Celotex Evidence - Tuesday 17th November 2020 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:10 [Music]

00:00:14 uh

00:00:19 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:22 hearing today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from mr roper say would you ask mr rayford to come back in please thank you

00:00:38 come on good morning mr over

00:00:41 good morning all right ready to carry on yes good thank you very much yes mr millet uh good morning mr chairman good morning mr roper uh i want to uh pick up on one or two

00:00:52 uh i want to uh pick up on one or two things from yesterday if i can first of all before we turn to the question of the nhbc and then the labc and going to the rig that was established for the second test in may

00:01:03 established for the second test in may 2014

00:01:05 2014 uh it's right isn't it that in fact the panels were constructed without any ventilation gaps um no i don't believe that was the case you don't think that's that's right

00:01:16 you don't think that's that's right uh should we look at cel 3011015

00:01:32 that's a photograph of one of the panels and it looks like the eight millimeter marley eternity panel on the rig

00:01:43 marley eternity panel on the rig can you point out there where you say a ventilation gap can be found i believe the the differences between the first and the second test

00:01:54 first and the second test i think there was a decision made to reduce the ventilation but i believe if you look at the test rig as a whole you will see ventilation gaps on the on the rig where

00:02:07 ventilation gaps on the on the rig where are they

00:02:08 are they on the rig in between the panels well when you say you look at the rig as a whole which photograph do you think you're telling us about um you know the main image of the test

00:02:21 um you know the main image of the test rig that we saw yesterday right uh well let's see if we can find uh

00:02:27 uh well we have that photograph on the screen

00:02:30 screen um the the orangey colored panel i take it is the

00:02:35 it is the eight millimeter marley alternate board is that right correct can we see behind it the magnesium oxide board you can yes right thank you very much yes uh let's go to cel401352 please

00:02:53 uh with this is the first draft of the uh

00:02:56 uh bre test report 2nd of june 2014

00:03:01 and i'd like just to look at figure 17 i think on page 33

00:03:13 or perhaps and that is the full rig perhaps better to go to the previous image if we can see that

00:03:22 uh again that's that's on fire but can you

00:03:25 you identify any gaps there yeah i think there's a very minimal gap between between each panel right minimal gap was it was it a 10 millimeter gap or less no no it was less than 10 minutes yes

00:03:37 no no it was less than 10 minutes yes and did you instruct patrick jones or patch jones to construct the panels with very small under 10 millimeter ventilation gaps

00:03:48 under 10 millimeter ventilation gaps correct yes why is that uh because i think we had a discussion there and i didn't fully understand um the ventilation requirements if i'm

00:03:59 um the ventilation requirements if i'm completely honest but i think patch sort of indicated that you don't necessarily need a 10 or 12 mil

00:04:09 mil gap and

00:04:12 yes it sat with the concept of trying to over engineer the rig right thank you so you understood just to be clear about that

00:04:23 to be clear about that that reducing the gap from 10 or 12 millimeters was consistent with the intention of celetex

00:04:32 celetex to as you put it over engineer the rig so that it passed yes yes did you later ask luke cresswell at simcoe

00:04:38 simcoe to add 10 millimeter gaps to the drawings yes i did yes why did you do that

00:04:44 that i was following the discussion uh with paul the

00:04:47 paul the white board photograph so to make it look as though there were gaps when in fact they weren't he wanted to alleviate the nhpc's concerns

00:04:58 concerns regarding the ventilation gaps i think they picked up fairly quickly during that presentation that it was over engineered from a ventilation perspective and so was the intention to falsify the

00:05:09 and so was the intention to falsify the drawings

00:05:10 drawings to show 10 millimeter gaps where in fact there were none correct thank you now we've got photographs still photographs of the test but we have no video footage of this test the second test in may 2014

00:05:23 of this test the second test in may 2014 is that correct uh i don't believe i've seen any video footage that's right nor of we do did you do you know why there is no video of this test no i don't know did you ask phil clark

00:05:36 no i don't know did you ask phil clark not to video the test no not at all no do you know whether a decision was made a positive decision was made not to video the test no i thought that um it was my understanding that all tests were

00:05:48 understanding that all tests were videoed

00:05:50 videoed were you surprised that there was no video of this test um no not particularly because um i thought that the only

00:06:02 um i thought that the only information that would be issued to the manufacturer would be a test report

00:06:08 yes

00:06:15 right can i turn to a different topic and that's an email at cel3011926 please

00:06:28 now this is an email from nicholas off who we

00:06:31 who we think is from sangobang uh have you ever heard of mr orff no i haven't right uh and it looks like an internal email within sango bar as well as copy

00:06:44 email within sango bar as well as copy to joe mahoney at celetex mr orf sends it to maria fabra pushol copied to mr mahoney on the 30th of

00:06:55 copied to mr mahoney on the 30th of march and

00:06:56 march and he says maria joe here's an update outlining the pir project so far i plan to give this to frederick when he visits nrdc friday i will also be updating him on the eps work and transversal program

00:07:07 on the eps work and transversal program project let me know if you have any comments

00:07:09 comments search suggestions or requests and i don't want to ask you about that text i just want to show you something in the pir update which is at cel 3011927

00:07:25 now this is a slideshow

00:07:28 is have you ever seen this document before no i haven't right can we go to page four

00:07:34 page four and i'll just ask you whether you know anything about the topic um on page four you can see that this slide deals with smoke toxicity and celitex

00:07:43 celitex foam and there is on the left hand side a an equation or a formula and on the right hand side celotex pir gas concentration in waste stream incineration and then the bold

00:07:56 stream incineration and then the bold summary

00:07:57 summary of that science is this based on this combustion test the hcn that's hydrogen cyanide component of pir smoke is more toxic

00:08:08 component of pir smoke is more toxic than co component that's carbon monoxide and then there's an equation there or a formula and then possible approaches to reduce hydrogen cyanide

00:08:20 approaches to reduce hydrogen cyanide what did you know yourself about the toxicity

00:08:23 toxicity of rs-5000 or indeed any celetex foam um nothing at all right did you yourself give any consideration to the toxicity of rs-5000 if

00:08:35 to the toxicity of rs-5000 if exposed to fire no did anybody within your team or teams during your time at celetex give any consideration to that question no thank you

00:08:47 you can i then go to uh the question of nhbc and your relationship or celetex's relationship with it um can we go first please to cel401020

00:09:04 oh right okay

00:09:14 uh and this is an email you sent to uh paul evans on the 5th of september 2014 and it relates to ongoing difficulties

00:09:25 and it relates to ongoing difficulties with nhbc accepting the test um is this a draft email that you were planning to send more widely yes it is yeah um i think from

00:09:36 yes it is yeah um i think from recollection um scientists wanted me to produce a uh an email that went out to the sales team

00:09:46 team in the absence of um what they were seeking which was nhbc approval yes i see

00:09:52 see if we look at the fourth paragraph it refers that to competition with kingspan and it says i've also been told of a number of occasions now that kingspan k15 has successfully

00:10:04 that kingspan k15 has successfully tested to bs eight four one four part two

00:10:07 two 2005 onto a steal for a metsec this has apparently only happened recently and has not been included in their bba certificate they're just pausing there can you remember how you came by that

00:10:19 remember how you came by that information um it was most likely from the solotech sales team right can you tell us who um not specifically no but right we

00:10:30 not specifically no but right we received

00:10:31 received emails regularly with updates on composition yes i see and it goes on to support any potential challenges we may face with the nhbc on the way we have tested ie thickness

00:10:43 on the way we have tested ie thickness and choice of cladding panel sheathing board etc it is imperative we understand how k15 that seemingly is accepted by nhbc has tested to eight four one four part two

00:10:54 tested to eight four one four part two two thousand and five now you've referred that to the thickness and choice of cladding panel that's obviously the 12 millimeter mali eternity correct yes uh

00:11:08 and the sheathing board is is the 12 millimeter magnesium oxide board behind the celotex what was the problem

00:11:19 behind the celotex what was the problem with that

00:11:20 with that with the shaving board yes um i think there was there was some confusion around

00:11:26 around what that board had to consist of whether

00:11:29 whether um it had to be a calcium silicate or a magnesium oxide board um i think from previous research i noted that a lot of contractors were using cement particle board

00:11:43 using cement particle board um which i didn't which i think didn't um perform as well as magnesium oxide or calcium silica right i see okay and no reference there to the

00:11:56 i see okay and no reference there to the problems with nhbc in relation to the six millimeter magnesium oxide ball presumably because there was no way that they would know about it unless they were particularly eagle-eyed with figure 18 or 19 as it became correct yes and then

00:12:09 or 19 as it became correct yes and then you go on to say uh i'm told that the system used a cement particle board rather than a non-combustible sheathing board and a combustible cladding panel the details in particular around what type of panel was used for the

00:12:20 of panel was used for the exterior of this system are crucial and would hugely aid our argumentation were celetex adopting a strategy of seeking to put pressure or perhaps persuasion uh onto

00:12:31 pressure or perhaps persuasion uh onto the nhbc in accepting your br 135 classification by pointing out that they and hbc had accepted kingspans uh i think that was yes at the initial

00:12:42 uh i think that was yes at the initial um concept of the the project you'll see from quite a few of my emails to

00:12:49 to various organizations including the nhbc i was trying to seek clarity as to how they were approving a rigid board combustible

00:13:00 approving a rigid board combustible insulation behind numerous cladding systems yes celetex viewed as i said previously the nhbc is a as a critical approval and this news

00:13:13 as a critical approval and this news that had been fed into the business they were keen to understand the test details um and nhbc's view on it really yes

00:13:26 and nhbc's view on it really yes and in the next paragraph you say having led the way in being transparent of the tested system that complied with br135 we hope that contractors will challenge our competitors to provide the same information

00:13:37 information to have a true understanding of what has been tested now there was a similar email that we saw in july 2014 i asked you about yesterday but again it's not true is it that celetex

00:13:46 celetex was being transparent in in relation to the

00:13:50 the system which was tested no it wasn't it was a message that was related to me right and the idea behind this was was it that you would stimulate contractors to

00:14:02 you would stimulate contractors to challenge

00:14:03 challenge kingspan in the same way that that was being discovered now was were challenges in relation to rs 5000.

00:14:11 5000. sorry can you rephrase that yes i put the question slightly in a slightly unattractive way was your idea that you would stimulate your contractors into asking the same difficult questions about k-15 that you were finding they

00:14:22 about k-15 that you were finding they were now asking about rs-5000 yes yes and then

00:14:29 double cel40102 please

00:14:38 uh this is an email from nhbc if we look at the bottom of page one uh john behan and i think we've got the top of the email this from john behan to

00:14:51 top of the email this from john behan to michael healy at celetex 22nd of september 2014 and we can see just above that that he forwarded that on to you on the same day and if we look at uh the email string

00:15:04 and if we look at uh the email string let's go down to page five

00:15:09 it looks from this string that in that you can see at the bottom of the page in early september john behan had uh said to a number of recipients of

00:15:22 uh said to a number of recipients of this email following our conversation i can confirm that at present celetex is not acceptable at present to nhbc kingspan is acceptable above 18

00:15:33 to nhbc kingspan is acceptable above 18 meters

00:15:33 meters if kingspan can provide project specific confirmation that product is acceptable and then if you look a little bit up the uh

00:15:44 uh lit up the chain to the next document michael ryder who is one of the addressees i think from drawn metal dml architectural

00:15:56 from drawn metal dml architectural systems

00:15:58 systems responds to him and says john does this include the celetex rs 5000 which has undergone the necessary bs 8414 part 2 test and

00:16:04 test and therefore used above 18 meters and if we go up a little bit further up the chain again

00:16:14 mr behan tells mr ryder that there are issues with the test report issued for the test carried out these issues have been relayed to celetex but has yet no response has been received by our technical department

00:16:28 and then if you look at the top of page

00:16:34 two

00:16:40 uh uh we've only got the bottom of the email but john behan um let's look at the bottom of the little bit higher up page two i'm so sorry

00:16:49 sorry you're only seeing half the document uh this is john b hand to michael healey 22nd of september michael and then if you get a little bit lower down on page one

00:17:00 lower down on page one as stated nhbc has issues with the testification recently achieved celetex technical department are fully aware of the issues raised

00:17:09 and and a little bit further down page two

00:17:16 you can see that mr healey has told him and

00:17:19 and to which we've seen the response we currently hold certification for bs8414 part two does the hb nhbc not recognize part two i'm sorry mr raper i've taken this slightly out of

00:17:31 mr raper i've taken this slightly out of order and did you understand when you saw this email string that whatever nhbc were beginning to do with kingspan they were concerned that they would not accept

00:17:42 accept rs 5000 above 18 meters for any project yes i think um at the time the solatex rs 5000 was launched

00:17:55 was the turning moment for building control

00:18:00 control to um get a real grasp as to what they've been signing off previously when you say building control who do you mean

00:18:09 mean um generally building control all building control right so does that take us up to the bca building control alliance yes what about the labc yes

00:18:20 the labc yes them as well and how does the nhbc fit into that definition of building control well does it uh yes um in my view it forms part of part of one of those bodies that reports

00:18:32 part of one of those bodies that reports into the bca unless i'm mistaken yes i see now you say uh that it was at the time of the launch of rs 5000

00:18:41 rs 5000 that this was triggered why was that um i don't know to be honest with you i really don't know i i don't know whether the

