Jonathan Hayes (Celotex) evidence on deliberate manipulation of fire test and concealment of additional materials - afternoon session
00:00:13 would you ask mr hayes to come back in please thank you
00:00:35 right mr hayes ready to carry on yes sir thank you yes mr mr chairman thank you very much mr hayes can i ask you to go to your statement at page 19 please and look at paragraph 58
00:00:47 page 19 please and look at paragraph 58 you say in the beginning of that paragraph there given that we thought we had narrowly failed the first test and utilizing the detail in the report we started to draw conclusions about what caused the fire to spread to the top in the way that it did
00:01:00 to the top in the way that it did and you identify that the cladding and the fire barriers as issues but you then go on to say at the end of the paragraph collectively we were content with the remaining components in the rig including the use of rs 5000 which did
00:01:11 including the use of rs 5000 which did not change from the first test to the second test do you know who made the decision to carry out a second test
00:01:24 um
00:01:32 sorry i don't mean to poison i'm just trying to be accurate because um i suspect that the information would have been given to me by john in formally but my understanding is
00:01:43 john in formally but my understanding is that the test the decision to undertake a second test would have been made
00:01:52 by paul evans and craig chambers right and if you just look up at the top of the page at the end of paragraph 56 you say that in the last sentence there
00:02:03 you say that in the last sentence there the decision to undergo a second test was ultimately made by upper management and eventually filtered down to me by via jr by upper management do you mean
00:02:13 you mean paul and craig would have ultimately made that decision i believe
00:02:24 and do you know whether craig chambers and paul evans were involved in a detailed discussion of the components of the failed test and an examination of what precise
00:02:36 and an examination of what precise components had failed and how they could be improved for a second test no i don't there was not a discussion that i
00:02:43 that i personally witnessed right can we then turn to the design of the second test i think you were involved in discussions about potential amendments to insurer or to do your best to ensure a
00:02:55 insurer or to do your best to ensure a pass of the second test weren't you that's correct and that was with mr roper yes
00:03:00 roper yes yes and mr evans paul evans yes and rob warren too that's correct and would you say that paul evans was closely
00:03:09 closely involved in those discussions yes and i don't think it was a formal process or a meeting i think there would have been lots of discussion so i might have had a discussion with
00:03:20 discussion with just rob i might have had a discussion with just john there might have been a discussion when all four people were in a room
00:03:26 a room but rather than being we'll have a meeting and there'll be a date and an invitation it was just people were in very close proximity to each other right you've just you've explained i'm so sorry i've cut you off tonight to
00:03:37 sorry i've cut you off tonight to continue
00:03:38 continue you've explained where physically paul evans and
00:03:41 evans and john roper's offices were you say one on top of the other where was your office in relation to theirs or downstairs in the same building
00:03:49 building right so how often every day would you encounter them and discuss matters or business matters most days i wouldn't see them and that is because
00:04:00 wouldn't see them and that is because my day job was to answer the phones and answer emails which was in a separate office on a separate floor right so actually i wouldn't go upstairs because we had our own kitchen facilities and things like that i wouldn't go upstairs and i wouldn't
00:04:11 i wouldn't go upstairs and i wouldn't see them
00:04:13 see them the vast majority of days right i see so you wouldn't bump into them on a daily basis no not necessarily not that there was any segregation it was just that so you might
00:04:24 might see someone coming into the front of the building because there was a shared front door okay now um one of the changes that was made
00:04:32 made as between the first test and the second test was the decision to increase the thickness of the malia turnip cladding panels from eight millimeters to twelve millimeters wasn't it that's correct yes do you know
00:04:43 wasn't it that's correct yes do you know who made that suggestion
00:04:52 i don't know who made that suggestion i think it would have come out from discussions amongst people and been generally
00:04:59 generally agreed was we know that john roper was involved in that discussion because he told us what about paul evans do you know that he was involved in that discussion yes he was and how do you know that
00:05:11 yes he was and how do you know that because i believe that i would have been present at discussions where it was being discussed where he was in the room and an active part of that discussion did mr roper ever tell you that he had
00:05:22 did mr roper ever tell you that he had discussed that thickening of the exterior cladding panels for the test with mr clark of the bre phil clark
00:05:33 yes he did it was discussed
00:05:37 and i think that john uh told me that phil had suggested to him that thickening of the cladding panels um may well be enough to take the test
00:05:48 um may well be enough to take the test from a
00:05:49 from a failure to pass now you've said that in your understanding celetex's aims to test a fairly representative system did you have any concerns
00:06:01 system did you have any concerns after the first test and in designing the second test that in using a cladding panel of that increased thickness of 12 millimeters instead of eight that might undermine that approach
00:06:12 might undermine that approach and consequently the likely marketability of rs 5000 i think i thought at that stage that using a thicker cladding panel um it would still be an
00:06:25 um it would still be an actual product which people use so 12 millimeter miley fiber cement would still be
00:06:30 still be a panel which was advertised and offered to the market and used by people so in that respect it would still be representative but i think i would have thought that it would
00:06:41 would narrow down the options of what people would be able to use because i think the idea had always been that field of applications report might be able to take something which had been tested and passed
00:06:52 had been tested and passed and then allow people to maybe change some components so the awareness was that if you went from eight millimeters to twelve millimeters you're using something which is thicker
00:07:05 you're using something which is thicker so that is going to to limit what you can do with it because if sorry yes i see yes i see and uh if you go to paragraph 60 of your statement please on page 20. uh you can see that that
00:07:18 20. uh you can see that that you say uh in the first line it was decided that the marley attorney cladding was still a marketable choice of product and that increasing the thickness could be the most effective way to improve its performance
00:07:31 performance did you have any concerns that if rs 5000
00:07:35 5000 passed it would still be marketable if only used with marley eternity panels of that thickness in other words 12 millimeters
00:07:46 or you say that it was just it was still possible but but but limited more limited than eight millimeters it would it would limit it um i think if you if you have a market and you have lots of different cladding panels with lots of different fire
00:07:57 panels with lots of different fire ratings
00:07:59 ratings the one that you have tested i think the feeling is is you're going to be limited to anything which is as good as that or better so the higher up you go with what you've tested everything below that line now is
00:08:11 everything below that line now is something which you're not going to be able to do yes i follow staying with paragraph 60 mr hayes
00:08:17 mr hayes you go on in the middle of that paragraph to say given the level of urgency i sensed from pe and jr the fact that authorization was given so quickly for the second test and my knowledge of the new product
00:08:28 and my knowledge of the new product budget from saint-gobain i felt that there was significant pressure from upper management to pass the second test this was heightened by the fact
00:08:37 fact that the test was so expensive we didn't want to be in a position my 12 millimeter cladding got us closer but the test was still failed when you refer to significant pressure from upper management to pass
00:08:49 pressure from upper management to pass what do you mean by that so after the first test and as i explained before things happened very quickly so i think that the the project had started
00:09:00 i think that the the project had started in
00:09:00 in 2014 and i think the first test was in february
00:09:04 february so that's a reasonable amount of time for
00:09:08 for i guess research and thinking about what things are going to happen
00:09:14 so now discussions are happening very quickly
00:09:18 quickly so there's discussions happening around okay what are we going to do with the second test how how is that going to pass
00:09:27 i know just from speaking to the tasks that john was given so he had a lot of things to do some of those things i helped him with for example to contact um the people who had built the
00:09:38 contact um the people who had built the rig to start with and get them to to build a second rig you'd have to order all of the materials for that um which is to say everything which goes into building that rig from the steel frame to the sheathing board to
00:09:50 steel frame to the sheathing board to the in well the installation of course is ours
00:09:53 is ours to the cladding panels um he's got to a range of the array for another test rig in fact i think that the bre didn't have a rig
00:10:04 a rig available for us to test as quickly as as they wanted to retest and i think they had three rigs available and two of them were steel frame rigs
00:10:15 and two of them were steel frame rigs and one of them was a masonry rig and the masonry rig i think is concrete blocks inside a frame and i actually think that because john had been told he had to do it as quickly
00:10:27 had been told he had to do it as quickly as possible they actually paid the bre an extra 5 000 pound to knock out the blocks so that a steel frame could be installed all right
00:10:37 all right so i think they i think i'm correct in remembering this that they actually paid more money to fast track it that's a kind of way to say it all right do you know just following that up a bit
00:10:50 do you know just following that up a bit whether that extra 5000 pounds was in the original budget for the second test or
00:10:56 or whether joe mahoney had to be reapproached to expand the budget to include that extra payment i'm afraid i don't know that i don't know can i ask you you say upper management
00:11:08 can i ask you you say upper management you refer to upper management being behind the pressure can you just tell us who that was is that again craig chambers and paul evans yes so i know from john of course that he's he's been given
00:11:19 of course that he's he's been given these instructions by paul and these instructions are okay you need to do this you need to do that it needs to be as as quickly as possible um in terms of so
00:11:31 um in terms of so and there's a degree of assumption when i'm saying that that pressure is coming down from craig to paul to john and that um i guess that assumption and that
00:11:42 um i guess that assumption and that impression is formed from some of the things that i said earlier so discussions about an imminent budget
00:11:48 budget in being given to sangaban and and people from certified having to travel to paris to deliver that budget and that budget a key part of that budget was that it had to be from new
00:11:59 budget was that it had to be from new products that only rs 5000 would satisfy that
00:12:03 that requirement um i knew that craig followed the project very closely um so as an example the meeting that we had
00:12:13 had um which was the update meeting that we discussed earlier craig was an active part of that discussion it wasn't a case of craig sort of sitting back there and saying okay you
00:12:24 sitting back there and saying okay you bring me up just to to speed and okay crack on he my impression of that meeting was that he understood the technical nuances around the testing
00:12:35 around the testing very well um and that he was very keen um in that meeting for for that project to go forward and as quickly as possible
00:12:46 to go forward and as quickly as possible was that the 4th of november 2013 meeting that's correct were there any meetings between november 2013 and may 2014 that you were at
00:12:58 and may 2014 that you were at with him right um but you were aware of where he had attended which had discussed the project no no i wouldn't necessarily expect it to have been invited now
00:13:09 expect it to have been invited now um did you think at the time that there would be any consequences for you personally if the second test failed no no can we look at paragraph 61
00:13:22 no can we look at paragraph 61 same page you say i therefore went to jrrw and pe with the suggestion that we also include an additional board of material behind the cladding just at the point of the fire barriers
00:13:34 just at the point of the fire barriers this in conjunction with the thicker cladding would increase the time it took for any fire to progress through the cladding and consequently climb the rig the board i suggested was a six millimeter magnesium oxide board placed behind the
00:13:46 magnesium oxide board placed behind the cladding
00:13:47 cladding and you define that as the additional material this would be used in conjunction with the now 12 millimeter thick layer of the cladding jr and pe agreed to adopt this approach in principle
00:13:58 in principle with pe having the final sign off however they also decided to amend the thickness
00:14:04 thickness of the cladding at the point where the additional material was placed from 12 millimeters to eight millimeters thick to try and ensure continuity of the cladding surface across the rig now just breaking that
00:14:16 across the rig now just breaking that down a little bit it looks from that and i've read it to you all that you were the person who suggested the six millimeter magnesium oxide board yes that's correct and they were the ones who they
00:14:27 ones who they jr and pe were the ones who came up with the amendment of the thickness of the 12 millimeter cladding to bring it down to eight to try to ensure continuity of the cladding surface throughout yes yes now um just looking
