Examination of DCLG official Brian Martin on the failure to issue guidance clarifying combustible materials in building regulations after the 2014 meeting on clause 12.7
00:24:01 good afternoon mr minute if you are ready to resume perhaps you'd ask the usher to ask mr martin to come back in yes thank you mr chairman yes may we please have mr martin back in the hearing room
00:24:23 good afternoon mr martian um before we resume your examination may i just say this all of us on the panel are aware that you've been giving evidence already for quite a long time
00:24:34 evidence already for quite a long time and i think we all understand that it's not necessarily an easy or comfortable thing to be doing we shall have a break during the afternoon but if you ever get to the point to which you would like an
00:24:45 point to which you would like an additional break will you please just indicate and that can be done without any difficulty yes sir thank you right are you ready to carry on now yes thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr
00:24:57 thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr chairman thank you mr martin um i'd like to continue asking you some questions about the meeting on the 2nd of july 2014 and faqs can we please go back to the minutes clg 30 is 19336
00:25:11 the minutes clg 30 is 19336 page
00:25:12 page four
00:25:12 four paragraph three
00:25:20 and you
00:25:25 can see there we read it before
00:25:30 just wait for it to come onto your screen
00:25:41 uh yes thank you you can see the third in the third paragraph down it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an faq approved documents can be downloaded from and there's the planning portal the
00:25:53 from and there's the planning portal the page for each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin uh now do you know or did you ever find
00:26:05 uh now do you know or did you ever find out who it was who made the suggestion that clarification could be achieved by way of an faq no
00:26:16 uh in your witness statement you i think all you say about this is in paragraph 119 on page 42 and you say i don't recall being contacted by dr colwell in relation to posting an faq on the
00:26:28 relation to posting an faq on the planning portal is that correct yes i think i did speak to her at some point after the meeting um but she never directly proposed an faq to me um
00:26:39 um i think i asked her if there was something i needed to do um and and she said
00:26:44 said i think she said not at this stage but i it's a very vague recollection so i wouldn't want a hand on heart say that's what happened her recollection was that she never contacted you about an faq after the
00:26:55 after the meeting
00:26:56 meeting uh
00:26:57 uh that's her evidence day two three three page 204 line three to six i've summarized it but it sounds similar to yours yes um right um
00:27:08 right um so just to be clear i think you accept that no faq on the subject of the meaning of filler within 12.7 or the use of acm with pe or otherwise combustible cause was
00:27:20 or otherwise combustible cause was published at any time by government after the 2nd of july 2014 was it that's correct why was that um
00:27:29 um i think
00:27:32 in terms of in terms of this particular point in this um meeting i i took that i'd i'd wait for them to contact me with what they were proposing um but in the meantime i
00:27:44 proposing um but in the meantime i started
00:27:45 started opening up discussions with nhbc who's the they
00:27:49 the they in that answer the the people that attended the meeting why would it be up to them to contact you with what they were proposing given that having read the minute you knew what the problem was and you were the one
00:28:00 you were the one was with it with as it were a finger on the planning portal button and could put the faq section in um
00:28:08 um it would probably be better i think i thought it'd be better for a group of fire safety experts and cladding experts to draft something and for us then to look at it yes but why didn't you ask them to do that
00:28:20 them to do that um i understood that's what they were going to do but when they didn't it must have become apparent that they hadn't at some stage fairly soon after this why didn't you ask them i think
00:28:30 i think and this was a this was a busy time um for us um and um
00:28:39 i think i probably forgot about it as the honest answer i i think i put it to one side and waited for them to contact me and then focused on the other work that i was doing right well let's
00:28:50 doing right well let's see how we go with the rest of this um uh
00:28:54 uh if you go please to bre three zeros four seven is 47364
00:29:03 this is an email run which starts on page two with the bottom email in the chain sent by brenda actor to sarah colwell on the 24th of april 2014 and it's the same email that
00:29:15 april 2014 and it's the same email that you got from from
00:29:18 from brenda acted as well isn't it um yes
00:29:21 um yes now you didn't see this one at the time sent to her but i think we can take it that brendan attitude had followed your suggestion that dr cole will be invited and if we move up to page one we can see
00:29:33 and if we move up to page one we can see an email from sarah colwell to her bre colleagues page one stephen howard tony baker and debbie smith following that email and sent at 1738 on the 24th of april
00:29:45 and sent at 1738 on the 24th of april 2014 and she says this this is something we need to be aware of and should be consi and should consider being involved with because of the increasing number of issues similar to those identified below which we are
00:29:56 those identified below which we are being asked by industry it also follows on from the discussion tony and i had with brian earlier in the year which suggested that dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced and then referenced in the faq area on
00:30:09 and then referenced in the faq area on the dclg website now first were you aware that in april 2014 the bre was still receiving questions from industry all the matters set out in brenda aptid's email no i wouldn't have known what was
00:30:20 no i wouldn't have known what was happening at bre you sure no one raised these matters with you after november 2013 apart from the 30th of january email a meeting another meeting which you
00:30:31 a meeting another meeting which you can't recall um no now the discussion tony and i had with brian earlier in the year i think is the meeting that you had with sarah colwell and antony baker on the 30th of january 2014 the invitation for
00:30:43 30th of january 2014 the invitation for which we saw during during your evidence this morning yes yes
00:30:49 yes yes does that help you remember anything about this meeting that meeting i i don't remember it but these look like it seems plausible that's the sort of thing i would have said did you say at the meeting that the dclg
00:31:02 did you say at the meeting that the dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced and then referenced in the faq area on the dclg website i don't remember saying it but it seems likely that's what i would have said
00:31:14 likely that's what i would have said right
00:31:17 dr colwell told us that she hadn't used the faq route before and that it was something that you had you had raised and would take forward day 233 page 203 22-25
00:31:28 day 233 page 203 22-25 was it in fact your own suggestion at origin
00:31:33 origin that the faq section of the department's web site should be used to make a reference to industry guidance on the kinds of matters listed in brenda aptid's email i hadn't thought about that before
00:31:44 i hadn't thought about that before conceivably i might have mentioned faqs as one of the options when when i met with mr baker and dr colwell and perhaps she then
00:31:53 she then decided to propose that at the at the cwc team 18. now let's go to the top email of the chain
00:32:01 chain which i think fits with what you've just told us
00:32:04 told us this is sent by sarah colwell the same day 10 36
00:32:12 22 36 in the evening this document has been around several years and was focused on curtin wall issues the problem is now the issues we're seeing in the industry that are not clearly defined in adb
00:32:24 not clearly defined in adb hence our meeting with eclg earlier in the year and their suggested faq route this cwct revision would fit with that approach
00:32:32 approach we used to have good links to cwct but btg
00:32:36 btg but sorry via btg but i'm not sure who's taking it on now i'll follow up with julie now you can see the reference to their suggested faq route it seems from that is again that's likely to be a
00:32:47 that is again that's likely to be a reference to your meeting on the 30th of january with sarah cole and tony baker it seems likely yes
00:33:02 so is it right that going back to july 2014 you wouldn't have needed sarah colwell or anybody else to contact you in order to publish an faq on the proof document b you could have done that without any difficulty yourself having
00:33:14 without any difficulty yourself having read the minute
00:33:22 i suppose so i think at the time i i thought they were working something up and
00:33:28 and waited for them i mean as a matter of mechanics and possibilities at the time we've heard evidence from anthony bird bob ledson and richard harrell who all told us in their different ways that
00:33:39 told us in their different ways that clarification of 12.7 to bring it in line with
00:33:44 line with the intention of the secretary of state back in 2006 could have been done by an faq at this point without difficulty do you accept that um
00:33:57 it certainly wasn't impossible i mean it would have taken some work but yeah yeah it would have taken some work but i think you accept it
00:34:11 i mean can we take it that there was nothing in the idea of publishing an faq on this subject that you considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate or disproportionately difficult no no
00:34:25 but i think what you'd tell us is you didn't do so because in all candor you forgot about it is what you told us before um i think i owe the inquiry that canada and i think that's the honest answer i
00:34:37 and i think that's the honest answer i think um i'd seen the minute that
00:34:41 that they were going to um take the next step and so i probably put it away from my mind and focused on what i was working at the time it was a um it doesn't sound like a very it's not
00:34:52 um it doesn't sound like a very it's not an excuse it's a fact we were very busy on other things at the time right
00:34:56 right let me just ask you one or two other things are you aware that after this meeting a few days later sorry a few weeks later in early september 2014 sarah colwell met alan
00:35:07 september 2014 sarah colwell met alan keeler of cwct to discuss the faq did you know that i didn't know at the time i'm aware of it now did you know that in october 2014 7th of october at a cwct members
00:35:20 7th of october at a cwct members conference attended by among others sarah colwell members were told that cwct and the bre were in the process of obtaining clarification on 12.7 through the faq section of the building regulations i
00:35:32 section of the building regulations i wasn't aware of anything about that
00:35:37 that's right isn't it the clarification was not sought from you or anyone else in the department by cwct was it
00:35:45 was it um i i think the next time i heard from them was in 2016. march the 7th 17th march 2016 meeting we'll come to that later but that was the next you heard was it right what about the bre
00:35:56 was it right what about the bre uh did any clarification or request for clarification come to you from the bre after the second of july 2014 meeting no are you aware that sarah colwell told
00:36:08 are you aware that sarah colwell told the cwct in march 2015 that an faq had been drafted and was about to be circulated to the cwc for their comments no
00:36:19 no you're quite sure that wasn't mentioned to you i certainly don't remember it do you remember having any kind of conversational discussion about an faq with dr debbie smith
00:36:30 with dr debbie smith no
00:36:33 was it ever suggested to you that an faq should not be posted on the fa on the website
00:36:38 website no you're sure about that as sure as it can be let's go back to your statement
00:36:47 uh you're referring your statement please at page six paragraph eighteen
00:36:56 uh that
00:36:57 that is possible for if you look at the bottom of this paragraph
00:37:02 paragraph um
00:37:03 um you say one of the roles of the technical policy officials within the department can involve working with trade bodies insurers building control bodies etc to find interim solutions to issues with the regulations until such
00:37:14 issues with the regulations until such time as a formal review of the part of the regulations or approved document is completed
00:37:19 completed and
00:37:20 and that would would i be right in thinking that would include faqs
00:37:26 yes i mean there's a limit i think as some of the other witnesses have said is there's a limit to what you can do with an faq
00:37:33 an faq um
00:37:33 um [Music]
00:37:35 [Music] because it would be a formal document it's essentially from the department or the secretary of state depending on how you look at it um and um what you can't do is change the
00:37:46 and um what you can't do is change the law
00:37:47 law or or
00:37:49 or or change the approved document by the back door so to speak so you can only um direct people to better information and explain things so there's a limit to what you can do but that's certainly one
00:38:01 what you can do but that's certainly one of one of the things that we've used in the past try and resolve problems but you wouldn't if you did if you just clarified the fact that the word filler material
00:38:08 material applied whatever else it might apply to applied certainly to the core of a of a composite panel that wouldn't be a change in the law or a change in the approved document it would be yeah i don't know if we'd been able to say it
00:38:19 don't know if we'd been able to say it quite as directly as that but we could probably could have said it said it more directly than than was what was in the approved well you could just say that the word filler is intended to connect or include the core of a composite panel
00:38:30 or include the core of a composite panel and always was according to your evidence
00:38:34 evidence so no difficulty with it i i i i don't think i'd have been able to say i think we would have said something like such as because the point of that paragraph was to get people to look beyond just a single type of product right so it would
00:38:46 single type of product right so it would have need
00:38:47 have need it would have probably been a bit more nuanced than you're suggesting right but putting it more bluntly if you had discovered as you did it seems from reading the minute uh the industry did
00:38:59 reading the minute uh the industry did not understand that an acm with a pe core panel was effectively banned by 12.7 then that message however it was phrased
00:39:11 message however it was phrased could
00:39:11 could easily i would suggest be the subject of an faq posted with some speed on the department's website
00:39:20 website um it's something we could have done yes
00:39:24 and similarly you could have gone to the labc the bca nhbc building control bodies design associations architects construction professionals and tell them
00:39:35 and tell them um we couldn't tell them what they can or can't approve that would be a decision for them but we could alert them to the issue and and
00:39:42 and the concerns that have been raised
