:14:44 force behind that desire to be uh that king spam well kingsman sorry solotexa's main competition um had a product suitable for running screen applications above 18
00:14:56 for running screen applications above 18 meters
00:14:57 meters right and you want and celotex wanted to compete with them yes at the very beginning casting your mind back can you tell me who told you that that was the aim
00:15:08 me who told you that that was the aim yeah again it was part of the initial training
00:15:11 training that paul and chris king would have given me an overview of um they talked to me about approvals that they did have and equally approvals that they didn't have the and the potential gaps in the in the
00:15:23 and the potential gaps in the in the market really can we then go to cel402892 please
00:15:33 this is an email string from early september 2012. and it's between bill woodham and adam fryer
00:15:42 fryer and relate it relates in general terms to lost opportunities in the above 18 meter market now i appreciate when showing you these documents that you weren't a recipient of these emails but i just want to look at some of the things said in it if you start at page
00:15:55 things said in it if you start at page two please uh and page two adrian fryer is telling market intel 18 meters lost orders
00:16:05 orders and he says lost um 5 000 square meters fr 5 000 on job below plus another 3 000 square meters on tuesday due to the 18 meter
00:16:16 on tuesday due to the 18 meter or lack of test anyone else finding this is losing your volume vap sales and then if you look at bill woodham's response a little bit up the cage
00:16:27 uh he goes back to him and says speaking for my area kingspan dominate the k15 specifications and i relied on the distributors to give me the inquiry to change spec problem is after so many times of saying
00:16:38 problem is after so many times of saying it cannot be used above 80 meters any longer get the inquiries so very difficult to measure the only way is via spec but we don't currently offer over 18 option let's hope our rich parents want to invest in the fire test then marketing can get
00:16:51 in the fire test then marketing can get it out there
00:16:54 does that reflect your understanding at the time
00:16:58 the time so september 2012 of the motivation behind the 18-meter project in general terms i think primarily celetex were looking to explore the
00:17:09 celetex were looking to explore the above 18 metre market because of feedback that they were regularly receiving from the external sales team on lost opportunities right is this one and they couldn't satisfy
00:17:20 is this one and they couldn't satisfy these opportunities by using fr 5000
00:17:29 there's a reference as we can see from bill woodham's email to adam adrian fryer on that date that he says uh let's hope our rich parents
00:17:40 parents want to invest in the br135 fire test um now as i say you weren't a recipient of this email but can you enlighten me as to what rich parents means there so judging by the date of the email
00:17:52 so judging by the date of the email given that i joined the business in may and then within the first month the announcement was made that sangaban were going to acquire celotex um that was obviously then common
00:18:04 um that was obviously then common knowledge on the on the 7th of september so i can only assume that bill is suggesting that sangaban perhaps um made back the investment
00:18:15 investment yes thank you and then he refers to the br 135 fire test then marketing can get it out there does that show us that even at this early stage september 2012 the strategy was to obtain a br135
00:18:28 the strategy was to obtain a br135 classification and then to mark it forcibly forcefully um yes and in fact that was as we will see together later
00:18:39 that was as we will see together later the strategy that was eventually adopted yes can we go to cel3010154 please
00:18:51 yes can we go to cel3010154 please now this is jamie hayes witness statement and i want to show you paragraph 17 on that page uh page six
00:19:01 uh and he says uh here
00:19:07 uh even before this acquisition celetex was largely marketing-led given that those individuals at the top of the business had mainly originated from the marketing department celetex used to be aimed by private equity group aac capital partners
00:19:20 equity group aac capital partners and so the drive for profit making and increasing the company's share price had been systemic in the celetex culture for some time however it seemed as though this culture became heightened once sangoman became
00:19:32 became heightened once sangoman became involved
00:19:33 involved i knew from later conversations between pe that's paul evans craig chambers and john roper whose roles are explained below which i was present that sangaba had asked for a budget for increasing
00:19:44 asked for a budget for increasing profits
00:19:44 profits and that at least 15 percent of this increase would need to be attributed to new products i remember thinking we were not allowed to simply sell more of our existing products to increase profits for me this meant that there was a drive
00:19:56 for me this meant that there was a drive for innovation and a sense of pressure to increase profits at celetex
00:20:04 now mr hayes says here that he knew this from conversations between you and others at which he was present do you remember such conversations i remember that
00:20:15 remember that those conversations led to one of my kpis
00:20:19 kpis being around new product development i think that soon after the acquisition from saying the van there seemed to be a much stronger drive towards new product development and
00:20:31 development and the percentage turnover [Applause] that they achieved do you agree with what mr hayes says here paragraph 17
00:20:43 says here paragraph 17 yes i do
00:20:51 can we look at cel402900 and i want to take you to a document that
00:21:01 perhaps shows the kpis this is uh i think am i right in saying paul evans is january 2013 objectives kpis for 2013
00:21:14 january 2013 objectives kpis for 2013 for you yes
00:21:20 that was it created by paul evans or at least signed off by him it's created by paul evans and probably senior management i see and it
00:21:31 probably senior management i see and it includes as you can see objective number five
00:21:34 five accreditation for fr 5000 for use in above 18 meter applications and then in the second column from the left it says under measure test report and launched to sales team with the
00:21:47 and launched to sales team with the target date of december 2013 and a weighting of 20 percent
00:21:55 just in relation to the waiting is that a weighting which would go to the financial incentive or bonus that that you would get yes at the end of that year that would uh
00:22:06 that year that would uh all six of those kpis would be measured and subject to the percentage which those have been achieved that would then link into the financial
00:22:17 that would then link into the financial bonus that was received right the percentage is a percentage of what the financial bonus or or um your salary um neighborhood i i don't think i think
00:22:29 um neighborhood i i don't think i think it's just
00:22:30 it's just that the waiting that um that particular task carries in relation to the
00:22:37 to the the rest of my kpis i see so looking at it now you could take the view that kpi 1 4 and 5 were the most important to the business
00:22:49 were the most important to the business that was my next question i see that's why they got 20 and the others got less
00:22:55 got less yes and it looks as if this objective was to be achieved by december 2013. and is it right to say that you were effectively put in charge of developing the fr
00:23:05 the fr 5000 product into a brand that celetex could market for use above 18 meters i was part of the project team and
00:23:17 initially that was myself paul and jamie hayes
00:23:20 hayes as the development grew um it included three or four other members of the the business yes i see when i say put in charge um let me try
00:23:31 when i say put in charge um let me try it a different way um the accreditation process for fr 5000 so that it could be used above 18 meters it was one of your major pieces of work
00:23:40 of work correct yes but you were always supervised in that work is this right by paul evans absolutely yes yes so you weren't the final decision maker but you were very heavily involved yes all right now
00:23:54 can we look at uh jamie hayes witness statement again please cel 3010154 and i'd like to go to page nine in that document and go to paragraph 28.
00:24:08 he says there rs 5000 was neither an entirely new chemical product nor one of altered composition instead it was simply the rebranding of the existing fr5000 product to be used
00:24:20 the existing fr5000 product to be used in above 18 meter projects and then he goes on to say that he remember he specifically recalls a particular conversation with pe jr and cc at which i was present in which they
00:24:32 at which i was present in which they were discussing whether rs 5000 would constitute a new product for the purposes of the 15 profit increase target
00:24:39 target it was concluded that since rs 5000 was going to be targeted at a completely new market with a new name it would be classified as a new product even if its chemical composition did not change
00:24:49 change jr's responsibility for developing rs 5000 was therefore a significant responsibility given that celetex's ability to meet sangoman's targets seems to be heavily reliant on the
00:25:00 seems to be heavily reliant on the success or failure of this product do you agree with what mr hayes has said there i do yes so there was therefore a significant pressure on you personally to ensure that the product
00:25:11 that the product passed the bs8414 test that it later underwent
00:25:15 underwent i think there was a responsibility on that product passing and being able to be launched because when they looked at the potential development opportunities at the time
00:25:25 the time rs 5000 or the above 18 meter market was perceived to be um the one with the biggest opportunity yes would you say it was a responsibility on that product
00:25:37 responsibility on that product but in fact mr hayes is talking about the responsibility on your shoulders do you agree with him that the your personal responsibility for developing rs 5000 was a significant one yes yes
00:25:50 rs 5000 was a significant one yes yes did you have any concerns at the time about whether you had the technical expertise or at age 23 the experience necessary to understand the requirements for a product to be used above 18 meters
00:26:04 for a product to be used above 18 meters um i was
00:26:07 um i was concerned that i knew very little of that
00:26:10 that that marketplace um
00:26:14 yeah i was concerned from that aspect but
00:26:17 but i was equally probably trying to demonstrate that i mean at the time that those kpis were set i was still a system product manager
00:26:30 set i was still a system product manager back in january 2013 my role grew and i was subsequently promoted to product manager um
00:26:41 promoted to product manager um but yeah i did i did have some concerns you did did you share those concerns with anybody at celetex i wasn't working alone um i had a project team around me i had
00:26:53 i had a project team around me i had paul and
00:26:53 paul and and rob and craig um and senior managers that i could i could lean on for advice and
00:26:59 and um ultimately to to make decisions if we look at the top of this page in mr hayes witness statement of paragraph 26 we can say that he says there that
00:27:10 we can say that he says there that in the second la second sentence in the first line in late 2012 early 2013 he that's jr as you
00:27:18 you was tasked with the development of a product that could be sold in the above 18 meter market rs 5000 as well as a portfolio of other products
00:27:30 uh do you agree with that description of the facts that you were tasked with the development of rs 5000 yes yes
00:27:47 can we then turn to the development of the
00:27:50 the project as a matter of history were you aware that celetex had previously considered the development of a product for use above 18 meters as far back in time as 2008
00:28:03 far back in time as 2008 uh i i didn't realize it went back to 2008 but i did recall that i had a conversation with paul and with rob quite early on in my tenure with celestex and they as part of a
00:28:16 celestex and they as part of a background exercise to the above 18 meter market they did share with me a an email um i think it was mainly regarding the test fees from the bre yeah so yes i did know that
00:28:30 from the bre yeah so yes i did know that they've done some initial research i see did do you know why no decision to proceed had been taken at an earlier time
00:28:39 time um i think that it was relayed to me that
00:28:43 that because the business was privately owned at the time um the business was continuing to grow in terms of sales and market share without the addition of of this this product and this market
00:28:55 product and this market that the private owners didn't want to risk financially an outlay of 25 000 pounds for a for a test that
00:29:06 25 000 pounds for a for a test that may not be um achievable it sounds from that answer that the culture at least prior to the acquisition by saying was one of uh a drive for growth rather than
00:29:17 uh a drive for growth rather than investment correct is that because of the identity of the owners and because from the very outset they knew that their sole task was to grow the business for sale
00:29:29 task was to grow the business for sale but they were quite open with all employees around that yeah am i right in thinking that the owners or majority owners were aac capital partners um i think there was aac capital
00:29:41 um i think there was aac capital partners and then there were six or seven shareholders that were equally directors working directors within the business and did you know aac capital partners were at one stage at least abn amro's
00:29:53 were at one stage at least abn amro's private
00:29:54 private equity house no right but was the culture one of a drive to increase revenues uh in order to have an early and profitable exit correct so focus on earnings multiples
00:30:05 correct so focus on earnings multiples and enterprise value yes um now we um can see from your kpis and we've seen it already that one of
00:30:16 and we've seen it already that one of those for 2013 was getting fr5000 certified for use above 18 meters so i think it's right isn't it that you always understood that the plan was to accredit that product not a new product
00:30:29 accredit that product not a new product yes not develop a new product no so the investment would be in relation is this right to simply to testing and then marketing correct so no no research and development no