00:14:40 throughout yes yes now um just looking at that a little bit more closely still are you saying that you made this suggestion of the six millimeters magnesium oxide as a result of the pressure that you observed or felt
00:14:50 felt to do the best that you could to stop the second test failing
00:14:56 yes so you were the one who came up with the six millimeters magnesium oxide how did you come up with that idea i think it had been when we had had the discussions at
00:15:08 when we had had the discussions at sotech
00:15:09 sotech john eggington had given the idea that perhaps the test could pass with an improved
00:15:17 improved um fire barrier and so i kind of that was the seed of of that fire barriers are an important part of what might make the
00:15:28 an important part of what might make the test
00:15:29 test pass or fail um so that's kind of where the the the idea that
00:15:37 that fire barriers are an important part of that of that system is um and just to be clear is that the note your note of the 3rd of october
00:15:48 note your note of the 3rd of october 2013 meeting cel five two fourth 30110524 point down here yes or no about the levels fire barriers yes i see so i think that suggestion
00:15:59 yes i see so i think that suggestion which had initially been put forward by john before the first test
00:16:04 test we were now or i was now revisiting in my mind
00:16:08 my mind and i think part of that was to look at the fire barriers that kingspan had used
00:16:14 used on their successful test because i think they
00:16:18 they described it as being a stainless steel aluminium
00:16:22 aluminium grill product um which um although i don't think they named it
00:16:29 named it so i think in some way we found out what that had been called and it became apparent that that was no longer available so it seemed that john's idea of using a
00:16:41 so it seemed that john's idea of using a double system was not going to work because actually one of the things of the two was actually no longer available and i don't think that there was any similar products available um and as
00:16:53 any similar products available um and as i
00:16:53 i understand it now i actually don't think such products which is to say stainless steel cavity barrier are actually very common at all and so then i guess
00:17:04 at all and so then i guess the mind turns to fire barriers are important
00:17:08 important how else could the performance of the fire barrier be improved um and i think the feeling was after the first test that once the cladding panels had cracked
00:17:19 once the cladding panels had cracked fire moves into the cavity which is between the insulation and the cladding panel
00:17:24 panel and then travels up within that cavity and it's the job of the fire barriers to stop that happening so the fire will go up in that cavity but once it hits the fire barrier the fire barrier will stop it and so it won't go any further
00:17:37 and so it won't go any further and i think we thought that the fire barrier is not very effective once the cladding has gone because the cavity is between two things something at the front and something at the back
00:17:49 at the front and something at the back and then the cavity fire barrier blocks that gap
00:17:52 that gap and so if you have the thing at the front you have the thing at the back and you have
00:17:56 you have the fire barrier then the fire is is stopped on its journey so if any of those three things are no longer there for example if the cladding panel has cracked and fallen away you'll still have the fire barrier but
00:18:08 you'll still have the fire barrier but would fire actually go around the barrier and continue and so the barrier would be ineffective not because the barrier itself
00:18:17 itself has failed but because i guess that part of the construction has failed so the feeling was if the cladding panel is still
00:18:27 is still there then the fire barrier will do its job
00:18:31 job and that will contribute to a passing of the test
00:18:36 the test so the idea of reinforcing the cladding at the point of the fire barrier
00:18:42 barrier means that the fire barrier will now be able to do its job [ __ ] fire from moving up and of course that is the path and foul criteria of the test and so therefore hopefully that will
00:18:55 and so therefore hopefully that will contribute to successfully passing the test
00:18:57 test two questions from that was it you first who came up with the idea of reinforcing your word the cladding at the the ex uh the rear face of it
00:19:12 at the the ex uh the rear face of it where the fire barrier would meet it i remember it being my idea yes and secondly was it you who came up with the idea of magnesium oxide as the material which you would place there as the reinforcement
00:19:25 the reinforcement i believe so but i don't think that was a conscious choice of saying okay what would be the best material to do this i think magnesium oxide would be a good choice
00:19:36 choice i think it was because magnesium oxide was being used already as the sheathing board and so it was logical
00:19:46 logical okay we can just use more of the same i see so can we cut a long story short in this sense that you came up no i'm not being critical at all of your answer and it's helpful to hear exactly what the thinking was
00:19:58 what the thinking was does it come to this that you thought the best way of getting this to pass the test was to keep the cavity in place as opposed to having the panels crack and therefore the best way of doing that
00:20:10 and therefore the best way of doing that would be to reinforce them with a a non-combustible substrate it's the same as you we're already using as the sheathing board namely that's correct magnesium oxide yes
00:20:22 that's correct magnesium oxide yes that's very helpful thank you now you say in paragraph 61 that you went to jr rw and
00:20:33 that you went to jr rw and pe with that suggestion do you remember when you went to them with that suggestion um i don't remember exactly when that was
00:20:44 i don't remember exactly when that was it was a time after the first test and while thoughts were being turned to how the second test the composition of the second test would be put together
00:20:55 the second test would be put together i don't believe it was as i said before a
00:20:58 a kind of a formal meeting or gathering when people are there and i think it was a combination of informal
00:21:05 informal um discussions so i can remember for example
00:21:09 example i think i say this later having a just an informal discussion with rob warren about it just the two of us and that was downstairs
00:21:19 in
00:21:23 the technical center offices and um i think i can remember having a chat with
00:21:30 with um john roper about it when it was just the two of us and i think i can remember um a conversation where everybody was in the room right i want to focus on paul evans because i think you'll
00:21:43 paul evans because i think you'll perhaps know in general terms from his evidence that he uh
00:21:48 he uh i think i can safely say denies uh being told
00:21:51 told about the six millimeter magnesium oxide uh perhaps that's a mischaracterization of his evidence but i want to get your evidence
00:21:59 evidence how clear in your mind do you recollect telling
00:22:04 telling paul evans that you should use they should use a six millimeter magnesium oxide board behind the cladding i can remember a specific conversation
00:22:15 i can remember a specific conversation although not in a huge amount of detail and it was i believe upstairs where paul and john's office was and paul was there and john was there
00:22:26 and paul was there and john was there and i was there and it was a um a conversation around this idea
00:22:31 this idea um and
00:22:35 from that specific recollection but from also my general impressions as well and many other things i
00:22:45 witnessed and there's no doubt at all in my mind that paul evans knew about the missing material and i would go further and i think i say this in my statement
00:22:56 this in my statement that paul would have to ultimately um make the decision that that was what was going to be the composition of the second test rig yes
00:23:08 composition of the second test rig yes you say there's no doubt in your mind at all no none whatsoever thank you he and again i don't want to misrepresent his evidence but he denies that
00:23:20 his evidence but he denies that uh how can you account for that
00:23:30 the short answer is i can't and that i can only speak for my own testimony and anything i say would be a
00:23:42 and anything i say would be a um i i'm not sure what the word is a kind of supposition on my part um i was going to interrupt and thought i'd better let the answer run on but i think the answer is
00:23:53 think the answer is to say what very well he could explain uh
00:23:56 uh mr evans's evidence is it very well i think the answer was a perfectly elucidating answer uh now
00:24:07 elucidating answer uh now given that celetex had used magnesium oxide as the sheathing board for the february test you knew it was non-combustible perhaps that was the idea
00:24:14 idea yes yes had you had any conversations with mr clark of the bre about using magnesium oxide as a reinforcement panel behind the thickened uh rain screen or
00:24:27 behind the thickened uh rain screen or cladding panel no did you have any conversations with the bre about that anybody else at the bre about that no
00:24:37 you were i think aware and you say this in your statement of paragraph 72 that this was not representative that is the addition of a reinforcing magnesium oxide board behind the cladding panel
00:24:49 cladding panel was not representative of what would commonly be used in the market yes yes
00:24:56 and and given that it wasn't representative of what would commonly be used in the market why did you suggest it
00:25:04 i think in my mind it was for a couple of reasons one would be they were still on the table this idea of the field of applications report so it could be
00:25:15 it could be that whilst it was not representative if the test passed really really well there might still be the opportunity for a field of applications report
00:25:26 a field of applications report to allow people to to later on you know change that component um and the other thing is i don't think it had well there may have been discussions which i was not party to but in
00:25:37 was not party to but in my mind i think thought there was still the potential for celetex to offer that as a complete system to the market albeit with a hugely reduced scope
00:25:49 albeit with a hugely reduced scope of perhaps people who might be interested in that but there may still be people who would want to do that based upon the fact that pir was still going to be a lot thinner than rock wall
00:26:00 than rock wall and would or mineral would and that would solve some problems um and possibly if the the market became more educated to
00:26:11 more educated to the rules which is to say things should be a proper system as opposed to how kingspan
00:26:16 kingspan was doing it then you know there still might be people who would find that attractive um and there was also a feeling i think and
00:26:29 feeling i think and i thought at the time was a feeling shared by others but perhaps it wasn't that
00:26:33 that um let's just get over the line let's get a pass and let's see what happens later so just on that last part of your answer was the main reason to suggest the magnesium oxide there
00:26:44 magnesium oxide there in order to maximize the chances of a pass yes it was right you were also aware that any bre classification bre one bre-135 classification would only
00:26:55 one bre-135 classification would only apply to the tested system and nothing else i was aware of that yes so if the intention was to be transparent about the tested system
00:27:01 system an unrepresentative test wasn't going to be of much use did you did you understand that i knew that it would be
00:27:09 would be um of less use right can we go to paragraph 72 of your statement please
00:27:18 and you say that at the bottom of page 23
00:27:23 from conversations between jr and pe to which i was privy i was aware that there were concerns that a rig with the additional material present would not be representative of what the market would want to use in their buildings i was the most junior person in the room
00:27:35 i was the most junior person in the room at any of those conversations it was not usual to include extra material at specified points throughout a building and it was a matter of common sense it would be burdensome and more expensive to incorporate into any such
00:27:46 to incorporate into any such construction based upon their concerns regarding the marketability of the product and i assume
00:27:51 assume the opinion they must have formed about the likelihood that the rig would have passed
00:27:54 passed the second test without the additional material based on the view expressed by pc the decision was made and conveyed to me that it would not be referred to within the bre's final report or included in
00:28:06 the bre's final report or included in celetex marketing of the rig i was not involved in making of this decision and i cannot recall who specifically told me that it is most likely to have been jr or pe
00:28:17 likely to have been jr or pe was the intention always to conceal the use of
00:28:20 use of what you've defined as the additional material no well for me definitely not
00:28:28 and i i don't believe or i didn't believe
00:28:33 believe that that was in the mind of other people
00:28:36 people prior to the passing of the second test um although and and that really is my testimony but
00:28:47 and that really is my testimony but looking at other evidence i've seen it may have been in the mind of others but for me
00:28:53 for me there was no doubt in my mind that up until
00:28:56 until after the second test the intention had always been that we would work with what we had got now you say at the top of page 24 within paragraph 72 a decision was made
00:29:09 72 a decision was made to the best of your recollection mr hayes who made that decision
00:29:14 i've given this a lot of thought because when i put together this first statement i couldn't remember and don't remember who specifically told me that
00:29:25 me that what the conversation was who was present and and when it was and i knew and was told that this would likely
00:29:36 and was told that this would likely um to be an extremely critical point and so i've tried hard to remember that but i i simply cannot remember exactly what the occasion was
00:29:47 remember exactly what the occasion was when i was told or who told me and so i've written that is most likely to have been jonathan robert or paul evans
00:30:00 yes as you said in the last sentence you can't improve on that sitting here today i can't and i uh i wish i could that's very fair thank you
00:30:13 did that decision when conveyed to you come as a surprise yes it did did you have any concerns at the time