00:39:56 was there any element of your thinking about this at the time that you were proud and pleased with the work you've done in drafting 12.7 in 2006
00:40:09 12.7 in 2006 and in doing nothing you were acting to protect the content of that provision something i think which you described on occasions as your third child would that be fair
00:40:22 would that be fair no i don't think that was what was going through my mind at the time is any part of the reason that you did nothing to clarify the meaning of 12.7 the fact that the the new wording for that paragraph
00:40:33 that paragraph in the 2006 version of adb was not made the subject of public consultation or consultation with brac or ministerial scrutiny
00:40:41 scrutiny or any of the other matters that you say in paragraph 18 would be needed in the case of substantive change no that wasn't what was good i think at the time my main concern is that we were
00:40:53 the time my main concern is that we were heavily focused on other work at the time and
00:40:58 i think i was distracted from the issue right so just be clear for us can you confirm that you it was no part of your thinking that you had snuck it in under the radar back at the end of 2006
00:41:10 under the radar back at the end of 2006 and were now worried that somebody might ask awkward questions about how the phrase filler materials got in there no that wasn't my thinking until or that you
00:41:23 is it the case that you didn't during the period from 2014 onwards consider that there was any risk of a major fire in england and wales due to the use of acm panels with a
00:41:35 due to the use of acm panels with a polyethylene core well i could clearly see there was a problem i i underestimated the risk that acm presented i think if i'd fully understood it i may have
00:41:46 i may have um
00:41:50 put more time into this issue and i completely underestimated the hazard did you want did you discuss industry's lack of clarity on the meaning of 12.7 of approved document be with any senior official at any time
00:42:07 not in relation to acm i don't think so no
00:42:11 no in relation to anything else
00:42:15 the other issue that had been raised to that meeting which was the um the question of what insulation materials people were using was something that that came up um and as i'm sure we'll discuss at some
00:42:27 um and as i'm sure we'll discuss at some point i raised with the nhbc yeah and i discussed that with um mr ledsman mr harrell yes but not not the
00:42:36 not the need for clarity about 12.7 no
00:42:41 no why is that
00:42:49 it just didn't register with me at the time um i don't think i recognized um how serious it was um i guess
00:42:57 i guess it was a problem which was really peculiar to acm um
00:43:01 um and
00:43:04 i just didn't think it was that significant an issue at the time right now do you accept a decision
00:43:15 did you discuss not doing anything with any senior officials richard harrell
00:43:21 harrell bob ledson anybody more senior no so you never took this to them and said the problems emerged about the clarity of 12.7
00:43:34 of 12.7 we should do something about it no i
00:43:37 no i um
00:43:38 um at the time i took it as one of a number of
00:43:42 of routine debates about the application of the approved document do you accept that in the absence of your raising this problem with them your line managers
00:43:54 your line managers and their seniors would have no way of knowing about it
00:44:00 that wasn't unusual i recognize that now but that wasn't an unusual situation i think all the officers in the team would be dealing with this kind kind of query all the time
00:44:16 let's turn then to the topic you just referred to which is the use of combustible insulation materials over 18 meters uh because you say rightly that it's
00:44:27 uh because you say rightly that it's also the topic of this meeting and if we go to uh page three
00:44:33 three please of the minutes of the meeting you can see there's a heading combustibility of insulation
00:44:41 and middle of your screen you see that and it says limited combustibility insulation should be used above 18 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of adb clause 12.7
00:44:53 requirements of adb clause 12.7 but other materials principally foil faced phenolic foam are often used in rain screen walls there is a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility
00:45:04 class naught with limited combustibility in other cases building control officers are permitting the use of class naught materials making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility insulation higher standards of thermal insulation
00:45:16 higher standards of thermal insulation are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation and in some cases this can only be achieved within the designated wall zone by use of combustible insulation architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall
00:45:28 problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material now um do you remember whether you were present for that part of the discussion yes i was you were now in your statement
00:45:41 yes i was you were now in your statement i think you say let's look at it page 42 paragraph 120.
00:45:48 you say this during the meeting i do recall that it was suggested that some projects were using insulation products that did not meet the standard set in the adb and that this might be because of a
00:45:59 that this might be because of a misunderstanding of the different classifications but what are the standards set in the adb that you're referring to there the material limited combustibility for insulation so 12.7 yes right
00:46:11 insulation so 12.7 yes right and table a7 i suppose as well you were certainly aware i think that this was a current issue because you'd already corresponded with neil smith of nhbc
00:46:22 with neil smith of nhbc a little earlier the same day on that very topic hadn't you
00:46:27 remember the friendly warning email um never been quite sure in which order these things happened well we'll we'll we'll we'll look at that in in a moment um
00:46:38 that in in a moment um the friendly warning email came in the in the morning and the meeting was in the afternoon take that from me
00:46:48 me but uh
00:46:49 but uh we'll come to that but but let's uh let's look at something slightly different here can we go back to the minute
00:46:56 minute please of the meeting where you can see in the middle of the paragraph i've just shown you
00:47:01 shown you three lines down under the heading it says there is a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility was that something that you knew already
00:47:14 was that something that you knew already in july 2014 before this meeting
00:47:19 no i don't think so um two things with different definitions well they are indeed uh
00:47:29 uh as
00:47:30 as as we know but we've seen how the word combustibility or limited combustibility can be used in it perhaps imprecisely were you aware before the
00:47:42 imprecisely were you aware before the 14th of before the second of july 2014 meeting that there was a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility did you know that
00:47:54 did you know that no i don't think i did so this would have come as something of a surprise yes yes yes
00:48:03 and then looking at the next sentence in the minute it says in other cases building control officers are permitting the use of class naught materials making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited
00:48:14 enforce the requirement for limited combustibility do you recall that discussion um i i recall the general discussion i remember i can't remember who it was it might well have been one of the engineers from wintec um thinking about it but i couldn't say for certain but it
00:48:26 it but i couldn't say for certain but it was some somebody said that they um they'd found building control bodies that thought my recollection is is that they found building control bodies that thought um
00:48:39 building control bodies that thought um polymer foam insulations were materials of limited combustibility um i don't remember the exact words are in this in this minute that's my recollection did that come as a surprise to you
00:48:51 did that come as a surprise to you um yes it was a concern um and it
00:48:56 it seemed implausible to me um and
00:49:03 i i thought it was it was well known that the foam insulations are not materials or limited combustibility well there are two confusions then aren't there i think here um first um
00:49:14 aren't there i think here um first um the ignorance about whether or not foam insulations are materials of limited combustibility and secondly confusing class naught with limiting combustibility both are apparent i think
00:49:25 combustibility both are apparent i think on the face of this paragraph aren't they
00:49:27 they um yes yes and so um so there's a double surprise there is that right um i suppose so yes with that did that not reveal to you profound ignorance uh within the building control community
00:49:39 uh within the building control community if there were members of it who made both of those or even either of those confusions um well there were no members of the building control community at the meeting i don't think so
00:49:52 meeting i don't think so this was an accusation levelled against them
00:49:55 them whether it was true or not i don't know well it's a you said it's an accusation it was a a reflection of the members at this meetings experience of some people who and building control
00:50:06 of some people who and building control officers maybe one of the same may be different
00:50:09 different but
00:50:10 but the point is isn't it that there are two kinds of confusion out there confusion between class nought and limited combustibility and uh confusion about whether or not foam insulation is itself of limited combustibility
00:50:22 combustibility yes i guess that's fair yes now what did you do
00:50:25 you do uh after seeing those minutes or hearing that discussion about these two problems
00:50:34 um well i thought i i there's this i'm confused by the timeline i i thought it was after this meeting that i contacted nhbc
00:50:43 nhbc to to ask them what what they were doing on this matter right well let me let me show you the email i'm about i'm about to show it to you actually so i'm going don't get ahead of myself
00:50:54 ahead of myself but i can tell you that the email is timed at 11 42 that morning uh
00:51:00 uh uh and it may be that you read the email after the meeting but
00:51:05 but uh
00:51:05 uh it was sent certainly beforehand but maybe nothing turns on that but let's let's some uh
00:51:12 uh just go back to this point um did you carry out any inquiries of industry
00:51:19 industry more broadly than the people at this meeting or building control officers to find out whether it was in fact the case
00:51:27 case that people were confusing class naught with limited combustibility and thinking that foam insulation was itself of limited combustibility did you do that
00:51:39 did you do that not directly no indirectly um i think that's the what's become known as the friendly warning email
00:51:47 anything else at that time no
00:51:53 why nothing else
00:52:00 i think i treated it as an allegation was just
00:52:03 was just looking around to see if i could find any
00:52:06 any what what feedback i could get on it um quickly and easily which which is why i sent the email to nhbc right well let we'll come to that because i think it cries out to be examined but before i do it i don't want
00:52:17 examined but before i do it i don't want to prolong the moment much longer than i need to can i just ask you one other thing
00:52:21 thing and can we go please to uh the witness statement of david cook spa at cookson of kingspan panels that's at kin3026300
00:52:32 page 19 paragraph 2.106
00:52:37 and he says one thing that does stand out in my mind from the cwct meeting is that when brian martin left the meeting he said something along the lines of there's going to be a major fire
00:52:48 there's going to be a major fire my recollection of this comment is that it related to the quality of installation and the issue with cavity barriers which is referred to under the heading rain screen cavity barriers at page three of the cwct minutes rather
00:53:00 page three of the cwct minutes rather than simply the use of acm however i cannot fully recall and he goes on a bit more about cavity barriers now is mr cookson right in his recollection first that you said as before you left
00:53:11 first that you said as before you left the meeting there is going to be a major fire
00:53:15 fire i doubt i would have said it in those terms but i don't remember is there anything you can remember about issuing a warning along those lines i might have said something like that to
00:53:26 i might have said something like that to try and encourage the people in the room to to
00:53:30 to to take action where they could right
00:53:35 was there anything raised at the second of july 2014 meeting that caused you to comment or to think that a major fire might occur
00:53:46 i know that we we'd seen in particular with cavity barriers um we'd seen a lot of incidents um probably mostly in timber frame buildings
00:53:56 buildings where there'd been fire spread in cavities
00:53:59 cavities um
00:54:01 um and
00:54:02 and invariably the the the culprit if you like was poorly installed cavity barriers um it seemed to be it's one of the it's a particularly problematic um
00:54:15 it's a particularly problematic um building component because it's difficult to inspect because it's within the construction
00:54:23 and serves no function unless there's a fire
00:54:27 fire so if it's defective if it's not picked up by
00:54:31 up by um quality control on site it's very difficult for an inspector or anyone else to spot that there's a problem um and so certainly with um
00:54:42 i think most of the fires were timber frame ones but not exclusively where there'd been fire spreading cavities and and problems with the installation of cavity barriers had been an issue so i think
00:54:53 i think that was probably why i was pressing on that point because we'd seen a lot of problems with cavity barriers and trying to get
00:55:02 to get people with influence in the industry to help us improve standards now
00:55:07 now you
00:55:08 you told us that you hadn't escalated any of these matters with your seniors apart from the question of the use of insulation combustible insulation above 18 meters which we'll
00:55:19 insulation above 18 meters which we'll come to
00:55:21 come to i just want to ask you about the minutes of this meeting when you received them into the office where did you keep them
00:55:28 um
00:55:37 i can't i can't remember you print them off and file them or did you leave them in a pdf on your hard drive or
00:55:44 drive or or
00:55:45 or how did you store these minutes i think at that time we stored nearly everything electronically um that
00:55:54 the department didn't have a very robust record keeping system right did you think to send the minutes at least to richard harrell or bob ledson
00:56:06 or bob ledson no i mean i attended meetings like this all the time if i sent the minutes of every meeting i went to they'd be
00:56:13 inaudible right did you send them a message saying you might be interested in this
00:56:18 in this no identify the place on the hard drive or on the shared drive where it where you could where you could find them in it
00:56:26 now as i say i mean i saw this as a as a as something everybody in the team had this kind of meeting with um industry stakeholders fairly regularly um
00:56:38 um and so it wouldn't have been it wouldn't have been that unusual at the time now let's look at the friendly warning email can we start with your statement please page 42
00:56:50 page 42 paragraph 127
00:56:54 and you explain there you say this 127.