00:18:51 the um skepticism around the presentation um to the nhbc prompted them to

00:19:02 to the nhbc prompted them to take a look at combustible insulation in external cladding systems a little bit more closely or whether that was

00:19:11 that was a concern that they had before they even came to the meeting i don't know right did you get the impression at the time that the entry of rs 5000 as a purportedly new product to compete for the first time with

00:19:23 to compete for the first time with kingspan k15 was as it were a kick to a sleeping dog yes can we look at cel 401030

00:19:36 cel 401030 please this isn't an email uh to you uh or it certainly looks like an email it may not have been an email can you

00:19:47 it may not have been an email can you tell us what this is yes i think this was it's a letter that was emailed across to myself and solitus as a business following their

00:19:58 following their visit and and the concerns that they'd raised with the with the uh the test details yes and um you can see that it's signed

00:20:09 yes and um you can see that it's signed on page if you look at page two by dave white who was a senior technical officer nhbc standards and technical and he was the same dave white who had come to visit you i think

00:20:20 come to visit you i think in hadley on the 19th of june 2014. that's right and if we look at the fourth paragraph on page one please

00:20:31 you can see that he says there

00:20:37 uh when you attended our initial meetings to discuss the type testing that nhbc normally accepts as proof of performance etc etc uh i took time to explain that any test specimen would need to represent as much

00:20:49 specimen would need to represent as much as practically possible the typical construction buildup used for external facades in terms of fire resistance these were wall types built to form the external envelopes of typical steel or concrete framed buildings

00:21:02 or concrete framed buildings with light gauge steel and filled stud walling i recommended that any construction submitted for testing should include substrate build up and a rain screen cladding envelope that would be typically found on multi-story building

00:21:14 typically found on multi-story building facades

00:21:17 facades had the nhbc explained that to you before

00:21:20 before the may test or after the may test um i'm not sure to be honest with you it looks from this and tell me if this is wrong that he he when he says he took time to explain

00:21:33 he when he says he took time to explain that that was at the meeting in june 2014

00:21:37 2014 in other words after the may test is that right or is that wrong um i don't recall having any conversations with the nhvc

00:21:49 any conversations with the nhvc prior to the tests that led them to explain what what is explained there in that detail i think from recollection i i

00:22:00 i think from recollection i i emailed graeme perrier quite often to see what they were after and how they were

00:22:04 were approving kingspan in in use with various cladding systems but as we've seen from

00:22:13 seen from the previous documentary evidence i didn't really get a clear response right

00:22:19 right can you just go then to the top of the next page

00:22:24 and he says that at our previous meetings in bold i took care when explaining the limitations in testing fire performance of any wall type where the key details were not representative of typical actual facade

00:22:35 representative of typical actual facade systems

00:22:37 systems this included some constructive feedback on your initial prototype drawings now just pausing there what meetings is he referring to do you think um i'm not sure because we know there

00:22:48 um i'm not sure because we know there was one on the 19th of june 2014 at hadley

00:22:51 hadley were there any other meetings that you'd had with mr white i don't believe i had met dave white until he came to hadley right what about graham perry or

00:23:02 hadley right what about graham perry or yes i think i met with graham i'm sure i did

00:23:05 did on the same occasion on the same occasion but maybe i met with graham previously i don't know right would you about graham perry or before the may test do you think um i can't say for sure right

00:23:18 um i can't say for sure right is it correct that at previous meetings in the plural mr white took care to explain the limitations in testing fire performance where the key details were not representative of typical actual facade systems

00:23:30 typical actual facade systems he um did raise an issue and i can't recall whether it was at the june meeting or if i met with him previously then um

00:23:41 that the the build-up needed to be representative and i think my challenge to the nhbc then was

00:23:51 then was you're approving a product in application that has been tested with a unrepresentative test yes

00:24:03 test yes and then he goes on to say um in the next paragraph however in looking more positively at the data contained in the bre report 295 369 i would have the following comment the information in this report is

00:24:14 the information in this report is potentially very useful to a fire engineer

00:24:16 engineer i.e it can provide the required input for a suitably fire engineered facade assessment wherever the building envelope design and specification may include these particular key wall elements for high-rise elevations

00:24:27 high-rise elevations when you read that you must have realized that dave white was on the wrong track because of course the bre report that he refers to did not include any reference to the six millimeter magnesium oxide or the eight millimeter malia turret

00:24:39 or the eight millimeter malia turret natura overboards that's right yes so a fire engineer wouldn't be able actually

00:24:44 actually to make on it make full proper use of of the bre report because it didn't contain those critical details correct and i take it that you never went back to mr white and told him that uh no i didn't i think um

00:24:58 uh no i didn't i think um at the time of the email um and that was one of my last involvements with the nhbc and one of my last um

00:25:07 last um few days as product manager with celetex and that's because you moved a few days later into sales okay and debbie berger took over great yeah okay

00:25:16 yeah okay um now a few days before this uh on the 23rd of september 2014 i think you'd sent a document to debbie berger

00:25:27 you'd sent a document to debbie berger for the purposes of carrying out a handover meeting with her yes can we look at ceo401025 please

00:25:40 and uh this is a a a word document i think entitled celetex rs 5000. did you draft this document i believe i did yes

00:25:51 draft this document i believe i did yes and uh you give her an overview is was this for her eyes only or intended for her but not wider circulation um no i don't i think it was just for for the purposes of of handing over the

00:26:03 for the purposes of of handing over the product i don't think i saw any issue with debbie sharing it with anybody else did paul evans help you draft this or or approve it um quite possibly i don't know i can't say

00:26:14 quite possibly i don't know i can't say i can't say for sure

00:26:17 uh you give her an overview in the first paragraph

00:26:22 and in the last paragraph on that page under testing you say in the third line that's where i think we can pick it up malia turn it and trespa cladding seemed

00:26:33 malia turn it and trespa cladding seemed to consistently occur as the two most recognized brands although acms were found to be growing in popularity kingspan's k15 bba highlights how they have approached testing to bs8414 part one

00:26:45 testing to bs8414 part one using a six millimeter cement particle board as the outer face sorry we haven't got that on our screen i don't know whether you have him i'm sorry i'm really happy sorry about that right

00:26:58 sorry about that right i'll i'll start again third line malia turn it and trespa cladding seemed to consistently occur as the two most recognized brands although acms were found to be growing in popularity

00:27:09 in popularity kingspan's k-15 bba highlights how they have approached testing to bs-8414 part one using a six millimeter cement particle board as the outer face using cp boards as the external cladding

00:27:20 using cp boards as the external cladding panel will prevent fire entering the cavity

00:27:23 cavity and it's no surprise that they have achieved a pass with this construction current market intel suggests kingspan have tested to bs 8414 part 2 and it's imperative that we find out how to support rs argumentation

00:27:35 to support rs argumentation and conversations with dave white at nhbc discussions are ongoing between celetex

00:27:40 celetex and nhbc with regards to our test report did you have a conversation with debbie berger

00:27:47 berger about this subject on the handover about the nhpc yes yes you did did you tell debbie berger that

00:27:59 did you tell debbie berger that there was in the test there were six millimeters of magnesium oxide and eight millimeters of malia turn it natura

00:28:06 natura uh the level two thermocouple and the top of the rig i can't say for sure whether i told um debbie but at the very

00:28:18 debbie but at the very uh minimum i think i would have suggested to debbie that she spoke to paul and

00:28:23 paul and jamie regarding those test details i obviously couldn't put it in black and white um but i think i prompted a conversation between debbie and paul and jamie

00:28:36 between debbie and paul and jamie nonetheless the message i think that you're giving her uh is uh first of all that kingspan have tested to bs 8414 part two and you needed to find out how that it

00:28:48 and you needed to find out how that it how that was and secondly you needed to argue your case with the nhbc is this right that just because they had passed um that test uh the nhbc

00:28:59 um that test uh the nhbc should be accepting celetex's pass correct

00:29:03 correct yes yes and if we turn to the top of page two in this document

00:29:10 you say depending on the conclusion of nhbc's view we may be required to re-test to be accepted for nhbc products now we we know that there was no retest

00:29:21 no retest are you able to tell us why there wasn't in the end any re-test of rs-5000 um mainly because of costs i would suggest right so so far as your concern was the

00:29:33 right so so far as your concern was the decision taken not to incur the cost of the retest but to wait and see how things turned out correct yes

00:29:44 can we go to cel403599 please

00:29:55 can we go to cel403599 please this is an email that you sent to jamie hayes and paul evans and others uh uh including debbie berger on the 26th of march 2015.

00:30:06 on the 26th of march 2015. and it's a long email i won't read it all to you but if we can look at the third paragraph

00:30:18 you say there the note below also assumes that nabc and private building inspectors equally do not have the same reservations over adb compliance as nhbc but the recent publication from the bca

00:30:30 but the recent publication from the bca would indicate that it is only a matter of time before they are brought up to speed with the issues surrounding combustible insulation we could therefore be in a similar position with buildings that are warranted by somebody other than nhbc

00:30:43 warranted by somebody other than nhbc when you said it was only a matter of time before they are brought up to speed with the issues surrounding combustible insulation what did you think at that time nhbc would do

00:30:54 time nhbc would do um at that time generally i thought that it seemed inconceivable that building control

00:31:06 inconceivable that building control were signing off buildings with combustible insulation based on the tests that kingsman had carried out um and as i said i think at the same

00:31:17 um and as i said i think at the same time that

00:31:18 time that rs 5000 was launched nhbc were giving a considerable more

00:31:30 considerable more uh bigger focus i should say a bigger focus on combustible insulation and and the approvals that surround that right was your view at the time

00:31:42 right was your view at the time that the nhbc would get tougher on kingspan

00:31:45 kingspan k15 or that they would become slacker easier on rs 5000 no i think um what was clear from that time was that nhbc were

00:31:59 that time was that nhbc were considering approvals in a lot more detail and i could only see that going one way which was that they would look at kingsman's original test and start to question how buildings had

00:32:12 and start to question how buildings had been signed off previous to previous to that right now after debbie berger had taken over from you at the beginning of october 2014

00:32:23 2014 in fact some time later do you remember that the nhbc produced updated guidance i do yes

00:32:28 i do yes uh do you remember that it was in fact issued in june 2016. yes i've seen that can we go to

00:32:40 ceo401169 now i appreciate that i think you'd left celetex by the time of this document which was july 2016.

00:32:49 2016. that's right isn't it i think yes things are yeah um but nonetheless i want to see whether there's anything in it you can help us with if you look at the bottom right hand

00:32:57 hand corner of the document on page one we need to scroll down to the bottom of the page

00:33:04 the page you'll see there's a title common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc and it says the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhpc without the need to provide an option three assessment

00:33:16 to provide an option three assessment providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set out in the following appendices appendix one brickwork facade appendix two timber paneling and appendix three aluminium composite

00:33:29 and appendix three aluminium composite panels

00:33:31 panels uh did you ever see this document even in a draft form or an earlier version

00:33:39 version while you were at celetex um not while i was at celestex no i think i saw this when it had been issued right do you have any idea why nhbc

00:33:50 right do you have any idea why nhbc had gone in the course of approximately 18 months or so from expressing the concerns that we've seen and you've told us about to approving the use of rs 5000 in these

00:34:01 to approving the use of rs 5000 in these three types of build up including aluminium composite panels no i don't and at the time when i saw this document it surprised me because as i've just said

00:34:12 said i think if anything that they were building control generally were going to become

00:34:16 become more stringent on the regulations on the external wall buildups of facades and to see common wall and facade types accepted by an hbc

00:34:27 accepted by an hbc with appendix 3 in particular and aluminium composite panels next to that um that was a big surprise to me yes thank you apart from you

00:34:40 yes thank you apart from you were you aware of anybody else at celetex who was in touch with nhbc during the period from september 2014 until july 2016. i would imagine that remained within

00:34:51 i would imagine that remained within product management so that would have been debbie and paul i would imagine right i'd like to turn next to the topic of the labc uh and labc approval for celetex rs 5000.