00:30:40 development no no um production investment no no chemical formulation they no were you aware of any whether any changes were actually made to the composition of the product being fr 5000 while you were undertaking
00:30:53 being fr 5000 while you were undertaking the above 18 meter project no can i then look at the building regulations as part of the above 18 meter project you i think we're tasked with researching the regulatory background weren't you
00:31:04 weren't you yes and it was it mr evans who asked you to do that it was yes can we go to your witness statement page five
00:31:15 and let's look at paragraph 4.1 under section c research conducted prior to testing you say there at the top of the page that in the fourth line down paulette
00:31:27 that in the fourth line down paulette paul provided me with names and contact details of those he wanted me to contact i assumed these were connections he made on other projects he'd worked on previously now you um you later mentioned that
00:31:38 now you um you later mentioned that sotek
00:31:39 sotek were people you met by chance apart from sotech
00:31:42 sotech were all the contacts that you made based on the list that paul evans had given you
00:31:46 given you yes primarily they were um bodies such as the bba bre and nhbc that paul had dealt with in right basic role as a product manager what about potential partners
00:32:02 for a test um did he give you names of only potential partners canalf i believe later on enough yes right just for the record
00:32:13 enough yes right just for the record that's knauf yes we'll come to them later thank you but only then i see um if we um look at 4.2 the next paragraph down you refer there to the nhbc the bba and
00:32:24 you refer there to the nhbc the bba and the bre these were organizations in the testing and certification industry weren't they they were yes what about ifc or simcoe did mr evans give you those names
00:32:37 did mr evans give you those names uh no simcoe um were a cladding subcontractor that one of the area sales managers suggested
00:32:48 suggested who was that ian leftbree yes we will come to that and what about ifc ifc um it was something that an organization
00:32:59 it was something that an organization i sought to engage with because we wanted
00:33:03 wanted somebody with
00:33:06 experience in consultation around the fire performance of products and uh how did you come across ifc was that a paul evans contact or was it no it wasn't a paul evans contact um it was somebody that
00:33:19 um it was somebody that i don't know maybe i maybe i just searched searched the web possibly right um
00:33:25 um so it was a result of your enterprising digging that you came across ifc yes yeah um and you say uh in the um next paragraph of 4.2
00:33:38 in the um next paragraph of 4.2 after the reference to nhbc bre and bba you say he wanted me to obtain more information on what was required to launch such a product now i'm going to come on to ask about some of this context in a little bit
00:33:49 some of this context in a little bit more detail later but i just want to first ask you i want to ask you first about your understanding of what the relevance what the relevant guidance and regulations actually were did you understand in general terms that
00:34:01 did you understand in general terms that there were different requirements applicable to buildings above 18 meters in height
00:34:06 in height from those below 18 meters in height yes and was that understanding generally shared within celetex yes it was you uh and is it right that internally you approached jamie hayes
00:34:18 internally you approached jamie hayes for some help with your research uh yes jamie and um rob was generally the
00:34:24 the go-to person for any regulation advice i see and i want to ask you some questions about the fruits of your research and by the time celebtex came
00:34:35 research and by the time celebtex came to do the test in 2014 were you familiar with schedule one to the building regulations no no did you ever become familiar with the building regulations
00:34:46 the building regulations i came familiar with sections of the the building regulations right well let's just see which ones um part b fire safety um not not in its entirety but again sections of it
00:34:57 sections of it do you remember which particular sections stand out in your memory the ones relating to the uh regulations around
00:35:05 around bs8414 right uh are you referring to approved document b yes i see and what was your understanding of the purpose of approved document b
00:35:17 document b um fire safety for building yes uh but i say purpose but what was what would one did you understand what the approved documents did or before what the status was
00:35:31 did or before what the status was um regulate compliance right had you ever attended any courses or training on the building regulations or on the approved documents no during our whole time at celetex did
00:35:44 no during our whole time at celetex did you ever
00:35:45 you ever attend any courses or other training on the building regulations or the approved documents
00:35:49 documents no did you read the guidance set out and approve document b which addresses fire safety as part of your research other than the sections you read
00:36:00 other than the sections you read specifically no let's look at a proof document b clg50224
00:36:06 clg50224 and can we go please to page 95 where we'll find section 12.
00:36:14 and this is entitled construction of external walls is this part of the approved document that you think you looked at as part of your research yes it is and did you focus on the part on the right hand side which
00:36:26 the right hand side which says external wall construction just below halfway down
00:36:32 um sorry 12.5 are you referring to yes
00:36:38 yes you did uh and uh so you understood therefore
00:36:43 therefore is this right uh from this first of all the general principle that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fast bread
00:36:50 bread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety you understood that did you yes and then the next sentence the use of combustible materials in the cladding system
00:37:00 system and extensive cavities may present such a risk into all buildings you understood that did you yes and then in the next paragraph external walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9
00:37:13 given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in br in the bre report title which is then given br 135 for cladding systems using full scale test data from bs 8414
00:37:25 using full scale test data from bs 8414 part 2 2002 or bs8414 part 2 2005. you understood that did you yes did you understand from that that there were two alternative routes to compliance
00:37:36 compliance with the building regulations either 12.6 to 12.9 or uh meeting the performance criteria in br135
00:37:45 in br135 using a bsa for one full test yes you did
00:37:51 did um if we look at 12.6 external surfaces
00:37:57 it says the external surfaces of walls should meet and over the page the provisions in diagram 40. did you understand what that meant diagram 40 is on the next page if you want to see it
00:38:08 want to see it um i think i know that the diagram that you're referring to and i knew that was present in the approved argument but i don't know we'll go to the next we'll go to the next page page 97 we can see it
00:38:20 page 97 we can see it if you look at e any building you can see any dimension over 18 meters and did you understand from that that the
00:38:27 the external wall surface classification had to be either class nor national class or class b s3d2 or better european class yes that was explained to me yes yeah and if we go back a page please do
00:38:39 and if we go back a page please do paragraph
00:38:40 paragraph or section 12.7 insulation materials it reads i'm sorry i shall read the full title insulation materials stroke products in a building with a story 18
00:38:52 products in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wool construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a
00:39:05 combustibility see appendix a i don't think i need the rest did you understand that yes now we've established i think already that fr 5000 was not a material of limited
00:39:16 was not a material of limited combustibility that's correct and therefore as rebranded nor would rs 5000 be a material of limited combustibility that's correct and you never had any doubt about that did you no to your knowledge does anybody else
00:39:28 no to your knowledge does anybody else in celetex have any doubt about that no i think there was a general understanding that the only insulation products that were deemed non-combustible or limited combustible uh combustibility
00:39:40 limited combustible uh combustibility sorry
00:39:41 sorry were um materials of rock fiber or mineral fiber when you got to rigid board insulation as i described it pir or phenolic foams i think there was a general
00:39:53 i think there was a general understanding that they were combustible they were combustible yeah did you
00:39:58 did you yourself just on that point have any inkling or gain any insight into how others outside celetex viewed the matter
00:40:09 others outside celetex viewed the matter did you for example get the sense that some people you were dealing with didn't understand that thermosetting insulin such as pir
00:40:20 that thermosetting insulin such as pir could never be materials of limited combustibility no i didn't pick that up i think there was a fairly clear understanding that right i'm assuming that there was never
00:40:31 right i'm assuming that there was never any consideration given as to whether celotex could manufacture a product a product of limited combustibility no i think that the material in itself
00:40:43 no i think that the material in itself as far as conversations that i had with the development chemist at the time and what paul and rob explained to me when i when i joined was that it's impossible for the material to be non-combustible
00:40:56 non-combustible so you must have understood this must be right that the only way to satisfy the guidance in paragraph 12.5
00:41:04 12.5 of approved document b that we've just looked at would be to meet the performance criteria in br135 using the a full-scale test under bsa414
00:41:16 the a full-scale test under bsa414 yes can we then look at br135 you say that mr evans and mr warren gave you an overview of the requirements what did they tell you do you remember
00:41:27 what did they tell you do you remember um i think they they started off with the um the research that you referred to earlier in terms of
00:41:34 terms of the initial fee quote from the bre and then really they pointed me to section 12.5 of the regulations [Applause] explained that pir insulation is
00:41:47 explained that pir insulation is in its nature combustible and therefore the only route to compliance would be via
00:41:54 via an 8414 test now bre 135 of course came out at its third edition in
00:42:04 in 2013 and we can see that you were sent to the that edition in may 2013. it's cel 3011493
00:42:21 here is an email
00:42:29 uh from you actually uh to rob warren and jamie hayes sending them the third edition of br135 yes uh do you know why you were sending
00:42:41 yes uh do you know why you were sending it to them um i think i potentially stumbled across that
00:42:48 that online as an updated version
00:42:53 do you know why you sent it to rob warren if he'd given you an overview of the requirements already mainly because i probably thought that he had a an
00:43:01 an out of date version whether he had the second edition right did you yourself read
00:43:05 read the third edition of br135 um no no did you even look at it i'm sure i would have looked at it yes right did you look at it in order to
00:43:16 right did you look at it in order to make sure that you understood its criteria
00:43:21 criteria so that when going about the task which was number five in your kpi you could comply with it yes i think i was probably validating that the third edition
00:43:31 edition um hadn't changed any of the criteria from the second edition that was previously explained to me let's have a look at it and see how far you read in can we look at it if we look at cel
00:43:41 at cel 50584 please this is a copy of the third edition of br135
00:43:49 br135 and if if we can go to page 13
00:43:57 on that page under the title interaction with external envelope paragraph 3.3 it says can you see it says it is at
00:44:09 it says can you see it says it is at this stage of the fire scenario that the fire performance of the complete external clouding system including any fire barriers is critically important once flames begin to impinge upon the external
00:44:20 begin to impinge upon the external fabric of the building from either an internal or an external source
00:44:25 source there is the potential for the external cladding system to become involved and to contribute to the external fire spread up the building by the following routes and the routes are then set out do you
00:44:36 and the routes are then set out do you agree
00:44:37 agree well first of all did you read that at this time
00:44:41 this time may 2013 um it doesn't instantly come across as familiar
00:44:48 familiar right looking at it now do you accept that it makes it clear that the fire performance of the complete external cladding system is of critical importance yes and that's because it's the complete system
00:45:00 because it's the complete system and the interaction between all the different components that creates the potential for external flame spread yes yes and did you understand at least this much that br 135
00:45:11 much that br 135 was for that reason applicable only to complete systems yes as part of my initial overview from rob
00:45:20 rob um he was fairly clear in his message that
00:45:24 that he viewed br135 or bs 8414 as a system test the system test and therefore
00:45:31 therefore the system as tested uh if if it passed uh the pass wouldn't be a guarantee of the fire performance of any individual component that's right yes
00:45:45 now appendix b of br135 dealt with the classification criteria for a bs 8414 part 2 test did you read that section do
00:45:57 part 2 test did you read that section do you think
00:45:59 you think appendix b sorry i haven't got that on there um
00:46:02 there um well let's go into it at page 33 of this document
00:46:10 this is part of appendix b and this is b2
00:46:15 b2 do you remember reading this far into the document i know it's 33 pages in and it's a complex technical document uh do you remember reading this far into it do you think i think i was primarily concerned about
00:46:27 i think i was primarily concerned about the
00:46:28 the criteria so yes i think i would have read it because i was probably keen to ensure that this version
00:46:36 version hadn't changed from the from the previous edition i see so i mean it starts we can help you it starts at page 29. we want to get back to page 29.