00:57:01 127. i'm sorry my misreference page 44. and you say after i returned to the department following the meeting i followed it up by emailing neil smith at the national house building council nhbc
00:57:12 the national house building council nhbc which is the country's largest approved inspector and one of the leading home warranty and insurance providers to alert him to the discussions i had had at the cwct meeting
00:57:23 now let's then look at that email please it's at nhb 50712.
00:57:37 um if we go please uh we need to scroll to the bottom of the chain down to page four well page three i'm sorry top of page three
00:57:51 uh there it is and you can see that it's an email from you to neil smith on the 2nd of july 2014 but note the time 11 42. do you see that yes
00:58:00 yes fire safety facades hi neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently allegedly several buildings have been erected where pir insulation has been
00:58:12 erected where pir insulation has been used in cladding panels well about over 18 meters in height apparently people are under the impression the pir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't again allegedly many of these buildings
00:58:24 again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats i have no idea how true these allegations are but they come from from relatively reliable sources the purpose of my email is a friendly warning you might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers
00:58:36 with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this happy to discuss regards brian
00:58:41 now are you certain that as you say in your statement it was after and as a result of the discussions that you'd been involved in at the cwct meeting that you
00:58:53 involved in at the cwct meeting that you emailed
00:58:54 emailed neil smith i thought it was but i can see where you're asking me that question yes because if you look at the timing it's sent in the morning on the 11th at 11 42 but the cwct meeting took place in the
00:59:06 but the cwct meeting took place in the afternoon yes um i i can't remember but i'm assuming that's what it says in the minute yes and i think your email clock was a 24 hour clock wasn't it rather than a 12
00:59:17 hour clock wasn't it rather than a 12 hour clock so it wouldn't have been late at night no that seemed unlikely no so we can rule that out um
00:59:27 um now
00:59:28 now we don't need to get back to it but do you remember that the previous day the first of july you'd sent the email you'd emailed cwct to say that you'd been called to a meeting with building regs on the 2nd of july 2014 which would run
00:59:40 on the 2nd of july 2014 which would run until 3 p.m and that you would join the group after that meeting and that of course didn't happen in the end you turned up at two o'clock at the start and left
00:59:49 and left uh at some point during the meeting yes yes
00:59:52 yes so it must be the case i think that you'd sent this email to neil smith before attending the cwct meeting yes that that that's how how it seems i'm sorry if i've um
01:00:04 sorry if i've um incorrectly put something in my statement that wasn't was not deliberate no no i understand that i'm just trying to get get the facts clear because it leads to this question what was it if not the meeting which it can't have
01:00:16 if not the meeting which it can't have been that led you to send this email
01:00:27 i can't remember um
01:00:34 who were the few folk that you've been talking to recently about fire safety and facades
01:00:48 i'm sorry i really don't understand
01:00:52 and who are the relatively reliable sources that you say you receive this information from okay i can see where you're asking me that question um
01:01:03 perhaps i'd had a telephone conversation with somebody i i don't remember and it's
01:01:08 and it's you say that the sources are relatively reliable what do you mean by relative relatively to what
01:01:15 looks like i'm being deliberately vague yeah
01:01:18 yeah um let's see if i can help you a little more can we go to clg 3031776
01:01:30 it looks from this document which is a an invitation from charlotte robin at arab to you
01:01:42 to you and
01:01:43 and others including debbie smith
01:01:47 at bre to come to a meeting at arab on the 25th of june 2014 so a week before the cwct meeting and the email you sent
01:01:59 the cwct meeting and the email you sent that morning and you say this or she says this all as discussed this meeting is intended to discuss
01:02:06 discuss some particular issues we come across related to interpretation of the performance requirements and how this is being achieved in real building applications discovered this covers multiple aspects of the fire stroke
01:02:18 multiple aspects of the fire stroke facade interface including the use of combustible materials and fire stopping attendees debbie smith brian martin barbara lane charlotte robin neil butterworth
01:02:29 butterworth kind regards charlotte do you remember whether that meeting took place um
01:02:39 i have a feeling i may have merged two meetings in my memory into one um
01:02:44 um i see that neil butterworth is listed there
01:02:49 there as i recall i recommended to cwct that neil butterworth was invited to the the cwc team meeting um
01:02:58 um so i imagine i'd been speaking to the people at arab um
01:03:05 um on the same subject so that that would that would make sense i'm i'm sorry i i didn't remember this meeting at all right okay
01:03:14 okay does that tell us that the people you've been speaking to recently who were relatively reliable as sources were those at this meeting that would make sense uh uh and it was
01:03:25 that would make sense uh uh and it was at this meeting that the concern had arisen that some people thought that it was acceptable and within the scope of adb to put combustible insulation on walls above 18
01:03:36 combustible insulation on walls above 18 meters
01:03:40 that that would make sense right
01:03:48 debbie smith told us in her evidence that she she recalled a meeting at arrow but she couldn't remember you being there but she does remember discussion about the definitions of non-combustible and limited combustibility
01:04:00 and limited combustibility and she said that at day two three seven page seventy four lines seven to ten but does that
01:04:07 does that does that help you with your recollection about the topics of discussion and the source of the friendly warning email information um i i i wish i could remember in more detail and as
01:04:18 and as i've have a feeling i've got two mem two meetings in my head that i've probably thought with the same meeting right
01:04:25 right all right
01:04:26 all right so can we leave it like this then would you agree that it is it is likely
01:04:31 likely that the source of the information you put into your friendly warning email on the morning of the 2nd of july was derived from what you'd learned the previous week at the meeting at arab
01:04:45 it seems plausible yes all right
01:04:54 now uh going back to the friendly warning email if we can please nhb50712
01:05:13 you say in the second paragraph second
01:05:17 second sentence again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats did you have any rough idea how many buildings had been clad in combustible insulation above 18 meters
01:05:28 combustible insulation above 18 meters no none at all
01:05:32 it's always difficult to to separate out um
01:05:39 when people say this is a big problem you never quite know they don't necessarily really have any evidence to say how big a problem is they can only comment on the things that they've seen themselves
01:05:51 they've seen themselves so
01:05:52 so i would have had no idea how many buildings there were not nor would anyone else right did you not ask them for some examples examples of buildings types of buildings location
01:06:03 location the um i might have done um they probably would have um not not been willing to share that kind of information did you not think to ask them how they knew what they knew
01:06:16 um i can't remember the meeting enough to know what i did i didn't ask them right now in your email you refer to pir uh
01:06:24 uh specifically did you mean pir or did you mean combustible insulation material more generically i don't know a pir of the
01:06:36 of the um foam insulations um there's a kind of hierarchy in terms of fire performance pirs at the better end so it might might be that's why we flagged
01:06:47 might might be that's why we flagged that because people thought it was a better material right certainly when you talk about um the
01:06:54 the we spoke yesterday i think about the insurance industries provisions for sandwich panels in industrial buildings and it was the panels that used pir as
01:07:05 and it was the panels that used pir as an insulation um
01:07:08 um as i understand it that we're getting the
01:07:11 the the best performance in those in those tests and in that in that scenario right so you were referring pi up to pir specifically deliberately rather as
01:07:22 specifically deliberately rather as opposed to pur or phenolic the fact that i've used pir in this i don't think i would have done that unless unless that's what i meant i don't know right what might you not have meant it in
01:07:35 what might you not have meant it in as it were the family sense which is the sense in which i think it was understood by nhbc namely combustible plastic foamed insulation
01:07:47 plastic foamed insulation it could have been either right
01:07:50 did you know at the time that one of the combustible insulation products then being used on buildings above 18 meters uh was kingspan's cool therm k15 which is of course not pir but a phenolic foam
01:08:04 is of course not pir but a phenolic foam um i didn't know that at the time i don't know that then um you referred in the second paragraph second sentence there to people apparently people are under the impression the pir is a material of
01:08:16 impression the pir is a material of limited combustibility what people did you think were under that impression who were the people no i i haven't got a clue i mean i i'm obviously um i'm this this is me fishing i suppose
01:08:30 um i'm this this is me fishing i suppose for one of a better term trying um
01:08:33 trying um in response to something i've heard i'm trying to see what what what i can find out yes
01:08:42 i mean you say which it isn't in brackets i mean
01:08:46 mean can we take it that your view at the time fishing or otherwise was that uh it was squarely incorrect to think that pir was a material of
01:08:57 to think that pir was a material of limited combustibility absolutely it's it's first weak fire safety isn't it
01:09:05 i don't know if it's first week but it yeah it's it's some it's something i'd i'd expect any a and anybody certainly i'd i i would expect a building control officer to know that if they see a foam insulation it's not a material of
01:09:17 insulation it's not a material of limited combustibility right now you describe your email or the purpose of your email rather as a friendly warning um why friendly why would the nhp see your friends
01:09:29 why would the nhp see your friends so to speak um
01:09:33 um i think neil smith at the time was a member of brac which is probably why i was using was a contact because i had good contact details with him um
01:09:42 um i i think as i said before is we can't actually tell building control office building control bodies what to do and the judgments they make are their own responsibility so i think i'm
01:09:53 so i think i'm in a roundabout way i'm not i'm making it clear that i'm not telling them what to do i'm just i'm asking them for some information i guess that's why i phrased it that way did you have any other friends who whom
01:10:05 did you have any other friends who whom you thought deserved a warning
01:10:13 um i could have done the same thing with with somebody at labc but but why why the approach why the finger tap on the nose approach to friends on the basis of what you had characterized as an unverified rumor
01:10:26 characterized as an unverified rumor why not get to the bottom of it first
01:10:32 that's what i was trying to do did you contact any other approved inspectors about this problem
01:10:40 problem no i looked at nhbc um is
01:10:45 um is significantly larger in terms of the amount of work it does than any other approved inspector specializes in in house building um and
01:10:54 and um
01:10:58 it's just a big organization so it had a lot of resources so that it was it was a a a way of um getting a feel for what was going on over a broad area that's a follow i
01:11:10 over a broad area that's a follow i understand that um my question is really directed at uh anybody at others did for example did you con contact any local authority building control department or the labc
01:11:22 the labc no i think in retrospect i think i should have contacted labc did you contact the bca
01:11:30 and the the bca doesn't have a kind of permanent contact um not that i had an easy contact list for this this was somebody i could contact quickly and
01:11:41 somebody i could contact quickly and easily um
01:11:43 easily um and i
01:11:44 and i knew mr smith reasonably well and and thought it would be a
01:11:52 constructive thing today did you contact anybody in the design part of the industry architects designers the riba
01:12:02 and i've not seen any records of that no no i mean this is the this is the only contact i made was with nhbc why why was this the only contact given what you discovered from the beyond um i i think i think it was a an
01:12:15 beyond um i i think i think it was a an email that i sent quickly probably um because i knew that i was
01:12:22 i was now looking at it um i had a meeting with cwct in the afternoon so i'm trying to quickly gather some information about what's going on right
01:12:36 so you didn't think about contacting for example the construction industry council cic or rics or any other bodies and i think i would i wouldn't have got
01:12:47 and i think i would i wouldn't have got a quick and simple answer from any of those organizations whereas whereas i i think i thought i would do from nhb you didn't get a quick and simple answer from an hbc either did you it will come to
01:12:59 it will come to but
01:13:01 but what were you after why would you expect a quick and simple answer well here you are tipping off nhbc about a potentially very serious problem why not tip off other organizations who
01:13:12 not tip off other organizations who would have other other avenues and reach a wider audience i think at this point it was this was more about me fishing for information than than
01:13:22 than than just alerting them to a potential problem
01:13:26 problem why did you not also after you received the minutes of the cwct meeting of the 2nd of july later that day
01:13:35 the meeting being later that day and you later getting the minutes at that point alert the nhbc to the issue of the use of acm panels with a pe core which was the subject of discussion at that
01:13:46 the subject of discussion at that meeting
01:13:52 i think at the time i lumped all of the issues together as just being you know what's going on with cladding well that's a bit broad isn't it here it's quite a specific point
01:14:03 it's quite a specific point pir insulation over 18 meters uh that's a very different topic from acm panels with a pe core being used despite 12.7
01:14:14 despite 12.7 yeah you were asking me about later on this is this is before now i know this is before the cwct meeting so i i'm guessing the acm question hadn't arisen at that point it hasn't arisen at 11 42
01:14:27 at that point it hasn't arisen at 11 42 in the morning i i i that's the point the point is that once you've seen let me try this differently maybe you've misunderstood my question and it's my fault if you have once you saw once you've seen the meeting minutes for the
01:14:38 you've seen the meeting minutes for the second of july meeting why do you not give another friendly warning friendly warning number two to the nhbc
01:14:44 the nhbc that it was possible that out there there were acm panels with a pe core on the basis that some people might have misunderstood paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
01:14:57 i don't know why i didn't do that i i think it just didn't register with me at the time right