00:35:02 5000. it's right i think isn't it that labc approval

00:35:05 approval and registration was was a significant bene benefit for seller texas rf 5000 product they saw it yeah uh celtics viewed that approval um

00:35:16 celtics viewed that approval um equally as important i would suggest yes i think you your view of the times that it accounted for 75

00:35:22 for 75 of the market yes but that would have been

00:35:25 been very much an estimate yes of course was it you

00:35:28 it you had responsibility initially for obtaining labc approval um yes it was one of my tasks yes now let's look at cel 50716

00:35:40 now let's look at cel 50716 this was your long email of the 1st of november 2013 to paul evans that we looked at in some detail yesterday and if we look halfway or perhaps two

00:35:51 and if we look halfway or perhaps two thirds of the way down the page you'll see that there's a paragraph um starting an architect will be told which we i think read yesterday

00:36:02 we i think read yesterday you can see it there on the p on the screen in front of you

00:36:07 and about halfway down that paragraph just below halfway down you can see you say kingspan i would suggest can you see that yes yeah you say kingspan i would suggest do not have a piece of paper

00:36:19 suggest do not have a piece of paper that states that they can specifically be used

00:36:21 be used behind any cladding panel what they have done is got bba certification stating that the fire test method and taken that to nabc to get a registered document detail which states that k-15 can be used in a

00:36:32 which states that k-15 can be used in a variety of cladding systems and complies with adb through passing br-135

00:36:38 br-135 a building control officer is unlikely to challenge a document that is approved from the head of building control now as we've discussed already between us

00:36:47 us this email suggests that your view at the time was that the market wasn't particularly knowledgeable about the regulatory requirements for use of insulation above 18 meters

00:36:58 for use of insulation above 18 meters yeah there was a great deal of ambiguity about

00:37:03 about how it could be that one test had been extrapolated into so many other different systems and the only person knowledgeable enough to challenge the compliance of rs 5000 on a building

00:37:16 the compliance of rs 5000 on a building above 18 meters was the building control officer um as well as specifiers and contractors and subcontractors as well as specifiers and contractors

00:37:28 as well as specifiers and contractors and subcontractors those who happen to have the relevant skills yes yes and those those people particularly the building control officer would know

00:37:40 the building control officer would know that a bs8414 test was a system test which would limit the prod

00:37:45 the prod the product's field of application is that right yeah well that's um as i've said that's how

00:37:53 how myself and a couple of others in celetex viewed

00:37:56 viewed that um piece of approved document be yes it wasn't clear whether the market viewed it in that way no but your

00:38:07 your solution i think is this right was that that um

00:38:10 that um dispute or ambiguity could be avoided or at least minimized by having an labc certificate saying that rs 5000 could be used in a variety of systems yeah i think it

00:38:21 in a variety of systems yeah i think it was reviewed at the very outset in terms of um i think we saw the slides yesterday in terms of options and launch with bba and labc and launch without

00:38:32 without labc what was clear from the labc registered detail that was in place for um kingsman k15 was that it seemed to

00:38:44 um expand beyond just one system yeah and in going for or proclaiming the benefits of an labc certificate you are essentially following kingspan's approach or wanting

00:38:56 following kingspan's approach or wanting to

00:38:56 to correct yes can we look at ceo four zeros

00:38:59 zeros i'm so sorry five zero seven three five please

00:39:05 now we've looked at this email chain before but i want to go to page four in it please

00:39:19 and we looked i think at the uh first and second paragraphs in our discussions yesterday about the bre's position can i

00:39:30 bre's position can i just focus on the last sentence of this email

00:39:34 email where you say i've also got labc involved to issue a report stating celetex can be used behind a variety of systems

00:39:41 systems above 18 meters to prevent any challenge from building control

00:39:50 now the the date of this email is november 2013 if we go to the top of the bottom of page three you can see that it's an email you sent to simcoe on the 8th of november 2013.

00:40:05 to simcoe on the 8th of november 2013. is it right that as early as that celetex was intending to obtain an labc certificate in order to support its claims that rs 5000 was suitable in a variety of systems yeah it was as early as um probably that

00:40:17 yeah it was as early as um probably that meeting on the 4th of november right and your express reason for doing that was to prevent any challenge from building control that's what they wanted to do yes yes

00:40:30 and historically yeah i think you'd had some discussions in late 2013 with the labc and and also in january 2014.

00:40:41 and and also in january 2014. is that right yes it is that was ahead of the first test in february 2014. yes if we go to ceo50939 please i'd like to go to the bottom of page

00:40:53 i'd like to go to the bottom of page three in that email run

00:40:58 this is an email from david ewing to you of the second of january 2014 the subject of which was celetex registered detail application

00:41:09 registered detail application and uh he says hi john trust you had a good christmas uh etc and then in the third line as we discussed at our last meeting acceptability is determined by the associated product specification in

00:41:21 associated product specification in combination including cavity barriers please just ask if i can assist with anything else in relation to your registered detail application now he refers to our last meeting do you

00:41:32 now he refers to our last meeting do you remember when that was uh not specifically no i think um david may have

00:41:39 may have um visited celetex's offices once upon a time

00:41:46 did you discuss at that meeting do you remember about how labc would go about determining if a material was acceptable for use above 18 meters yes yeah my room it was to understand

00:41:57 it was to understand um what labc required

00:42:04 and uh did you specifically ask him at that stage about the basis on which kingspan had obtained an labc registered detail yes what did he tell you um he gave me a list of documents that

00:42:18 um he gave me a list of documents that they'd obviously

00:42:22 put into labc back in whenever their registered detail was formed [Music]

00:42:28 [Music] um and

00:42:30 um and yes that was that was the basis of them issuing that and if we look at the bottom of page uh three he says after his kind regards david he says firstly from the bba certificate and if

00:42:42 firstly from the bba certificate and if we can turn the page to page four at the top of page four you've got an extract there

00:42:50 you see that yes i do yeah and it says it's quite lengthy it's section seven the following fire tests have been undertaken to bs eight four one four part one two thousand and two

00:43:01 part one two thousand and two and then you can see uh what is set out there

00:43:06 uh and then there is uh

00:43:13 is uh as a final line of that excerpt i think you can see uh that it says this is under section 7.2 the product is classified as class

00:43:24 classified as class naught

00:43:27 naught and can be used in accordance with the provisions of approved document b including paragraphs 12.5 and 12.6 you see that

00:43:37 see that yes uh and then he sets out

00:43:43 uh an extract from kingspan and then at the bottom of the page from our internal assessment and if you go over the page to page five we can see that he's set out there the extract from

00:43:54 out there the extract from nabc's assessment of k-15 and he says k-15 has been attacked and tested in accordance with 8414 part one

00:44:05 tested in accordance with 8414 part one and then bsen 1364 and then bs 476 part 6. you see that yes for our tests on building materials and structures

00:44:17 building materials and structures and that's fire propagation and then bs 74476 part 7 which is surface spread of flame and then he says from the results it can be considered that as a material

00:44:29 it can be considered that as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame

00:44:36 flame now when you read that you must have appreciated that k15 was not a material of limited combustibility as mr ewing was saying that's right yes did you

00:44:46 did you did it occur to you to ask mr ewing of that abc how it was that he could think

00:44:52 think that because k15 had passed an 8414 test and the class naught test 476 and 4767 he could possibly have concluded that k15 was a material of limited

00:45:03 k15 was a material of limited combustibility i didn't ask him that i did consult internally on that matter and i can recall

00:45:10 recall that conversation i can't remember whether it was with paul or with rob and i raised this as if to say is this right because i was still although i feel like

00:45:21 i was still although i feel like i've got a fairly good understanding of the differences between classo and combustibility um i wanted to double check that i hadn't misinterpreted the regulations

00:45:32 i hadn't misinterpreted the regulations um

00:45:34 um and the view was that that's obviously how

00:45:37 how the labc even interpreted it albeit in solitude's view that's incorrect yes well he goes on to say essentially as the board is described as class naught it can be termed a material of limited combustibility

00:45:48 combustibility and so in terms of the relevant part of document b it's suitable for use within the wall construction even at heights over 18 meters now did that strike you as the tie at the time as just plain wrong

00:45:59 the time as just plain wrong yes and that's why that's why i went elsewhere were you not troubled by the fact that la the labc thought that kingspan k15 was a material of limited combustibility

00:46:10 of limited combustibility based on tests which had absolutely nothing to do with limiting combustibility i suspected at the time that

00:46:19 the labc hadn't even seen kingsman's 8414

00:46:24 8414 that report that may well be the case but just on what he was saying and setting out in detail in this email were you not concerned that the labc had confused class naught

00:46:39 that the labc had confused class naught with limited combustibility at a pretty fundamental level yes did you go back to mr ewing and tell him he made a fundamental mistake no i didn't why is that because

00:46:50 no i didn't why is that because i think it was viewed as advantageous not two indeed and is that because rs 5000

00:46:58 5000 whatever else it did or didn't have did have a class naught yes i did yeah and therefore you thought is this right that you might be able to get an labc certificate for use above 18 meters

00:47:11 certificate for use above 18 meters simply based on the fact that it had class naught i think celotex's view was that

00:47:16 that they wanted a registered detail to replicate exactly what k15 had and take advantage of labc's apparent ignorance

00:47:26 ignorance it seems that why yes yeah

00:47:31 if we go up the email chain to page two it's the bottom of page two and the top of page three we can see that you respond to him the next day

00:47:44 next day uh and you say to him in the first paragraph that's main paragraph thanks for coming back to me all looks fairly straightforward and we are confident that we can equally prove the local research authority that our product is also classified as class

00:47:55 product is also classified as class naught

00:47:55 naught and over the page once complete have tested and passed to bs8414 satisfying adb

00:48:03 i note the reference point below has been kingspan's bba certificate as discussed previously we're not going to pursue this route to begin with but we'll be able to provide the to the research authority the details and pass criteria of bsa414

00:48:15 and pass criteria of bsa414 in the way of documentation from the bre themselves will this cause any issues do you think

00:48:20 you think it's clear from from that that you had is this right you decided not to challenge him on his misunderstanding and conflation of class not with limited combustibility but to go along with it and capitalize

00:48:31 but to go along with it and capitalize on that i was told not to raise that issue

00:48:36 issue well it's more than that isn't it actually we're looking to take advantage of it

00:48:40 of it in other words to reinforce his misunderstanding so as to be able to to obtain an labc registration for rs 5000

00:48:47 5000 yes yes yes yes

00:48:58 now your next email to mr communication with mr ewing doesn't come till may 2014 if we look at the bottom of page one in this email string

00:49:12 you to you to mr ewing 15th may 2014 the first main paragraph apologies for the long delay in caps coming back to you on progressing with the registered detail

00:49:23 detail for compliance to adb we've had some issues with testing time scales and the bre which put the project on hold for a few months however i'm pleased to say that we've successfully passed br 135 testing and

00:49:34 successfully passed br 135 testing and would therefore like to pick up from where we left on or left off i think i should say and agree on how we can promptly start work towards a registered detail did you

00:49:48 well it's right isn't it that in fact the delay was due to the the fact that in the intervening months celetex had actually undergone a first test in february 2014 which had failed correct yes so

00:49:59 2014 which had failed correct yes so the long delay was not attributable to testing timetables but actually to the fact that there was a test which had failed yes and then to tell you that email there um is the day after

00:50:11 email there um is the day after i received instruction not to uh make any reference to a failed first test or

00:50:18 test or six mill magnesium oxide altogether i was going to ask you whether th this response had come hard on the heels of the 13th and 14th of may mag meeting that you're telling

00:50:30 of may mag meeting that you're telling me that it did yes and it reflects what you were told should paul evans tell you to write this email in this way or just give you the general instruction just don't refer to the failed test just a general instruction right and i

00:50:42 just a general instruction right and i take it that you never did disclose the failed test to the labc

00:50:52 and at the bottom of the email you say is tim at west suffolk still geared up to undertake the research work is that tim bartlett i believe so yeah wes

00:51:01 wes of west suffolk building control yes did you know him um no i think that's who david had mentioned

00:51:08 mentioned would be undertaking i think the labc works in the national office but they um outsource the approvals to the local authority i

00:51:20 approvals to the local authority i believe

00:51:23 believe what did you understand the process of assessment to involve

00:51:28 sending across the test sending across the class o reports um sending across the marketing literature i believe right did you send him the

00:51:40 i believe right did you send him the full bre test report um well you didn't have it at this stage but did you later send it to him

00:51:46 him i believe they were they were in receipt of the full test report now let's go to cel40 is 1995.

00:51:59 this is an email of the 17th of june 2014 from you to tim bartlett at west suffolk copy to david ewing subject celetex rs 5000 data

00:52:12 subject celetex rs 5000 data and is it right that attached to this email

00:52:17 email was the fr 5000 class naughts classification report which was then reissued for rs 5000 yes i believe at the time it hadn't been

00:52:28 yes i believe at the time it hadn't been reissued for right rs5000 now we don't see in the attachments the underlying bsa bs 476 reports is that right that you didn't

00:52:41 reports is that right that you didn't send him the underlying test reports um i don't know i can't say for sure

00:52:46 for sure just the classification report was that was there a difference between the two is there well there's a test report and a classification report and we can't see the test reports being

00:52:58 and we can't see the test reports being sent only the classification report okay we can look at the documents if you need if we need to look at it no no that's fine

00:53:03 fine um now um

00:53:07 um now um is there a reason why only the classification report but not the test reports were sent um no i i don't believe so now uh you say there uh in the

00:53:20 now uh you say there uh in the fourth paragraph down i as discussed our aim is to provide you with support materials to develop a detail which entails the following celestex rs 5000 can be used with a

00:53:31 celestex rs 5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems including masonry or rain screen systems and can be fixed back to structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct

00:53:40 direct back to masonry the product as per k-15s rd is suitable for use in all wind exposures

00:53:47 exposures provided the fixing spec meets the relevant british standards celetex rs-5000 has successfully tested to 8414 part 2 2005 meets the criteria set out in br135 and

00:54:00 meets the criteria set out in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height brackets subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate brackets alternative compliance to adb

00:54:13 brackets alternative compliance to adb the product has class naught fire performance and then you go on we are in the process in the last paragraph we are on the process of getting a revised class naught's report to state rs 5000 rather than fr 5000

00:54:25 rs 5000 rather than fr 5000 and will fall on the draft of the official test report once received but the holding letter indicates an official classification is on its way now i've read that all to you in full um for a reason which we're going to come