00:30:25 did you have any concerns at the time that that decision was made and conveyed to you
00:30:28 to you that concealing the presence and identity of the additional materials as you defined them was a dishonest way of presenting the test yes i i believed and believe
00:30:41 yes i i believed and believe and know it to be wholly wrong and dishonest do you mind if i just interrupt and clarify one thing um
00:30:53 clarify one thing um mr hayes if we look at the top line of the
00:30:57 the document on the screen you're saying that a decision was made within celetex by the people you suggest that it would not be referred to within
00:31:09 that it would not be referred to within the bre's final report now that suggests that the decision was made in relation to the form of the bre report is that what you mean
00:31:20 of the bre report is that what you mean to say
00:31:23 yes i believe that's correct well now that suggests that someone in celetex either had spoken to the bre or intended to speak to the bre to make sure it wasn't mentioned is that
00:31:35 to make sure it wasn't mentioned is that what you recall
00:31:46 what you recall just taking a moment to try to be accurate
00:31:49 accurate um i don't think that's what i'm i'm saying and
00:32:00 i'm saying and and the reason i'm taking some time is because i have seen many other pieces of evidence i'm trying hard to think what i would have known at the time um but i know
00:32:14 but i know a couple of things one of the things is that
00:32:18 that the official bi position is that actually the report is based upon
00:32:25 um information that you provide to them which is to say um they would expect you i believe to say this was the rig that was
00:32:36 this was the rig that was these were the components that we used um
00:32:39 um and also i think and this is where i'm i'm
00:32:43 i'm trying because i've seen evidence about this
00:32:46 this is is that they sent through a draft report
00:32:50 report which did not mention that material so it could be that there was a degree of opportunism in there where instead of actually saying to the bre
00:33:02 saying to the bre don't include this that perhaps they're going to take the opportunity to not correct a mistake that the brewery bre has
00:33:11 has made albeit i believe that there was an individual person at the bre who was aware of the presence of the magnesium oxide board on that rig and i'm no doubt that we
00:33:22 on that rig and i'm no doubt that we will come to that shortly
00:33:28 yes all right thank you mr chairman we will come i think to examine that evidence a little bit i'm sure we shall but it was a particular formulation of his recollection yeah absolutely seemed to me to suggest that it was
00:33:41 seemed to me to suggest that it was worth exploring yeah absolutely no it it it is and we'll come to some documents a little bit later on that exact point uh but thank you for that that's very helpful
00:33:50 helpful uh can i just then just ask you
00:33:55 uh to look please at
00:34:04 paragraph 62 of your statement page 20
00:34:18 please
00:34:22 you say there and we've been through this already that in the third line jr and pe agreed to adopt this approach in principle with pe having the final sign-off were you aware of whether the decision
00:34:34 were you aware of whether the decision had to be signed off by anybody senior to mr evans or was mr evans as you say having the final sign off
00:34:44 um no i'm not aware that that would be the case i think that um in that respect i think paul would be able to make that decision right do you know whether
00:34:57 do you know whether when making that decision that sign off mr evans
00:35:02 mr evans went to mr chambers or sought anybody more senior sought the approval of anyone more senior in adopting the approach you've described
00:35:14 no i don't know um my knowledge at the time would have been that i i wouldn't have known that um i think craig chambers was was the only person who was senior to
00:35:25 was the only person who was senior to paul who
00:35:26 paul who reported directly to him and there were no other layers of management between paul and craig right have you any reason to believe to the best of your recollection that mr
00:35:38 to the best of your recollection that mr chambers was involved in that decision no no can we go
00:35:49 no no can we go cel403089 please uh and this is really a timing point
00:36:01 uh and this is really a timing point this is an email halfway down page one is an email from you to rob warren on the 26th of uh february about a meeting with cavity the cavity fire barrier manufacturer
00:36:15 the cavity fire barrier manufacturer also now on the road another this is just shortly after the first failed test about two weeks later uh at that stage meeting the cavity fire barrier manufacturer was that side arise
00:36:27 barrier manufacturer was that side arise it was yes was was there discussion at that stage of the use of the six millimeter magnesium oxide
00:36:35 oxide in conjunction with the fire barriers or did that come later no there was no discussion with siderise about that at all right
00:36:47 now we then turn to the may 14 test itself
00:36:51 itself can we look at cel4085
00:36:58 and if we turn to page two in that document
00:37:04 this appears to be a copy of a design
00:37:10 we go to page two of that page one is the design of the rig for the second test isn't it
00:37:22 at least in terms of the location of the thermocouples yes it is and then page two is a copy of your notes of the materials for the second test and i think you say that you used this to
00:37:33 i think you say that you used this to assist mr roper in ordering the materials
00:37:35 materials is that right yes i think the primary purpose of this is to work out how much of every different component you might need right and halfway down that page we see
00:37:47 right and halfway down that page we see under rails magnesium oxide six millimeters six times two point eight eight square meters so you decided by that stage or at the time you wrote this document that that's what you needed are you able
00:37:58 that that's what you needed are you able to tell us when you think you generated this document wrote it um i'm not but i believe that it is
00:38:12 um i guess towards the end of the period of time between the first and second test
00:38:17 test right because this is not a document where we're thinking about what we're going to do this is a document i guess we know what's happening actually
00:38:27 actually what john's got to do is go and get all this stuff together and get it delivered down to the bra right and i think my what i'm hoping with there are
00:38:38 what i'm hoping with there are how much of different things you might need i see and so we see the magnesium oxide six millimeters we see the merlio turn at 12 millimeters and the measurement for that and then we see a turn it eight millimeters six times 3.6 square meters
00:38:50 times 3.6 square meters yes and that's a reference to the the thinner cladding material do you know where you where you bought the magnesium oxide six millimeters from
00:39:01 the magnesium oxide six millimeters from as opposed to the magnesium oxide 12 millimeters which was the sheathing board
00:39:05 board which we can see referred to at the top of this page no i actually don't know where
00:39:09 where where that was ordered from now the reason i ask is because we haven't seen a delivery note for that material do you think you you acquired it from the same source as the 12
00:39:20 the same source as the 12 millimeter sheathing board or a different source i have to say i wasn't involved in that aspect of it um equally i've never seen or been shown that that document i think it would be
00:39:31 it would be i think it would be odd to have gone somewhere else the only reason that you would go somewhere else is if whoever you were buying the 12 millimeters from said oh yeah you can get six millimeters but we don't particularly do it you'll have
00:39:43 we don't particularly do it you'll have to go somewhere else were you involved in that no no you weren't all right so so far as you can tell us do you know how long in advance before the test it
00:39:55 how long in advance before the test it was delivered to the bre
00:39:58 um i don't remember when any of these or would have known when any of these things were delivered to the bre but i think that because the entire time frame between the first
00:40:10 the entire time frame between the first and second test was so quick um i'm guessing that a lot of this stuff was is likely to have been done sort of just in time if that makes sense yes well we can get a sense of that from
00:40:22 yes well we can get a sense of that from the deliberate delivery notes of the other materials which are in it tend to be in april but from your knowledge do you know who would have signed for this material at the bre
00:40:37 no i don't um i think the bre um burn hall was on their overall site so i remember that having to get on to the overall site
00:40:48 to get on to the overall site you actually went through a checkpoint with a guard and a barrier so um i would think that they would have a proper
00:40:56 a proper goods in delivery system where somebody would have to go to the barrier and they'd say i've got this invoice and it's got to go there and they would say okay you go to there
00:41:03 there and i think i remember actually that phil
00:41:07 phil who i believe practically ran the burn hall it was very common for them to receive
00:41:13 receive materials from everybody because they were doing lots of testing with lots of different people so they were having materials being delivered for tests all the time and so i think that they would have had a proper procedure for goods in if you like
00:41:24 if you like where they would have a person who would sign things check things in and of course they were dealing with manufacturers property and so they would have to make sure that things were put into a secure
00:41:35 sure that things were put into a secure area
00:41:36 area um and wouldn't be lost or misplaced or damaged
00:41:40 damaged so far as you know was phil clark aware that six millimeters of magnesium oxide was to be used in this test in the in the way you've described yes how do you know that
00:41:53 yes how do you know that because of the conversation that um
00:42:00 i heard between john and phil clarke um but also in a more general sense um the the burn hall was a facility
00:42:12 um the the burn hall was a facility which had three test rigs and a couple of offices attached to it and i think that phil ran it and was
00:42:20 based there so his main office was in the same building and i think that they did
00:42:23 did lots of tests of different types and i think that he would have been constantly because of the layout of it i think he would have been constantly
00:42:34 think he would have been constantly walking past that rig and looking at it every single day from its initial day one of construction to its last day of dismantling do you know how long it took
00:42:46 dismantling do you know how long it took to construct
00:42:49 i don't i would but from the first test i believe there was a few days worth of labor right and how long was it up for after the test you know
00:43:03 i don't know but i believe that they were quite keen to get things down because it might be that somebody else wanted to use that rig for their own test
00:43:12 test you went to you didn't attend the second test but you did attend the rig afterwards i did yes and what was the point of attending the looking at the rig after the test because i was
00:43:23 because i was interested in it and because frankly it was just a day out from my normal job which was pretty much a call center type role and so it was and
00:43:34 so it was and it was let's have a day out let's do something different drive up there with john probably have some lunch have a day out from doing my normal duties how many times did you visit the test
00:43:46 times did you visit the test rig after the test so i think i put in my statement that that i was there on at least
00:43:50 least one occasion yes it would not be impossible that it was it was two and so to be fair to myself i've said it might have been more than one occasion
00:44:01 one occasion can we look at paragraph 67 of your statement page 22 please
00:44:10 i'm going to read it all to you you say at a visit to the rig after the second test i recall a conversation between pc it's phil clark at the bre and jr
00:44:17 and jr john roper where when asked by jrpc agreed that the rig had passed the second test so easily that he suspected that it would have passed even without the additional material just using cladding my recollection of
00:44:30 just using cladding my recollection of the conversation is that it was led by jr and pc's opinion in this regard was expressed in agreement with jr
00:44:36 with jr we were on the second floor in an office looking down at the second test rig we all got on well with pc and he was telling us about what it was like to work at the bre including that they had dealt with the burning of the cows
00:44:47 had dealt with the burning of the cows when the mad cow outbreak occurred now it looks from that as if you're saying can you just confirm for us mr hayes that phil clark knew uh about the six
00:44:59 phil clark knew uh about the six millimeters magnesium oxide sitting behind the eight millimeters of malia turnip yes that is correct are you in any doubt about that no doubt at all
00:45:08 at all and indeed as as we can see from the photographs from the test it was obvious that there were two kinds of cladding panel being used because there are two different colors yes one is white and that's the 12
00:45:19 yes one is white and that's the 12 millimeter mario turn it and one is orange and that's the eight millimeter return it isn't it that's correct
00:45:30 uh and i think you make the same point of paragraph 80 of your witness statement just just visit that please page 26
00:45:43 you say that although the time i did not turn my mind whether the bre is a body had an awareness that the additional material was emitted from the report and i do not now believe that it did i
00:45:54 and i do not now believe that it did i knew that pc an individual representative of the bre had such awareness and was content in himself that the additional material would not have made a difference to the second test result i took comfort from this and it
00:46:05 i took comfort from this and it supported my decision not to challenge the emission of the additional material going forward is is the basis of your belief as you state it there that phil clark knew about the additional material that
00:46:17 knew about the additional material that that at the very least because he had acknowledged the fact during your mad cow conversation if i can call it that
00:46:25 is that right yes that's correct yes now phil clark was the senior consultant at the bre
00:46:30 the bre and had signed the report he'd signed both the draft and the and the final version