00:46:50 this is annex b performance criteria and classification for bs8414 part two and just pausing there part two was uh
00:46:58 was uh uh the test for non-bearing external cladding systems fixed to and supported by
00:47:03 by a structural steel frame wasn't it yes as opposed to masonry which was part one yes
00:47:09 yes um did you look at this first page of appendix b do you think i think i probably did yes because it's probably the one of the few occasions where i've seen a a large-scale test rig right and you might remember the
00:47:20 right and you might remember the photograph a typical test facility yes with its crib at the bottom of the return wall yes yeah and then um
00:47:30 you can see the principle of the test beep 1.1
00:47:34 beep 1.1 and it says that the test facility was designed to determine the external fire performance of non-laboring external cladding systems as you as you've said that's a system test
00:47:44 test can we then turn to page 33 where i wanted to pick it up and just see whether you read in this far
00:47:53 you can see on that page that in the top left hand corner there's a figure b4 with the thermocouple locations
00:48:00 locations for a typical system and then on the right hand side of the page after the three bullet points there there's some text which says this the classification only applies to the system as tested
00:48:11 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 specifying or checking a system
00:48:22 system it is important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application were you aware of that principle yes you were
00:48:31 were do you make it do you accept that it makes explicit the classification under br135
00:48:35 br135 applies only to system tests only to the systems
00:48:39 systems tested and not the individual components forming part of that system yes you understood that at the time at least as of may 2013 is that right yes
00:48:52 now you've told me i think just now that bsa414
00:48:56 bsa414 had as you understood at the time two parts part one and part two and part one was 2002 masonry and part two was 2005 uh in steel frame yes
00:49:07 two was 2005 uh in steel frame yes yes i'm just going to i'm going to ask you later on about the decision to test to part two but i just want to ask you one or two questions first of all to see what you
00:49:18 questions first of all to see what you understood about the test itself can we go to cel50583
00:49:25 this is an email
00:49:29 uh this is an email in may 2013
00:49:34 uh and it's the second email done on that um page uh that you sent to tony dooley subject br135 and the date is the third of may 2013.
00:49:44 2013. first of all who was tony dooley he was the
00:49:48 the area sales manager for the north west northwest
00:49:52 northwest tony as promised find attached the third edition of br135 highlighting which of the 8414
00:49:57 the 8414 tests cover which buildups you see that and then you say i've dropped our contact at the bre an email looking for clarification regarding the sfs with brick outer construction you
00:50:09 with brick outer construction you described
00:50:10 described one thought that went through my mind is that part two may cover this build-up as they may
00:50:14 they may assume that if you test using our insulation with a rain screen cladding system on a steel frame the brick will inherently provide a greater or similar fire resistance than a common cladding panel trespa etc
00:50:26 than a common cladding panel trespa etc because you can't test for every event you ality i think you mean in rain screen applications the test may cover a certain grade of outer face now we'll come on later to some correspondence you've had with tony
00:50:37 some correspondence you've had with tony baker at the bre at around about the same time
00:50:39 same time may 2013 but is that who you meant by our contact at the bre tony baker uh yes and he was in fact one of the
00:50:50 yes and he was in fact one of the co-authors of two two co-authors of bre 135 third edition wasn't it yes it's quite an important contact it was a contact that was um
00:51:01 contact that was um passed to me on on joining the business right um
00:51:05 right um and i had uh yeah i had contact with tony baker and stephen howard from the from the bre as well yes
00:51:13 well yes now you say the last line there the test may cover a certain grade of outer face uh you understood i think from that even
00:51:25 uh you understood i think from that even at that stage that the bs8414 test would only cover the build
00:51:31 the build the build-up that was actually tested yes yes
00:51:37 yes yes come back i'll come back to this theme at this point in time later on can i divert for a moment and ask you some questions about bs 476 part six and seven can we go to
00:51:48 476 part six and seven can we go to cel4012
00:51:51 cel4012 this is a year later 2014. and it's an email from you to jonathan room on the 28th of april of that year and there are some attachments to it
00:52:02 attachments to it and you say jonathan has promised to find attach the training presentations we've gone through this morning as well as bs
00:52:09 as bs 13165 the standard all pir manufacturers produced to and bs8414 part 1 the cladding fire test any questions give me a shout
00:52:20 any questions give me a shout um do you remember this training
00:52:23 um no can you tell us what it was about at all just looking at the document i think that um looking at the date
00:52:35 i think that um looking at the date there i
00:52:35 there i started to get involved um with some training of the sales team
00:52:43 um we can look at the uh zip file i think that comprises the ce marking investing class
00:52:54 class training session that you attach to this document it's at
00:52:59 one two cel40120 one
00:53:05 do you remember the and it's entitled technical training do you remember these being the slides you attached to that email do you think they look familiar yes and uh if we look at the first
00:53:16 at the first substantive page on page two of the slides
00:53:21 it's an agenda containing ce marking best in class and q a and if we skip to slide 25 on page 25 we can see that there's a quiz you see
00:53:34 we can see that there's a quiz you see that
00:53:34 that yes and question four is which two tests must be obtained to achieve class naught fire rating and the answer on the next page we just
00:53:45 and the answer on the next page we just flip down
00:53:46 flip down to the next page four bs 476 parts six and seven
00:53:51 and seven so just looking at that is it right that by april 2014 at the least you uh were aware of class naught and what it meant yes and i think in
00:54:02 and what it meant yes and i think in fact as you told us before you that was actually knowledge you had when you first quite soon after you arrived correct yes x because of fr 5000.
00:54:12 were you aware that part six of bs of 476 is a fire propagation test i knew there were two differences uh i knew there were differences between the two tests sorry that one was on the face of the insulation
00:54:24 one was on the face of the insulation and one was on the core as i understood it yeah um but these tests were carried out i believe in 2011 prior to me joining the business right and i wasn't involved in carrying
00:54:37 right and i wasn't involved in carrying out
00:54:37 out any bs 476 tests to my knowledge um before 76 tests did you know that it measured how much heat is given off when the product is burned so part six of that test
00:54:49 of that test it may well have been explained to me i don't think that the training went into too much depth other than the the 5000 range at the time had classo fire rating right i mean did you understand that part six was a test
00:55:01 understand that part six was a test which worked by burning the product yes right and on the other hand differently part seven was a surface spread of flame test it measured the speed of the surface horizontal surface spread of flame did you understand that yes
00:55:14 you understand that yes and given that you need both tests to achieve
00:55:18 achieve a class naught classification uh and you knew that part seven was only looking at the surface did you ever wonder
00:55:25 wonder why celetex was describing fr 5000 as class naught throughout it's a question we looked at before but looking at these tests here um
00:55:36 here um i was told that because the phaser of the product had been tested and the core of the product had been tested
00:55:45 tested that's where the classo throughout message came from so you are you were told where you that the the
00:55:53 the the inner core of fr 5000 had been subjected specifically to a part 6 test had you yes so they were they were tested separately were they the foil phaser
00:56:04 separately were they the foil phaser was subject to the surface but a flame test and the core the pir core of f r 5000 was subject to a part six test is that how you understand tele understood yes right
00:56:18 and that's why you say you understood that fr 5000 was described as class naught throughout the entire product yes i follow
00:56:30 were you clear in your mind throughout your time at celetex really from your earliest beginnings that there was a clear distinction between on the one hand class naught and
00:56:41 between on the one hand class naught and on the other hand the concept of limited combustibility yes yeah and that just because something was class naught
00:56:52 just because something was class naught did not mean ergo that it was a material of limited combustibility correct yeah i don't think um
00:57:00 think um during my tenure at celetex that the two were ever
00:57:04 were ever um crossed really i think class o or class zero was was in place to
00:57:11 to differentiate their 5000 range from their from their standard range of products
00:57:19 i see were you aware of any confusion out there in the industry about what class clause not meant i think potentially the only confusion that was
00:57:29 that was around was because uh the european classifications that derive whether a product is a1 or a2
00:57:43 occasionally some people got confused with class 0 being an inferior version of of that same table but i
00:57:54 version of of that same table but i don't believe it was i see so no confusion as between class naught on the one hand and limiting combustibility on the other as concepts no were you aware that there were
00:58:06 no were you aware that there were organizations within the construction industry that produced guidance documents to enable compliance with the prevailing regulatory requirements
00:58:15 um can you give me some yes i can the center for windows and cladding technology cwct were you aware of that body
00:58:23 body no i only became aware of cwct um after the launch of rs 5000 i believe right how long after the launch of rs5000 i think there was a technical note that came out from the
00:58:35 note that came out from the cewct
00:58:39 i don't know how long after the launch of rs5000 that that was presented into the marketplace
00:58:48 right well there is uh a technical note from cwct but it's dated march 2011. right uh we can look at that um
00:58:59 right uh we can look at that um it's cwct five zero sorry six zeros one nine
00:59:13 is this the document you are referring to do you think yes technical note 73. now as i say looking at the bottom of the page if you can be told shown the bottom of the page
00:59:24 bottom of the page on the screen you can see that it's march 2011. so this predated your arrival at celetex when do you think you first saw it yeah again i don't think that i saw that
00:59:35 yeah again i don't think that i saw that until after the the launch of rs5000 right how long after the launch do you think um i can't say for sure right because
00:59:46 um i can't say for sure right because because this predated it it wouldn't have been at the time it was published it's yeah i mean it's certainly a document that wasn't presented to me during training or um one that the business
01:00:00 training or um one that the business had i don't think
01:00:05 right
01:00:11 did it when you saw this document did it uh did it prompt a reaction of any kind um
01:00:22 well as i look at it now it doesn't seem overly familiar in terms of the content i'm
01:00:26 i'm looking here in terms of the use of combustible insulation materials but that may have taken my taken my eye but i certainly didn't study it in depth
01:00:38 i certainly didn't study it in depth no uh
01:00:43 no uh and it it would have confirmed had you read it that there was a distinction between
01:00:47 between non-combustible limited combustibility and class north but that as you told us the distinction you were already aware of yes can we then look at a different guidance nate which is at cep305724 please
01:01:00 nate which is at cep305724 please 57294 cep3057294
01:01:07 this is the guidance note produced by the bca the building control alliance entitled use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings
01:01:18 residential buildings and it's technical guidance note 18 and you'll see from the top right hand corner that it's issue naught june 2014.