00:54:37 for a reason which we're going to come to

00:54:42 but is it right that in describing the product in this way in this email you were trying to achieve precisely what kingspan had achieved with their labc registered detail yes that's right hence the use in the

00:54:54 yes that's right hence the use in the second bullet and the third bullet point there

00:54:57 there of the and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height correct yeah i believe from memory the finalized

00:55:06 finalized registered detail for celestex rs 5000 was near enough a mirror image of kingsman

00:55:12 kingsman k15 and we saw yesterday that that language you had taken directly from kingspan's data sheet of march 2011. yes that's cel408510 yes

00:55:24 that's cel408510 yes uh and it was of course untrue wasn't it that rs 5000 could be used with a variety of cladding systems yes yes

00:55:35 yes yes and again same point that you you were giving wording to the labc that you accepted yesterday was uh untrue and misleading namely that because the system had passed an a414 test it could therefore

00:55:47 passed an a414 test it could therefore be

00:55:48 be used in buildings generally over 18 meters

00:55:51 meters yeah that's as i said yesterday that third bullet point there is um exactly the message that celetex wanted to convey yeah but it but

00:56:02 celetex wanted to convey yeah but it but over and above putting that message to be conveyed in sales literature you are now wanting the labc to put it into its own certificate as i had done for for kingsman as they had within kingspan

00:56:15 for kingsman as they had within kingspan but yes is the answer to my question yes yes so that instead of it simply now being in in what might be dismissed as just sales talk this was actually now going to go into an official looking document

00:56:26 an official looking document which would have profound influence on the way building control officers might regard the use of rs 5000 above 18 meters is that right yes

00:56:38 now you obtained labc approval in august 2014

00:56:42 2014 is that right initial approval at beast i believe so yes um let's look at uh what was issued in that month cel 709 please

00:56:55 this is the labc registered details drawing and document list

00:57:05 which was issued and it looks as if it came in

00:57:09 came in to you on the 29th of august 2014 but might have come in earlier than that do you think i don't know um look at limitations of use

00:57:20 look at limitations of use to start with it says for use in rain screen wall construction including above 18 meters height the required thickness of board for a particular construction must be established with the use of celetex online calculator

00:57:34 and then it goes on celatex rs 5000

00:57:42 can be used with a variety of clatting systems

00:57:46 systems including masonry or rainscreen systems and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry celetex rs 5000 has successfully tested to bs 8414

00:57:57 5000 has successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 2005 meets the criteria set out in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height

00:58:06 in height brackets subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate brackets alternative compliance to adb the product has been tested and achieves a class

00:58:16 a class naught spread of flame now that quote is taken exactly from the wording that you had suggested in your

00:58:27 wording that you had suggested in your 17th of june email to the labc which we've looked at in fact is do you accept that it's a cut and paste

00:58:35 and paste uh yes and i think it even includes the spaces before uh and after the bracket

00:58:42 bracket doesn't it i hadn't noticed that before no but yes

00:58:48 yes do you can you account for how it comes about that the labc had simply lifted your text from your 17th of june email at ceo401995 page one

00:59:02 at ceo401995 page one and put it into a formal document like this

00:59:06 this um no because this was the i think this was the first labc approval that

00:59:13 that um myself or celestex had been involved with

00:59:16 with so usually the wording comes from the the approval body rather

00:59:27 comes from the the approval body rather than the

00:59:30 manufacturer yes really what i was asking you was do can you explain how it came about that the labc appears simply to have cut to have cut and pasted your message in your 17th of june email and and

00:59:43 in your 17th of june email and and planted it into this registered detail document

00:59:46 document oh i don't know um when you saw this document at the end of august 2014 14 did you notice that that is what they appear to have done i would have looked

00:59:57 appear to have done i would have looked at the registered detail and discuss that and that's exactly what the business wanted well that was my next question is it right that

01:00:08 it right that that the labc certificate was as untrue and as misleading as the language that you had put into your email of the 17th of june

01:00:15 of june yes and that celetex had intended that to be the case as a way of avoiding being challenged by building control officers down the track i believe so yes yeah

01:00:25 and at the very least by failing to ensure that this document reflected the fact that br 135 approval is only for the system tested celetex ran the risk of misleading customers

01:00:36 misleading customers yes and misleading building control officers yes and that was intentional deliberate and dishonest

01:00:45 dishonest i believe so yes did you know that this was the labc certificate that was sent by

01:00:51 by jonathan roon to harley in late august 2014 for use in the grenfell tower project

01:00:57 project no i didn't know that would it surprise does it surprise you to discover that it was um

01:01:06 no it doesn't it's also the same labc certificate that john hoban the building control officer at granville tower

01:01:17 granville tower says that he examined to the best of his recollection again are you surprised that a building control officer would look at this document

01:01:25 document and read it as it says and be misled by it

01:01:28 it i'm not surprised now

01:01:34 now if we go to cel cel401017

01:01:53 now if we go to cel cel401017 this is an email and i'm looking at the second one on the page from you to the sales teams on the 29th of august 2014 to which you attach the labc registered detail

01:02:04 attach the labc registered detail certificates for celetex rs 5000 and and do we take it from that that that attachment that that you referred to was the labc

01:02:15 that you referred to was the labc registered detail document we've just been looking at yes i believe so yes and then you say at the bottom of the page these certificates confirm that celetex rs 5000 is applicable for use in range screen

01:02:27 is applicable for use in range screen cladding applications below and above 18 meters in height it confirms that we have successfully tested to 8414 part 2 2005 meets the criteria set out in br135 and

01:02:38 meets the criteria set out in br135 and is therefore applicable for buildings with a story height greater than 18 meters did you intend that passage to be a misleading sales message to the sales team to

01:02:49 sales message to the sales team to double down as it were on the labc certificates contents um it was it was a message that they had already

01:02:56 already received from the the launch and was consistent with the message that the business wanted to wanted to convey to not only their own sales team

01:03:07 sales team but the the general market i would suggest yeah

01:03:14 and if you go to the top of page 2 please you can see it says labc are currently in the process of changing the format of their certificates and these are likely to be issued to us in the next couple of weeks in the

01:03:26 in the next couple of weeks in the meantime please use the existing certificates i recommend using the labc drawing and document list rd 491 to issue to customers and specifiers as this contains more detail around the subject matter but both certificates can

01:03:37 subject matter but both certificates can be issued and will be live on labs bc's website within the next two weeks so here we see you specifically telling the uh

01:03:45 the uh mailing lists for the sales teams to send out these registered details that we've just looked at to potential clients that's right isn't it yes

01:03:54 it yes notwithstanding that you knew that it was a misleading document i knew that yes you knew that and and again that was deliberate and dishonest on your part yes yes and did paul evans know about

01:04:05 yes yes and did paul evans know about that

01:04:06 that yes how did he know about that because he was copied into that email and i think earlier the chain there's a response from him on that indeed and if we go to the top of that

01:04:17 indeed and if we go to the top of that chain page one paul evans's response to you was outstanding well done now just the nhbc please double exclamation mark what did

01:04:28 please double exclamation mark what did you understand him to mean by now just the nhbc please um so this was uh during my time as as product manager he was still pushing me for nhbc

01:04:39 me for nhbc approval if such a thing existed and was to your understanding did you understand paul evans to be asking you to take the same approach with the nhbc that we've just seen that you took with

01:04:51 that we've just seen that you took with the labc

01:04:52 the labc yes mr ripper thank you very much uh i have no further questions of my own to ask you

01:04:57 ask you but there may be some further questions which on looking back at my notes and they have or may come from others so mr chairman is that a convenient moment for the break well i think it probably is isn't it yes um just since you understand mr redford

01:05:09 um just since you understand mr redford when council's reached the end of the questions he thinks he needs to ask he needs a little bit of time just to check nothing's missing but we also have to

01:05:17 to allow the possibility that others who are not physically present may want him to put questions to you so we have a break which will combine with our morning break at this point

01:05:28 morning break at this point um so we'll come back at uh 25 past 11 please and we'll see if there are any further questions for you then okay and uh in the meantime you go the

01:05:39 okay and uh in the meantime you go the usher and of course not talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it that's fine all right thank you very much

01:05:55 thank you very much 25 fast aluminum please thank you

01:29:47 good would you ask mr rover to come back in please okay

01:30:01 hey mr rayford we'll see if there are any more questions for you mr millet how are we mr chairman uh a few not very many um the first is a really an observation i should make uh i put i asked you some questions this

01:30:12 uh i put i asked you some questions this morning

01:30:13 morning about a bre video on the premise that there wasn't one in fact i'm told that there was a bre video it was disclosed to the inquiry very late on right and so there was one is anything does that fact alter the any

01:30:25 is anything does that fact alter the any of the evidence that you've given this morning

01:30:28 morning um no i think i think i've seen a bre video but i thought it was of the first test but maybe there was one of the the second test i apologize for that right but you've never you never saw it yourself um

01:30:41 you never saw it yourself um i can't i can't recall you can't recall right do you know whether anybody else within celetex saw the video

01:30:49 the video um it must have been stored somewhere but i don't know who who would have viewed that um next i've got some questions from the labc which is

01:31:00 labc which is is this can you um do you recall that the certificate we looked at before the one that came in august was then replaced later on in 2014.

01:31:11 was then replaced later on in 2014. no you don't remember that no let's have a look at cel

01:31:21 402021 please

01:31:29 this is an email uh if we look at page two please on that email run

01:31:37 from sam lee to you third of november 2014

01:31:42 and sam lee says to you that there are several important changes made to your registration with us and under new certificates he says that the new registration certificate has been created for your system

01:31:54 has been created for your system straight solution providing your clients with the more detailed information about your products and the scope of your registration the copy of the certificate is attached to this email so that same new new ones came in then do you remember receiving

01:32:05 came in then do you remember receiving new changed labc labc certificates no i don't let's have a look at labc301776 please and see if that rig is a recollection

01:32:22 that's the same document as i've been just been looking at if you uh look at we can stay with this look at the bottom of page one if we go

01:32:33 look at the bottom of page one if we go back if you look at the bottom of page one of

01:32:37 one of the email run itself that's we should go back to cel double zero

01:32:44 zero two zero two one please bottom of page one of that

01:32:50 and you can see that you send an email to debbie berger 3rd of november 2014. debs for you please go back to labc and ask to take out any references that rs 5000 is the same product as fr 5000

01:33:04 5000 is the same product as fr 5000 and again was that because you wanted to mislead

01:33:07 mislead or celetex wanted to mislead people into thinking that uh rs 5000 was a new product um no i think it was because they clearly wanted to

01:33:18 clearly wanted to distinguish between the two and you can see that she suggests at the top of the page goes back to sam lee and suggests uh some paragraphs of text

01:33:30 and suggests uh some paragraphs of text to replace description of product secondly to replace first paragraph starting with celetex has provided test reports within scape of registration and then third paragraph starting with the product has class naught within

01:33:41 the product has class naught within scape of registration and and then if we go to cell four zeros eight six

01:33:48 eight six nine one please

01:33:53 this is an email run if we look at page two perhaps go to the bottom of page one um here is an email from debbie burger to assembly copy to you over the page to page two please

01:34:04 page two please we can see that she says hi sam i've just noticed the website is live with a certificate of fact sheet is it possible to limit visibility or better remove these until we've sorted out the wording

01:34:14 wording and on the page above that if we go back to page one we can see the labc response which comes from sam lee hi debbie i'm sorry for the delay and getting around to your emails no problem at all i'll check with my colleague who deals with

01:34:25 check with my colleague who deals with the website we can make your landing page not visible to members of the public i'll check with my manager to see if we can make the suggested changes in your attachment on the certificates and website um

01:34:38 certificates and website um now we can see you were copied into this entire email run do you remember that although new form certificates have been issued they weren't actually generally available until the wording was sorted out do you

01:34:50 until the wording was sorted out do you remember that um no i mean this is this is jogging my memory but um at the time i'd moved out with product management at that time and into area sales so

01:35:02 area sales so i may have quickly glanced at it right and uh do you remember when maybe you don't but do you remember when the wording was sorted out and the final version of the labc certificate

01:35:13 version of the labc certificate became live on the website their website no i don't does the date july 2015 or september

01:35:19 september 2015 ring any bell with you no no it doesn't

01:35:23 doesn't right um can i then turn to another question

01:35:39 which you'll have to give me a moment to find yes

01:35:42 find yes um now uh you uh said in your evidence this morning um at

01:35:49 at page 32 of the transcript uh lines 11 to 15

01:35:53 15 that you were told not to challenge mr ewing of the labc's conflation of class naught on the one hand with the concept of limited combustibility on the other

01:36:04 combustibility on the other who told you not to challenge labc on that point um i can't recall specifically but i know that that discussion around classo and the

01:36:14 and the perceived misunderstanding of classo and limited combustibility would have taken place with either rob or paul either rob or paul so that would be rob warren or paul evans yes yes okay thank you and

01:36:48 yes i think that's uh that's all i need to ask you um thank you very much uh mr roper i've got no further questions for you i need to cover mr chairman i have no further questions it only remains for me so thank you very

01:37:00 it only remains for me so thank you very much

01:37:01 much for coming to help us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you and for your evidence say mr roper thank you thank you well miss river it just remains for me to thank you on behalf of the panel for

01:37:12 thank you on behalf of the panel for your coming to give evidence i know it's taken rather longer than you expected i'm sorry about that but there were a lot of questions we had to ask you

01:37:20 you your evidence has been very helpful and we're very grateful to you for it and for the candor with which you've given it

01:37:26 it thank you very much and now you're free to go so if you'd like to go with the usher

01:37:30 usher she'll look after you thank you thank you

01:37:46 not only mr billy if we have another witness but i think we have to have a little break for housekeeping purposes don't we uh we do so

01:37:58 well as shorter times it takes to do what has to be done yes it's probably about 10 minutes if that's well you send someone we'll get us when you're ready thank you very much

01:47:52 no mr millet who's your next witness uh mr chairman i call mr paul evans thank you very much please

01:48:13 can i please ask you to read the witness affirmation text i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and

01:48:24 shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr evans good morning do sit down make yourself comfortable

01:48:47 yes mr miller mr chairman thank you mr evans good morning can i begin by thanking you very much for attending to give evidence today if you have difficulty under understanding my questions or you want

01:48:58 understanding my questions or you want me to put the question in a different way i can do that we will take scheduled breaks although i don't think we'll take a break before lunch time today okay we'll take schedule breaks in the afternoons and in the mornings if you feel you need

01:49:10 and in the mornings if you feel you need a break at any other point please just let me know okay could you also just please try to keep your voice up so that the person who sits to your right can get down everything you say onto the transcript i will also if you're nod and you shake

01:49:22 i will also if you're nod and you shake your head that doesn't come out on the transcript so say yes or no as the case may be if that's the answer okay uh now you've made two statements for the inquiry could i please take you to them you'll

01:49:33 could i please take you to them you'll have them in the folder on the desk in front of you but also on the screen in front of you and every document that i'm going to show you will appear on that screen as well

01:49:42 well okay the first statement is cel301058

01:49:50 and that is your first statement can you confirm that please yes that's correct uh and if you go to page 70 there's a signature above the date of the 31st of october

01:50:01 above the date of the 31st of october 2018.