00:46:35 version of the full test report that's right isn't it yes why do you seek to draw the distinction that you do here at paragraph 80 between phil clark as an individual and the bre as a
00:46:46 as an individual and the bre as a corporate entity
00:46:52 i think that probably at the time of doing my first statement um
00:47:00 i think it felt
00:47:05 fairly obvious that this was a very important and serious matter and that is likely a question would be do you think the bre as a body knew and
00:47:17 do you think the bre as a body knew and i think i've probably tried to address it in advance right why do you say you don't think that biari as a body was aware even though phil clark was what's the basis for the distinction that you're
00:47:29 basis for the distinction that you're making
00:47:37 well one i don't think it is very likely that actually the biore as a body um would undertake those actions um and secondly i guess because of the
00:47:50 secondly i guess because of the the chain of events later um in terms of
00:47:58 uh the provision of the draft test report and the email um asking field to remove a photograph which showed the missing material
00:48:09 missing material right let me just be rude with taste but that sounds a bit like speculation okay are you is that fair that in fact the basis on which you're drawing that distinction is speculative
00:48:21 distinction is speculative so perhaps a better way to do it is that i
00:48:24 i knew that phil knew um yeah so perhaps i'm speculating now and perhaps that is speculation in my statement although
00:48:36 my statement although it's my belief but that belief is based upon just
00:48:42 upon just an assumption of mine rather than a specific knowledge i suppose are you suggesting from what you know that phil clark kept the additional material
00:48:52 material secret from stephen howard who i think was his boss at the bre
00:48:59 i've never actually considered that point
00:49:02 point but um i think that he would have had to have done that um because and i'm not sure i would have known this at the time but i understand
00:49:13 known this at the time but i understand now that there is a process within the bre
00:49:18 bre where
00:49:21 the report is peer reviewed and those people have to or uh should at the notes
00:49:32 uh should at the notes that phil and his team put together and the photographs and plans and other things
00:49:40 and so there must have been a about a failure in communications to put it one way between the the time where phil does his report
00:49:51 the the time where phil does his report and the time when the the bre or another person at the berry peer reviews and and authorizes that report is your evidence that you knew
00:50:02 or rather he knew that you the celetex were intending to conceal the presence of the additional material and that he went along with that but didn't share that
00:50:13 didn't share that with either stephen howard or the review team
00:50:16 team peer review team
00:50:19 i think to draw a clear distinction between what i know and what i'm assuming what i know is that phil clark knew about the missing material
00:50:30 knew about the missing material or the six millimeter magnesium oxide
00:50:35 i cannot say to you that i know or have any
00:50:38 any factual basis to make the claim that he did or didn't discuss that or conceal it from other people at the bre if phil clark knew about the presence of the additional material
00:50:50 the additional material are you able to explain why the none of the drafts and the final version of the full test report makes any reference to the six millimeters magnesium oxide
00:51:02 to the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of malia turn it no i'm not
00:51:11 are you saying that your view at the time understanding at the time was that even though phil clark had that knowledge uh well what was your understanding at the
00:51:22 well what was your understanding at the time
00:51:23 time of the fact that even though as you say phil clark had that knowledge there was nonetheless no reference to those materials in the test reports
00:51:44 so i am so obviously there is a draft test report so phil has put together that draft test report but i think at that period of time
00:51:55 i think at that period of time there are no drawings of the second test so he's relying on drawings from the first test which don't show that material
00:52:07 material he would have known that they were inaccurate though wouldn't he yes but then why would do a draft report at all then before you have the information that you're supposed to have in order to produce it um
00:52:21 so the answer is i don't know why the first test report came through without that
00:52:24 that missing material did you ever discuss it with him
00:52:27 with him no i never discussed it with phil did you think at the time that phil clark had deliberately admitted reference to the additional material or had just
00:52:37 had just accidentally overlooked it even though he knew about it well mr millet i wonder whether that's something we ought to ask what's specific i think it is because if he's if he's got some grounds for drawing a
00:52:49 if he's got some grounds for drawing a conclusion one way or the other he can tell us what they are yeah well it's the same point as you as you put i think to to the witness can i just try it
00:52:57 it slightly different way then maybe we'll come to it in a moment but when you saw the reports come back without the reference to it given the fact that you knew mr clark knew about the presence of the
00:53:08 knew about the presence of the additional material what was your understanding about the reasons why it wasn't referred to i don't know and i don't know whether it was that
00:53:18 was that um he had just put together the draft report
00:53:21 report and that report would be on the basis that it was a draft and it would be um brought up to date by celestex providing
00:53:32 brought up to date by celestex providing updated information and that was never intended to be more than exactly that a draft and it didn't matter that it was not accurate um
00:53:44 it was not accurate um that seems to me to be the most likely explanation [Applause]
00:53:52 now just continue continuing a little bit more with this theme
00:53:59 you say in the chairman has picked this up with you before the the decision was made by celetex
00:54:07 celetex that the presence of the magnesium oxide would not be referred to in the report
00:54:14 given as we've established that it wasn't identified in the draft did that mean a decision not to correct the draft
00:54:22 the draft so as to provide a complete description of the system or does it mean that there was a prior agreement or decision that the draft shouldn't contain reference to
00:54:35 the draft shouldn't contain reference to the magnesium oxide well the short answer is i don't know um i am aware of
00:54:46 um i am aware of looking at evidence and hearing other people's evidence
00:54:50 of a kind of timeline if if you like which is that so i'm referring to things here which i don't really have contemporary knowledge
00:55:01 don't really have contemporary knowledge of
00:55:01 of but we know that um well yes
00:55:10 well yes i guess we know there was a there was a board meeting where the material was discussed um there was another meeting i think between
00:55:20 between paul and john and paul reed and that seemed to be the morning that the first draft of that test has arrived
00:55:33 so they obviously are in possession of a test report at this point in time it doesn't have uh the missing material in it so the question is is then
00:55:44 question is is then a decision taken which is opportunistic okay you know here we have a test report the missing material is not in it we could go on from here um
00:55:57 we could go on from here um or actually was it something that was a decision to be made earlier than that and actually no matter what happened uh they were going to
00:56:10 uh they were going to not reference that material um do you recall any discussions yourself with phil clark or anybody else from the bre
00:56:20 bre about the emission of the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of eternity no so the only evidence that i have in terms of um
00:56:33 evidence that i have in terms of um phil's knowledge is that um conversation which i witnessed
00:56:41 although i think that there is uh strong documentary evidence to to show that he knew in which is to say the the photograph
00:56:52 in which is to say the the photograph which was asked to be removed from the test report right i'm going to come to that now can we look please at cel401350
00:57:06 and this is the email of the 1st of july 2014
00:57:10 2014 which attached the first draft of the test report which had been dated the 2nd of june 2014
00:57:18 2014 which goes back with notes on it from john roper to phil clark and we can see the beginning of the email at the foot of page one and if we go to
00:57:29 at the foot of page one and if we go to page two
00:57:31 page two we can see you were copied into this email as was paul evans and if we go to page two you can see in the second paragraph as previously discussed could you also replace figure 18 with the attached
00:57:42 replace figure 18 with the attached photographs as we want to show a close-up of the condition of our insulation below and above fire break with the intumescent fired off
00:57:48 fired off if you feel you also have a suitable photograph please include
00:57:56 now when you saw this email did you understand that john roper was asking the bre to remove
00:58:05 remove what on the face of the report was the only element of the report which showed the presence of the magnesium oxide layer yes i did you did
00:58:18 did you know anything of the background to that request
00:58:27 i believe in my statement i may have referenced um a conversation which i witnessed regarding that photograph
00:58:38 i believe my memory isn't brilliant but i have a memory of being upstairs
00:58:46 upstairs in possibly john's office and paul evans was there they were discussing the photograph and the reasons for the removal of that photograph
00:58:57 photograph and i think it was because it clearly showed the missing material which they didn't want to appear in the
00:59:08 which they didn't want to appear in the report
00:59:09 report and that the purpose of asking phil to remove that photograph was for no other reason than to um remove a photograph which was
00:59:22 um remove a photograph which was i think um a dead giveaway if you like that that missing material was on on the test rig did you yourself have a discussion about the
00:59:34 the request to remove that photograph from this test report or draft test report with john roper
00:59:41 no i think that was the only um i think that was the only um discussion that i i was part of or witnessed
00:59:54 that i i was part of or witnessed was that one discussion which i've just outlined i don't think i had a separate discussion with john about it what about paul evans did you have a discussion with paul evans about the removal of this photograph from the
01:00:05 removal of this photograph from the report
01:00:06 report no
01:00:10 nonetheless you could see from the email that he was copied in to the email and to the request what was your understanding at the time about
01:00:22 at the time about how much he was involved in or knew about
01:00:25 about that request i think he
01:00:30 um
01:00:34 absolutely knew exactly what that was um and i would imagine that it would have been
01:00:43 been well i don't know i don't want to to again um
01:00:48 say things that i don't know but my understanding and and and everything of of how paul had been the ultimate decision maker um up until then that would lead me to
01:01:00 um up until then that would lead me to believe that he would have asked john to do that um and again there's absolutely no doubt in my mind based upon that conversation which i witnessed
01:01:12 conversation which i witnessed that paul was um completely aware of the reason for um that photograph being asked to be
01:01:23 um that photograph being asked to be removed
01:01:24 removed and i think it's most likely that actually
01:01:29 actually he had asked john to do that was it your view at the time or understanding at the time that celetex was engaged in a deliberate attempt to create a misleading test report
01:01:40 create a misleading test report yes that's exactly what was happening were you concerned about that i was very concerned about that
01:01:51 i was very concerned about that did why didn't you challenge it
01:01:56 it's not an easy answer to question to answer
01:02:00 answer um my understanding was and and now is that a decision had been made by
01:02:06 by the senior management of of said attacks um i didn't know who i should speak to or who i could speak to um i lacked
01:02:18 um i lacked the the i guess the life experience to to to find the right way forward um and it was a
01:02:36 it was a failure of courage and the failure of failure of character and a failure of um of moral fiber on my part not to do so
01:02:50 mr hayes thank you for that answer um now just turning back to phil clark again i just want to see if i can understand what was going on to the to the best of your recollection and
01:03:02 the best of your recollection and obviously i'm not asking you to appear into his
01:03:05 into his mind i want your understanding but if as you say
01:03:09 you say paul phil clark was knew about the presence of magnesium oxide in the test and also knew that there was no reference to it in the list of
01:03:20 reference to it in the list of components of the test as described in the
01:03:22 the report do you know why did you think rather he put figure 18 in
01:03:30 18 in at all if it would have as it did reveal the presence of magnesium oxide
01:03:38 i don't know um i think that it's a very obvious photograph because that photograph
01:03:50 shows all of the outer cladding removed and not only and the only thing that is left in that photograph um the six millimeter magnesium oxide at
01:04:02 um the six millimeter magnesium oxide at the top
01:04:03 the top but also very importantly it shows a section of magnesium oxide board which has been left at level two so that photograph if you wanted a photograph which was a
01:04:15 photograph which was a a clear illustration of the presence of that material you could not have chosen a a clearer photograph
01:04:25 and i wonder if i wonder why he's done that i wonder if he has actually done that deliberately to say
01:04:33 to say look here you go this is the missing material
01:04:38 material now we know about the request to remove it we also know that it was left in when the final report came through at the end of july are you able to enlighten this as to why
01:04:48 to why the bre or phil clark personally left the photograph in as what became figure 19. um whatever answer i give would be a