01:01:28 do you think you saw this at the time it was published
01:01:33 uh yes i think i saw that um whether it was june 2014 but soon after right did you read it
01:01:44 it i'm sure i did yes if we look under the key issues uh you can see the first bullet point in the third paragraph it says uh
01:01:55 in the third paragraph it says uh the surface spread of flame classification does not infer any resistance to combustibility it is solely a measure of the spread of a flame across the surface but just pausing there that sounds from your evidence so far to be something you
01:02:07 your evidence so far to be something you already well understood yes yeah and then at the first bullet point thermosetting insulins rigid polyurethane foam boards do not meet the limited combustibility requirements of adb
01:02:18 requirements of adb ii table a7 and so should not be accepted as meeting adb2 paragraph 12.7 however if they are included as part of a cladding system being tested to br 135 and bs8414 the complete assembly may
01:02:31 and bs8414 the complete assembly may ultimately prove to be acceptable and that again i think is something that you well knew from much earlier on in your time at your time in celetex yes yes
01:02:43 yes and if we turn the page to page two you can see that there are three options set out on that page the bca recommends can you see the top of the page yes
01:02:57 can you see the top of the page yes it says um where the building hi where the building exceeds 18 meters in height the bca recommends three options for showing compliance with paragraph 12.7 of adb2
01:03:08 uh now i've shown you adb 2 paragraph 12.7 which refers to limited combustibility in table a7 and leave aside the accuracy of
01:03:20 table a7 and leave aside the accuracy of the statement there about whether you can comply with it by any other approach other than uh being a material of limited combustibility there are two other options option two
01:03:31 there are two other options option two and option three option one is being material of limited combustibility option two in a nutshell uh is uh br135
01:03:42 uh br135 criteria of 135 as a result of the bsa414 test and option three is the desktop study um at this time when it was published june shortly after june 2014 when you
01:03:54 june shortly after june 2014 when you saw it did you become aware but one of the ways of complying or a route to compliance with the building regulations was via a desktop study
01:04:06 desktop study i don't think i was aware of that until
01:04:11 sometime after the launch of solatex rs 5000
01:04:15 5000 i don't think that desktop studies from memory came into
01:04:21 my knowledge base until i'd moved on from product management and moved into area sales as my witness statement
01:04:28 statement right this may shorten things for later but did you ever become aware that a desktop study relating to rs 5000 was done
01:04:36 done um i believe that testing yes celetex did start to get into desktop studies do they ever produce one
01:04:47 produce one i don't know whether they produced the desktop study themselves i wasn't involved with um desktop studies full stop but i believe debbie was involved i see but do you know whether
01:04:58 involved i see but do you know whether one was ever produced leaving aside your own
01:05:00 own personal involvement i think they were yeah right okay well we may pursue that with her did you ever come to understand that there was a fourth option namely holistic fire engineering which was in fact
01:05:12 was in fact written into the uh approved documents again yeah i believe i was aware of
01:05:19 that the two routes to compliance that i was aware of were then subsequently expanded into four different options
01:05:33 can we then go to cel401340
01:05:42 this is a
01:05:47 an action plan called above 18 meter action plan and if you look at the bottom of the page
01:05:54 page which has just disappeared but is now there again it was prepared by jr march 2013
01:05:59 2013 is jru yes
01:06:03 and uh if we go to the top part of that document please you can see it says one project to achieve accreditation for fr 5000 for use in
01:06:15 accreditation for fr 5000 for use in above 18 meter applications tested in accordance with bsa414 part 1 or and bs8414 part 2. you see that yes and then if you look at
01:06:27 you see that yes and then if you look at findings it says in the second sentence between august 12 and jan
01:06:34 and jan 13 celetex recorded lost opportunity from not having above 18 meter was 70 000 square meters it is one of two gaps in which we cannot compete with cool thumb products
01:06:45 cool thumb products only kingspan k15 an extra therm safe r market
01:06:49 market that they have achieved above 80 meter fire accreditation both are in accordance with bs 8414 part one on a masonry wall and the reference there to
01:07:01 and the reference there to uh kingspan k15 is the reference to coolthon isn't it yes and you refer to two gaps what's the other gap i believe it
01:07:13 what's the other gap i believe it was on
01:07:17 was on external wall insulation that would then be
01:07:21 be rendered onto so right not a rain screen cladding system but a sand cement or molokus render that would be applied to an insulation product right right i see that that in fact was
01:07:32 right right i see that that in fact was not the gap that the above 80 meter market project was seeking to fill no i see
01:07:39 just looking at that set of findings is it fair to say that your own view was that the above 18 meter market was a significant commercial opportunity for celetex yeah that was the um initial
01:07:51 yeah that was the um initial justification behind the development and indeed given um sango band's arrival at celetex having acquired it and telling you that you needed to make
01:08:03 and telling you that you needed to make increase your sales by 15 with new products this was a substantial part of that
01:08:08 that strategy wasn't it yeah the the pressure that were applied that was applied by saying the ban um but equally the investment that was available for development led to the above 18 meter
01:08:21 led to the above 18 meter coming back to the bre as i said we would can we then go to cel 50585 just bearing in mind the chronology here that was march and i want to show you this document which is correspondence
01:08:33 this document which is correspondence with tony baker at the bre in may 2013 if we can go to page two please we go to the email um sent by you on the third of may 2013 at 1332 and you
01:08:46 third of may 2013 at 1332 and you you thank him for his time there uh from a couple of months before you see you say
01:08:53 you say thank again for your time a couple of months ago when i came down to discuss celetex and above 18 meters fire testing so there was a meeting we can see from that sometime in march was there
01:09:04 that sometime in march was there uh yes and that that would have been around about the time of the um above 18 meter action plan we just saw yes
01:09:14 can you remember what you discussed at that meeting um no to be honest with you i mean i can't
01:09:22 can't recall given that you were asking here or the subject matter i should say of this email was br 135 is it fair to say that the discussions that you were having with tony baker in
01:09:35 that you were having with tony baker in the march of 2013 were also about br 135 and an 8414 test yes did he what did he tell you about the test at that time do you remember
01:09:47 test at that time do you remember no i don't actually recall the conversation um right do you remember whether he gave you any advice about how to go about designing a test
01:09:58 designing a test no right let's look on further at the email in the third paragraph you you say uh well actually i should probably show you the second paragraph in the second line you say one anomaly
01:10:09 in the second line you say one anomaly we need
01:10:10 we need we need clarification on is whether testing to part one or part two covers the application attached we've discovered that many of our lost opportunities in the past regarding above 18 meters have involved
01:10:21 regarding above 18 meters have involved an sfs
01:10:22 an sfs frame as the inner leaf with a brick outer face this construction is common up to a certain level with the remaining stories constructed with the rain screen cladding system on steel frame can you clarify whether either of the
01:10:33 can you clarify whether either of the two tests cover this application i didn't know whether for example part two would cover this assuming that a brick outer provides as good or better fire resistance than for example
01:10:44 resistance than for example a cladding panel
01:10:48 now we can see his response to that
01:10:53 at the top of page two for which i think we need to the bottom of page one
01:11:01 and he comes back to you the same day hi jonathan i'm well thanks and then if we go over to page two he says the type of system would come under the scope of bsa414 part 2 and classification to br
01:11:12 part 2 and classification to br 135 and xb it could be argued that with the
01:11:16 the brick external face there wouldn't be any external spread of flame but in line with adb
01:11:21 with adb part b4 section 12 you also need to consider the cavities and hence the potentially combustible insulation materials
01:11:28 materials different authorities may have different views on the applicability of the test on this type of system but bottom line if you have lost business by not having the classification then the investment is probably worthwhile
01:11:40 is probably worthwhile that's what he said that's what he said to you
01:11:46 was this the sort of comment that you were after namely was it worth carrying out a test is that what you were seeking to achieve really yeah i think um
01:11:57 really yeah i think um having looked into the above 18 meter market and the competition that celestex was trying to compete with it was clear that
01:12:10 only one test had been carried out from both competitors at that time and i think
01:12:18 think what the business would try uh were keen to ascertain was how one test could then be used in a in a multiple in multiple scenarios and i think
01:12:29 scenarios and i think what tony perhaps is suggesting there is that
01:12:33 that the brick external face which by its nature is non-combustible wouldn't have external spread of flame
01:12:44 wouldn't have external spread of flame but what he's probably not explicitly answering is whether a cladding panel test would be
01:12:55 a cladding panel test would be suitable for a brick external face construction he's starting to imply that you could take the view that external spread of flame with a brick
01:13:06 external spread of flame with a brick external face is minimal but this was um yeah the majority of my initial research was trying to ascertain from the test bodies and the authorities
01:13:18 authorities whether one system could be used on a on a different system there was there was a varying level of knowledge within celestex
01:13:27 celestex rob's view was very much it's a system test because that's what the regulations state there was a commercial view that how could competitors that only tested once
01:13:38 once be used on
01:13:42 numerous permutations i wonder whether you were at cross-purposes to start with you were where you asked were you not asking him simply whether if you did a part two test that
01:13:53 whether if you did a part two test that would cover a a rain screen cladding system on a masonry wall um i think it probably stems from tony dooley's
01:14:03 dooley's initial email yes and that he was losing a lot of business because of
01:14:11 of the fact that we didn't have a test which suited a brick outer and an sfs inner so yes i i was questioning tony on that basis right but he it looks like and