01:15:06 it didn't register was there some difference in your mind between the importance of these two matters on the one hand the use of combustible insulation over 18 meters as against on
01:15:17 insulation over 18 meters as against on the other the use of acm with a pe core over 18 meters um i i think you're crediting him with more consideration than i think i had time to give it at the time um as i said with the the the cwc team meeting i had
01:15:30 with the the the cwc team meeting i had to leave halfway through to go and brief a minister i think on a completely different subject um that's probably what was on my mind at the time
01:15:39 can we then go please to clg 50686
01:15:46 and this is the nhbc's response of the 11th of july to your friendly warning email of the 2nd of july it comes from steve evans on that date 11th july to you
01:15:59 on that date 11th july to you copy to diane marshall and neil smith dear brian and i'll read this to you he says this i hope that you are well neil smith has discussed your email with
01:16:10 neil smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as i have been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc this is an issue that nhbc are aware of and have been in discussions with industry about it for some time
01:16:23 with industry about it for some time the issue is in respect of the use of kingspan coupon k15 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingspan's statement that their product is
01:16:35 statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters
01:16:38 meters however the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible now pausing there you'd said in your email uh on the 2nd of july the friendly
01:16:50 uh on the 2nd of july the friendly warning email um which is also in this string and we can look at it if we need to that you said i have no idea how true these allegations are do you remember that yes yes now i just want to be very clear
01:17:01 yes yes now i just want to be very clear is it your evidence that as at the late morning of the second of july 2014 you had heard a rumor perhaps from the vre
01:17:12 perhaps from the vre that combustible insulation had been or was being used on buildings over 18 meters in height but you had no hard evidence to support it
01:17:23 yes i guess so yes were you unaware therefore until you read that paragraph of steve evans's email
01:17:33 email that there had been discussions going on for some time between nhbc and industry and in particular kingspan on this very subject
01:17:43 subject it did come as quite a surprise yes i wasn't expecting an email like this in response
01:17:47 response right
01:17:55 and and therefore after seeing this email you you now knew that it was true that some people were either under the mistaken impression or
01:18:06 either under the mistaken impression or knew very well that pir insulation was a material of limiting combustibility but we're nonetheless using it over 18 meters
01:18:15 i think this email suggests that the issue is more complex than that well answer my question please if you would did this email bring home to you what you now what you had not known
01:18:26 what you now what you had not known before
01:18:27 before um
01:18:28 um or had evidence to support which was that it was in fact true that some people were either under the mistaken impression that pir or phenolic insulation was a material of limited combustibility or
01:18:39 material of limited combustibility or else knew it very well but we're nonetheless using it above 18 meters um yes it showed that a
01:18:48 a insulation that didn't seem to me approved document b was being used in places where the proof documents say you shouldn't use it yes now let's um let's go back in time
01:18:59 now let's um let's go back in time let's go back to 2009 labc 40924
01:19:12 this is an um a letter sent by a gentleman called larry cody of rockwool
01:19:19 rockwool to the labc on the 25th of september 2009
01:19:26 now the letter is undated but we we can date it from mr cody's follow-up letter i don't need to show it to you but it was labc two zeros one eight seven four four i'm not going to read the whole uh
01:19:39 four i'm not going to read the whole uh letter but i want to look at the at the bottom of page two if i can please
01:19:45 well sorry i'm so sorry i do apologize can we go back to page one
01:19:52 i will show you first of all the first paragraph
01:19:56 he says there we've been made aware of the attached article stroke newsletter currently appearing on the website of the insulation manufacturer kingspan entitled first to make the grade with labc which relates to its k-15 phenolic
01:20:09 labc which relates to its k-15 phenolic plastic foam insulation product this article asserts that labc has stated the k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility and quotes is suitable in all situations shown on
01:20:21 suitable in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a building more than 18 meters above ground close quotes this claim is of serious concern now
01:20:32 now um
01:20:33 um let me just show you page two at the bottom
01:20:35 bottom if we go to that we can see there that a copy of this letter was sent to you yes yes
01:20:41 yes then going back to page one
01:20:45 um when you received it as i've just shown you that you did did you read this letter
01:20:50 letter i don't remember seeing this letter you don't remember seeing it do you not remember seeing that first paragraph
01:20:58 no right
01:21:03 do you not remember reading the article no i i've since seen i've had this letter shown to me since then in preparation and i i don't remember having seen it before um as you say it
01:21:15 having seen it before um as you say it was it was copied to me um but addressed to labc
01:21:19 to labc um
01:21:21 um and i think i did ask the team back in the department to see if we if i could find we could find any record of him we couldn't
01:21:29 couldn't right
01:21:31 right well that's that the fact that you couldn't find a record of it is one thing but i don't think you can can you can you deny receiving it
01:21:43 receiving it i mean um
01:21:46 i mean um i don't know whether it would it looks like it was um perhaps a paper letter um and say that
01:21:55 yeah in which case probably the fire would have been destroyed by now i don't know well that may be but um at the time it would have there's no reason is there to think that it wouldn't have come to you in the ordinary course of the way things were done
01:22:07 the way things were done i would have expected it to yes and therefore can we expect you to have read it when it came to you in the expected way
01:22:17 i would have thought so as i say i don't remember it and i suspect i would have seen that it was um
01:22:28 an issue where
01:22:30 in hindsight it sounds awful um i would have seen that it was um one manufacturer criticizing another one and raising it with a body that wasn't
01:22:42 a body that wasn't the department and i would have looked into well that's a local authority building control issue that will leave them to deal with it well leaving aside mr cody's motives
01:22:54 it well leaving aside mr cody's motives one manufacturer criticizing another what he's doing is raising with the labc the question of how he could make the statement that it did namely that k15 as
01:23:06 statement that it did namely that k15 as a phenolic insulation could be used in all situations shown on diagram 40.
01:23:14 and on its face if that is what the article states or rather that is what the article says that labc states that's a very serious allegation isn't it
01:23:27 um yes yes were you not interested to understand never mind mr cody's commercial motives in raising it of course you might have plenty
01:23:36 plenty did you not want to get to the bottom of how on earth it could have come about that an organization like the labc could have made that statement
01:23:49 i wish i had i don't i i didn't at the time
01:23:54 the way our team operated is we didn't act as policeman for the system um and um we would have left labc and and um
01:24:03 and um rockwell and king's bank to resolve this amongst themselves well you say you didn't act as policeman but the department government's job was wasn't it to make sure that
01:24:13 that its regulations and the guidance of how to comply with its regulations was understood by everybody and that those certifying bodies certified and approved
01:24:24 certifying bodies certified and approved by ucas
01:24:26 by ucas who provided public statements particularly in the area of fire safety were doing their job
01:24:36 um well i think the labc scheme isn't certified by ucas and never was um my recollection of when labc
01:24:47 my recollection of when labc started
01:24:48 started um
01:24:51 um it moved from a sort of type approval approach
01:24:55 approach to a kind of product certification um activity and some of the other certification companies were concerned about the fact that it wasn't ucas accredited and i think labc um
01:25:10 decided to ignore that and carry on um
01:25:13 um so i
01:25:17 i could i can only say is is the
01:25:21 the the way that the um
01:25:24 um the building act was drafted was with the intention of minimal uh intervention by the by government um
01:25:32 um and um
01:25:34 and um we weren't really set up to do this kind of chasing role uh on another day i might have read this and and
01:25:42 and and and
01:25:44 and maybe contacted mr turner and asked him what was going on um but i i i clearly didn't do that and i wish i had but just to be clear about your evidence just now you're not saying are you that uh although you received this letter
01:25:56 uh although you received this letter your view at the time was that it its contents had nothing whatever to do with government not a matter of of public interest i i don't think you're saying that so it wasn't our specific job to police
01:26:09 so it wasn't our specific job to police the system but if i'd
01:26:14 i think if i'd have registered this it would have not been unusual to contact mr turner and say what's this all about i have no idea why i didn't when you said it's not
01:26:25 said it's not our specific job to police the system surely it was your specific job to make sure that the system was well understood universally and commonly
01:26:37 universally and commonly uh and to identify any defects in its operation
01:26:42 operation in the public interest no
01:26:46 no i think i would have been concerned if there was an issue with the
01:26:52 the guidance in the approved document but i don't think that was the issue here i think labc had made a decision which um
01:26:59 which um rockwell was disputing
01:27:04 can i take it that you don't remember discussing the matter with paul everall who was the chief executive of labc or with any any seniors in your department mr byrd
01:27:15 seniors in your department mr byrd perhaps at the time no um i i i don't remember the letter
01:27:23 in or after may 2009 had you had any contact from sarah colwell or debbie smith or stephen howard or anybody else at the bre about the content of the labc certificate for k-15
01:27:35 not that i remember i don't remember anyone else mentioning this right
01:27:51 let's go back to mr evans email then please on the 11th of july to 2014 back at clg 50686
01:28:01 and i'd like to pick it up with you at the second paragraph where he says this the issue is in respect to the use of king's band called them k15
01:28:10 them k15 and i've read to you down as far as 18 meters and then picking it up in the second line he says this however
01:28:19 the the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible however since 27th of october 2008 the product held a bba certificate attached which indicates
01:28:30 certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with approved document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building
01:28:42 certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats we understand
01:28:55 including blocks of flats we understand that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters
01:29:02 and then in january of this year we were made aware of a revised bba certificate for k-15 issued on 17th of december 2013 also attached the new certificate removed the passage which indicated that
01:29:13 removed the passage which indicated that it was acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire but that it
01:29:24 development stages of a fire but that it has only been tested and is therefore only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls 8.2
01:29:32 as we had a number of projects under construction and in advance stages of design utilizing k-15 nhbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns as a
01:29:43 and made them aware of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further tests testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with bsa414 part 2 2002. the results from the tests are expected by the end of this
01:29:55 tests are expected by the end of this month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba
01:30:06 than that specified in the current bba certificate and then he says this over the page at three at page two there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it
01:30:20 kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
01:30:25 out kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18
01:30:37 suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions i hope i trust this addresses your immediate concerns
01:30:49 addresses your immediate concerns etc and
01:30:51 etc and uh you could probably see that mr evans attached to the email with two bba certificates for k-15 the one from 2008 and the one from let's just have those up on the screen
01:31:03 let's just have those up on the screen one at a time that's the first one is clg 50 is 688
01:31:14 and you can see it there with the date at the bottom left-hand corner 27th of october 2008
01:31:22 uh amended on the 6th of april 2010. uh
01:31:27 uh do you remember looking at that at the time
01:31:30 time i think so yes and then the second one clg 50687
01:31:35 clg 50687 which was the one revised on the 17th of december 2013. do you remember reading that one at the time as well and comparing the two i believe so yes yes did you notice that the earlier
01:31:46 did you notice that the earlier certificate sent to you was an amended certificate dated april 2010 and not the original from 27th of october 20 2008. uh not that i remember i might have done right it's in tiny text at the
01:31:58 have done right it's in tiny text at the bottom of the light gray box i should go back to that in fairness to you clg five zero six eight eight
01:32:06 there very small letters underneath the date certificate amended on 6th april 2010 do you see that yes did you notice that at the time do you think
01:32:17 notice that at the time do you think i i couldn't say right now
01:32:21 now uh if we go please to page five in that certificate let's look at it section seven behavior in relation to fire
01:32:29 fire did did you read that section of this certificate i'd be surprised if i didn't yes indeed and it says that england and wales
01:32:37 wales approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and
01:32:41 1 and paragraph 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 and that that is preceded by the words uh
01:32:50 uh the product may be used in accordance with the provisions of you see that
01:32:57 and the reference to 12.7 did you did you notice that at the time um i guess i must have done what do you think when you read that
01:33:17 i can't remember what i was thinking at the time but i was i wasn't very happy with it and it must have been an understatement mr martin
01:33:25 martin yeah you must have realized it immediately that it was a fundamental error
01:33:29 error to call
01:33:31 to call a
01:33:32 a clearly combustible foam insulation something which could be used in accordance with 12.7 yeah yes
01:33:40 yeah yes how concerned were you about that when you read that
01:33:48 quite concerned so i
01:33:50 so i raised this with um mr edson and mr harold because i was concerned that there was a significant problem here
01:34:02 yes you did and we'll come to that later did you notice
01:34:09 let's look at the revised certificate if we go to clg 50687
01:34:16 this is the revised certificate from december 2013. if we go please to page six section eight
01:34:26 paragraph eight point two