01:50:02 2018. do you see that yes is that your signature it is have you read this witness statement recently i have and can you confirm that its contents are true yes the second witness statement is that

01:50:15 cel301023 if we can have that please is that the first page of your second witness statement

01:50:22 statement it is uh and uh if you go to page eight please you can see a signature and a date

01:50:27 date date of the 15th of june 2020 the signature above that is that your signature it is and again have you had a chance to read that statement again i have yes and can you confirm again that its contents are

01:50:39 you confirm again that its contents are true

01:50:39 true yes have you discussed your evidence that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here no now i want to ask you some questions first please about your background you joined celetex in 2007. yes as a

01:50:52 you joined celetex in 2007. yes as a product

01:50:52 product and you became a product manager there yes was this your first job in the construction industry it was yes and you graduated with a degree in business management and marketing didn't you yes

01:51:03 marketing didn't you yes so when you came to celetex is it right that you had no technical knowledge or experience i didn't of any kind

01:51:11 kind and if we go to your witness statement your first statement uh paragraph 10 on page four please if we can it's your first statement

01:51:22 you say there uh at the the bottom of page three at the top of page four

01:51:32 if we go to the bottom of page three you pick it up then you say at the very end that of that paragraph on that page naturally to be able to and go over to the top of page four market products i had of necessity to

01:51:44 market products i had of necessity to gain

01:51:45 gain some technical knowledge but the gaining of such knowledge was a gradual process over time which was not supported by any formal

01:51:51 formal training program peer-to-peer review or appraisal by a statutory director so clearly there was no formal training in place was there any informal training in place when i joined i would

01:52:03 training in place when i joined i would have

01:52:03 have had a induction program set out for me which would have encountered some time with the

01:52:11 with the celetex technical center so i would have been given an overview of the products and the applications in which they were used

01:52:17 used was there any technical or scientific explanation of the products how they performed under wind loading fire performance can't recall the exact detail was there

01:52:30 can't recall the exact detail was there no real oversight of your knowledge as you acquired it in other words no regular training sessions or no programs train training as uh as i gained more time in the business

01:52:41 uh as i gained more time in the business i learned as i as i spent more time right so really learning on the job yes right can we go to page 12 of your statement please paragraph 44

01:52:51 you say there under the title development and testing of rs 5000 and you in your last sentence it there

01:53:02 and you in your last sentence it there you say the scope of these and that's marketing slides also extended to market programs including new building regulations as well as brand evolution initiatives especially digital

01:53:13 initiatives especially digital strategies a new website and a new customer relationship system um does that mean when you refer to new building regulations you gave presentations about the building

01:53:24 presentations about the building regulations i didn't give building uh presentations on building regulations what i'm saying there is that part of the marketing activity would be when new building

01:53:35 activity would be when new building regulations were introduced primarily partel

01:53:39 partel that would have formed part of the workload of the marketing department i see so you would mark it based on the evolution of the building regulations as they happened there had been when the regulations

01:53:50 there had been when the regulations changed in 2010 there was some work done around promoting um the celetex's um role within building regulations for pyle right but to do that to do that

01:54:01 right but to do that to do that marketing function uh do we take it that there was no formal or even informal education given to you or anybody under you involved in marketing as to what the

01:54:12 you involved in marketing as to what the new regulations meant or how they worked no no formal training no right and again was that just looking at the regulations as they came in working out what they meant for yourself and adapting your marketing strategies around that

01:54:24 strategies around that yes uh alongside the team as well yeah can we look at ceo three zeroes one zero one five four and i'd like in that to go to the bottom of page seven please

01:54:37 to go to the bottom of page seven please this is the witness statement of jamie hayes

01:54:40 hayes of celetex at paragraph 22

01:54:47 and uh uh he says in the third line p.e was young when he that's you paul evans was young when he joined celetex and worked under ck

01:54:59 celetex and worked under ck that's chris king yes ck had a certain way of working that i would describe as aggressive that he had a reputation for taking shortcuts pe had no construction experiences and as far as i was aware he

01:55:11 experiences and as far as i was aware he picked everything he picked up everything he knew from ck effectively he was promoted to marketing director

01:55:17 director without a lot of experience and in practice was able to make decisions within celetex without any real checks or balances is it right to say that you picked up everything you knew from chris king

01:55:29 everything you knew from chris king the majority of my day-to-day training and learning about marketing and product management would have come through

01:55:36 through chris who was my line manager at the time yes right line manager was he also your mentor and role model um i wouldn't say role model or mentor then

01:55:47 i wouldn't say role model or mentor then uh yeah i spent a lot of time with chris learning about the the job would you agree with jamie hayes characterization of chris king's way of working

01:55:54 working that we see in that paragraph

01:56:00 i would say chris had a style i wouldn't describe that style as aggressive how would you describe it um he he was firm he was he knew um he had high expectations of people

01:56:12 people did his way of working influence your own

01:56:15 own style of working i don't think so but myself and chris are two totally different people so i wouldn't i wouldn't say that my style would have reflected chris's stuff

01:56:26 style would have reflected chris's stuff you became head of marketing i think in and from may 2013. is that right yes yeah and at that time did you become a member of the management action group or mag

01:56:37 management action group or mag i did and was that the senior management team

01:56:40 team it was was it was it the board of celetex or was there a difference between

01:56:47 between mag and the board when i joined um the mag the company had been acquired by sangaban

01:56:54 sangaban so i believe the reporting structure and different hierarchical structure would have been

01:56:58 have been different and i don't really understand or understood that prior to me being promoted to head of marketing

01:57:07 marketing the mag was the board to all tens and purposes

01:57:10 purposes i see was

01:57:14 i see was were there any was there anybody on the mag board

01:57:19 mag board at the time you joined it that was also on the main board of celetex there was members of the mag when i joined it that had been members of the mag prior to

01:57:33 had been members of the mag prior to the business being acquired by sangaban yes well there's not quite an answer to my question when you join the mag were the members of mag or were there any members of mag who were also members of

01:57:42 of celetex's main board i don't know you don't know right nonetheless is it right that the mag was the senior day-to-day decision-taking body within celetex

01:57:54 decision-taking body within celetex yes so right and it met monthly i think didn't it

01:57:58 didn't it it did and you became marketing director in october 2015 is that right and was that effectively the same role in the sense of the same responsibilities as you've heard before was there ever a

01:58:10 as you've heard before was there ever a time after you joined mag when you ceased to be a member of mag but before you left celetex no i was on the mag until i left celetex right

01:58:18 right uh and if we look at your statement please at page five let's look at paragraph 15

01:58:28 and in the third sentence there

01:58:32 this is in relation to your early employment with celetex um you say uh in the third sentence it became apparent to me that i was working for a business which was looking to be sold and this is in 2012 i think not least

01:58:45 and this is in 2012 i think not least because i and other employees were told on a variety of occasions by senior management that the business would one day be sold budgets and the business generally were incredibly lean

01:58:57 incredibly lean now prior to the sale to sangoban is it right that celetex was owned or at least majority owned by aac capital partners that name that company name is familiar

01:59:08 that name that company name is familiar i don't know whether it was a majority shareholding right did they have an influential stake i believe so uh is it right to tell me if this is wrong that they were the private equity arm of originally part of abn amro a

01:59:22 arm of originally part of abn amro a dutch bank i i don't know you don't know did you understand that their investment strategy

01:59:31 strategy or the shareholders overalls investment strategy was a sale yes hence the drive for profits and increased earnings per share and therefore a better exit price

01:59:43 therefore a better exit price the the business um was set up for yes for an exit strategy and i believe the business was run with that as the ultimate goal and with an exit strategy is the ultimate goal

01:59:55 ultimate goal did you understand that that meant a drive for revenues uh with a view to boosting the earnings per share or its enterprise value uh not so don't know so much about

02:00:07 uh not so don't know so much about shares but certainly in terms of maximizing revenue yes right uh now in your witness statement paragraph three and i don't think you need to go to it uh you refer to the

02:00:18 need to go to it uh you refer to the transfer to sango on the 31st of december 2015 was that when the sale was finalized formally sorry can you say that again let's look at it um page one of your witness statement

02:00:29 page one of your witness statement paragraph three

02:00:34 uh you say in the middle of the paragraph the manufacturing business that produced celatex insulation was transferred from celatex limited to sangoma construction products uk limited with effect from 31st december

02:00:46 limited with effect from 31st december 2015.

02:00:48 2015. yes was that uh when the sale was just was finalized or um was that the sale to sangoman finalized before that

02:00:59 finalized before that the sale to sangaban was finalized before that right i see and is this right that even though celetex had been sold to sangoban by its previous owners the

02:01:12 to sangoban by its previous owners the manufacturing business that produced celetex was still run by on owned by celetex

02:01:16 celetex um until december 2015. yes yes i see that's part of what they call a hive up exercise it's a hyper yes i follow

02:01:25 i follow uh now can we go back to jamie hayes statement please cel3010154 at page six and i'd like to show you paragraph 17.

02:01:36 and i'd like to show you paragraph 17. mr hayes says even before this acquisition and this is the sank of our acquisition in and from 2012 celetex was largely marketing led

02:01:47 marketing led given that those individuals at the top of the business had mainly originated from the marketing department celetex used to be owned by private equity group aac capital partners and so the drive for profit making and

02:01:58 and so the drive for profit making and increasing the company's share price had been systemic in the celitex culture for some time and then he goes on to well just pausing that do you agree with that from your own

02:02:09 own observations while you were at celetex no there was yes the culture for celetex was around as i said the the drive for revenue and the plan for exit yes however he says it seemed to me it seemed as though this culture had

02:02:21 it seemed as though this culture had became heightened once sangabao became involved

02:02:24 involved do you agree with that

02:02:27 yes i knew from later conversations between pe craig chambers cc and john roper jr whose roles are explained below which i was present that sangoma had asked for a budget for increasing

02:02:38 asked for a budget for increasing profits and that at least 15 of this increase would need to be attributed to new products i remember thinking we were not allowed to simply sell more of our existing products to increase profits for me this meant that there was a drive

02:02:49 for me this meant that there was a drive for innovation and a sense of pressure to increase profits at celetex and did you pick up the fact that sankober had asked for a budget for increasing profits

02:03:01 increasing profits and that at least 15 percent of that increase would need to be attributed to new products there was a internal target in the company which was around 15 percent when it was first set

02:03:12 around 15 percent when it was first set that 15

02:03:13 that 15 of the product of the sales had to come from a specific set of products the five thousand range um the sanger band target as i recall was that as a um a global entity

02:03:25 was that as a um a global entity they would like twenty percent of sales to come from products that have been launched within the last five years right

02:03:31 right and looking at those last two sentences in mr hayes paragraph 15 there do you agree with what he says in those

02:03:40 sentences there's definitely a drive to increase innovation and have new products on the market yes right now uh i want to ask you some questions about

02:03:52 i want to ask you some questions about lambda

02:03:53 lambda can we go to cel three zeros one zero four nine eight please

02:04:08 this is an email of the 22nd of july 2009

02:04:12 2009 from ian parker to you and also to rob warren

02:04:19 and uh it's clear from that that at that time the lambda value that celetex was aiming to maintain was 22 or not point

02:04:31 maintain was 22 or not point naught 2-2

02:04:35 is that do you remember that i'm just uh i'm just trying to understand what product range this was for sorry uh just from the date from the dates

02:04:46 uh just from the date from the dates yes and i i i you can see um that it's perhaps this helps the subject is his hip chin