01:14:22 right but he it looks like and i want to know your understanding at the time rather than your interpretation of the emails some years later now but it looks as if he came back to you and was giving you advice about how you could that if you were going to set up a test
01:14:34 that if you were going to set up a test under bs8414 part 2 you needed to consider the external spread of flame as well as the combustibility of the insulation you were testing yes and therefore you needed to consider
01:14:46 yes and therefore you needed to consider the kind of panel the exterior cladding panel that you were going to use in the test is that fair yes right then let's move on um we then come to the 22nd of may email we looked at are we doing this to militias oh yes
01:15:00 are we doing this to militias oh yes yes it's a convenient moment it is well it's it's as convenient as any well then you've got to take it yes we're going to have a short break so the afternoon becomes a bit long for everyone if we don't so we're going to
01:15:11 everyone if we don't so we're going to stop now
01:15:12 stop now um mr roper and we'll come back and continue your evidence at 20 to 4 please okay all right um i have to ask you when you're out of the room and this will
01:15:23 you're out of the room and this will happen on other occasions um please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it yeah that's all right you need to go the usher please
01:15:40 thank you 24 please
01:35:20 yes would you ask mr rover to come back in please
01:35:36 all right mr ripper all right to carry on yep good thank you yes thank you mr chairman uh mr raper can we get back then to cel 50585 please which is where we left off
01:35:47 50585 please which is where we left off uh and i just want to go back to the uh uh at the top of page two last paragraph
01:36:02 where he says to you tony baker says to you
01:36:05 you different authorities may have different views on the applicability of the test on this type of system but bottom line if you've lost business by not having the classification then the investment is probably worthwhile
01:36:16 investment is probably worthwhile and it looks like from that that tony baker is essentially expressing a commercial view isn't he there yes were you after commercial advice from tony baker as to whether or not you should invest
01:36:27 as to whether or not you should invest in a test that the bre would give
01:36:32 what i was trying to ascertain was what scope a bs8414 test gave yeah and he comes back to you and recommends
01:36:44 and he comes back to you and recommends the investment is probably worthwhile did you get the sense from him that he was essentially trying to encourage you to invest
01:36:49 to invest in a test with the bre no i don't think i i don't think i viewed it that way at the time right
01:36:57 right [Applause] can we then go to cel 50593 please
01:37:12 this is the email of the 25th of 22nd of may 2013
01:37:17 may 2013 we looked at i think before i tried calling you earlier but i believe you were in a meeting and this is about the construction details that you require that he required
01:37:28 required and you were after in essence the advice from the bre about how detailed the test specification needed to be
01:37:36 did um you often ask them for advice was this the approach you were told to take to ask the bre for advice so once i was given contacts at the bre
01:37:47 given contacts at the bre the bba and nhbc i tried to explore as much as i possibly could what what they could offer in terms of
01:38:00 advice did he reply to you do you remember we can't find a record of a reply to this email do you remember whether he did
01:38:10 did um i don't know whether he did i can't recall did you ever seek advice from the bre about the actual design of the test itself numerous times
01:38:22 let's move on in time then cel 50617
01:38:28 this is an email you sent to tony baker on the 21st of june 2013 and you say in the second paragraph i could do with a quick catch up over the phone next week
01:38:39 phone next week regarding the purpose of this test i am skeptical having sat down with satech about how a particular competitor of ours
01:38:46 ours has passed br135 my understanding is that the purpose of this test is to determine the behavior of the flame and therefore the performance of the insulation within the cavity between an external facade and the inner inner face would preventing the flame
01:38:58 inner face would preventing the flame entering the cavity altogether be acceptable when considering the design of our specimens uh just in terms of what prompted this email
01:39:08 email this i think came as a result of the email or the meeting that you'd had with sotech a little bit earlier in june it didn't do it and that's why you refer to sotech yes
01:39:19 to sotech yes and is it right that you were asking him the question about the flame entering the cavity because that was the experience that satech had had when testing their
01:39:31 had when testing their cladding panel with kingspan uh two reasons the first because following discussions with sotech they
01:39:42 following discussions with sotech they gave details of two bs-8414 tests that they'd carried out one was with a non-combustible insulation and one was with a combustible insulation with one of their metal cladding panels
01:39:54 with one of their metal cladding panels on the front
01:39:58 and secondly because during my market research i ascertained that a particular competitor had tested with a
01:40:07 a non-combustible cladding board and it was so tech's view that the longer
01:40:15 longer you can prevent the flame coming into the cavity the greater the chance of passing the test yes just to focus then on the question uh when in the second paragraph there you
01:40:28 when in the second paragraph there you refer to a particular competitor were you referring to kingspan i was yes and was the product cool them k15 it was was your understanding that they had achieved classification to br 135 by
01:40:40 achieved classification to br 135 by preventing the flame entering the cavity my understanding was that they had carried out a test using a six mil non-combustible board as the outer face and from what john eggington at sotech
01:40:53 and from what john eggington at sotech had suggested um that did in fact prevent the flame entering the cavity right
01:41:04 entering the cavity right did you have any doubts yourself at this time about whether this was appropriate sorry um whether what was appropriate about whether it was an appropriate way of testing
01:41:15 of testing uh kingsman k-15 it was completely unrealistic in in terms of normal representative systems that were being used in the market
01:41:26 used in the market is that because well you tell me why it was unrealistic rather than me suggesting it to you because the only non-combustible board that i knew of
01:41:37 board that i knew of that they could have potentially used was a cement particle or calcium silica or
01:41:42 or magnesium oxide a building board that would typically be used to sheave the steel frame and not as a decorative cladding panel on the outside face right
01:41:56 and when you say unrealistic do you mean just to summarize what you just said that designers and contractors did not use cement particle or calcium silicate or magnesium oxide
01:42:09 or calcium silicate or magnesium oxide panels as the rain screen correct right uh do you remember whether tony baker replied to this email uh no i don't um can we look at cel
01:42:24 uh no i don't um can we look at cel 50708 please i'd like to go into page three in that email run
01:42:32 email run at the bottom of that page please
01:42:35 this is an email to the bre from you on the 18th of october 2013 this time to stephen howard and the title is reseller tech's br
01:42:47 title is reseller tech's br 135 testing
01:42:52 and it says stephen once we've agreed the final design which i'm hoping will be soon i'll get back to you with confirmation and then you go onto the next paragraph to say one of the key considerations for us with testing to br 135
01:43:03 us with testing to br 135 is it enables us not to limit ourselves to one particular application stroke buildup is there anything the bre can offer
01:43:09 can offer that could extend the use of our product in other systems similar to the tested rig
01:43:14 rig the main one for us is that whilst we will be testing a particular rain screen panel
01:43:17 panel we do not want this to limit ourselves to that one particular panel just pausing there that was your concern wasn't it about the narrowness of the br135 test my concern
01:43:28 narrowness of the br135 test my concern was
01:43:29 was um the view within celotex at the time was that on one hand certain individuals viewed it as a system test on the other hand
01:43:41 a system test on the other hand certain individuals viewed as a product in application test and what was clear from the market in which kingspan were operating
01:43:53 operating is that the one particular rain screen cladding panel or building board that they had used to achieve
01:44:01 achieve a br135 classification wasn't being replicated in situ on buildings that they were being used on so my my task was to ascertain whether one
01:44:15 to ascertain whether one cladding panel could be deemed suitable um for use with a with another another system essentially yes
01:44:29 now you said in that answer that there were
01:44:33 were two types of individuals individuals who viewed 8414 as a system test and on the other hand certain individuals who viewed it as a product in application test where were those individuals within
01:44:44 where were those individuals within celetex yes so this was a division of view was it within celetex yes and can you identify which individuals within celetex regarded the br 135 test or criteria
01:44:56 regarded the br 135 test or criteria under the 8414 test as a product in application test who was that the majority of the business with the exception of possibly myself jamie and rob warren
01:45:09 possibly myself jamie and rob warren so on the outside there was you jamie hayes and rob warren on the one side who thought it was a system test and would this be right paul evans and others who thought it was a product an application test
01:45:20 application test yes and who are the others other than paul evans craig chambers managing director right the sales team primarily when you say they thought it was a product an application test can you
01:45:32 product an application test can you explain
01:45:32 explain from what you could see at the time how they had come to the view that the bs 8414 test was a product in application test because of the lack of test data that
01:45:45 because of the lack of test data that was available you would assume that if a competitor product was launched in 2005 2006 for the above 18 meter market by the time celetex started to explore that market
01:45:58 celetex started to explore that market in 2013
01:46:01 in 2013 if the product was a system test and the components only related to a system you would take the view that the bre
01:46:12 take the view that the bre should have carried out a lot of system tests over a number of years
01:46:17 with data available on those but there wasn't
01:46:21 wasn't um can i ask you how anybody within celetex
01:46:26 celetex who had any familiarity with the third edition
01:46:29 edition of br135 appendix b and the passage i showed you think that the bs a414 test was a product and application test
01:46:40 application test and not a system test probably because
01:46:46 they were they were viewing it from from a very commercial point of view they were looking at kingsman an extra firm primarily um
01:46:58 primarily um and there was no clear evidence that they were
01:47:01 they were regularly testing their product the systems that they were being sold into so from your perspective your understanding at the time is this right that even after the publication of