01:34:30 uh when tested to be s8414 part 1 2002 the following specific cladding construction met the criteria stated in br report br135
01:34:41 br report br135 and then it sets out the details of the system
01:34:44 system tested you see that there did you
01:34:48 did you notice that there was a reference to the one test carried out on the system incorporating k15 yes what were your thoughts on that um it's
01:35:00 what were your thoughts on that um it's one test so you wouldn't be able to use that in a general way right so what did you think of the certificate and the ability to use k15 above 18 meters um the certificate's wrong yeah
01:35:19 and if we go to page one please and the section headed key factors assessed
01:35:27 assessed and you see that under the third paragraph it says behavior in relation to fire the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard
01:35:38 a smoke or toxic hazard what did you understand that to mean um that's a pretty meaningless statement to me
01:35:44 to me um
01:35:45 um it's not a phrase that i it's not a classification that i would recognize
01:35:54 did you think to go back to when you saw these two certificates the first
01:36:01 the first with a plainly erroneous reference to 12.7 in enabling use above 18 meters and the second with uh only the single 8414 test and a
01:36:12 uh only the single 8414 test and a meaningless expression on the front page in relation to behavior in relation to fire
01:36:18 fire did you not think to go back to mr evans straight away and say words to the effect of these two certificates are so much waste paper
01:36:28 paper you should be extremely concerned
01:36:39 that wasn't the thought that came to mind
01:36:42 mind the impression i got from nhbc is they recognized they were a problem and they were working on trying to resolve it so do you think to raise this these problems
01:36:51 problems with mr alvin of the bba when you contacted him as we can see you did we will come and we'll come to the correspondence after the break um
01:37:04 not directly um
01:37:08 i didn't raise those particular points with him now no and if we go back to your statement we'll just look at this before the break
01:37:18 please can we go to page 43 page one two four
01:37:23 you say on the basis of what mr evans told me
01:37:26 told me i was satisfied that the appropriate steps were being taken by nhbc in their capacity as both the largest body of approved inspectors and a leading provider of warranties and insurance in the house building sector but i asked
01:37:37 the house building sector but i asked him to keep me informed i contacted richard harrell and bob led them on the same day to alert them to the issue
01:37:44 you say that now on the 11th of july even when you learnt directly from mr evans that not only the nhbc but other building control bodies have been accepting in k15 for use over 18 meters
01:37:57 accepting in k15 for use over 18 meters on the basis of it seems the 2008 bba certificate you still didn't contact any other building control bodies did you i think because he'd been i think in his response to me he said
01:38:09 i think in his response to me he said that they were talking to the other stakeholders like the building control alliance and fire and rescue services so i took the view that nhbc were had
01:38:20 had taken leadership here why why would they taken leadership surely it was you to take government to take leadership nhbc would be able to react so much more
01:38:31 nhbc would be able to react so much more quickly than we would um we were a tiny team um with um i can't press a button and suddenly instigate um a major investigation that's something that would take months
01:38:42 that's something that would take months to get off the ground um it was clear that nhbc had been looking at this issue this issue for a while and had been including other stakeholders um and at that time
01:38:53 um and at that time we were
01:38:55 we were very busy on another project so i saw nhbc taking the lead as being a positive thing
01:39:00 thing and that really tied in with the the way we'd come to work over the years in that um
01:39:08 we were encouraged to work with industry or use industry bodies to resolve problems where we could what was the project that you were
01:39:20 what was the project that you were busy on that meant you couldn't instigate even the most cursory kind of investigation as to how the bba could have issued these two certificates
01:39:32 certificates um i think it was a housing standard review was probably the main thing that was going on at the moment at the time in 2014
01:39:39 in 2014 right mr chairman i'm looking at the clock is this a convenient moment yes i think it is um all right we'll mr martin will have a break at this point we'll presume he's
01:39:50 break at this point we'll presume he's at 25 to four and
01:39:53 and i'll have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out in the room all right would you go with the usher then please yes sir
01:40:08 thank you very much just a minute 25 to 4. please
01:55:00 oh mr millet if you're ready to continue perhaps you'd ask the usher to invite mr martin back yes mr chairman i am and i'm going to mr martin if he could please be
01:55:11 could please be brought back into the hearing room please
01:55:13 please thank you
01:55:21 all right mr martian are you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller when you're ready yes thank you um we were on clg 50686
01:55:30 clg 50686 if we can please have that back up on the screen
01:55:45 clg 50686
01:55:49 yes and
01:55:54 you um i've read the whole thing to you and you'll remember in it that he describes the process of informing the industry that the product k15 is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters
01:56:05 18 meters and that's just to pick it out on page two paragraph five is not numbered but the fifth paragraph down third line
01:56:16 see that sorry fifth line if they are not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for using facades over 18 meters and that doesn't make any sense does it
01:56:29 and that doesn't make any sense does it no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters
01:56:37 i think the point they're making is they they've been convinced by kingspan that
01:56:42 that um
01:56:45 evidence would be produced that demonstrated that well a reason i'm suggesting i'm so sorry
01:56:54 sorry the reason i'm suggesting to you it makes no sense is because kingspan k15 a phenolic foam insulation was never suitable for use in facades
01:57:05 was never suitable for use in facades over 18 meters the only use over 18 meters it could ever be
01:57:10 ever be deployed in is in a system which had passed
01:57:14 passed the br 135 criteria after an 8414 test yes and i think the point that nhbc are making is that kingspan we're going to
01:57:25 going to retrospectively carry out some tests to demonstrate that it was okay but was okay for what
01:57:35 for the way it had been used that's not possible though is it i mean you can't demonstrate that it's okay for the way it had been used unless you replicate each and every facade system precisely
01:57:49 each and every facade system precisely and then subject it to a bs 8414 test and then measure the results of that test against the br135 criteria
01:58:00 you'd certainly need to do a lot of tests
01:58:03 tests which i think is what they're proposing i don't think i i think there's a there's a presumption here that a lot of the buildings would have very similar constructions well you say there's a
01:58:14 constructions well you say there's a presumption here was that the way you read the email i think i think it was the way i read the email that they they would carry out
01:58:27 a number of tests um in order to satisfy um themselves and and hbc that um
01:58:37 the way it had been used or the way it was proposed to be used was was still acceptable right i mean i just wanted to try and get your understanding of what you're being told by steve evans they're taking it in stages do you accept that
01:58:48 stages do you accept that as a phenolic foam it could never meet
01:58:53 meet adb through the linear route correct because it was never going to be and had never been a material of limited combustibility yes yes
01:59:04 combustibility yes yes therefore do you accept that the only way it could meet the guidance would be through the alternative which was passing the br 135 criteria having undergone a bsa414 test on a full system
01:59:17 undergone a bsa414 test on a full system yes yes
01:59:19 yes yes and do you also accept that here we are now in
01:59:23 now in july 2014 about a year after the publication of br135 third edition which had made it crystal clear in both annexes
01:59:32 annexes that the results of a br 135 test could only be used on the precise system as tested and were not transposable yes um i see your point i think there's
01:59:45 yes um i see your point i think there's a there's a difference between claiming a classification and and so you can only claim a system has passed a test and achieved a classification if you're referring to
01:59:56 classification if you're referring to that specific system yeah but
02:00:00 but and i think this was the evidence that dr smith gave which i agree with if you had
02:00:10 a number of tests which um you were able to interpolate between you might be able to satisfy yourself that
02:00:18 that a system that sat between two designs was acceptable but you couldn't classify it because it but you you might consider it still to be safe i think that's what nhbc and and
02:00:31 be safe i think that's what nhbc and and king spam are trying to do well how do you get
02:00:34 you get that
02:00:37 out of that out of this email i'm probably reading between the lines right
02:00:44 mr can i just break in for a moment yeah i
02:00:47 i need to be a bit careful not to spend too much time on linguistic niceties in some of these messages i like you when i first read that message which has now disappeared from my screen i'm afraid
02:00:58 disappeared from my screen i'm afraid um i thought well that's nonsensical as well but then i thought that perhaps it was intended to be read as informing the industry that the product is no longer considered suitable
02:01:11 product is no longer considered suitable although in the past it had been considered suitable and that's why they used the expression no longer suitable which is a bit elliptical but might explain it
02:01:26 right see
02:01:28 see yeah i see i see the point you're putting i think if you're putting the point to me mr chairman i i see that but uh i can only go on what i've got on the screen
02:01:36 screen and
02:01:37 and trying to elicit mr um mr martin's evidence about what he read at the time but um let me pursue that with that qualification it um just on in what we see would you
02:01:50 it um just on in what we see would you accept that there's no possibility that kingspan could ever have been previously suitable for use over 18 meters but and was no longer suitable because of changes to a third-party certificate
02:02:01 changes to a third-party certificate yes
02:02:02 yes that would be how i would have applied the building regulations yes if the new bba certificate was right and accurately made it clear that k-15 was not suitable for use over 18 meters in a
02:02:13 not suitable for use over 18 meters in a generic manner then that would also have been the case before the issue of the revised certificate wouldn't it um
02:02:22 um yes and further testing on specific systems under 8414 couldn't make k15 suitable for use in all facades over 18 meters in a generic manner only for those specifically tested
02:02:35 those specifically tested um certainly not in a generic manner um as i say you might well find you've got four or five buildings which have got very similar constructions which would seem quite plausible um and you might do
02:02:47 seem quite plausible um and you might do two tests to um look at the extremes and then interpolate between that might be a reasonable way of addressing this question yeah no that that's what i assumed they were doing and
02:02:59 i'm not sure why i assumed that whether it was just from reading this email or whether i'd spoken to mr evans i can't remember right that was that was my understanding of what they were planning to do
02:03:08 to do so desktop for one of a better word um yeah and i mean i've always called them assessments in lieu of tests but for some reason the cladding world started calling them desktop assessments but as
02:03:20 calling them desktop assessments but as long as we understand each other yes an assessment in lieu of a test that's what you understood and did you understand that because you knew that first of all that a revised bba certificate could not make a previously
02:03:32 certificate could not make a previously unusable
02:03:33 unusable a previously usable combustible insulation above 18 meters unusable and and and secondly that the kingspan were not about to do thousands of tests
02:03:44 thousands of tests to replicate each and every one of the systems in which k15 had made a previous appearance yes i mean i didn't know how many buildings there were but i um i got the impression that right there were a lot and you wouldn't expect
02:03:56 there were a lot and you wouldn't expect it would seem unreal unnecessary to test every configuration and but i was expecting them to have to do quite a lot i understand now in paragraph 123 of your statement
02:04:10 now in paragraph 123 of your statement we don't need to look at it but let's look at the quotation from the document itself at the very top of your screen
02:04:17 screen um mr evans says there's no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
02:04:29 bear this out what did you make of that statement
02:04:32 um i i think they're making the point that they thought that they'd obviously become convinced by kingspan that the
02:04:41 that the testing would demonstrate that there wasn't a problem um
02:04:47 in the in the in the run of things and phenolic foams and
02:04:53 and is probably the better performing foam insulations amongst the different foams that are available well that was my understanding at the time anyway
02:05:03 how did you understand that if a system containing k-15 was tested under bsa414 but didn't meet the br 135 criteria it nonetheless presented no risk if used above 18 meters
02:05:22 i'm sure i'm not sure i understand the question i didn't think that's what i said well how could failed tests or no tests
02:05:28 tests not present a reason to suspect risk
02:05:36 um i guess we didn't know one way or the other um but nhbc were convinced that um this was a a problem that would be resolved once the testing had been carried out i mean
02:05:48 the testing had been carried out i mean that first sentence is is is difficult isn't it and the reason i ask you that is this surely the fact that the testing carried out so far did not support the use of k-15 in more
02:06:00 did not support the use of k-15 in more than one very specific build-up which had been identified did mean that there was a risk if k-15 was used in different and untested build-ups
02:06:12 i think there's a there's a risk you don't know what the risk is and so that in itself is a risk i suppose yes precisely so with respect um mr martin i'm sorry i
02:06:24 with respect um mr martin i'm sorry i keep butting in this afternoon it's a nonsensical statement isn't it because you're starting from the proposition that k-15 is not of limited combustibility
02:06:35 combustibility and the fact that it's not of limited combustibility is a reason for think it's unsafe over 18 for use over 18 meters
02:06:44 meters so the absence of any testing to show that it is safe leaves you with the understanding that it's not safe isn't that right
02:06:58 i suppose at the time we were thinking uh our nhp kingspan and nhbc had taken the view that
02:07:06 that they had one successful bs-8414 test and so there was the potential they'd have another one and that seemed plausible to me at the time
02:07:16 time well they had one successful test on a completely on a wall structure which as far as we know was not typical because it was a masonry substrate
02:07:30 um i don't think i thought about that at the time so the the substrate's probably less critical than the um the
02:07:38 the the layer um so for most we're talking mostly about rain screen systems here um with the bs8414 test a significant part of the success or