02:04:53 hip chin lambda 2 2 rolling results so it's whatever comes off the hiption product line

02:04:58 line yes and multiple products came off of the hippity line so yes and what uh mr parker who's the quality manager says uh is um there's a data set a bba result

02:05:11 uh is um there's a data set a bba result put into a data set the effect is that if we use this number with only the lowest

02:05:15 lowest capitalized result per day we would be outside declared values at 22.11 due to the increase in standard deviation and the small sample size this would improve over time as the numbers of tests

02:05:25 of tests increase if we put the number into the data set which which contains all the data between 19.4 and 20.4 results we are within declared result at 21.96

02:05:39 we are within declared result at 21.96 and then he says the obvious problem is that the bba result is a lot higher than our figures since we filter out the high results

02:05:45 results this will be picked up by the bba since we have verified our equipment to theirs and the number does look out of place

02:05:54 place did you think it was acceptable practice to filter out the high results no i don't think it was acceptable i think this has come from a

02:06:06 program of testing which has been put into place by the business and i believe i'm included in this email because i had a responsibility to be

02:06:18 responsibility to be the go-between in getting bba certification right so you you accept that it wasn't acceptable practice it wasn't acceptable no no thank you and um

02:06:29 um going on he says out of interest our true declared lambda for july all data unfiltered is 22.76 against our selected 21.96 so you could see from that that that um

02:06:41 so you could see from that that that um there was a method or means by which you could um select 20 21.96 and be within 22 whereas if you looked at all the figures and gave you

02:06:53 looked at all the figures and gave you the true declared lambda that would take you above 22. that is that essentially what he's saying that is what he's saying um there was a um as i say a process for testing which was put into the business

02:07:05 testing which was put into the business um which um it's used as a selective data um process um you you say that it was a process for testing put into the business did you

02:07:17 testing put into the business did you have any role in putting that process into the business no no who did the only recollection i have is that this was discussed at a um i believe what would have been

02:07:28 at a um i believe what would have been called a plcp meeting yes um i know that lambda was discussed there and i know i used to go to that meeting

02:07:37 but so did all of the the majority of the directors of the of the board

02:07:44 the board are you telling us that this methodology for data selection was already in place at the time you joined celetex so far as you recall i don't know you don't know all right let's go to

02:07:55 you don't know all right let's go to cel3010272 please

02:08:00 this is a technical report from ian parker who's the person who sent that email the 9th of december 2012 and it's circulated to r p j

02:08:11 and it's circulated to r p j a c k p e j m and r w i take it the p e is u

02:08:15 is u yes and that c k is chris king yes and r w is rob warren yes do you know who

02:08:22 who rp ja and not jm are jm would be joe mahoney

02:08:26 mahoney right uh rp would be richard pemberton right and j a would be john arnold john old

02:08:32 old and in the first paragraph it says following the decision to pursue lambda 22 on the hiption the following is this is a summary of the current and proposed

02:08:43 the current and proposed process for the collection of thermal sample result against which external auditors will audit and then he sets out the current process

02:08:55 and if you look at item 4 any thermal falling outside the selection bands of 19.4 to 20.4 to give a declared lambda22 have a checkbox unticked so that the result is

02:09:07 checkbox unticked so that the result is not displayed on a separate record sheet within the same database ie and auditor will only see the thermals in the selection band so that was the current process

02:09:18 so that was the current process so it looks from that is this right that the process i set up meant that a number of statistics uh would fall outside what an auditor would see

02:09:29 would see so that you could say that the order two would on the statistics that they saw get to a declared value of 22. that appears to be the process that the quality team were undertaking yes right issue with process he goes on

02:09:41 right issue with process he goes on which could be identified by an auditor if they follow the process trail is selected data is contained within the same database as all the data so there's a potential for an auditor to pick up all the data due to human error

02:09:53 pick up all the data due to human error and by human error he means accidentally stumbling across all the data presumably yes it wouldn't be a mistake it would actually be a a a serendipitous discovery

02:10:08 sorry can you say that we down to good luck that the auditor found through this so-called human error all the data

02:10:15 the data that's how it reaches b the daily records contain all the results which if they were audited would highlight the fact extrathermal samples are not in not not in the selected quotes database uh and then the thermal

02:10:28 quotes database uh and then the thermal machine data are automatically saved so what he's identifying here is that there are

02:10:34 are three particular methods by which an auditor could pick up all the data if they followed the process trail and then he goes on this results in the logistic issue of having to manage the

02:10:46 logistic issue of having to manage the data

02:10:46 data to avoid an auditor finding evidence that thermals are selected to give lambda 22

02:10:51 lambda 22 rather than recording the results regardless of their value i'm just pausing there do you accept that that makes it clear to all of those persons receiving this technical report that celetex were

02:11:02 this technical report that celetex were actively seeking to conceal this practice this methodology from auditors yes and would the auditors in question

02:11:13 yes and would the auditors in question at least in this instance be the bba that's my understanding yes and he goes on

02:11:20 on uh he goes on to say with around 100 samples per month and a failure rate of 40 to 50 percent this represents a high degree of data

02:11:32 this represents a high degree of data management and manipulation which is all down to human interaction to make decisions on what to keep or reject

02:11:41 from that although you might have thought data management was acceptable did you realize that manipulation wasn't i don't recall seeing the word manipulation and

02:11:52 manipulation and with the other people that were on the uh

02:11:56 the report of being in senior management stroke director um positions right by the words high degree of data management and manipulation did you read

02:12:08 management and manipulation did you read that

02:12:08 that as fiddling the figures

02:12:13 but i believe from what i was told what the company were looking to do was um interpret the standard for selecting data

02:12:25 but that's not what he's saying is it he's saying that with around 100 samples a month and a failure rate of 40 to 50 percent there's a high degree of data management and manipulation

02:12:36 of data management and manipulation yes that is what you're saying yeah and i'm asking you whether you understood the high degree of data management and manipulation to be really a a dressed up way of saying fiddling the numbers or manipulating the figures but put it

02:12:48 or manipulating the figures but put it slightly more delicately if you like yes manipulating the numbers is is what you could say and then it gives option one retains all thermal data but offers the highest opportunity for human error in the process resulting in auditor queries

02:13:01 process resulting in auditor queries and explains those particular elements of that option and then if you go

02:13:08 go to the over the page option two retains only thermal data within the selection range

02:13:15 range summary option two data management is far less intensive but the ability to review all hitch and thermal data is lost

02:13:21 lost without having to refer to thermal machine data file which would be labor-intensive process to extract and compile and then he's he's got a summary uh and

02:13:32 he's got a summary uh and he says hiption lambda22 by statistical method is data intensive uh under either option relying on those testing and data input to make the right decision and human error over 100 samples per month will occur at some

02:13:43 samples per month will occur at some stage from a data management straight risk perspective option 2 would be the preferred method but the negative side is loss of thermal data from the database for analysis this would be my preferred option

02:13:56 ongoing there needs to be process in achieving uh declared lambda 22 via processed stroke chemical improvements and not the statistical method which was not which does not represent the actual population of the true lambda of the

02:14:08 population of the true lambda of the product being produced now uh before i come back to that text can i take you to your statement at page

02:14:20 to your statement at page three or second statement cel three zeros one double two double three at page three a paragraph 14 there in the last sentence you you say it appeared that

02:14:33 sentence you you say it appeared that the process for calculating lambda was perhaps open to interpretation and the operation stroke qc department had decided that if a minimal of one thermal result was selected per day then that fell within the rules of the

02:14:44 then that fell within the rules of the standard now when you say perhaps open to interpretation uh in fact that's just a delicate way of avoiding the problem isn't it

02:14:57 way of avoiding the problem isn't it it wasn't open to interpretation at all this was about how to go about massaging the figures from what i have seen more recently when reviewing documents

02:15:09 reviewing documents and at my time at celetex where this wasn't really something that i got too involved in

02:15:16 you know being open you know the process for

02:15:19 for being able to test one sample per day was something that the business said felt was acceptable within the standard yeah but that's not about the process being open to interpretation

02:15:30 the process being open to interpretation it's the process being open to abuse

02:15:34 um yes it could be argued that way i think that was for others to to to decide whether that was what they wanted to do in running their business yeah is it right that if in effect

02:15:45 yeah is it right that if in effect celetex had adopted a practice of obtaining multiple data points for for lambda and then simply selecting the most favorable or narrowing the data down so that what was selected would produce 22 or

02:15:56 was selected would produce 22 or thereabouts i don't know exactly how it was done we'll go back to the document we were just on the 9th of december

02:16:04 december 2009 technical report we please let's just go back to that um where we've seen the summary which i've read to you the reality was

02:16:15 which i've read to you the reality was wasn't

02:16:15 wasn't it that as mr parker pointed out to you celetex needed a process to improve lambda 22

02:16:24 lambda 22 through process and chemical improvements and not by what he called the statistical method which he said does not represent the actual population of the true lambda of the product being produced

02:16:36 the product being produced now that's what he said

02:16:41 you must have realized that this approach involved essentially lying with statistics

02:16:48 i don't think at the time i really gave the document because of who else was on the document and people that were making the decisions and my limited time in the business at that time i don't think i would have been

02:16:59 been really making any thoughts or any decisions on that now you may not have been

02:17:03 been making any decisions about it i haven't asked you about that mr evans but i'm really interested in is what you thought at the time did you not have any concerns at all about the legitimacy of the approach that was then

02:17:14 legitimacy of the approach that was then being adopted namely the statistical method as opposed to the process stroke chemical improvements approach i don't recall having any con concerns about it mainly because it was for others to make that decision

02:17:26 for others to make that decision it may have been for others to make that decision but did you not think at the time that this was a dishonest approach i don't recall thinking anything at the time of what the approach was if we go to paragraph 15 of your

02:17:40 if we go to paragraph 15 of your second statement please

02:17:44 you say there

02:17:49 in the middle of that paragraph i had no reason to doubt the recommendation from the operations straight qc department and simply treated the matter as having been finally resolved at the

02:18:00 as having been finally resolved at the very highest level as the approach that the company was going to take i don't believe any external view or opinion was sought on this and from then on the

02:18:08 on the application of selective data in respect of lambda value was followed and how could you possibly not have had any doubts about the recommendation given the technical report that we've

02:18:20 given the technical report that we've just seen

02:18:25 just seen again probably didn't give that report that much attention on the basis that i was just one of six people seven people to have received that report and that would have been something for

02:18:36 something for operations quality control in the board to ultimately decide what they were going to do now if we go to page 18 sorry um page 4 of your statement paragraph 18

02:18:47 of your statement paragraph 18 this is your second statement you say there in relation to lambda that you had very little of anything to do with lambda data collection

02:18:58 do with lambda data collection that's what you say yes uh and you say in the third line i never recall lambda being a major talking point up until an mag meeting sometime i believe in 2013 stroke 14

02:19:09 2013 stroke 14 the details of which formed part of my disciplinary pack of documents just pausing there is it right that you were disciplined over the lambda issue there was a disciplinary process yes over the lambda issue yes

02:19:21 issue yes and you were you were subject to disciplinary action in respect of the lambda issue uh yes yes craig chambers who took over from richard pemberton as managing director was present at this meeting

02:19:32 director was present at this meeting i recall joe mahoney gave a presentation about the company getting close to not being able to declare its lambdas the presentation inevitably referred openly to the manner in which the lambda values were being selected at the time and again

02:19:42 and again so far as i can remember nobody at the meeting challenged the approach being taken

02:19:47 taken did that surprise you at the time you've been in the company now a number of years did it surprise you that even the mag

02:19:53 mag were not challenging the approach being taken in relation to lambda values no i believe that the the the mag team were of the view that as long as

02:20:04 team were of the view that as long as one

02:20:04 one result per day was taken then that was within

02:20:08 within the rules of the standard that would have been the thinking of the of the mag team even though all the other results of the day would have would have pointed to a lambda being something different i'd not i can't remember every slide on

02:20:20 i'd not i can't remember every slide on the on the presentation but i'm not sure how much of the detail what that went into right does the fact that the mag even in 2013 stroke 14

02:20:31 fact that the mag even in 2013 stroke 14 uh accepted what you say about the lambdas here and the method about of going about collecting the data and presenting it tell us something about the business culture within celetex

02:20:42 celetex at that time at what time sorry 2013 2014

02:20:51 yes i think so and i think it says something about the culture earlier as well

02:20:54 well yes and did that well you tell me in your words what does it tell us about the culture of within celetex at that time i think the culture that was established

02:21:07 i think the culture that was established for a business that was had a number one strategy of exit made its way into post-exit

02:21:16 culture of the business the culture didn't change and the culture was a culture of what fast-paced quick decisions fast paced quick

02:21:27 quick decisions fast paced quick decisions

02:21:28 decisions can you enlighten us a little bit further um the business just worked incredibly quickly and i don't think had a culture of challenging not a culture of challenging challenging

02:21:40 not a culture of challenging challenging what

02:21:41 what challenging each other challenging decisions that were being made i think too many people were left to just do their job and

02:21:50 that's ultimately i believe what the part of the culture of celetex was challenging the honesty and good faith of those decisions do you include that challenging the reasoning behind them yes challenging their honesty

02:22:02 yes challenging their honesty mr evans you could say honesty yes yes did that culture of not challenging the dishonesty of decisions ever changed during your time there