01:47:14 right that even after the publication of br135 in may 2013 or at least the time when you got your hands on it uh there were still those in ceretex who regarded the bs8414 test as a
01:47:26 regarded the bs8414 test as a a product in application test as opposed to a system test because that was an easier way of justifying selling the product into applications which differed from
01:47:37 into applications which differed from the test as kingsbot had done yes yeah thank you
01:47:47 looking at the bottom paragraph on page three
01:47:50 three you say if we tested a baffle joint acm panel
01:47:54 panel is there anything dependent on passing that the bre could offer that would allow us to cover open jointed terracotta systems for example if this isn't possible how is it that our competitors
01:48:05 our competitors who have tested one particular build up are selling their products into numerous permutations of above 18 meter rain screen constructions that's that was the 64 million question
01:48:17 that's that was the 64 million question perhaps not that quite that much but that was the key question for you wasn't it
01:48:21 it yeah how how was it being done and the competitors there were they kingspan again kingsman and um extra firm all bit extra funds market share was probably
01:48:32 extra funds market share was probably considerably less
01:48:35 and when you say kingspan do i take it that you mean cool thumb k15 i do
01:48:42 and you wanted is this right you wanted the bre to tell you how it was that kingspan k15 who had only tested one particular buildup were able to sell kingspan k15 into numerous permutations
01:48:53 kingspan k15 into numerous permutations of above 18 meter rain screen claddings that's what it says yes did you expect mr howard to give you the answer to that question um i was hopeful that he would yes
01:49:05 he responds and we see that on this page 21st of october 2013 a little bit later that morning to you thanks for the email and then he says we would need to see
01:49:16 and then he says we would need to see further details of the systems in question to answer the question fully from the information below i do not think we would be able to issue an assessment report on a terracotta on a terracotta system based on the testing
01:49:27 a terracotta system based on the testing of an acm panel however without a full explanation of the differences between the systems we are a bit in the dark in terms of claims in the market would it be possible for you to forward an example
01:49:40 did you understand this to me that the bre considered that they might be able uh to give an explanation in some circumstances or be able to provide a test in some circumstances
01:49:54 sorry can you rephrase it yes did you understand let me be a bit more precise when he says without a full explanation of the details of the two systems we are a bit in the dark did you
01:50:05 we are a bit in the dark did you understand from that uh that uh if uh you or anybody else provided the bre with details of a particular system
01:50:17 with details of a particular system they would be able to give advice about whether it might pass a test um that's one that's certainly what he indicates
01:50:26 indicates here that's how you understood it at the time
01:50:30 time yeah yeah
01:50:36 did you read that at the time as a reference to the possibility of desktop studies or was desktop studies not something that had crossed your radar at that stage i think that uh desktop studies haven't
01:50:48 i think that uh desktop studies haven't crossed my radar but something that was initially brought to my attention was because of the disparity in views within the business around product and
01:51:00 within the business around product and application and system what they wanted me to explore was whether there was a field of application report as they referred to it that was available from the test house
01:51:13 that was available from the test house to take the view as to whether that product behind a different range screen was suitable why didn't you just ask them the question um whether or not the eight for
01:51:24 question um whether or not the eight for one full test was a product and application test or a system test well i think i probably asked them in the email be before this right um
01:51:35 email be before this right um and you didn't get much of an answer no no
01:51:39 uh you then i think reply if we go up a page to page two
01:51:52 uh and in fact it starts on page it's after page one it's a long email i'm not going to read it all to you but it's the same day later in the day 21st of
01:52:04 day later in the day 21st of october 2013 and you say in the first paragraph at the bottom of that page that you can't give a full explanation on the differences between the systems
01:52:15 differences between the systems and then you give an example looking to test an acm panel with baffled joints with a cavity of 38 millimeters between the cladding and the substrate in conjunction with nhbc guidelines
01:52:26 in conjunction with nhbc guidelines was that a was that an example drawn from your commercial experience or i think that probably came from sotech to be honest with you yeah i see i see and then in the next paragraph on
01:52:37 i see and then in the next paragraph on the next page he he i think responds because he comes back to you in blue doesn't he i should i should just show you the full email run if you go to page one we can see that when we see in this
01:52:51 one we can see that when we see in this email the blue text you can see what he's done is answered in blue yes yes let's go back then to page two
01:52:59 page two and look at the second paragraph in blue in the test report it would state exactly what was tested the method to widen the scope would be via an assessment report this is fairly standard practice does that what you mean by a field of
01:53:10 does that what you mean by a field of application yeah that's the first it's the first time the bre i see i'd mentioned that i see okay what i cannot do at this stage is to say what would be included in an assessment of what we could not do in the example above we would like
01:53:21 in the example above we would like details of the baffled joint system sizes and materials used we could then take a considered view apologies but i would not be immediately familiar with the jointing systems across the market or even the permutations available
01:53:33 available and then in the next paragraph you give an example from you say one of our main competitors who produced both pir and phenolic insulation and they have successfully tested a product to bs8414
01:53:45 tested a product to bs8414 one onto a masonry wall using a merely a cementitious ball as the outer face just pausing there that was kingsman k-15 wasn't it yes clearly not not only does this not cover the majority of the market in which they are
01:53:56 majority of the market in which they are used
01:53:57 used but the cementitious board doesn't actually represent a drained back and ventilated rain screen system however we are aware that this product is used in buildings above 80 meters using a wide variety of constructions some onto masonry someone to steel frame
01:54:09 some onto masonry someone to steel frame with acm panel cladding terracotta etc we're surprised that they feel confident enough to allow their product to be used in buildings their fire test doesn't cover unless they have a report to say
01:54:20 they have a report to say other just pausing there the question you're asking here again is a is a bull question isn't it you want to know how it is that k-15 is being marketed
01:54:29 marketed into a wide variety of different cladding systems including acm panel cladding systems when their test doesn't cover it
01:54:35 cover it that was the question you wanted the answer to that's correct and you needed to know the answer to that because you needed to know how to market rs 5000 correct did you have before you look at the answer did you have a
01:54:46 look at the answer did you have a suspicion as to how that as to how kingspan were able to do that um no not really to be honest with you i mean
01:54:55 mean we received intel from the sales team quite regularly about opportunities that they'd lost um but generally with product data sheets
01:55:07 but generally with product data sheets product literature most of the time um mainly at distribution level one of our sales team would be able to probably quite quickly get a product
01:55:18 probably quite quickly get a product data sheet from a competitor what they found almost impossible to get was an 8414 test or a field of application report or any
01:55:31 or a field of application report or any piece of literature that suggested that um their system could be used with any other system than them was tested let's see so you do it again just in a nutshell
01:55:43 so you do it again just in a nutshell you wanted to know by what route kingspan k15 could legitimately and safely and compliantly be selling k-15 to the above meter 18-meter market
01:55:54 to the above meter 18-meter market correct given the narrowness of their repo
01:55:56 repo the test that they've done yes the answer comes back if the products are lpc be approved then we can act if we have issued a test report on a system then the onus is on the building
01:56:07 system then the onus is on the building owner and building control to ensure that the system being installed is covered by a test report i'm not sure that i have much more to add what did you think of that response
01:56:19 [Applause] honestly i felt that they were trying to get businesses down the lpcb
01:56:28 the lpcb route purely from a commercial perspective the lbcb route was a another form of certification another stream of income from the bre [Music]
01:56:39 [Music] the response if we have issued a test report on a system then the onus is on the building owner and building control suggests to me that i don't know whether the bre were aware that
01:56:51 the bre were aware that rigid board insulation was being sold in systems that differed to the ones that had been carried out at their test rig but it was almost as if they were relieving their responsibility on
01:57:02 relieving their responsibility on on that subject matter
01:57:07 when you say relieving their responsibility you mean passing it off to building control correct and the building owner yeah for my benefit mr millet what's lpcb stand for the witness
01:57:18 millet what's lpcb stand for the witness will tell you loss uh prevention certification board so what's that it's another form of certification that the bre offer
01:57:29 the bre offer it was one that um so secure a cladding manufacturer that i engaged with early on
01:57:35 on explored and it's um yeah just a it's a it's a it's an approval that is very much based
01:57:46 it's an approval that is very much based on the
01:57:46 on the system that was tested i think that then got carried through to something called the red book which was a bre documentation
01:57:55 right thank you very much were you surprised in your own mind that mr howard didn't seem more concerned that what you were telling him about what kingspan were doing
01:58:08 i was hopeful that he would shed some clarity on the matter and he didn't
01:58:19 yeah that's not quite an answer to my question did it surprise you that the that mr howard for the bre who was a testing house did not seem more concerned at what you were telling him about what your competitor kingspan were doing with their test yes
01:58:32 kingspan were doing with their test yes you were surprised
01:58:36 and then if we go to cel 50715 please page two
01:58:45 this is i'm afraid a continuation of the same email series it's just easier to see it in this document i think and if you go to page two there as you
01:58:56 and if you go to page two there as you can see
01:58:57 can see this is your email to stephen howard or you say steve good to speak to you earlier this is 31st of october 2013.