01:05:01 um whatever answer i give would be a guess because i actually don't know right well that's the answer okay now
01:05:20 we and i'm going to try to cut a long story short with this but do you know from your knowledge that the drawings
01:05:28 drawings for the rig for the purposes of the final report were not uh updated to show the presence of the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters marley eternity
01:05:39 eternity yes i'm aware of that do you know why that was
01:05:44 i believe that at that time a decision had been made that that missing material was not to be referenced within the test report
01:05:54 report and i would say that it is a a deliberate action to say to the bre here are the plans that you need to use in your
01:06:05 in your um report and that the reason that the the drawings do not show that material is because they are being deliberately left off to aid in
01:06:16 being deliberately left off to aid in that process and who was involved in that particular decision the decision about the drawings
01:06:25 i think it would have stemmed from the decision
01:06:28 decision for that material not to be shown because
01:06:32 because once that decision has been made it logically follows that you have certain tasks to do which will follow on from that decision and really i think that everything that
01:06:43 and really i think that everything that happened after that whether it's the photograph whether it is the drawings whether it is i'm sure we'll come to this the production of of later
01:06:54 production of of later marketing materials and literature i think everything stems from that decision
01:07:00 decision and so it would be if you've made that decision it's going to be a necessary one necessary task will be to get the drawings updated and to make sure that material is not shown
01:07:13 make sure that material is not shown now on the screen in front of us we've still got the email chain of the first of july 2014. can i ask you to go back to the that email string and look at the top
01:07:25 email string and look at the top please of page one this is a a another email from john roper on that same day first of july 2014 to paul evans and copy to you
01:07:37 2014 to paul evans and copy to you subject forward test report comments and it says
01:07:40 it says paul we'll discuss in more depth later on when we do the official handover but i've spoken to luke at simcoe this morning and he expects to have the updated drawings of the rig complete by tomorrow
01:07:50 tomorrow if not end of the week i've asked him to cha to send these through to you in my absence
01:07:55 absence can you please run these by jamie to check all the details and send through to phil
01:08:00 to phil at the bre the relevant drawings to replace figures four five and six of the test report phil will then implement these into the report with the other amends and put forward to steve howard his boss to complete and sign off
01:08:11 complete and sign off and then in the last uh paragraph he says jamie is aware of what needs amending on the drawings so he will be able to identify that the correct changes have been made and do you accept that you were involved
01:08:24 and do you accept that you were involved in the changes or lack of changes to the drawings
01:08:29 drawings uh yes i do did you have a conversation with mr evans as indicated by
01:08:38 by john roper here about the relevant drawings that should be sent to phil at the bre i'm not sure that i did i don't remember i'm afraid
01:08:51 did you have input into the actual changes in the drawings did you have a discussion with simcoe about what changes should be made
01:09:02 changes should be made no i never had any direct um contact with them ever at all i don't believe right did you identify that the correct
01:09:13 did you identify that the correct changes had been made as john roper indicates you would do in the last paragraph of that email so there are changes that need to be made to the drawings and there changes
01:09:25 made to the drawings and there changes which would need to be made anyway because moving aside the missing material there were actually legitimate changes between the first rig and the second rig
01:09:38 the first rig and the second rig and the primary one being the change of thickness from 10 millimeters to sorry from eight millimeters to twelve millimeters for the for the main cladding yes
01:09:49 cladding yes um and i think there were also some errors
01:09:53 errors on the first drawing which had always stood
01:09:56 stood and i think one of those errors was the thickness of the plasterboards for example on the steel framing system yeah thank you and as you told us before the
01:10:07 thank you and as you told us before the drawings
01:10:08 drawings that you as far as you know went to the bre
01:10:12 bre were incomplete because they omitted any reference to the six millimeters magnesium oxide or the eight millimeters of turnip that is correct and that was deliberate yes
01:10:22 yes yes um i'm going to turn to product literature mr chairman this may be a convenient moment for a break yes it probably is isn't it well we'll have a short break now
01:10:33 have a short break now mr hayes um we'll come back at 25 to 4 please
01:10:39 please and while you're out of the room no talking to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it please thank you very much thank you very much
01:11:01 thank you 25 to 4 please
01:31:09 yes would you ask mr hayes to come back in please okay
01:31:30 right mr hayes all ready to carry on yes sir
01:31:33 sir thank you yes mr miller um mr hayes can i just revisit two things in your evidence um first when the decision was first
01:31:44 um first when the decision was first made to add the additional materials to the second test test rig was that when a decision was made also to conceal it as best you could
01:31:55 also to conceal it as best you could from
01:31:56 from the public what was that decision made later
01:32:00 later no um i think that um we touched upon this earlier and in my mind
01:32:07 mind there was no doubt at all that until after the second test um certainly for me and i can't speak for others that there was um only good intentions to do things
01:32:20 um only good intentions to do things correctly i'm not aware of any feeling to conceal that material until after the second test
01:32:31 until after the second test and doing the best you can do you know when or how long after the second test that decision was made no i don't mr hayes i feel like just to press you a
01:32:43 mr hayes i feel like just to press you a little further on that because there are others who may have other views about this it might be said that the rig as proposed for the second test
01:32:56 rig as proposed for the second test was so far from being a representative rig of what might be produced in practice as to be useless unless one did suppress the existence of
01:33:08 unless one did suppress the existence of the magnesium oxide board what do you say about that um i think it's similar to a question that um i have answered and i think that i expressed that first of all there was a kind of i
01:33:20 first of all there was a kind of i believe let's worry about it later attitude which is to say okay well let's get a test on and we'll see what we can do with that um that there were still thoughts that
01:33:31 um that there were still thoughts that a field of applications report route might be available even though the test itself would not be representative that people
01:33:42 would not be representative that people may be able to use that test data and extrapolate from it
01:33:46 it in the field of applications especially if
01:33:49 if the result was um very good i guess so to speak so i have to say
01:33:56 to say at the moment i'm finding it difficult to see how anyone could have thought that data derived from a rig that was so far removed from anything that was likely to be built in practice could be the subject of any
01:34:07 practice could be the subject of any useful
01:34:09 useful uh field of application report i think you're absolutely correct and as i sit here today i i don't believe that it could be
01:34:17 could be well that raises the question you see whether you really did believe what you're telling us because i think that there was um not a great level of understanding uh
01:34:28 not a great level of understanding uh certainly
01:34:28 certainly from myself as to exactly what a field of applications report would look like how far it would be able to go so we had the meeting at ifc where peter had expressed a view that
01:34:40 where peter had expressed a view that yes
01:34:41 yes you know you could get a field of applications report there might be a wide variety of scope that that could uh be the case and it would depend upon the performance of the test
01:34:53 the performance of the test in um that
01:34:57 you know as it performed on the day um it may also have no and that's that's my answer right all right thank you you had another question ahead of you well i know i want to follow up on that
01:35:08 well i know i want to follow up on that if i may mr chairman um you say that the decision to conceal it came later and the decision beforehand was just to go ahead and get the test done and maybe you could get a field of application
01:35:19 you could get a field of application report for it
01:35:22 what was it about the results of the test that meant that you could no longer be candid and open and honest about the presence of the additional materials which then caused the decision to
01:35:33 which then caused the decision to conceal it to be made well i think there's an assumption there that i had been part of those discussions or part of that decision and so therefore i would be able to illuminate you on that but the reality
01:35:45 illuminate you on that but the reality is is that i also think there's a difference between when a decision was made and when a decision was communicated to me which may be different things um
01:35:56 to me which may be different things um and so sorry just to circle back to the question um
01:36:03 which i kind of have actually gone whatever that's okay let me try it a different way you told us that
01:36:10 us that as far as you were aware before the test was done the idea would be to be open about the presence of the additional material because maybe you could get a field of application report which would allow that very unusual and unrepresentative
01:36:22 that very unusual and unrepresentative makeup to be used in in practice you get the results of the test
01:36:28 test what was it about the results of the test that meant that celetex changed its mind
01:36:32 mind and thereafter decided to conceal the presence of the additional material the answer to that question briefly is i don't know right did you ever seek to find out given what you told us about your
01:36:43 given what you told us about your belief that there would be openness and candor about the presence of the additional material before the test no was that
01:36:55 i don't know i think i was unhappy with what i've been told um and i didn't feel that anybody would want to
01:37:05 want to perhaps have that discussion with me did you did you even seek to try
01:37:15 no i think i had a clear impression of what was going to occur and what they wanted to do um is it really right
01:37:26 um is it really right that before the test you really thought that celetex were going to be open and honest
01:37:30 honest about the presence of the additional material yes that is correct
01:37:37 the other question i wanted to revisit with you or visit with you was the rationale for the presence of the magnesium oxide layer and you say that it was to reinforce the
01:37:48 and you say that it was to reinforce the cladding in the back of the cladding where it met the the fire barriers
01:37:55 we had taken from other evidence that it was
01:37:59 was in a sense to protect the thermocouples at level
01:38:02 at level two and at the top of the rig from getting too hot is that part of the thinking or was that part of the thinking or was it simply to do with reinforcing the
01:38:13 was it simply to do with reinforcing the cladding panel say that they stayed intact
01:38:17 intact well i think those things are are related because as the fire travels up you then trigger the failure conditions of the test which is to say
01:38:30 of the test which is to say the thermocouple raising temperature and so
01:38:33 so by having a effective fire barrier design
01:38:37 design you are increasing the i guess performance of the rig and that helps you to to achieve that um
01:38:48 to achieve that um success and that success is based around the
01:38:51 the thermocouples right putting it slightly shortly
01:38:56 shortly well let me ask it openly and shortly why did you decide to apply the additional six millimeters magnesium oxide at the level two thermocouples and at the top of the rig as opposed to
01:39:07 and at the top of the rig as opposed to anywhere else on the rig um i think it would have been related to the position of the level two thermocouples and i also think it would have been related to
01:39:19 related to flames going off the top of the rig as well
01:39:23 well and how would the presence of the magnesium oxide prevent the flames coming up from the top of the rig
01:39:33 it would be exactly the same um
01:39:38 reason because the i think the flames coming out the top of the rig they would be coming
01:39:42 be coming out of that gap and so if you have a cavity barrier which addresses that gap then that will not happen i want to turn to product literature sorry mr miller i know i'd
01:39:53 literature sorry mr miller i know i'd like to follow up on your question right um do you know who actually decided in where the magnesium oxide boards would be placed
01:40:03 be placed um because there's no drawing for anyone to follow is there no there isn't and i
01:40:13 you know who took that decision no i don't
01:40:16 don't that's the short answer um it may be that it came out of um as a consensus or perhaps it is just that is logically where they would need
01:40:27 that is logically where they would need to be positioned well if you think about it um some magnesium oxide boards were delivered to the bre's burn hall or wherever they store them
01:40:38 store them patch jones i think was the person who actually built the rig is that right um i'm not sure who actually constructed the second rig i think that might be correct from evidence my well someone did anyway yeah
01:40:51 evidence my well someone did anyway yeah sure whoever was in in charge of constructing the rig must have had either given free hand to decide what to do with these boards which on the face of it didn't have any
01:41:02 which on the face of it didn't have any place on the rig or was told either what to do with them or where to put them wow i think who who told whom what to do with them okay so i don't know well i
01:41:15 so i don't know well i the first thing is is you're correct there's no way that the person building it which is to say patch jones would have decided where they were going to go so he would have received a clear instruction from