02:07:51 a significant part of the success or failure of the system is whether the rain screen um shields the insulation from the effects of the fire
02:08:00 fire so
02:08:04 and that will be more or less successful as a combination of the resilience of the rain screen and how readily um the insulation burns so it seemed paul's plausible to me at
02:08:17 so it seemed paul's plausible to me at the time
02:08:18 the time that
02:08:20 that they may well get um more passes via king's fire um an 8414 test if they carried out some more tests so it seemed it seemed a reasonable starting point
02:08:31 it seemed a reasonable starting point to me at the time i quite see that if they did more tests and if they got passes that would tell you something about the uh the systems in which um k-15 could safely be used but that's as far as it
02:08:43 safely be used but that's as far as it goes isn't it
02:08:46 um
02:08:49 yes i mean they should
02:08:52 this wouldn't have been a reason to continue using it until such time as as they
02:08:56 they concluded that having identified the problem i i would i
02:09:03 i wouldn't have expected anyone to be continuing to use it all right thank you very much right
02:09:11 right no that's quite all right mr chairman uh and following from that the question is why didn't you challenge steve evans on this precise point and tell him that unless and until k-15 was being
02:09:22 that unless and until k-15 was being used in exactly the build-up tested as described in the december 2013 bba certificate there was a historic and likely widespread non-compliance with adb and
02:09:33 widespread non-compliance with adb and very much a risk very much a risk that the functional requirement had not been met in respect of those buildings
02:09:42 i got the impression he understood that well i would forgive me but the sentence with which the chairman has just been concerned
02:09:52 concerned tells you the precise opposite he had completely failed to understand that well otherwise he was spinning you a line
02:10:01 line um
02:10:02 um i believed at the time he was convinced that um
02:10:10 when they carried out a series more bs8414 tests they would get successes and therefore um
02:10:18 um retrospectively going back to the buildings that they were working on and that were already in hand um wouldn't be necessary that so i i think
02:10:26 think that's that's that's what i understood at the time um is he he was convinced that um
02:10:34 um it would be shown to be fine and he was sufficiently confident of that that he felt that
02:10:39 felt that there wasn't
02:10:43 necessarily an actual absolute risk i i can see that in fact you couldn't be sure one way or the other at this point yes
02:10:50 yes in fact
02:10:51 in fact yes but it's worse isn't it in your last answer
02:10:55 answer you said um going back to the building they were working on that were already in hand now this is about buildings as he says which have been built
02:11:07 which have been built that in other words the historical legacy of buildings containing k-15 above 18 meters
02:11:16 why not go back to him and say unless and until you can confirm that each and every one of the buildings which have been built pass
02:11:28 pass the br 135 criteria on exactly that same structure
02:11:33 structure there is a very real risk to that building population they contain combustible material in their external wall buildups over 18 meters
02:11:49 and i think i i'm not sure i fully understand the point you're making i i i saw this as a reasonable approach to the problem that they'd come across
02:12:01 to the problem that they'd come across there were a lot of buildings where they'd use this insulation um and
02:12:07 um and before taking action which might have needed to be quite substantial they needed to be sure one way or the other what the problem was well you say a lot of buildings where they'd use this
02:12:18 a lot of buildings where they'd use this insulation just tell me what
02:12:21 what would have retrospectively had to be done in order to ensure that those buildings which had been built using k-15 were safe
02:12:32 safe were compliant um they needed to carry out a series of bs8414 tests and satisfy themselves that there wasn't a
02:12:43 there wasn't a hazard
02:12:44 hazard and satisfied themselves there wasn't a hazard by reference to the results of each and every vs eight four one four ten yes and and as i say i expected they would probably interpolate between some of the tests i
02:12:55 interpolate between some of the tests i didn't think you'd need to carry out a test for each building but you you'd need to carry out quite a few and that was the impression i got that's what they were planning to do when you say quite a few
02:13:06 say quite a few two three four six or hundreds i i i was thinking more than you know dozens um certainly more than a dozen that i don't know where i got that number that was just what i imagined
02:13:18 number that was just what i imagined given what they'd said to me did why didn't you pick up the phone to steve evans uh after all the nhbc were your friends
02:13:25 friends uh and and let's ask him what he meant and say well what do you what is the what's the testing program planned here we've got a legacy of buildings with k-15 over 18 meters um there's a problem
02:13:36 k-15 over 18 meters um there's a problem here what are you expecting kingspan to do
02:13:41 and you didn't do that but why didn't you do that don't know
02:13:46 and i had spoken to them at some point but i can't remember when that was in the in the timeline perhaps it was later on and what about the people living in these blocks in the meantime what do you think about them
02:14:01 um i guess i was worried but i i at the time i thought this was the the best approach
02:14:10 what the there's no reason to suspect that buildings built with k-15 but untested presented no risk to life safety in those buildings you thought the occupants of those buildings were safe
02:14:23 i thought that was a the best available answer that that we'd have
02:14:31 now in fact you um you said in your statement you that you escalated this you contacted richard harrell and bob ledson the same day to alert them to the issue you say that in your statement of power one two four
02:14:43 your statement of power one two four we don't need to look at it um
02:14:46 um let's look at the email clg 50686 please
02:14:53 and what you do is you send
02:14:57 steve evans's email to you on
02:15:01 on 686 top email sorry page one i'm sorry thank you here you can see you sending the email on to richard harrell and bob ledson the same day
02:15:13 you see that yes richard bob see below it would appear that a number of tall apartment buildings have been insulated using combustible insulation materials when perhaps they shouldn't have been
02:15:24 when perhaps they shouldn't have been this appears due to an error in a bba certificate for this type of insulation nhbc are aware and are working with the manufacturer to see if this is a problem or not if it is a problem some blocks may need to have
02:15:35 problem some blocks may need to have their cladding replaced possibly a lot of them have asked nhbc to keep us informed
02:15:41 informed now does that accurately reflect your view at the time as expressed to mr harrell and mr ledson um
02:15:50 um yes yeah now you say in the penultimate line there if it is a problem if it's a problem surely you knew that it was a problem because you had no
02:16:01 that it was a problem because you had no reason to think at that point that each and every external wall system over 18 meters
02:16:06 meters in which k-15 had been applied had been tested and met the br 135 criteria
02:16:19 as i said the way we looked at this is we didn't know one way or the other um you'd have to um i mean there wasn't a mechanism to deal with this there isn't a um what
02:16:30 what what
02:16:31 what you don't you'd have to um um try and come up with an approach for dealing with this um which would be difficult um and um
02:16:42 difficult um and um and you might be having a really big impact on lots of people and for that for no good reason um
02:16:50 um and so at the time we thought it was reasonable to investig to let an hbc continue their investigations and work with
02:16:58 with kingspan um as i said we if we had started something it had taken us months to get it off the ground um and um nhbc had
02:17:11 seemed to be an advanced stage with this so the i think we spoke i certainly remember speaking to bob about this i'm sure richard was involved as well
02:17:19 as well and we came to the conclusion that probably the best thing to do would be to
02:17:24 to wait to see what nhbc found now on the 11th of july you'd been told in clear terms by nhbc that k-15 had been used on a number of their high-rise projects
02:17:37 on a number of their high-rise projects and there was no test evidence to support that use we've seen that i'm interested in number there what what impression did you get of how many buildings high-rise buildings had been
02:17:49 buildings high-rise buildings had been built using k-15 over 18 meters
02:17:56 i'm not sure i'd had a number in mind i got the impression it was
02:18:02 significant in unknown the order of 100 or something was right i mean you you you say to harold leaders and possibly a lot of them why didn't you ask nhbc precisely how many buildings their
02:18:14 precisely how many buildings their building control officers had signed off or if different how many warranties they provided under the build mark warranty in respect of these buildings give them give you an idea of the figures
02:18:32 it didn't occur to us at the time to do that um
02:18:36 did it occur to you that k-15 might also have been used on an unknown number of similar projects where the nhpc had no involvement
02:18:46 i think the view we took was to wait and see what nhbc found and that would give us an indication of whether this was something
02:18:54 something a major problem or not well um
02:18:57 um yesterday i'm asking something different i'm not asking you about technical justifications retrospectively i'm asking you about numbers were you not interested to know that
02:19:08 were you not interested to know that if it was a problem how big the problem was even at that stage pending kingspan coming up with their tests that would cure it all
02:19:22 it seems like a reasonable question to ask but we didn't think of it at the time i don't know why
02:19:32 is it because it was just unthinkable and
02:19:35 and the
02:19:36 the and you had the makings here of a crisis on your hands that you simply couldn't conceive of
02:19:56 i don't think it was that um i think it was just this was a a potential problem and and we'd be getting more information soon i think that was just them
02:20:13 that was the conversation we had we looked we looked at what we heard from nhbc and concluded that we sort of maintain a watching brief and see what they came up with
02:20:24 and you said a moment ago to us that this that your figure you had in mind in rough terms was about 100 blocks yes i think so i have no idea why that number was in my head but that that for some reason that that's that's the kind
02:20:36 some reason that that's that's the kind of scope that i was thinking yes i don't know why but i mean that is that is tens of thousands if not certainly thousands
02:20:45 thousands of individuals isn't it yes so that's the life safety the exposure to
02:20:52 to injury and death in fire of thousands of people and it's a potential problem i i think we accepted the point that
02:21:03 i i think we accepted the point that nhbc made that they took the view that this was
02:21:07 this was probably not a real risk how come
02:21:11 how come you've got k15 a combustible material being used in the external wall build up of possibly a hundred blocks without being tested how could that not be a real risk it
02:21:22 how could that not be a real risk it seemed plausible to me at the time that but how um sorry to sorry to ask with a degree of opportunity but no no i i understand why you're asking um and i think it's a very fair question um
02:21:35 think it's a very fair question um i think
02:21:41 the whole idea of the bsa414 test was to allow
02:21:46 allow um
02:21:47 um this type of insulation to be mute used um
02:21:52 um in the proper circumstances and so um
02:21:58 it was plausible that that this might just be an academic question rather than a genuine safety problem and we wanted to see the the evidence of that before we decided
02:22:10 the evidence of that before we decided what to do you told us earlier that the vs8414 test was a difficult test to pass so yes yes i mean how could you have any confidence that kingspan would as it were come up with the goods
02:22:21 were come up with the goods at least with the breadth required in order to
02:22:24 order to retrospectively to justify the use of k15 on possibly 100 blogs it's difficult to see back into your own mind
02:22:34 but i i think it it may have been because
02:22:37 because i've known that they had at least one successful test right um so it was plausible that there'd be more did either mr harold mr led some seek to discuss
02:22:49 discuss what you told them here with you after this email
02:22:55 and we did discuss it yes what was the upshot of that discussion i think um i certainly remember speaking to mr edson about it and i think we agreed that we
02:23:07 that we take the wait and see option and see what nhbc came up with
02:23:21 so
02:23:25 do nothing and wait
02:23:31 yes at that time yes wait and see what nhbc found and then decide what to do from there wait for how long how how long were you going to allow this potentially extremely
02:23:42 allow this potentially extremely risky
02:23:43 risky situation
02:23:45 situation to
02:23:46 to continue before you acted i don't think we fixed the time at that point
02:23:56 now you may have missed it when i read it to you and i wouldn't be surprised but do you remember that in his email mr evans told you that the labc had also issued a certificate approving k-15 for use over
02:24:07 certificate approving k-15 for use over 18 meters
02:24:10 18 meters i can get back to it yes now i'm aware of that yeah did you contact the labc about that when you saw that the nhbc had referred to that fact
02:24:21 that the nhbc had referred to that fact in
02:24:22 in their 11th of july email no i think because he says in his email that he was talking to the building control alliance labc you're a key partner in in the alliance so um
02:24:32 um yeah
02:24:33 yeah why didn't you go to them and ask them how come
02:24:39 this is now turning into a widespread issue
02:24:43 issue i think we took the view that the um nhbc and by the communications with building control alliance were addressing this they're an organization
02:24:54 addressing this they're an organization with a lot of resources and unable to look into this and and in a way that would have taken us a lot longer to make happen but you're the government i'm not you person well you personally
02:25:06 i'm not you person well you personally in this sense you know the government you're the people who make things happen you govern us that's the point of you i i can't understand why you wouldn't immediately want to pick up the phone to lhbc ask for the certificate and interrogate how
02:25:19 for the certificate and interrogate how it could record the fact that a k-15 could be used above 18 meters in circumstances where you now knew that there were possibly up to 100 blocks thousands of people at risk
02:25:36 are you able to explain at the time it seemed like the right thing to do
02:25:44 did you contact kingspan at any time to find out why or how they were making the claim that kingspan was suitable for use over 18 meters
02:25:54 meters as they had peddled on the
02:25:58 on the basis of a clearly erroneous bba certificate since 2008 no
02:26:05 no why not
02:26:06 why not um
02:26:07 um we decided to um let an hbc take the lead on the issue
02:26:15 did you not ask or think of asking kingspan
02:26:20 to find out for yourself how they could help
02:26:23 help with how the claim that k15 was generally suitable for use over 18 meters got into not just one certificate and its sequential revisions bba but a
02:26:35 and its sequential revisions bba but a second certificate the labc certificate from 2009.