01:59:11 and you ask another question you say we talked about an assessment report following successfully passing br135 if we tested a classification of the product ie class naught surface or a2
01:59:23 product ie class naught surface or a2 limited combustibility could the report depending on the data allow us to be applicable for all materials with the exact same classification we know that the test examines the external system and to me it would make sense that if one material classified as
01:59:35 sense that if one material classified as a2
01:59:36 a2 for example could pass then there's no reason why another of the same classification would equally pass ensuring fire barriers insulation and cement particle straight calcium silicate remain the same can you clarify this please
01:59:47 same can you clarify this please just just in a nutshell were you asking him and i think we probably can see this that
01:59:51 that if you carried out the test with an a2 cladding
01:59:55 cladding panel you'd be able to say that the classification applied to any system with an a2 cladding panel yeah i think i was trying to um ascertain that if yeah could you use the fire performance of a
02:00:08 could you use the fire performance of a cladding panel generically um with other systems of a similar
02:00:13 similar fire performance right was that idea that
02:00:17 that that way through if you like one that you'd come up with or other people in celetex have suggested i think it was uh when we were discussing kingspan's
02:00:28 uh when we were discussing kingspan's test
02:00:29 test it was something that um was considered that perhaps the cement particle calcium silica external cladding
02:00:38 cladding met claso therefore met approved document
02:00:42 document b2 and were they using that as the justification for their product being used in in rain screen systems with any other class o or limited
02:00:54 with any other class o or limited combustibility but given that 8414 was a system test as you can see from the third edition at appendix bfbl135 yeah why was it relevant that the panel
02:01:08 yeah why was it relevant that the panel had its own classification as a2 given that the entire system would have to pass the test according to the criteria because of the earlier points that i it seemed inconceivable that
02:01:21 seemed inconceivable that the main competition were carrying out test after test for every construction that they were they were used in so you were looking
02:01:32 they were used in so you were looking were you for a lesser way of reading the 8414 result so instead of having to have exactly the same
02:01:40 same system in other words cement particle board for example yeah you could have another board which which had the same fire classification correct which will give you greater
02:01:51 correct which will give you greater variety
02:01:52 variety yes that was the idea uh now we can see i think that there's a response to this uh a little bit further up the page i can go to page one
02:02:06 at the very bottom of page one we can just go to the very bottom of
02:02:16 that uh actually i'm afraid the screen is cut cut you off can we just go a little bit higher up page one here we see the response from stephen howard to that
02:02:27 response from stephen howard to that email you've just sent him is again a lengthy uh email i just want to focus on the last part of it
02:02:35 it he says in the last paragraph at the top of page two
02:02:46 of page two the above system is applicable to small-scale reaction to fire tests what we cannot say at this time is changes allowable by the e-tag or classification document also apply to the bs8414 test the classification and e-tag document
02:02:58 the classification and e-tag document does not cover full-scale tests uh i may have taken this email a little bit too quickly mr breitbart so forgive me but did is the
02:03:08 the result of reading this email that you knew that this sort of field of application didn't exist in relation to bs8414 tests um you know in other words you could do a read across classification-wise
02:03:19 read across classification-wise for small-scale tests but not for full-scale tests under a414
02:03:25 he's suggesting there that the small scale
02:03:29 scale reaction tests are to do with the european classification what he doesn't answer is what the field of application report would
02:03:39 would cover and whether that was a viable option right so you weren't satisfied with his answer no no and we could see you pursue it further ceo401883 please
02:03:50 further ceo401883 please this is an email from you to stephen howard at the bre 8th of november 2013 steve has discussed earlier find below a list of requirements that ideally we'd like to
02:04:01 requirements that ideally we'd like to get out
02:04:01 get out the test report and you set out three of them you say i understand all of these will not be possible but broadening the scope as much as possible is critical to us
02:04:11 us you see that um and again is that because and i think you've confirmed this you wanted to be able to market
02:04:18 market the proposed rs-5000 into as many different
02:04:21 different varieties of rain screen system as possible
02:04:25 possible yes yes and then you set out three and the third of which uh is uh well perhaps i should look at all three
02:04:35 three to test onto steel frame and be applicable for masonry applications i'd suggest that sfs using a cement particle board is worst case and if we passed on steel frame you have to expect a masonry wall to provide even
02:04:46 to expect a masonry wall to provide even greater resistance to fire i'm just pausing there that's that's the substrate isn't it that's what's at the back
02:04:51 back behind the um the insulation yes and then if we use a cement particle board as a sheathing board we would ideally want it to cover the use of calcium silicate to again testing worst
02:05:02 calcium silicate to again testing worst case
02:05:02 case and again that's about what sits at the back of the uh of the insulation isn't it yes and then most importantly is the cladding panel scope
02:05:10 scope we're looking to test a fiber cement eternity panel but as discussed we would like as much scope as possible if the bre won't accept a variation of panels used on one rig then we would like some suggestions on how we can cover as much of the most
02:05:22 how we can cover as much of the most commonly used systems as possible trespa malia turn it rock panel acn panels terracotta etcetera if you could come back to me on this with generic details too it would be much appreciated and again that is the bull question you
02:05:34 and again that is the bull question you were seeking to ask him
02:05:37 you know can we test uh with only a fiber cement eternity panel um but can we do some others yes i mean
02:05:48 um but can we do some others yes i mean uh
02:05:49 uh probably importantly on point three one of the suggestions was to test two or three cladding panels on one rig um
02:05:57 um but the response came back that right that wasn't suitable right
02:06:04 but in fact he didn't come back to you but phil clark of the bre didn't he do you remember that um no let's uh let's look at cel401
02:06:21 uh stephen howard to you 13th november 2013
02:06:26 2013 so a week or so later i spoken directly with phil
02:06:30 with phil and he will make contact this is what you'll be faced with a steel frame with a simulated floor slab more photos to follow if you need high quality let me know and he emails you a picture or photograph a jpeg i think it is
02:06:41 think it is um did phil clark come back to you not on those matters i see did you ask phil clark to come back to
02:06:52 did you ask phil clark to come back to you
02:06:53 you uh no i don't believe
02:06:57 how did this end then in the in the same way that
02:07:01 way that um a lot of my initial conversations ended with um numerous bodies without any answers can we look at cel401886 please
02:07:15 look at cel401886 please page two
02:07:21 this is an email bottom of the page from uh you to luke cresswell
02:07:32 also the 8th of november 2013 which was the same day as the email you sent to stephen howard we saw just a moment ago but before he told you that phil clark would come
02:07:44 he told you that phil clark would come back to you and you say uh there and just to say simcoe were um designers weren't they of rig tests uh they were a facade subcontractor
02:07:58 a facade subcontractor right yes but in this particular in this particular instance they were being used by you to design a designer facade yeah correct for the purposes of the test
02:08:09 the test correct yeah and uh you say that to luke creswell and also john simmons who may become important later also has discussed the bre are not willing to accept two variations of
02:08:20 willing to accept two variations of panels
02:08:21 panels the critical point of the test can only be occupied by one panel and unfortunately using rainer bond on the return wing isn't possible as much as they limit the scope of the tested system they do accept that although one system was tested i.e
02:08:33 that although one system was tested i.e attorney they understand that commonly this allows insulation products to be used with a variety of systems in practice is that right is that really what the advice was from the bre
02:08:47 looking at it now no no um
02:08:55 no um no no so i just wonder how you came to be of that view that that is what they did except why are you why are you telling um simcoe
02:09:05 simcoe that the vre accept that although a system was tested they understand that this commonly allows insulation products to be used with a variety of systems in practice
02:09:13 practice because of the earlier points that i'd raised
02:09:17 raised with stephen howard regarding the competition and how they tested once and
02:09:25 and was being used with a variety of systems right so
02:09:32 right so when you say they understand that commonly this allows insulation products to be used with a variety of systems in practice
02:09:39 practice you're not telling simcoe that that is something sanctioned by the bre but just tolerated or understood by the bre
02:09:47 bre uh it's it's an issue that's been raised by
02:09:51 by i don't know whether by myself and maybe others but um they're aware of that well they were aware of it but there was nothing that you had seen
02:10:03 but there was nothing that you had seen from the advice that you got from the bre
02:10:04 bre to date which told you that the bre thought that it was an acceptable practice no no so why were you then telling mr creswell
02:10:15 so why were you then telling mr creswell as you go on to say that uh
02:10:20 commonly this allows insulation products to be used for the variety of systems in practice
02:10:26 because that was what was happening and you go on to say i think testing with an eternity panel is the route to go but shouldn't cause us any issues with
02:10:37 but shouldn't cause us any issues with regard to celeste using celetex behind rayner bond on the up-and-coming job do we take from this that
02:10:48 you were prepared to go the same route as kingspan in terms of the test even though you hadn't had any uh approval from the bre that that was
02:11:01 uh approval from the bre that that was appropriate
02:11:04 sorry when you said that the same routers let me try a slightly different way
02:11:10 way you're setting out here that the bre understand even though they don't approve of the practice that that allows installation products to be used with a variety of systems in place
02:11:21 used with a variety of systems in place or in practice and you then suggest that you test with an eternity panel is what you're doing here simply telling simcoe
02:11:31 simcoe that or because bre essentially tolerate the practice of using their tests to justify the application of insulation in a wider range screen use
02:11:42 insulation in a wider range screen use wider cladding used you wanted to do the same thing um i think that that reflects of you within the business at the time
02:11:56 the bre hadn't told you that if you tested with an eternity panel
02:12:03 panel that would allow you to compliantly to use insulation products with a variety of systems in practice had they no and yet that was still
02:12:15 had they no and yet that was still something that you thought you would want to get you want to do yes yes
02:12:26 [Applause] at this point were you aware that have you heard of rayner bond um i think the
02:12:38 first reference to rayno bond was via sotech i believe
02:12:47 that was in the june of 2013 wasn't it yes yes and you knew that that was a type of acm panel uh yes did you know that it had a
02:12:58 uh yes did you know that it had a polyethylene core no no
02:13:04 were you well aware i think you were at this point that an acm panel an aluminium composite material panel
02:13:11 panel should not be used with rs-5000
02:13:15 because essentially you'd already ruled out testing with it because it wouldn't pass
02:13:20 pass as a result of your discussions with sotech in the june
02:13:26 i think that there was a lack of confidence around acn panel based on the discussions with sotech what probably wasn't known at the time was
02:13:37 was that there were different cores related to acm panels and i guess subsequently i now know that um depending on the core of the acm
02:13:48 um depending on the core of the acm panel
02:13:50 panel if it's fire rated it does meet the criteria of br135 with a combustible insulation
02:14:02 well that's quite a big qualification mr roper
02:14:07 roper it's not a qualification that you used in this email is it no as i said it's something something that i've subsequently learned you see in this last three lines
02:14:18 learned you see in this last three lines of the email you say shouldn't cause us any issues with regards to using celetex behind rayno bond on the up and coming job how how were you able to say that to simcoe given what you'd
02:14:29 say that to simcoe given what you'd learned at the meeting with sotak in the june
02:14:31 june about what happens when they tested kingspan
02:14:35 kingspan k15 with uh with reyna bond um i guess the truth is i i didn't know whether
02:14:43 whether it could be with acm right you didn't but had you done any work to discover whether or not
02:14:54 discover whether or not rs 5000 as it was going to be called could be used behind renault um no but you hope did you but by using an eternity panel
02:15:05 an eternity panel in the test you might be able to use celotex behind a rayna bond range screen panel in real life i was optimistic that the business would would achieve a field
02:15:18 the business would would achieve a field of application report because that seemed the only logical way that
02:15:25 that our competitors were selling into that into that market into a variety of different cladding systems but given what you knew about the actual performance of acm panels whether or not they were rainer bond uh
02:15:36 whether or not they were rainer bond uh in the tests that satech had done uh with not with combustible insulation how could you even think of being of
02:15:47 how could you even think of being of proposing using celatex behind rayner bond
02:15:50 bond on the up and coming job as you call it um i don't know is he is he honest truth
02:16:01 it was just forgive me for this it was just reckless optimism wasn't it given what you knew uh in hindsight yes yeah
02:16:14 can we mr i'm going to move to a different topic but i'd like to make as much progress as i can i could probably cover it
02:16:21 cover it by 4 30. yes all right well you keep going and but try not to run too far beyond no i'll try not to nhbc can i ask you to go to cl50
02:16:32 nhbc can i ask you to go to cl50 please
02:16:36 this is an email from you to graham perrier
02:16:39 perrier of nhbc of the 20th of november 2013. so just a little bit on in the time and graham with reference to our earlier conversation on buildings above 18 meters an approved document be
02:16:51 above 18 meters an approved document be could you please call me when you have a spare moment to discuss something that has since come to mind from this morning's phone call do you remember what you've been discussing no i don't
02:17:04 can we look at cell 50748 please and this is a long email chain between you and nhbc
02:17:15 you and nhbc and others uh and i'd like to get a page seven within it please it's an email to graeme perrier a little bit later a week later on the 27th of november 2013.