01:41:26 instruction from celetex to do that um i think in terms of
01:41:29 of who told him i think that would have been john because john was at the rig directing it and some of that memory or some of that understanding is not contemporaries but
01:41:41 understanding is not contemporaries but i have
01:41:41 i have seen john's statement so but equally i don't think that john would have been there on the day going hmm where are we going to put this i think they've got to go there
01:41:53 i think they've got to go there i'm sure that it would have been decided before then um where they're going to go in the general sense okay this line needs to go here which is
01:42:05 this line needs to go here which is below the
01:42:06 below the second of the thermocouples and yes we've got one at the top as well yeah all right thank you very much yes yeah just following up on what you told the chairman is what you told the chairman something that john roper told you or are you
01:42:21 john roper told you or are you just trying to piece together honestly i think i took that from um john's evidence where he describes actually i believe right that he was there and telling him what to do i see so you can't
01:42:33 what to do i see so you can't add by reference to your own recollection of the events at the time to what john roper has already told the inquiry no right i see can i then turn to product literature um
01:42:47 can i then turn to product literature um overall question did you have any input into the drafting of the product literature for celetex rs 5000 when it was launched in
01:42:55 in august 2014. yes i did let's see how we go can you tell us in general terms which parts of that product literature you you drafted
01:43:06 product literature you you drafted um i was asked to make contributions to a document which was called the rank screen cladding specification guide right
01:43:15 right anything else any other any other document like the data sheet or the compliance guide i was asked to contribute a blog which was to be
01:43:23 was to be placed on the celestex website
01:43:30 that is the only
01:43:33 recollection that i have both then and now of my contribution to the literature um i was shown an email and that email references me although i'm not
01:43:44 references me although i'm not included in it and it says i think it's an email to tina smith and it says
01:43:51 it says jamie can you please can you please go to jamie and get three to six bullet points about the installation of rs 5000 for the rain screen cladding
01:44:03 for the rain screen cladding application sheet which is different from the data sheet um but um i've got no memory and there's
01:44:14 um but um i've got no memory and there's no evidence to say that she ever did that right okay can i just then pick you up on the specification guide ceo6013 please
01:44:28 this is the specification guide and if we look at the third page please page three and we can see the introduction to that document
01:44:38 document okay did you draft any of that yes i did a draft of um some of that and sent it to lizzie
01:44:49 some of that and sent it to lizzie seaton
01:44:50 seaton and i think that that draft was then used
01:44:53 used to come up with this final uh version right and uh i have a document to show you but perhaps we can take it more quickly
01:45:01 quickly first three paragraphs of that page and the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph i think from the record are what you drafted is
01:45:12 from the record are what you drafted is that right
01:45:14 um
01:45:20 yes you're absolutely correct so there is an email which basically says exactly what i said to lizzy and that so that can be referred to but
01:45:27 to but if you are telling me that that matches the first three paragraphs in the first sentence and i'm prepared to accept that well i think we can let me just do it very quickly if i can cel40 is 9596 please
01:45:42 this is an email chain between you jonathan roper lizzie seaton and rob warren relating to the rain screen clouding literature page three you say uh in the on page three um you send an
01:45:56 uh in the on page three um you send an email saying um please find attached design considerations you see that yep and what's attached i think is a draft that's at cel409590 please
01:46:12 draft that's at cel409590 please and can we go to page four in that document
01:46:18 and the introduction
01:46:25 uh if you look at the bottom of the fourth page
01:46:29 it says it says buildings with a story height greater than 18 meters have an additional requirements under the national building regulations please see our separate compliance guidelines contacts the celetex technical center for assistance did you draft that yes it
01:46:40 for assistance did you draft that yes it did
01:46:40 did yes and that refers to the compliance guide yes
01:46:44 guide yes and then uh you go to um ceo409579 this is an email of the third of june 2014 we emailed mr roper and mr warren
01:46:55 2014 we emailed mr roper and mr warren with some draft wording for an introduction see that and there is underneath it in italics
01:47:01 italics a block of text can you see that yes i do
01:47:06 do and just cast your eye down that i'm not going to spend time reading it all to you
01:47:11 you but if you go back to the specification guide
01:47:15 guide perhaps we can keep that on the on the screen and look at the specification guide at ceo6013 just this confirms your evidence i think that the
01:47:24 that the first three paragraphs and the first two paragraphs of the fourth paragraph the introduction are the same page four page three
01:47:34 the range screen yes there it is just casting your eye back and forth you could see that you were the one that i think who had put that into your third of june email and it found its way into the
01:47:45 and it found its way into the introduction okay yes yes yeah
01:47:54 now you can see
01:47:58 that in the right hand side on the right-hand side of the page
01:48:08 you can see that you well you can see on the left hand side of the page that your email stops where it says celetex rs 5000 is uniquely positioned to help meet these goals celatex rs 5000 is a premium pir
01:48:21 celatex rs 5000 is a premium pir solution
01:48:23 solution and then it stops at that point dot dot dot but if you cast your right to the right hand side someone has added the words for use in rain screen applications and suitable for use in buildings above 18 meters in
01:48:35 for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
01:48:36 height do you know who put that wording in to the final version of the specification guide in that paragraph because it doesn't appear in your email no i don't um did you know uh where it came from do you know or did
01:48:50 uh where it came from do you know or did you know the time where it came from i i know it's consistent with how
01:49:02 i i know it's consistent with how celetex
01:49:03 celetex wanted to market the product um i didn't know
01:49:07 know where those words had come from i think i know now from other people's evidence that they were taken from kingspan
01:49:15 kingspan document right at the time did you see the specification guide and particularly those words there which follow on immediately from the words that you had drafted
01:49:26 words that you had drafted yes i would have seen this document after it had been produced here and did you think at the time that those words were well let me put it to you that those words are on the page
01:49:37 those words are on the page thoroughly misleading aren't they because they suggest that rs 5000 can be used in any building above 18 meters regardless of whether the construction
01:49:48 regardless of whether the construction of the cladding system on such buildings is the same as that we should pass the test oh yes i would agree with that did the fact that those were thoroughly misleading words occurred to you at the time
01:50:05 yes i think it would have done yes so can we can we again cut a long story short by saying that at least in this respect you knew that celetex was marketing rs 5000 on the basis of
01:50:16 was marketing rs 5000 on the basis of a thoroughly misleading statement about its potential for use in buildings over 18 meters
01:50:22 18 meters yes i think you said you'd have nothing to do with the compliance guide is that right
01:50:34 now the launch presentation happened in early august 201 2014. can we go to ceo40128 please
01:50:46 2014. can we go to ceo40128 please [Applause]
01:50:51 this is a an email to you and rob warren from
01:50:55 from jonathan roper on that day which attaches a draft of the ctc presentation for the 4th of august with with
01:51:02 with some slides and some faqs at the end do you remember receiving this document
01:51:14 i'm not sure if i remember receiving it um if i
01:51:18 um if i remember receiving at the time but i have i've seen this document and also the coming presentation did you understand the purpose of this document to be to make sure that you and your fellow tsos
01:51:29 fellow tsos who would handle technical queries as they might come in in relation to rs 5000 would know all about it and be able to answer questions about it in advance of or perhaps shortly after the launch yes i do
01:51:40 shortly after the launch yes i do did that presentation go ahead you know yes it did were you were you there yes i was yes do you know who delivered it it was delivered primarily by john roper but there was a but
01:51:52 john roper but there was a but rob warren delivered a section at the end right
01:51:55 end right can we look at cel401229 please this is the ctc launch presentation of the 4th of august 2014 as you can see is that the same set of
01:52:07 as you can see is that the same set of slides as you saw i'm not sure because i know from looking at other evidence that there was also a similar document for the sales launch
01:52:19 a similar document for the sales launch um and i think that they are different in some respects um so i think if that date is correct 0.408.14
01:52:29 0.408.14 to the email we've just saw where it well i'm not sure if it did say that did it um
01:52:36 it um no i'm just wondering whether this is the same set of documents that that you saw or whether there was a difference but let's see how we go can we go to slide 18 okay uh here is a list of
01:52:50 okay uh here is a list of uh products five of them in all which are described as the latest addition to our 5000 range was that in the slide pack that you'd seen believe so yeah right
01:53:01 seen believe so yeah right now it describes rs 5000 as the latest addition to our 5000 range in fact as i think you told us earlier it wasn't uh it was essentially fr 5000 rebranded
01:53:13 uh it was essentially fr 5000 rebranded wasn't it
01:53:14 wasn't it that's correct so on the face of this slide this was a false and misleading statement to your own sales team wasn't it to the extent that it described celetex rs 5000 as a latest addition
01:53:26 rs 5000 as a latest addition it was already in the range yes in that sense
01:53:30 sense it it um that's correct yes was it was that fact well understood within the ctc namely the fact that actually
01:53:39 actually celetex rs 5000 was not remotely a latest edition it was simply celeste xfr 5000 got up with a new number i think it was an
01:53:50 an um i think that people came later to understand that i think it was a kind of an open
01:53:54 an open secret because um our understanding was is that although we knew that to be the case and it was discussed amongst the technical team and the
01:54:04 the people within the technical team knew that it was the same product um physically um it was an instruction that that was not to be revealed to customers
01:54:15 revealed to customers now jonathan room in the sales team told us that this is the gist of his evidences that he he wasn't aware that rs 5000
01:54:23 rs 5000 wasn't a new product
01:54:26 was there a plan within celetex to conceal that fact from the sales team i don't know well you you can help us i think do you know of whether or not there was a plan
01:54:37 of whether or not there was a plan within celetex to conceal the fact that rs 5000 was in fact
01:54:42 fact fr 5000 rebranded from the sales team i'm not sure to what extent they did understand that it's obviously presented here on this slide as being
01:54:53 here on this slide as being as being um a new product um my recollection is it was a kind of an open secret and that most people have said a text knew that they were the same product why
01:55:05 that they were the same product why would you have an open secret what was the purpose of that i think it was to be not revealed to customers and right example of that
01:55:16 to customers and right example of that would be
01:55:17 would be let's say that somebody's ordered by accident
01:55:20 accident fr 5000 and they've got it on their building site waiting to go into their building
01:55:25 building i mean put aside the fact of whether it was it wasn't suitable to be done so and they rang up and said oh we've ordered the wrong thing we've got fr 5000 instead of rs 5000 i believe that they would have been told
01:55:37 i believe that they would have been told no you have got the wrong thing you'll need to send it back and get the right thing even though in reality it's the same product well i i have to confess why not just get the
01:55:49 i have to confess why not just get the sales team or your people to say well don't worry fr 5000 has now passed an 8414 test and you can use it subject of course to the numerous caveats that we see in the in the marketing literature
01:56:00 marketing literature and other things they obviously did not want that to be the case but that i have to suggest you that was because they wanted to drive sales of rs 5000 as if it were a new product when it wasn't that may yeah i would say that is
01:56:12 that may yeah i would say that is correct well i'm putting that to you is that the is that the case is that yes right um slide 39 then please compliance guide
01:56:25 uh and it says in the third bullet point the reference point for above 18 meter inquiries and should be attached to every u-value calculator email sent
01:56:37 to every u-value calculator email sent at the top of that it says guide to complying with adb-2 for buildings above 18 meters
01:56:41 18 meters in height details the tested system
01:56:48 when it says details the tested system that was actually untrue wasn't it that's correct and when it says reference point for above 18 meter inquiries
01:56:59 above 18 meter inquiries that was encouraging sales colleagues or perhaps ctc colleagues to rely on a slide that all all of you knew you john roper and paul evans is this right new to be misleading
01:57:10 evans is this right new to be misleading that's correct and it's misleading because it didn't test that it didn't detail the system as tested that's correct