02:26:40 no as i say we we thought the best thing to do was to let nhbc continue what it already started doing right so you let you did nothing with no time frame for when you were going to
02:26:51 time frame for when you were going to intervene and you left it to the manufacturers the certification bodies and the nhbc to come up with some kind of unknown and
02:27:02 to come up with some kind of unknown and unnamed solution yes
02:27:12 going back if we can to the email of the 11th of july clg
02:27:18 clg 50686
02:27:19 50686 mr mr evans says
02:27:23 this and it's um
02:27:28 paragraph two i say it's unnumbered but it's it's paragraph two line four um he he says
02:27:41 uh a
02:27:43 a third line however since 27th of october 2008
02:27:47 2008 the product held a bba certificate attached which indicates that it's acceptable for use in accordance with the approved document b volume 2 power 12.7 subject to advice etc and then the next
02:27:58 subject to advice etc and then the next sentence it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats
02:28:11 i'm so sorry thank you thank you mr ali i apologize um let me let me show you that again so everyone can follow it i'm picking it up
02:28:22 i'm picking it up at the third line since 27th of october 2008 the product held the bba certificate attached which indicates that it's susceptible for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to
02:28:35 volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to advice
02:28:36 advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height and then it says it was on this basis that nhpc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k-15
02:28:48 control bodies accepted the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats now
02:28:54 now looking at that didn't it strike you as odd
02:29:00 odd to say the least that the nhbc had apparently been relying
02:29:04 relying for many years on information within a bba certificate which was plainly wrong um
02:29:13 i think it was disappointing but it to some extent it reflected what happened to the building control
02:29:23 system throughout my career really
02:29:27 when i first started as a building control officer
02:29:34 we were probably um more difficult um and
02:29:39 and looked for reasons to reject things i think that the nature of the the market forces that affected building control bodies meant that they tended to
02:29:50 control bodies meant that they tended to be more willing to rely on third parties to tell them something was acceptable than perhaps we would have done when i'd first started as a building control officer
02:30:00 officer so i think i was disappointed in that um that
02:30:06 um that perhaps nobody in building control had questioned that certificate sooner
02:30:12 well that's uh
02:30:15 that's an answer to my question but i want to see if i can just examine it a bit further
02:30:22 it's not just disappointing is it not shocking that
02:30:28 that the nhbc
02:30:31 the nhbc the country's largest provider of building control services in the approved inspector regime and warranties were routinely allowing allowing a
02:30:44 were routinely allowing allowing a kingspan k15 above 18 meters based on a certificate that was manifestly wrong
02:30:54 but anybody who'd looked or knew anything about the approved documents would know that the reference to 12.7 should never have been there
02:31:09 i suppose shocking's a suitable word yes
02:31:22 and the fact that combustible insulation cannot in fact be used over 80 meters in accordance with 12.7 of approved document b appears to have escaped the notice of the country's largest supplier
02:31:34 notice of the country's largest supplier of building control inspectors for
02:31:37 for some
02:31:39 some uh
02:31:40 uh seven years
02:31:45 were you actually shocked by that at the time
02:31:47 time or just disappointed there's a difference
02:31:52 i i can't tell you how i felt at the time it's very difficult this is um i imagine for everybody involved this is very emotional it's emotional for me as well
02:32:06 so trying to put myself back into my head back then is quite difficult thing to do um i think at the time perhaps i was just disappointed but it is it's difficult to say all right and i
02:32:17 it's difficult to say all right and i mean
02:32:18 mean taking the emotion out of it did it cause you to consider that there may be a serious issue with nhbc's processes with the kind of the quality of the people who are actually doing the job on the front line
02:32:35 i think the problem was the willingness to accept a certificate without challenge
02:32:40 challenge um
02:32:41 um and i i think there are a number of factors involved in that as i say i think part of that is
02:32:48 the way the building control service has changed over the years but also
02:32:57 the history of bba is that when back in probably the very early 80s a bba certificate was close to being um um sort of categorical
02:33:10 um um sort of categorical you know it was linked to the building rigs
02:33:13 rigs almost directly i think the original intention was there would be a reference to them in the regulations but that never happened um
02:33:20 um and so
02:33:21 and so um
02:33:24 they were regarded as being of a higher level than perhaps um any other certificate um but that had changed over time so that they
02:33:36 that they had no
02:33:38 had no that they were just an independent independent certification body like any other but i think a lot of people in the industry regarded them as having a special status which actually they didn't have
02:33:53 did you realize at the time that the nhpc
02:33:56 nhpc had taken the view let me put this to you but um but did you realize that they taken the view that even though the bba certificate contained a manifest error nonetheless they were bound to to
02:34:09 nonetheless they were bound to to abide by it
02:34:16 did you know that um i don't think i i wouldn't have recognized that
02:34:23 i'd be surprised if they said they were bound by it um you're probably going to tell me that is what they said um because that certainly wasn't the case
02:34:34 because that certainly wasn't the case but
02:34:36 but um
02:34:36 um historically they were they were close to that status but but things had changed and bba wasn't
02:34:44 wasn't didn't have the same status they had in the 80s
02:34:57 so i i would have hoped the building control body would have looked at that certificate and said there's something wrong here and challenged it now um we know that you did contact the vba the same day in fact
02:35:09 vba the same day in fact so let's look at that bba 50178 please page three bottom email
02:35:19 and it's an email sent by you to john alban at 1640 that day safety concerns regarding bba certificate 08452
02:35:32 certificate 08452 and you say uh this i should just ask you it's copy to guy bampton and nick price and i am i right in thinking that nick sorry guy bampton was team leader in the
02:35:43 sorry guy bampton was team leader in the building regulations and standards division at the time
02:35:49 um he was ie team so he was i think trying to think at that time guy was probably a grade seven um so the same grade as me um and one of the
02:36:00 same grade as me um and one of the things he would have been dealing with was the sort of construction products regulations um
02:36:05 um and whilst that's not directly linked to um
02:36:11 bba's certification business bba were connected um in other ways with the construction products right so i think i was including him so that he was aware of what was going on and i think at that time
02:36:24 and i think at that time nick price was helping him with that in some respects
02:36:28 respects and you're right dear john i'm not sure we've met i'm currently the official at dclg responsible for part b of the building regulations it has come to my attention that bba certificate zero four five zero eight four five two two
02:36:39 five zero eight four five two two thousand eight included advice that the product in question satisfied paragraph 12.7 of volume two of approved document b
02:36:46 b para 12.7 provides that insulation materials used in external walls should be materials of limited combustibility it would appear however that the product in question is not a material of limited combustibility
02:36:58 combustibility i'm also aware that certificate 08452 has recently been revised and that this reference has been removed i'm concerned that the original certificate may have been issued in error as this is a serious safety matter i would appreciate
02:37:10 serious safety matter i would appreciate it if you could investigate and advise me of the outcome of your investigation as soon as possible could you please acknowledge receipt of this email
02:37:19 email now the error you refer to there was bba's
02:37:22 bba's statement that k15 was a material of limiting combustibility by reference to parent 12.7 was it um i think so yes yes and i think you've accepted that's a pretty fundamental error on the face of
02:37:34 pretty fundamental error on the face of the document is that why you described it as a serious safety matter yes i think i'm also using that language to make sure that they respond in good time
02:37:45 good time yes
02:37:47 yes and does your characterization of the problem as a serious safety matter and the relative speed with which you took it up with the bba following evans email that day tell us that in fact you were very concerned
02:37:58 that in fact you were very concerned about what you've learned from the nhbc about the bba certificate
02:38:06 i guess i was concerned about it yeah and if you go to page two please next email up this is john alban's response to you on the 16th of july at 12 14 and he writes as follows
02:38:19 john many thanks for your prompt response
02:38:28 i'm sorry sorry i'm so sorry i it's the second email down john album thank you for your email your mail regarding the above certificate the amendments made on 6th april 2010 to certificate
02:38:39 certificate 084582 included a new reference to paragraph 12.7 of approved document b and then he says this this was not intended to imply that the product was of limited combustibility and as you
02:38:50 of limited combustibility and as you have observed was removed in the subsequent reissued dated 17th december 2013 and pausing there whether or not it was intended to imply that the product was of limited combustibility i think
02:39:02 was of limited combustibility i think you would agree wouldn't you that that is exactly what the certificate expressly said by reference to clause 12.7 yes yes yes
02:39:12 yes yes and going on with his email the reference he says to 12.7 seems to have been an unfortunate and rare oversight that would not escape the internal checks and measures that bba currently operate a review of other
02:39:24 currently operate a review of other certificates has confirmed that this has not been reproduced elsewhere and then he talks about the leader certificate system and then goes on to say in the next paragraph i've spoken to the bba's chief
02:39:35 paragraph i've spoken to the bba's chief executive mrs claire curtis thomas regarding your inquiry and we would be very willing to meet you at your offices to discuss the relationship between the dclg and the bba and how we can work
02:39:46 dclg and the bba and how we can work more closely together would you please let me know whether you would be interested in such a conversation and if we go to the top of the scree of the page please top of page two your email back to him the next day
02:39:58 the next day john many thanks for your prompt response for completeness i wonder if you could confirm a couple of things for me first bullet what has bba put in place since the original certificate was issued to make you so confident this
02:40:09 issued to make you so confident this won't happen again the summary would be fine will you be notifying the manufacturer certificate holder of the issue i know your comment about the relationship with dclg and bba i think things have significantly changed over
02:40:21 things have significantly changed over the years and my understanding is that your status is similar to any other certification scheme i very much doubt we could support all the various schemes in the way you suggest now why why was a summary of the changes
02:40:33 now why why was a summary of the changes at the bba fine
02:40:37 um i i wanted something in plain english
02:40:45 but why only a summary why not a detailed exposition of how this fundamental error could have come about from
02:40:51 from a
02:40:53 a a ucas
02:40:55 a ucas governed
02:40:56 governed certification body
02:41:00 i i can't remember what i was thinking at the time given that this was in your own words a serious safety issue why didn't you demand a meeting or full details of how this fundamental oversight
02:41:12 this fundamental oversight as mr albert had described it could have occurred
02:41:18 i didn't think that was necessary at the time
02:41:22 time they stated that this was a they reviewed all their other certificates this was the only one where this occurred and they rectified it did you think of involving ucas and asking them to investigate no but i
02:41:34 asking them to investigate no but i think i should have done yes why didn't you um
02:41:44 i think i should have done i think at the time i thought that ucas would have um
02:41:52 eventually there's no kind of they would have been penalized by you cass ucas would have said make you know have you put systems in place to make sure this won't happen again which i'd already said they would
02:42:03 again which i'd already said they would so i think i decided not to um i don't really remember exactly what i was thinking at the time right i mean do you accept that it's possible that ucas if they'd investigated
02:42:15 if they'd investigated might have discovered some wider problems with bba's processes
02:42:22 yes and i think i was wrong not to bring it to the attention of ucas did you ask mr albon whether the bba itself had reported the matter to you cass no i didn't