02:22:18 i would like to think that there would um

02:22:22 um i didn't make decisions like that no

02:22:27 well we'll come to that

02:22:30 but did the culture of not challenging

02:22:35 the dishonesty of decision making ever changed during your time um

02:22:44 not as much as it should have done let's turn to fr 5000 can we go please to max 50216

02:23:03 now this is the data sheet for fr 5000 issued

02:23:06 issued as issue number two in january 2012 mr evans are you familiar with this document

02:23:11 document yes i've seen this document now fr 5000 is a pir board isn't it yes and did you understand at the time that that meant that it was not a product of limited combustibility

02:23:25 i i didn't get too involved with that language of limited combustibility but yes i would have been aware that it wasn't limited combustibility right when you say i didn't get too involved with that language of limiting combustibility

02:23:36 that language of limiting combustibility what do you mean that language typically wasn't used um to discuss or to describe pir insulation in

02:23:45 in in the language of the business now i understand that and is that because everybody understood yourself included that

02:23:52 that um because uh fr 5000 was a pir poly i say cyanurate product it was not a product of limited combustibility

02:24:03 not a product of limited combustibility i'm not sure i would have ever considered that those terms limited combustibility right um if you uh look at this data sheet you can see about

02:24:14 at this data sheet you can see about halfway down the page there is a set of bullet points six bullet points and the fourth bullet point says has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with bs476

02:24:25 accordance with bs476 when you became familiar with this document did you note those words there that statement is something

02:24:33 something that uh i can't remember when that was introduced into the 5000 range but yes is a statement i'm familiar with right what does it mean what does class naught fire performance throughout

02:24:45 class naught fire performance throughout the entire product mean so this was something uh i can't remember the date that celetex had passed the class o test um the 5000 range competed

02:24:57 test um the 5000 range competed with the cool firm range of products the k range

02:25:01 k range and there was an observation in kingspan's marketing literature that when they discussed class o there was a disclaimer that said it talked about the foam core only and as celatex's products were produced

02:25:14 and as celatex's products were produced with

02:25:15 with the faces on the product we tested the product with the faces on and therefore that set of words was put together in our marketing material

02:25:26 put together in our marketing material you tested the with the the product with the faces on did you test it separately without the faces under class i know 476 not that i'm aware of um what did you understand the significance

02:25:38 what did you understand the significance of fr 5000 having class naught typically class naught class zero sorry um would have been a um a term that we

02:25:49 um would have been a um a term that we knew was used within the specification um world for for installation something that our um competitor kingspan had in their range and therefore when we were launching the

02:26:00 and therefore when we were launching the 5000 range we wanted to have a product that competed with with kingspan yes what does class naught mean if i'm if i'm sorry tractor picking up your uh datasheet

02:26:11 your uh datasheet what am i supposed to take from the fact that it has not class naught fire performance technically it means it's past part six and part seven of bs476 i'm not sure what it would have meant to a contractor

02:26:22 what it would have meant to a contractor i think it would have meant something to more of a specification world architects what did you think it would have meant

02:26:32 just that it had a high level of a higher level of thermal performance compared

02:26:36 compared of fire performance compared to um standard pir which only had class one and what would what did you understand that would signify to an architect or a

02:26:48 that would signify to an architect or a contractor or anybody who had occasion to look at this document that celetex had a product in its range that on classo performance competed with cauthur all right let me

02:27:00 competed with cauthur all right let me try one more time what is class what does class naught allow one to do with the product

02:27:08 um it didn't allow them to do anything particularly with with the product it was a it was a feature of the product right it's right isn't it that fr 5000

02:27:19 right it's right isn't it that fr 5000 was then later rebranded in 2014 to rs 5000.

02:27:25 5000. yes we when we launched the rs5000 product we use the the fr board as it's uh to launch well uh you use the fr board as the launch but in fact

02:27:36 launch but in fact rs 5000 was the same product as uh as fr5000 we just had a new name yes yes

02:27:45 yes yes in relation to the manufacturing process for both fr 5000 and rs 5000 were you aware that they were manufactured on two production lines yes one was called hip chin and the

02:27:56 yes one was called hip chin and the other was called hennika yes that right now were those names were those names given to them by the manufacturer of the machinery

02:28:02 machinery uh the henniker i believe so the egyptian i believe was named after the person that invented the type of

02:28:09 type of technology of a free rise machine which essentially was what the hipster machine was

02:28:13 was right and what did you understand the difference between these two lines to be one was a free rise technology where once the chemical was poured it rose to a predetermined thickness and

02:28:25 it rose to a predetermined thickness and on henniker it was what was called fixed rise or restrained rise would have been the language that celetex used which essentially was it poured into a mold or a box within the machine that essentially was set at a particular

02:28:36 essentially was set at a particular thickness

02:28:38 thickness and which line was used for producing 100 millimeter uh fr i believe the majority of the time it would have been the henniker line

02:28:49 it would have been the henniker line right the fixed riser yes the fixed rise yes right

02:28:53 yes right and if one wanted celetex in measurements of 150 or 160 millimeters of depth which line would it come off

02:29:06 right uh can i ask you to look at cel409889 please

02:29:15 please this is a

02:29:19 a change note in celetex's database raised on the 29th of august 2012. let's just look at it together uh in the left-hand box

02:29:31 left-hand box the change detail is change the formulation for hiption produced fr 5000 and cg 5000 to replace basf

02:29:39 basf elasto pier 1039 501 with elastopier 1039 503

02:29:49 and the reason change reason change to the formulation provides about 20 000 pounds saving per year based on 2012 forecast this has been built into bp 2013.

02:30:03 bp just help me is that budget projection business plan business plan dl 12072 reported no adverse effect on board performance or overall yield any remaining 1039 501

02:30:15 or overall yield any remaining 1039 501 stock will be used on the henniker line as agreed at plcp pdi no external testing will be carried out and the review notes show with a variety of dates that one of

02:30:27 show with a variety of dates that one of the reviewers was you paul evans looks like 30th of august 2012.

02:30:32 2012. yes yes

02:30:36 why were you in particular as product manager as i think you were at that time asked to sign off on this change note

02:30:45 the there was lots of change notes raised um in the business and directors as well as other people in the business would uh would have the opportunity to to approve

02:30:57 would have the opportunity to to approve or to or to comment what if any consideration was given to the effect of this change in polio or on fire performance of fr 5000

02:31:08 or on fire performance of fr 5000 none by myself because the decisions on chemical and formulation changes would have been decided by the operational um quality and and kind of chemist teams in

02:31:19 quality and and kind of chemist teams in the business can we go to cel409516 please and go to page two within that email chain

02:31:32 and this is an email chain in early september 2012 and if you go to page two as we're on there at the moment and look at the top this is an email of the 10th of september 2012 from jody

02:31:44 the 10th of september 2012 from jody hammond

02:31:45 hammond who was a plant chemist to ian parker and joe mahoney copy to you and the subject was a reminder change note number 486 ian we are not intending to

02:31:56 number 486 ian we are not intending to do any external testing as i'm sure the bba would require and this was discussed and agreed at the plcp

02:32:03 plcp pdi meeting just pausing there uh plcp was product life cycle and planning correct yes and pdi was product development and innovation yes they're both committees

02:32:15 innovation yes they're both committees aren't they yes one they they are the same though they're not two different meetings oh they're the same right

02:32:21 right um and as she goes on uh you can ask joe to confirm but my understanding is that we haven't intended to make the change to the quality plan um do you know why uh

02:32:34 um do you know why uh celetex was not intending to do any external testing of fr 5000 as a result of the change in polio ingredient i don't know why no were you involved in

02:32:46 i don't know why no were you involved in any discussion on that issue not that i can recall did you support the decision to undertake no external testing i would have supported a decision if

02:32:59 i would have supported a decision if it came from an operational qc team that there was no reason to send the information into the quality plan if we go up a page please in the email run we can see an

02:33:11 please in the email run we can see an email from ian parker and he's the same ian parker that we saw on the question of lambdas even as early as 2009.

02:33:20 as 2009. and he sends an email the same day 10th of september to jodi hammond and the other recipients of her email joe did discuss with me i was unaware of

02:33:31 joe did discuss with me i was unaware of the plcp decision and then he says you just need to be beware

02:33:36 beware you just need to be aware that there is a possibility the bba could pick this up when they ordered incoming chemical receipts and they did specifically inform us that any new chemicals should be highlighted to them

02:33:47 to them following prior audits when they found we had made a number of chemical changes and not told them about it [Music]

02:33:53 [Music] and jodi hammond's response to that is perhaps it's my misunderstanding so i'll double check with joe but just looking at what ian parker said about not telling the bba about chemical changes and is that

02:34:05 about chemical changes and is that correct

02:34:06 correct that when they done prior audits they discovered that there were chemical change changes which had not been communicated to the bba i don't know the detail behind the the previous audits no you don't know the detail did you

02:34:18 no you don't know the detail did you know generally that the bba had not been told about chemical changes in relation to fr 5000 i know that on occasions not all changes to the chemical formulations

02:34:29 to the chemical formulations or chemicals we were using in the products would be communicated to the bba

02:34:33 bba and the operations and quality team would have their reasons for not doing that

02:34:38 that and what were those reasons

02:34:42 from from memory it would be that they didn't feel that the chemical would have any material difference and that the changes being made

02:34:50 made into the quality plan may take longer to implement and be approved than um the business could allow before we needed to use those chemicals right why was it for the

02:35:03 right why was it for the operations and quality team to decide for themselves what they should tell the bba and what they shouldn't tell the bba rather than simply giving the material to the bba and letting the bba make what it could have it i don't know

02:35:15 make what it could have it i don't know is the answer as you've just given us speed and a need to get sales done certainly speed and

02:35:25 a desire to want to make changes when when changes could be made rather than relying on others so is this again a an example of cello texas culture of withholding potentially material

02:35:38 withholding potentially material technical data from auditors

02:35:44 yes thank you now let's move to fr's 5000 bs 476 test we've touched on this a moment ago let's just get back to that topic do you

02:35:56 let's just get back to that topic do you remember that fr 5000 was tested to bs 476 part

02:36:00 476 part 6 and part 7 in november 2011. do you remember that i don't remember 2011

02:36:08 2011 but i remember the product i remember it being tested right uh was it tested on both lines in other words was the test done in relation to the material coming off both

02:36:19 relation to the material coming off both hipton and my understanding when we did classo testing was that we tested the material from both lines

02:36:35 did you know whether that test was repeated at any later stage i don't recall

02:36:47 is it right that you never did a test on the core of 5000 fr 5000 uh uh class o test yes on just on the core only no

02:36:58 yes on just on the core only no no did you know that you had done a class a core test sorry a part a a bs 476 part six and seven test

02:37:11 a bs 476 part six and seven test in relation to the core of fr 4000 in 2008. did you know that no no not that i recall set here today no no all right

02:37:22 no all right so you you can you can't help us can you explain the reasons why celetex decided to test the core only of of fr

02:37:29 of fr 4000 no right

02:37:39 do you know why fr 5000 was class naught throughout the entire product as described

02:37:45 described if the core itself had not been tested

02:37:50 the from memory the decision or or the thinking behind that was that we had tested the product as it was supplied into the market

02:38:00 market with the faces on and that's where that wording

02:38:04 wording came from yes i see was any consideration given to re-testing the fr 5000 product under bs 476 and 7. so as to achieve a class naught

02:38:15 so as to achieve a class naught classification after the polyol change in 2012 on the hiption line that we've just been discussing i don't know you don't know whether it

02:38:26 i don't know you don't know whether it was or it wasn't or i don't know whether it was decided not to

02:38:30 not to right do you know for a fact that it wasn't

02:38:34 wasn't i don't know for a fact no right

02:38:38 now i want to turn to a different topic which is above 18 meters and look at the position in 2012. and we picked the story up in december 2012 that cel 40 is 2544

02:38:54 this is a note of a meeting in manuscript of the 15th of december 2012 with tony baker of the bre uh and i as we understand it this is a manuscript

02:39:06 as we understand it this is a manuscript note taken by you of that meeting is that right yes and uh the meeting is as you see the 15th of december do you have any independent recollection

02:39:18 have any independent recollection of that meeting or is yours i don't know whether that was a a meeting or a phone call oh okay do you have any independent recollection of the meeting or phone call um which is um gives us any more insight

02:39:32 um which is um gives us any more insight than this

02:39:33 than this document no um do you remember whether you were seeking advice from tony baker at the bre about how a successful test could be undertaken in relation to fr 5000 so as to allow you to enter the

02:39:45 fr 5000 so as to allow you to enter the above 18 meter market so i believe there was an action um assigned to me at a plcp meeting to look at the requirements of testing for

02:39:57 look at the requirements of testing for above 18 meter applications right and you say so in fact at paragraph 50 of your statement on page 14 we just pin that down page 14 paragraph

02:40:08 we just pin that down page 14 paragraph 50

02:40:09 50 you you will see there that you say i believe i arranged to speak with mr baker to complete the action given to me on

02:40:20 to complete the action given to me on the 17th of october 2012 pdi action list we can go back earlier in your statement to see what see that um but um is that the basis on which or the reason for which you arranged to speak to mr baker i

02:40:32 you arranged to speak to mr baker i believe so yes right and the reason was to was this right to get work out from him what would be needed in order to get fr 5000 passed successfully passed a bs 8414 test i think it was more