01:57:17 correct similarly slide 40. do you have a solution for buildings above 18 meters in height
01:57:28 above 18 meters in height answer yes celetex rs 5000 has successfully met the performance criteria in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
01:57:39 buildings above 18 meters in height again that was a thoroughly misleading and dishonest statement because everybody at celetex knew that the fact that it passed that test didn't make it acceptable for use in all buildings over that height yes i would agree
01:57:53 height yes i would agree now we see your comments coming back on these
01:57:56 these cel 3010362
01:58:09 uh and you say hi john looks brilliant and you give comments on lots of slides here now allowing for any differences in the slides that we've shown you uh you don't
01:58:21 we've shown you uh you don't raise the concerns relating to slide 18 slide 39 and slide 40 that i've shown you
01:58:27 you you don't say those are misleading you can't possibly put those out do you no i don't why's that it's because a decision has already been made and communicated to me that this is the way that celetex
01:58:39 to me that this is the way that celetex is intending to market that material and as i said previously all of the work that happens after that is on that is on that basis and so
01:58:51 that is on that is on that basis and so i'm proceeding on the basis that that decision has been made and limiting my feedback to other areas now you see in the middle of
01:59:02 other areas now you see in the middle of that email under slide 23 you ask a question are we going to push rs 5000 for masonry outer leaf as well what is our position on masonry outer leaf and 18 meters is is the reality that you knew that the
01:59:14 is is the reality that you knew that the only position that you could hold or the ctc people taking calls could hold was that it was that uh masonry outer leaf was outside the scope of the system as tested because the system had been tested under part
01:59:25 the system had been tested under part two
01:59:26 two and not part one of bs8414 that is correct um i think there was a feeling that due to the nature of masonry as in that it's not really a rain screen
01:59:38 as in that it's not really a rain screen cladding
01:59:39 cladding um that
01:59:43 um that it could not be anything other than um robust because to break into the cavity i would have to go through bricks which you would never do
01:59:55 you would never do um now i would agree with you now that looking back on that that is is an erroneous thought because it's not it wasn't for us to actually form that opinion
02:00:06 opinion um but nevertheless that was the basis for that
02:00:09 for that comment can i just ask you one or two questions about the actual marketing of rs5000 from your perspective can we go to your statement please at page 26 and look at paragraph 81
02:00:21 page 26 and look at paragraph 81 now you say there that in the uh fourth line down we then started taking customer inquiries on rs-5000 after launch in autumn 2014
02:00:32 launch in autumn 2014 potential customers contacted the technical team to ask if they could use our product in above 18 meter projects and i would say potentially they could but they should consider their decision in conjunction with the document which detailed the test
02:00:44 document which detailed the test this being the celetex compliance guide and then you go on in the next paragraph 82 to say we were strict with customers and we're careful to say that there's inquiring about buildings above 18 meters that they should not use our
02:00:56 meters that they should not use our product unless they were using it in accordance with the compliance guide and a paragraph 43 you say uh uh you go on to say
02:01:07 uh in the second line i was thorough in informing customers that rs 5000 should be used in accordance with this design i tried to do the best that i could as far as i could
02:01:20 as far as i could now the problem is isn't it is a compliance guy didn't in fact show the design
02:01:24 design it was actually tested did it because it concealed the presence of the additional material that's correct and ditto nor did the bs8414 report that's correct and so therefore when you say you were strict with customers and referred them
02:01:36 strict with customers and referred them to the compliance guide you were referring customers to a client's guide that you knew was dishonest and misleading that's correct so in in reality you were a part but you was perpetrating continuing to
02:01:47 was perpetrating continuing to perpetrate the fraud on the market yes that's correct
02:01:55 although no that's fine but no do you want to add anything yes so
02:02:02 so uh first of all the the way of dealing um with customer enquiries was a an explicit work instruction from silitec senior managers meant to
02:02:15 from silitec senior managers meant to our
02:02:16 our department um i did not make a decision or have any part in a decision or authority to make a decision to conceal um the additional material i had a
02:02:30 um the additional material i had a a belief in my heart that if somebody were to um follow the guidance in the in the compliance guide even though it was misleading
02:02:42 was misleading um that
02:02:46 um that it would be based upon um a a design that would pass would have passed if it was tested that way um i didn't have any control
02:02:58 that way um i didn't have any control over how celestex had chosen to go down that route although i absolutely accept
02:03:06 accept um that i knew about it and didn't do what was right in in raising it and what was under my control was
02:03:17 what was under my control was and you may feel this is entirely insufficient but it was to at least diligently ensure that people did receive the compliance guide um
02:03:28 the compliance guide um but have that having been said i and with that context i completely agree with your question that i was indeed referring people to a document which was
02:03:40 referring people to a document which was fundamentally incorrect are you saying that last answer that you had a belief in your heart that if somebody were to follow the guidance it would be based on a design that would pass
02:03:52 based on a design that would pass i have to suggest you mr hayes that you had no basis at all in thinking that the design as described in the compliance guide and the specification guide would have passed
02:04:03 specification guide would have passed namely without the additional material i think there is some basis for that and i'm not trying to retroactively make excuses for behaviour which wasn't correct
02:04:14 behaviour which wasn't correct but i think it is fair to say that there was a basis for that and the basis of that was the conversation with with phil clark and again i don't want to come across as trying to excuse
02:04:26 to come across as trying to excuse behavior which wasn't correct but i think it's fair and relevant to raise the fact that um
02:04:35 um that design was tested after grandfather and in fact did pass
02:04:43 but that wasn't known to you at the time i
02:04:48 i accept that completely and the conversation you refer to with phil clark was really pure speculation as between the two of you
02:04:56 you because there had been no such test yes i also accept that but i think that phil would have had a level of experience and expertise
02:05:08 experience and expertise so that his opinion if you like and it was only an opinion but it would have carried some weight with me
02:05:18 i just want to look at one example of you giving advice can we look at ceo401397 please this is an email chain in early march 2013 mr hayes between
02:05:30 2013 mr hayes between simcoe and celetex technical in relation to
02:05:34 to a bowman and kirkland project at onb which i think stands for one new bailey do you remember that um we could look at it and if we go to
02:05:46 we could look at it and if we go to cel4013
02:05:48 cel4013 at the bottom of page two and over to page three we can see that mr ross eric ross of simcoe sends an email to celetex
02:05:59 of simcoe sends an email to celetex technical
02:06:00 technical about u values saying that they've quoted for rs insulation on the above project one new bailey salford onb and if you go to the page three he goes
02:06:11 and if you go to the page three he goes on
02:06:12 on the main contractor has some concerns regarding bba certification which you answered in the attached email however they've since come back again with the below comments and the comments are sent out below
02:06:23 are sent out below and that refers to refers back to to you would this email have come or email chain have come through to anyone in the technical team
02:06:35 in the technical team other than you or would it come to you specifically do you think
02:06:41 i'm really not sure does it say does it not say on the no it doesn't if we go back to page two we can see that it comes to the technical team bottom of page two eric ross to celetex
02:06:54 bottom of page two eric ross to celetex technical
02:06:54 technical we can see that you answer him um the next the next email up at page two
02:07:02 you say thank you for your email fourth of march do you see that yes can i it's from celetex technical but it comes goes out in your name sure so i think it would would it have come to you
02:07:13 come to you directly or would it have come through someone else to you it would have come by the looks of it to the technical address which is a an open inbox which is
02:07:21 is i see available for the team to see right and then um i think we can see uh the
02:07:32 uh response to this or a an email chain relating to it it's ceo ceo401397
02:07:41 ceo401397 [Applause] if we go to page five please bottom of page five and over onto page six we can see uh that there'd been an earlier
02:07:53 earlier discussion relating to rs 5000 and there's a a a halfway down that email
02:08:04 email you can see it says please find below and attach response from celetex regarding the bba issue i hope this is sufficient and then it's set out as stated in
02:08:15 and then it's set out as stated in approved document b2adb did you write that response do you think
02:08:36 uh no i don't believe so but i mean i'm now looking at this document um possibly for the first time and um
02:08:49 i don't have a memory of writing that
02:08:53 right if it wasn't you who else might have been in your technical department has it come from the technical department or has it come from somebody else at celetex or
02:09:04 else at celetex or well let me see if i can do this two slightly different ways it's a very complex email string to run around i have to say yes but if we go to page two we can see that you
02:09:13 you send an email to eric ross as i showed you before on the 4th of march 2015 and you say thank your email i'm happy that the statement we made previously is suitable and correct
02:09:24 previously is suitable and correct celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs8414 part 2 so it can be considered for use in buildings above 18 meters i could probably take the question just on that that wasn't correct was it
02:09:38 on that that wasn't correct was it no that and in fact it was false and misleading to say that it'd be considered for use on buildings above 18 meters merely by reason of the fact that it had passed that test
02:09:51 i would agree with you yes um yes although
02:09:56 although it is the the cellar text determined response to queries regarding um rs 5000 right so that was the party
02:10:07 um rs 5000 right so that was the party line as it were that you were pumping out
02:10:09 out but that's yes yes and just just to finish off the point then if we could then get back to the email on page would you just like to comment on the next paragraph right
02:10:22 again that is our position is that we are open about the system so again that is part of the celetex position
02:10:29 position which is that inquiries will be dealt with
02:10:33 with by uh providing the you value calculation that was full sorry i'm so sorry that was false there wasn't it your position was that you were very far from open about the system that you tested
02:10:44 tested because the system that you tested included the additional material about which you were very far from open i would agree with that so again that's a false and misleading statement that you yourself you yourself are giving eric ross
02:10:54 eric ross yes yes and if we then go to page five there's a longer version of the response which i think you were picking up in this email halfway down the email that
02:11:06 this email halfway down the email that eric roth sends to simon martin under the words i showed you and there we can see three paragraphs on that page
02:11:16 that page the first of which ends with the words and therefore complies with the requirements of adb for buildings that exceed 18 meters in height again you agree i think false and misleading yes yes yes and then on the next page
02:11:31 yes and then on the next page page six you say selex xrx 5000 has also achieved local authority building control
02:11:38 control labc approval for use in rain screen clouding systems please find this attached confirming that the product is suitable for use in masonry and steel frame constructions has achieved the performance criteria set out in br135
02:11:50 performance criteria set out in br135 and has a thermal activity of 21. did you send in the labc certificate that was issued by the labc at the end of august do you think i think i'm getting a little bit confused because it
02:12:01 getting a little bit confused because it wasn't the question had i written that and that doesn't seem right uh it certainly seems to have come from
02:12:07 from celestex from the technical department is that wrong it may well be wrong yes perhaps that has come from a different place within cell attacks and in fact some of those words look
02:12:18 and in fact some of those words look familiar because i think there is something in evidence where perhaps john roper has produced a isn't there in his evidence there's an email where he gives a standard set of
02:12:31 email where he gives a standard set of words to be used when dealing with inquiries and that seems similar to this right so perhaps it's come from a salesperson for example um so the question is do i remember writing
02:12:43 so the question is do i remember writing that set of words then the answer is no i don't um but if he says that has come from set a text
02:12:51 text then there must be another email which celeste can provide from their servers which would tell you exactly who indeed has said that and where it's coming from the only reason i ask is if we go back to
02:13:03 ask is if we go back to the second page of this email run as i showed you uh the first paragraph says that you said i i happy that the statement we made previously is suitable and correct yes without getting hung up on whether it was you personally or mr roper or