02:17:28 week later on the 27th of november 2013. and i'm afraid we'll have to go to the bottom of page six to see it yes there it is um do you see that and the subject is
02:17:39 um do you see that and the subject is approved document b and br and it says at the bottom of page six graham on the top of page seven i hope you're well and firstly apologies for chasing you on this matter so you hadn't had a response to his first email
02:17:50 hadn't had a response to his first email it seems
02:17:52 it seems you see that and then you go on to say
02:17:58 uh however as previously discussed we are scheduled in for testing at the bre by either end of 2013 or very early 2014. we have had initial designs created for the test specimen
02:18:09 designs created for the test specimen but do not want to prematurely test without further guidance
02:18:13 guidance on what issues building control bca and nhbc are looking to resolve you you mentioned previously that i would receive a note from a colleague of yours at nhbc regarding this matter
02:18:24 yours at nhbc regarding this matter and what in particular it is that has brought the requirement for a consistent interpretation of approved document b do you know when this will be issued because as you can appreciate we are eager to get as much line of sight what may be required from us for testing
02:18:36 what may be required from us for testing to br 135 i'm just pausing there it looks from that email that you'd already scheduled the test in with the bre
02:18:44 bre with a test date either end of 13 beginning of 14 as you say do you remember when that test was fixed um no i don't but
02:18:55 um no i don't but i do know that the first test was carried out in february and you say you had initial designs created for the test specimen was that by simcoe
02:19:04 by simcoe yes and did that involve the attorney the malia turn it rain screen board as we've seen correct is the way to go yes
02:19:14 uh and then i'll show you the second paragraph there on that page main one the main one it suggests doesn't it that one of the concerns was in relation to inconsistencies in approach from the
02:19:26 inconsistencies in approach from the nhbc
02:19:27 nhbc is that one of your concerns or was that one of your concerns yes in exactly the uh the same way that i raised the concerns with the
02:19:38 concerns with the the test house themselves the bre i was um trying to ascertain from the nhbc how they were
02:19:48 they were signing off buildings using certain combustible insulation behind cladding systems that hadn't been on the face of it tested what were the inconsistencies in
02:20:01 what were the inconsistencies in interpretation of approved document b uh that were being perpetrated by the nhbc
02:20:08 nhbc one can perpetrate an inconsistency system or or product that it's the same debate as the devil's debate within celetex yes is it a system test or is it a
02:20:19 yes is it a system test or is it a product in application test correct and if we go on in this document um to page four bottom of page four and over to the top of page five uh we can see there's an email of the third of
02:20:31 can see there's an email of the third of december
02:20:32 december at the bottom of page four from graeme perrier to you jonathan the text below is very much in draft form it does reflect some initial thinking in respect of compliance with nhbc standards not building control top of page five uh
02:20:45 top of page five uh you can see where they're set they're they're set out
02:20:50 uh and uh he asks for any views you have no i'm not gonna read the whole text out to you aloud but if you look at in external walls
02:21:01 but if you look at in external walls there's the last paragraph it says the design should comply with building regulations 2010 approved document b fire safety i.e specifically to meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 we'll meet equivalent proof of
02:21:12 we'll meet equivalent proof of performance to the criteria and br 135 he sets out the title of that this applies to wall cladding systems and insulation where proof of performance should be obtained from full-scale testing on representative prototypes
02:21:24 testing on representative prototypes to the requirements of bsa414 part 1 2002
02:21:28 2002 or part 2 2005. um were you any of the clearer after getting that about what the inconsistencies were and how they were resolved no that seemed to be um
02:21:41 no that seemed to be um capturing the same information that was in the building rigs rather than an explanation right what did you make of the expression in the last line there full-scale testing on representative
02:21:52 full-scale testing on representative prototypes did that make it absolutely clear to you that uh what went into the system had to be representative of what was used in in application um
02:22:03 used in in application um no if anything it made me think the opposite what did it make you think it made me think that representative prototypes
02:22:16 were open to um to using cladding systems on of a different nature that's that that's how i
02:22:27 nature that's that that's how i interpret that how could you interpret it that way because
02:22:33 because the representative prototypes as opposed to
02:22:38 to explicitly citing it's the system as tested well it says full scale yeah well full scale testing what does full-scale testing mean in that context
02:22:50 full-scale testing mean in that context what did it mean to you at the time i should ask you large-scale testing at the vre right regardless of how the
02:23:03 regardless of how the prototype was then going to be used in application
02:23:09 yes is that really how you read it at the time mr rover
02:23:17 it's how i i don't know the wording the wording doesn't jump out to me the the confusion is around the representative prototype
02:23:31 yes i suggest you you can't possibly have read
02:23:35 have read that wording as telling you that you no longer needed to make sure that the system as applied in practice was exactly the same as the system has tested given the very clear wording in
02:23:47 tested given the very clear wording in bre-135
02:23:48 bre-135 third edition that we looked at earlier must be right yeah so actually when you read it what did you think it meant in in truth can you tell us um
02:24:01 in in truth can you tell us um i think that
02:24:05 it didn't answer the question that i was posing to to graham it was it was merely a snapshot of the the regulations which were really readily understood it was
02:24:17 readily understood it was it was almost what i was trying to seek clarity on was how was a competitor being used in other systems to those
02:24:28 being used in other systems to those that were tested
02:24:35 yes you were really asking them how that you could broaden the applicability of any test carried out and and this wasn't giving you an answer that's the reality isn't it yes
02:24:49 mr chairman i've got two more documents on this topic before we move to a different topic i i could do them on monday morning or i could finish them off now i mean how long are they going to take
02:25:00 i mean how long are they going to take five minutes you mean that i mean five minutes right can you manage another five minutes it's fine mr rover thank you now can we go to cel 50748
02:25:11 go to cel 50748 at page two please same email run
02:25:16 you don't appear to have been satisfied with the answer that you got that i showed you and in indeed you've accepted and if we go to the top of page two
02:25:29 and if we go to the top of page two there's an email from you on the 3rd of december same day 1538 and if we look at the second paragraph in the middle of that paragraph you say from an external surface point
02:25:41 you say from an external surface point of view
02:25:42 of view the only confirmation we've had is labc stating that for us to gain accreditation of that for their registered details we would need to supply ce marking certification on the fire classification of the external panel
02:25:53 external panel used to test a br 135 and they would then accept any material that meets the same classification it seems a sensible approach and one that would clarify how bc determine whether what's tested is a
02:26:04 whether what's tested is a representative prototype or not do an hbc
02:26:07 hbc share that view who labc had told you that
02:26:14 um i don't know the individual's name but i did have some dealings with labc right were those dealings in writing are they
02:26:26 were those dealings in writing are they emails or were was it were they conversations over the telephone or in meetings uh probably a combination of all of those right we may explore that on monday can we just finish off on
02:26:38 that on monday can we just finish off on this email chain then looking at the first page please
02:26:43 uh we can see uh that you've received response from graham perrier late in the afternoon on the same day 3rd of december 2013.
02:26:54 3rd of december 2013. and he says estate from the outset the paper sent to you was very much an initial draft which we will discuss with interested parties with a view to developing an agreed way forward so just pausing there it was obvious
02:27:05 so just pausing there it was obvious from that to you wasn't it or was it that the nhbc internally had some internal disagreements about how this all worked yes yeah i'm sure you'll appreciate that nhpc is about raising standards
02:27:18 nhpc is about raising standards etc etc and then it says unfortunately we don't have all the answers at the current time and being realistic all i can advise is that we are aware of the issue and have an intention to resolve it as quickly as possible perhaps when we are further advanced in
02:27:29 perhaps when we are further advanced in our thinking we should arrange a meeting with you to discuss in more detail did that meeting ever take place
02:27:39 uh yes i believe it did do you know when it took place
02:27:49 uh there was an nhbc visit to celetex i don't know whether i ever
02:27:56 ever visited the nhvc
02:28:00 we know that the nhbc visited celetex in the context of the actual bs 8414 test uh in may 2014 to which we will come in your evidence and the the visit was on the 19th of
02:28:12 and the the visit was on the 19th of june 2014
02:28:15 june 2014 but my question was a different one was there a meeting which you ever had with the nhbc which which
02:28:22 which resolved their thinking and therefore their answer to your question no not to my knowledge no thank you and that i think concludes the questions on those
02:28:33 the questions on those emails mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes thank you very much well mr rover that's enough for one day we're going to stop there and i'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to come back again
02:28:44 back again to answer some more questions on monday okay
02:28:47 okay at 10 o'clock now there's quite a lot of time between now and monday so i have to ask you again please make sure you don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it over the next
02:28:58 or anything to do with it over the next two or three days when you're away from the inquiry fine all right yeah thank you very much right well if you'd like to go with the usher she'll look after you thank you
02:29:17 thank you very much 10 o'clock on london thank you mr chairman
02:29:33 you