02:40:45 bs 8414 test i think it was more just to generally spec out the requirements rather than uh at that time thinking about whether we were going to test or not okay let's go back to the note

02:40:57 okay let's go back to the note cell402544 please and i'd like to look at uh the

02:41:03 at uh the right hand side of that note about halfway down there's a a little set of words on the right hand side that says rain screen systems aluminium and then there's something crossed out would you do you know what

02:41:16 crossed out would you do you know what was

02:41:16 was or can you remember what was crossed out there

02:41:20 i don't know totally no you don't know totally do you know at all looks like it could say faces right okay um did tony baker tell you do you

02:41:32 okay um did tony baker tell you do you remember that aluminium was a particularly common cladding material i wouldn't recall sorry

02:41:41 now if we go to the second page of this document

02:41:47 you you say there at the very top of the page bs8414 is simply a fire something methodology with a result what's the something

02:42:01 can you help no i can't i'm sorry i can't understand what i've written underneath that no

02:42:08 that no uh well underneath i see underneath the squiggle yes no all right um did mr baker tell you that whatever's underneath the squiggle that bs-8414 is simply a fire

02:42:20 squiggle that bs-8414 is simply a fire methodology with a result i don't know whether they were mr baker's exact words or whether i've scribbled those down based on what he's told me right did he explain to you that the classification under

02:42:32 classification under br135 applied to the system as tested in other words it was a system test

02:42:39 test rather than the component parts of that test

02:42:43 test i don't yet i don't recall what he would have said in regard to that on that call or meeting right we can see that

02:42:51 that you've noted down just under the reference to bs 8414 br 135 nxa and xb with a a linking paragraph past criteria

02:43:03 a linking paragraph past criteria stipulated part 1 of bsa414 part 2 of bsa414 so did you understand from that um that the test was uh the 8414 test and the criteria

02:43:15 uh the 8414 test and the criteria uh for passing was set out in br 135 and x's a and b i think i'm getting the information whether i understood it at the time or

02:43:26 whether i understood it at the time or i'm just getting the information from tony i don't i don't know right and you said underneath that third edition in january 2013

02:43:32 2013 will combine the annex a and b it looks from that

02:43:35 from that that at this stage december 2013 annexes a and b

02:43:39 a and b were something that you were alive to i wouldn't say a lot i wouldn't say alive to i think i've been asked to carry out a task and i've made a phone call to somebody at the at the bre and they've given me information which i've

02:43:51 they've given me information which i've written down right and then underneath that about halfway down the page it says tony baker keep a watch on any potential partners you see that yes was that advice he gave you do you think i believe so

02:44:03 think i believe so or was that you'd asked him to keep an eye out for you for any potential partners

02:44:07 partners i don't think i would have asked tony tony might have um keep an eye on whether he's having uh separate calls with people that are also looking to do testing and there could be partnership

02:44:18 testing and there could be partnership opportunities i see so you would you were looking to tony baker to be as it were a broker to broker a partnership relationship with other people who wanted the test i wouldn't say a a a broker relationship i would say

02:44:29 i would say if tony knew that someone else was looking to do a test rig that was from the non-insulation market then there could be an opportunity for the two companies to to to combine and what would be the

02:44:41 to to combine and what would be the point of these potential partnerships um there would have been a um a cost-sharing opportunity on the testing there could have been an opportunity for people to

02:44:53 opportunity for people to both want to be testing and being in the above 18 market and did you understand that that was because it might be difficult for fr 5000 to pass an 8414 test

02:45:04 for fr 5000 to pass an 8414 test without a robust external cladding no that's i don't believe that was any part of the conversation i think we're just literally getting some very early stage scoping of the requirements for above 18

02:45:15 scoping of the requirements for above 18 meter testing did mr baker discuss kingspan's testing to bs8414 with you at that time

02:45:21 that time i don't believe so i don't recall now it's right isn't it that from the summer of 2012

02:45:28 of 2012 so six months or so before this meeting celetex had started to keep a spreadsheet of lost opportunities is that right that's right and was that business that had been lost through not having a product which could

02:45:40 through not having a product which could be used above 18 meters it was yes it was a spreadsheet where our

02:45:45 our sales managers would make the business aware

02:45:49 aware of projects which k15 had been used on that celetex couldn't be used because we didn't have a solution above 18 meters if we go to cell 4087 sorry 8573

02:46:00 if we go to cell 4087 sorry 8573 cele ceo408573 please this is a spreadsheet

02:46:17 we need the offline version of this document i think

02:46:31 it's just coming up

02:46:35 this is a spreadsheet called above 18 meter lost opportunities i'm just casting your eye down it is it a familiar document to you yeah i recall the document being uh

02:46:46 yeah i recall the document being uh introduced yes being introduced who introduced it i can't totally recall i believe i may have kept

02:46:55 have kept the information that came through from the area sales manager right i see so do you think it was you who compiled this document i can't be 100 all right certain uh

02:47:06 i can't be 100 all right certain uh and it's dated uh

02:47:11 although i think we can't see it on here we can date this i think to august 2012 looking at it can you can see i think that the volume of lost orders

02:47:22 that the volume of lost orders that's recorded is seventy thousand eight hundred and forty yes and that's square feet is it all square meters square meters or meters um did that confirm your view that the development of a product

02:47:34 development of a product suitable for use above 18 meters would have been a significant business opportunity for celetex i think it showed there was an it was an opportunity i don't know whether i'd have said it was significant

02:47:45 whether i'd have said it was significant at that point and looking at the document you can see i think various dates uh running from january running from august

02:47:56 august 12 to january 13. was this a document that was a as it were a living document that you updated when you got information from the asm which you then input

02:48:06 input yes right

02:48:10 so by january 13 it was clear to you that

02:48:14 that 70 840 square meters of business had been lost between august 12 and january 13 a matter of some five months or so

02:48:25 months or so only as a result of not having a product which could be deployed in the above 18 meter market i wouldn't say it was lost business i would say it was giving an idea of the different types of projects

02:48:37 idea of the different types of projects and there and their volumes and that that total to that number all right ungained business then if you like business that you didn't win because you didn't have business that we weren't able to supply a product for yes yes can i then turn to

02:48:50 yes can i then turn to another topic which is your knowledge of approved document b and specifically bsa414

02:48:55 bsa414 can we then go to cel402894 now this is a a a document dated the 17th of october 2012

02:49:08 17th of october 2012 and i think i'm right in saying that it's the document that led to you going to meet

02:49:13 to meet tony baker at the bre in mid-december or talking to tony baker in mid-december yes

02:49:20 yes it's an action list follow-up from a pdi action list is what it is dated the 17th of october 2012 and the location is the bretton house

02:49:31 and the location is the bretton house boardroom does that tell us that this was a pdi

02:49:34 was a pdi meeting yes on that date and if you look at

02:49:38 at well is it right that the pdi later became the spin committee yes could you just tell us what does spin stand for uh it stood for service and product innovation

02:49:49 innovation and what's the second end i think it innovation was just i see i double n for innovation right

02:49:57 right does the use of the word spin as an acronym tell us anything about the celetex culture no right easy to deny but actually it rather does

02:50:08 easy to deny but actually it rather does isn't it

02:50:10 the idea behind the spin was um the spin meeting being formed is that we wanted to change how some of the product launch processes were happening once

02:50:21 launch processes were happening once sangerban owned the company and we looked at putting a name to it and we wanted to include services in there as well as products which is why service is led

02:50:28 led at the start spin right

02:50:32 item 11 is spec requirements for above 18 meter fire test and we can see from the column towards the right hand side resp uh pe is that

02:50:45 resp uh pe is that responsibility paul evans yes and in your statement you say it and i don't think you need to go to it it's paragraph 48 on page 14 that you can't remember being tasked

02:50:56 14 that you can't remember being tasked with this

02:50:57 with this do you recall whether you did any research into the testing requirements for above 18 meters not that i recall

02:51:11 i wonder whether we can date your familiarity with some of some of the statutory requirements or guidance requirements can we go to

02:51:22 or guidance requirements can we go to cel402879

02:51:26 and this is an email from july 2011 from rob warren 6th of july 2011 and you're copied in on this and the subject is 18 and a half

02:51:37 subject is 18 and a half meter building

02:51:41 approved document b volume 2 buildings other than dwellings and then rob warren sets out

02:51:49 what in fact was section 12.7 of approved document b well i don't think he says so insulation materials in a building with a story 18 meters

02:52:01 a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants or similar etc

02:52:07 etc used in the external wool construction should be of limited combustibility sea appendix a materials of limited combustibility are defined in table a7

02:52:18 defined in table a7 first bullet point non-combustible material listed in table a6 second bullet point density more than 300 kilograms per cubic meter third bullet point non-combustible core with half millimeter thick facings

02:52:31 with half millimeter thick facings class naught is defined in the bold internal lining material section only so the fact that fr gets class naught is not

02:52:42 not relevant when used in an internal wall system

02:52:45 system i think he means external wall system above 18 meters where it must be of limited combustibility as defined in table a7

02:52:53 table a7 now when you got that email in the summer of 2011 did you read it i don't recall did you don't recall can we take it though from this document that you were aware of

02:53:04 that you were aware of at least these requirements in approved document b no i think rob roberts copied me into an email there but i wouldn't if i'd have read the if i did

02:53:15 i wouldn't if i'd have read the if i did read the email i'm not sure the detail would have been something that would have

02:53:18 have stayed with me he obviously thought that it was important for you to understand this technical detail presumably you understood that that is what he wanted you to do to read it and understand it yes

02:53:30 to read it and understand it yes by sending it to me yes yes and therefore

02:53:33 therefore given that that is what you understood him to want did you take steps to read it and

02:53:37 it and try and digest what it was saying i don't i don't recall whether i read it or not do you remember at least this much

02:53:45 much being aware that there was a distinction between class north on the one hand and the concept of limited combustibility on the other i don't believe it's from this email but i

02:53:57 i i i was aware that there was no link between classo of an insulation product and its suitability to be used as an insulation product in buildings above 18 meters yes right

02:54:08 above 18 meters yes right and was that something you were always aware of at celetex or was any aware of from 2011 onwards having got this email from rob warren i wouldn't be able to say from

02:54:15 say from from when right

02:54:20 given that knowledge do you know why celetex prominently advertised the fact that

02:54:24 that fr 5000 and subsequently rs 5000 are chief class nought

02:54:32 as a to make sure to compete with kingsman um well i i understand commercially why would we want to have those words in a document that said that but

02:54:43 that said that but but in technical terms for technical reasons did you ever understand why it was that um celetex would prominently advertise the fact that rs 5000 where fr 5000 had

02:54:55 the fact that rs 5000 where fr 5000 had class

02:54:56 class naught in circumstances where class naught had got nothing to do with the use of insulation above 18 meters not the technical reasons no right so do we take it from that that

02:55:07 right so do we take it from that that you you your understanding only went marketing deep if i can put it that way i think it went more than marketing deep insofar as understanding the background but my recollection is

02:55:20 the background but my recollection is that we didn't have that um that technical deep discussion and mr warren goes on in the next paragraph he says however dot dot dot if i was arguing this case i would say that the clue is

02:55:32 this case i would say that the clue is in the

02:55:33 in the a building in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level to me that means that the story itself must be 18 meters above not the actual height of the building

02:55:44 building approved document b is after all designed to protect people who may need to escape in the event of a fire and there will be nobody above 18 meters

02:55:54 were you aware of celetex ever giving advice

02:55:58 advice that fr 5000 could safely be and compliantly be used over 18 meters based on that argument not that i'm aware of no uh my

02:56:09 not that i'm aware of no uh my understanding was that if we had a project above 18 meters the answer was always it can't be used

02:56:25 can we go to cel 401196 please

02:56:31 and in showing you this document we go forward in time to november 2013. we may go backwards in time as well but i just want to look at this document

02:56:42 but i just want to look at this document before the break this is a presentation entitled above 18 meter update and it dates from the 4th of november 2013. and we believe that it relates to a meeting that was held on that day with

02:56:53 meeting that was held on that day with among other people mr jonathan roper

02:56:58 i believe this is the yeah from from seeing the documents i've reviewed i believe this is the presentation that was given

02:57:04 was given to a group of people in celetex by john roper on that day i believe so yes

02:57:12 if we go to page two this is an extract of paragraph 12.5 of adb now can we take it that at least by this date you were aware that this set out that an external wall

02:57:23 that this set out that an external wall should meet one of two routes in order to comply with approved document b either that the insulation should be of limited combustibility or it should have passed a bs-8414 test and satisfied and thereby satisfied the

02:57:35 and satisfied and thereby satisfied the criteria in br135 yes one yeah i knew that for a celetex to be in the above 18 meter market it needed to have gone through the bs8414 test yeah thank

02:57:47 gone through the bs8414 test yeah thank you yes

02:57:48 you yes mr chairman it's a minute also or too shy of one o'clock but that's a convenient moment i think it is yes

02:57:54 yes then mr evans we're gonna have a break now so we can all get some lunch okay we'll come back at two o'clock please and i have to ask you on this occasion and no doubt others as

02:58:05 on this occasion and no doubt others as you leave the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room okay right thanks so much i'd like to give the usher please

02:58:26 thank you two o'clock please okay

02:58:46 you