02:42:34 and was it your opinion at the time that the bba ought to have done that um i don't know if i thought about it at the time but they should have done were you concerned about whether
02:42:45 were you concerned about whether newcast inspectors themselves or the auditors
02:42:48 auditors had failed to spot this error as part of their spot checks that didn't occur to me at the time
02:43:07 did you want or expect the bba to tell kingspan
02:43:11 kingspan that nhbc and now your department knew that there were many buildings out there with k-15 on them as a result of an erroneous and misleading bba certificate i think the fact that there was an error is
02:43:22 fact that there was an error is something they should have brought to the attention of kingspan yes did you consider that kingspan might be unaware that bba the bba certificate for k-15 contain the misleading claim that the
02:43:34 contain the misleading claim that the product could be used in accordance with the provisions of 12.7 of the approved document i i can't remember what i was thinking at the time i'm afraid when you say in the last sentence i very much doubt we could support all the
02:43:45 much doubt we could support all the various schemes in the way you suggest why did you doubt that i think um as i say when when the bba was first uh established
02:43:57 when the bba was first uh established um it had a had a connection with government um
02:44:03 um and was intended um
02:44:08 to help the industry identify um
02:44:13 assess to assess construction products um
02:44:17 um but
02:44:19 but fairly on early on in its history that um
02:44:23 um that approach had been
02:44:26 put to one side i can't think of a better way of putting it that wasn't the case anymore um and bba had become a certification company of which there are
02:44:38 a lot there's maybe a dozen or so and so
02:44:42 and so the idea that um officials in the department could work with them on their certificates on a regular basis we just didn't have that kind of resources um
02:44:51 um it's for the if you're operating a certification business you need to have the resources to be able to produce reliable certificates and that's what you should be doing now mr alvin responded to your email uh
02:45:04 now mr alvin responded to your email uh on page one if we go to that on the 23rd of july 2014 at 7 17 we go to that
02:45:15 it says 08 18. and he says brian the mistake was basically caused by human error the project manager involved in their line manager no longer work in the bba's operations department we are addressing the overall issue of
02:45:27 we are addressing the overall issue of three ways we've introduced a new training program for all staff focusing on both technical and procedural matters an additional level of checking has been introduced by our new management structure we've placed more emphasis on certificate
02:45:39 placed more emphasis on certificate templates which are commented on by internal and external experts prior to finalizing as referenced in my earlier email there would have been dialogue with the certificate holder as part of the reissue process and i would expect
02:45:50 the reissue process and i would expect that this would have been pointed out the certificate holder would not claim that the material is limited combustibility and this has never been stated in the certificate which did correctly give only a class naught rating i think the
02:46:01 only a class naught rating i think the chances of anyone inferring limited combustibility to be extremely unlikely from the certificate wording and while the error is of course a concern i'm pleased we recognized and corrected it i would repeat my offer for our chief
02:46:13 i would repeat my offer for our chief executive and i to meet with you to discuss this in any other issues you may have if you believe this would be helpful
02:46:18 helpful now we don't have a record of a reply to that email did you send one do you think
02:46:27 i'm not sure that i did if we go back to your statement please page 44 paragraph 126
02:46:36 if you go about halfway down that paragraph you you can see there are some words which say i was satisfied you see that five lines up from the bottom apparently
02:46:47 five lines up from the bottom apparently i was satisfied you say by the responses provided by bba that this was not indicative of any wider issue with the certification process had i had any further concerns about bba certification process the only recourse available to
02:46:59 process the only recourse available to me as a department official would have been reported to report bba body wholly independent of the department to the united kingdom accreditation service ucas
02:47:10 ucas now um
02:47:11 now um looking at mr albon's response as i've just shown you he told you what corporate steps had been taken to improve bba systems but he didn't actually explain to you how the human error had come about did he
02:47:25 no given the fundamental nature of the error and its serious safety implications that you themselves yourself identified did you not want to understand exactly how that error had been made
02:47:38 i didn't think of that at the time what was it was the key point not to understand not what a bba staff member who had made an obvious mistake and simply not noticed or whether the bba wasn't training its
02:47:50 or whether the bba wasn't training its staff properly or whatever it is but to learn why they'd made that mistake and whether it might have arisen from the way in which adb was worded or perhaps structured
02:48:01 that didn't occur to me at the time right
02:48:03 right on what basis were you satisfied that the misleading claim as to the combustibility of a widely used insulation product which had stood for many years wasn't indicative of a wider
02:48:14 many years wasn't indicative of a wider issue within the bba certification process
02:48:18 i think because they'd assured me that they carried out a review right did you not think that the time it might have been wise to look further into this matter rather than accepting the assurances given to you by mr album i
02:48:29 assurances given to you by mr album i didn't at the time i think in hindsight or in retrospect perhaps hindsight's probably not the right word um i i think i should have brought it to the attention of ucas did you understand mr
02:48:40 attention of ucas did you understand mr albaum and explaining the corporate actions that he said had been undertaken at the bba to address the human error actions that had already been undertaken before you contacted him on the 11th of july or
02:48:50 july or or only as a result of your having done so
02:49:00 i can't remember what i was thinking at the time i no i i'd be guessing right
02:49:07 right because of course if it was before you contacted him then the question would have arisen in your mind when i can assume well why what was it that had triggered the uh review
02:49:18 uh review and the and the new improved steps
02:49:23 did you have those thoughts at the time
02:49:29 no that wasn't something that i i don't remember thinking that right why didn't you press mr album for an answer to the question whether the bba had actually notified kingspan of the problem
02:49:43 i'm not sure i think i should have done he tells you in the email that there would have been dialogue and he would expect the matter had been pointed out but that's not actually an answer to your very direct question will you be notifying the manufacturer
02:49:56 is it i agree no so why didn't you go back to him and say well thank you very much but have you have you actually put this in front of kingspan and ask them for a clear explanation
02:50:08 explanation i don't know why i didn't do that i wish i did
02:50:11 i did and in his email let's get back to it i think we need to do that at bba this is the last document tonight uh bba 50178
02:50:22 page uh
02:50:24 uh one there this is the paragraph i read to you which starts there would have been dialogue with the certificate holder
02:50:29 holder and i would expect that this would have been pointed out and then the certificate holder would not claim the materials of limited combustibility etc etc now mr mr albon's assertion there that
02:50:41 now mr mr albon's assertion there that the certificate holder kingspan did not make a claim of limited combustibility for kings for k-15 is true so far as it is intended to create
02:50:53 true so far as it is intended to create an express statement but kingspan certainly was impliedly claiming it or letting it be claimed by bba wasn't it because of the statement that um it was suitable for use over 18
02:51:05 that um it was suitable for use over 18 meters by virtue of 12.7
02:51:10 yeah i agree with your point did you think to pick mr albon up on that
02:51:17 that no was that
02:51:25 i'm not sure why my why i didn't take this further
02:51:32 uh mr chairman it's gone half past four i've got about five minutes worth of question more questions on on this i i know it's been a long day and we're all tired but it may be more convenient
02:51:44 all tired but it may be more convenient just to finish this off now rather than come back to it in the morning i can see that um you mean five minutes do you i do i do mean five minutes this time well mr martin you've heard what mr millett
02:51:56 mr martin you've heard what mr millett has to say he reckons he's got five minutes more questioning can you hang on for another five minutes i'm here to help the inquiry as best i can sir well i know you are thank you very much indeed all right well we'll
02:52:07 very much indeed all right well we'll give mr miller another five minutes i'm very grateful thank you now um steve evans had told you in his email of the 11th of july if we need to we can go back to it that the confusion has arisen from kingspan's
02:52:19 the confusion has arisen from kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters
02:52:24 meters my question did you read any of kingspan's marketing literature for k-15 when you were told by that claim by mr evans
02:52:38 i'm not sure now i've read it since i i can't say when i when i read it what was your reaction to mr alban's comment in his email
02:52:46 his email that we've still got on the screen that he thought that the chances of anyone inferring limited combustibility to be extremely unlikely from the certificate wording
02:52:55 wording it's nonsense isn't it i think i i i remember a general feeling of frustration with this but i i i can't remember
02:53:02 remember specifics well it's nonsense isn't it i mean the chances of anyone inferring limited combustibility to be extremely unlikely
02:53:09 unlikely is only correct on the basis that they didn't need to infer it because it was essentially stated
02:53:16 no um
02:53:19 um i i agree i mean at best you must have realized that it was wishful thinking and i ask you that what else would someone have inferred from the words the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of
02:53:30 accordance with the provisions of approved document b 12.7 do you agree yeah i mean the point he's making in the email is is that the only classification that's listed in the certificate is classo i think it's it's an inherent
02:53:43 classo i think it's it's an inherent problem with the way bba do their certificates they still do them like this now
02:53:47 this now where they they talk about compliance with the regulations whereas most other certification bodies tend to just um
02:53:56 um confirm the different classifications that particular products got and so it's a way of collating the information and confirming that it's been carried out correctly whereas bba tend to provide a commentary
02:54:08 commentary right
02:54:10 right i mean you picked up the class naught point correctly gave only a class naught rating
02:54:15 rating in what way or in what circumstances is a classification to class naught relevant to the question of whether it's of limited combustibility i think that's the point he's he's making is that um
02:54:26 the point he's he's making is that um given that the only classification in the certificate is class nor it's clearly not material of limited combustibility otherwise that classification would have been in there that's the point he's making i don't necessarily accept that's
02:54:38 necessarily accept that's right are you aware now that the bba certificates for k-15 um asserted that the product had achieved class naught on the basis of absolutely no test or other data
02:54:50 test or other data and possibly only on the basis of an extrapolation from other kingspan products
02:54:55 products um i've heard since heard that in evidence it's not something i would have known at the time right
02:55:02 given what uh mr evans told you on the 11th of july in his email about nhbc's reliance on the terms of the bba certificates did you consider suggesting to john alban that the nature of the previous era and
02:55:14 that the nature of the previous era and the correction which had apparently occurred should somehow be announced by the bba
02:55:19 the bba for example on their website or in some other public way
02:55:29 i i can't remember if we thought about that at the time um
02:55:34 as i say the the approach we'd taken to the whole problem was having done this was to
02:55:38 was to see what nhbc found
02:55:48 very well um mr chairman is that a convenient moment
02:55:53 yes mr militia that's uh can be you know i think it's a good time to stop um
02:55:59 um well mr martial i'm sorry we've got a little longer than usual but um not as long as mr millet led us to think we might so we'll stop we'll resume please tomorrow morning at ten o'clock
02:56:10 tomorrow morning at ten o'clock and that's before i have to ask you to discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else when you're out of the room all right yes sir thank you
02:56:19 thank you would you give the option then please we'll see you tomorrow
02:56:29 thank you very much mr millet um nothing else a 10 o'clock tomorrow then please thank you mr chairman yes thank you
02:56:49 you