02:13:15 it was you personally or mr roper or another department you are certainly standing by the statement as we see set out at length you accept that yes i do therefore you were repeating the false and misleading statements contained
02:13:26 and misleading statements contained earlier on yes yes and you referred in that last paragraph as i showed you on page six to the labc
02:13:32 the labc certificate uh was that a reference to the labc certificate that had been issued at the end of august 2014 yes i i think to be fair there's every
02:13:44 yes i i think to be fair there's every possibility that somebody has come in with this inquiry and i've been a position where i've had to um affirm the celestex
02:13:55 where i've had to um affirm the celestex line if you like which is to say yes you can consider the product is a copy of the compliance guide but um without a specific memory of it i'm not able to say that i
02:14:06 not able to say that i looked at every one of those paragraphs and said
02:14:09 and said okay yeah yeah yeah i'm affirming that it may well have been that i had no choice
02:14:16 choice but to say yes we stand by it because for me to take any other action would be to say no that's not correct which
02:14:24 which was not the position of cedar text to say that
02:14:30 can i then turn to
02:14:35 january 2015 and grenfell itself cel50453 please
02:14:44 now this is an email if we get halfway down that page from jonathan room to you on the 19th of january 2015
02:14:57 and if you go over the page
02:15:01 you can see that it forwards to you an email that jonathan room has received from daniel anchored
02:15:08 anchored jones at harley now you may not have known
02:15:13 known this at the time that daniel lancaster jones was the designer on the grenfell tower project this email isn't about the grenfell tower project at least not on its face and it says
02:15:26 at least not on its face and it says good morning john sorry but got a headache for you we are being asked by one of our clients to see the test results and certificates for the rs 5000 insulation they want to know exactly how it was
02:15:37 they want to know exactly how it was installed when tested to bs 84142 2005 who carried out the testing how it was fixed what it was covered with what cladding was used what support structure etc
02:15:46 etc and most importantly the results drawing off and or photos of the test setup would help show how it was installed but i imagine these form part of the test results anyway they also want to see the certificate
02:15:57 they also want to see the certificate and results for the test to bsa to bs 476 part 7 fire class rating showing the index rating to achieve during the test can you could you sort this out for us please we're hoping to put this forward
02:16:08 please we're hoping to put this forward on most of the cladding jobs so having this information to hand would be most useful and that comes to you from jonathan room he says if you go to
02:16:19 from jonathan room he says if you go to the bottom of page one
02:16:23 thank you hi jamie do we have the test results for rs 5000 for the bs476 part 7 fire class rating as dan mentions below i can always go and visit dan to discuss the bs8414
02:16:34 go and visit dan to discuss the bs8414 part 2 test results in person and then you respond to him and say hi jonathan i'm afraid i do not have access to that document i imagine that this will be a controlled document and only available through marketing
02:16:45 only available through marketing i'm not sure if there would be a requirement for a non-disclosure agreement etc please speak to debs in the first instance and if necessary she will have a chat with paul
02:16:54 now first of all when you saw the email from daniel ankle jones that jonathan room
02:17:01 room emailed to you and he says i've got a headache for you was that the kind of requests for details that you were beginning to receive or had been receiving since the
02:17:12 receive or had been receiving since the launch of
02:17:13 launch of rs 5000 in august
02:17:18 um that seems to be very detailed in terms of how he's laid things out and the things that he's asked for but we were receiving enquiries
02:17:30 i can't think of any ones in specifically but i think that we would have received inquiries about
02:17:39 about the use of the product above 18 meters and
02:17:44 it's possible that some of those inquiries would have asked for things such as test data now you say that you didn't have access to that document and why didn't you have access
02:17:57 and why didn't you have access to the full 33-page bre test report um i don't think that jonathan room is asking me for that document i think he's asking me for the
02:18:09 document i think he's asking me for the bs 476 part 7 document right
02:18:15 and that document is to do with the surface spread of flame testing and not to do with the above 18 meter test i see so you did have access to the bs841 for
02:18:26 so you did have access to the bs841 for full test report but you're saying not the b not the bs 476 part 7 test is that is that right the cellatex technical center did not have access
02:18:38 center did not have access to either of those test reports i believe that i personally had a copy of the 32 page test report because debbie had sent it to me on a previous occasion
02:18:50 previous occasion but the the the team or the department would not have access to either of those documents and in respect to his specific request which is 476 part 7
02:19:03 which is 476 part 7 i did not have and would not be expected to have
02:19:06 to have access to that document right mr room told us that his experience was that members of the sale team didn't have access to test reports did that apply to you as a member of the
02:19:18 did that apply to you as a member of the technical team yes that's correct given your role in the test and and in seeing the draft test reports for rs 5000
02:19:26 rs 5000 uh that that wasn't correct was it that you did at least have access to those documents
02:19:32 documents i personally had a copy of the 32 page test report for the 8414 test that was because of i guess my
02:19:44 that was because of i guess my um being on the project and my relationship with debbie the department as an entity were not to have a copy of that test report
02:19:55 a copy of that test report and the department and me personally would not have had any other test reports
02:20:03 reports relevant to cedartex products
02:20:09 i'm sorry if that's not clear i've tried to be clear did you know of a general uh
02:20:20 did you know of a general uh requirement if that's the right word in approved document b in at least two places that designers when considering external wall constructions should carefully check the test reports
02:20:32 should carefully check the test reports to ensure
02:20:33 to ensure the compliance with of products with the test results now i'm paraphrasing approved document p perhaps unsurprisingly no were you aware of that yes i was
02:20:45 of that yes i was how did you think designers would be able to go about complying with that guidance if celetex in relation to a celetex product were simply going to refuse access to those
02:20:56 simply going to refuse access to those test reports on the grounds that they were
02:20:59 were controlled i don't think that they would be able to did it occur to you at the time that by pursuing a policy of not allowing designers to see test reports and check the data in it
02:21:11 reports and check the data in it you were disabling them from complying with the requirements under adb i don't think i thought about it in those terms but i did realize that it
02:21:24 those terms but i did realize that it was
02:21:30 ridiculous really that they would not have that access to that document
02:21:39 right did you take that view up with anybody within celetex
02:21:47 and try to encourage people to be a little bit more open so the designers could actually test these i think it comes down to exactly the the
02:21:58 exactly the the issue with the missing material um
02:22:03 they had a uh i think uh well first of all it was a deliberate misleading in terms of the tested system but i also believe
02:22:14 the tested system but i also believe that they did not want to encourage people
02:22:18 people um
02:22:21 to ask questions about um the specific details of the test
02:22:32 right mr hayes thank you very much for thank you very much for your evidence generally i've come to the end of my questions um mr chairman is this a convenient moment yes i think it is sorry it's taking a
02:22:44 yes i think it is sorry it's taking a little bit longer no that's all right uh mr hayes council says uh he's come to the end of his questions we we always have a break at this point first of all to let him just check that there's nothing he hasn't covered
02:22:56 there's nothing he hasn't covered but also so that we can uh consider questions from others who are not here but who are following the proceedings so we'll have a ten minute break starting off uh let me just uh yes mr chairman i think that would
02:23:07 uh yes mr chairman i think that would we'll say ten minutes unless you tell us uh you need more later on very good thank you very much we'll stop for ten minutes hope it won't be any longer and then you come back and we'll see if
02:23:19 and then you come back and we'll see if there are further questions thank you all right so 20 to five and no talking to anyone about your evidence you're right thank you thank you very
02:23:30 much
02:23:41 mr millet if it turns out that more times required you can let us know yes thank you 20 to 5 otherwise thank you
02:38:22 yes would you ask ms hayes to come back in please
02:38:37 all right mr hayes we'll see if mr militz found some more questions for you yes mr willett mr hayes i want us to ask you one or two questions about mr warren's involvement did you discuss the presence of the
02:38:50 did you discuss the presence of the magnesium oxide and the other additional material with him before the test the second test
02:38:58 yes did mr warren know exactly what was going into the second test to the best of your recollection
02:39:07 i think i said earlier and in my first statement that i discussed it as an idea with rob and i had a specific recollection of talking about it as an idea with
02:39:20 talking about it as an idea with rob i don't recall a specific conversation with rob
02:39:28 after the test about its its presence
02:39:36 so that's the answer right and and following up on that from what you know from what you saw
02:39:48 from what you know from what you saw heard from other people or heard particularly from mr warren did you know or think that mr warren had known about the decision following the second test to conceal the use of the or presence of the additional
02:39:59 use of the or presence of the additional materials
02:40:02 it's not an easy question to answer i think it's fair to tell the inquirer that um
02:40:07 that um i have a relationship with with rob i've worked with rob for many years um worked with him after zed attacks um stayed in touch with him um
02:40:21 stayed in touch with him um rob is a person that um i like and have respect for um at the time of my first statement
02:40:33 i um wasn't sure whether rob was aware of of of that material um i think looking back at it the fact that rob
02:40:44 rob um i'd had a discussion with rob about the idea to use it um and
02:40:52 um and just things that i've now seen to show that it was being discussed at senior management level um yeah the answer is i'm i'm not sure the
02:41:03 the answer is i'm i'm not sure the balance of probability is that he oh well that that's it right okay um can i just ask you one or two other questions about uh the rs 5000
02:41:18 about uh the rs 5000 test data sheet cel 50411 please
02:41:29 and you can see on this uh page i know you had no input into this document as you i think told us uh but presumably you saw this in and after august 2014 because
02:41:40 after august 2014 because of your role in the technical services department you can see that it says it's been tested to class naught do you know when those class naught tests were the tests of bs four seven six part six and four seven six part
02:41:52 six part six and four seven six part seven
02:41:53 seven you know when those were no no i don't and testing to class 0 would not
02:41:59 not have been something that i had ever been involved
02:42:02 involved right with did you know that the statement in fact was relying on tests under those british standards which had been done in 2011.
02:42:14 i think that i have been made aware of that after the fact that i have become aware of that i don't believe that did you know at the time that there had been a change
02:42:25 been a change in the chemical makeup of uh rs or fr 5000 uh in and from august 2012 on the hiption line where the polyol
02:42:37 on the hiption line where the polyol used was different did you know about that no i had no knowledge of that at all that's something i have since become aware of from viewing um evidence which was made available to
02:42:48 um evidence which was made available to me as a
02:42:49 me as a core participant so would it follow that you didn't know that there was no further testing under bs
02:42:56 bs 476 part 6 or 476 part 7 on the new composition of the then fr later rs 5000 after the addition of the polio on the
02:43:08 after the addition of the polio on the hippian line no i did not know that at all
02:43:11 all okay thank you very much uh mr german i don't think i've got any further questions
02:43:16 questions right so mr hayes it remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry
02:43:20 inquiry and answering my questions i'm extremely grateful to you so thank you and mr hayes is right that i should thank you on behalf of the panel for coming here to give us your evidence it has been extremely useful to hear
02:43:32 it has been extremely useful to hear from you and we're very grateful to you for
02:43:34 for coming and telling us all that you've known about these matters so thank you very much thank you very much indeed and now you're free to go thank you thank you
02:43:58 oh mr millet that must be the end for today it is the end for today i'm glad to say it's been a long time that jolly will should be i suppose and we were able to finish with today's evidence yes now we had got um debbie berger scheduled
02:44:12 we had got um debbie berger scheduled to come today to give evidence as i said yesterday self-evidently she won't be coming today we are still organizing her for the end of next week and at the moment provisionally she is to come to give evidence next
02:44:23 she is to come to give evidence next thursday morning right thank you so we'll we will update core participants to finalize that as soon as we can
02:44:29 we can thank you very much well um that's as far as we can go for today we now break off until monday of next week at 10 o'clock when we'll begin to take evidence from another
02:44:40 begin to take evidence from another witness so 10 o'clock on monday please thank you very much
02:44:59 you