Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Harley Evidence - Wednesday 9th September 2020 (1/2)
00:00:22 welcome to today's hearing we're going to hear further today from mr ray bailey of harley so could you ask mr bailey to come in please morning mr belly
00:00:45 come in please morning mr belly take your time
00:00:49 all right ready to continue yes good thank you very much yes mr miller good morning mr chairman good morning mr bailey morning i'm going to ask you some questions next about cwct guidance were you aware at the time of
00:01:01 guidance were you aware at the time of your involvement in the grenfell tower project
00:01:04 project of guidance notes produced by cwct yes can i ask you to look at cwct
00:01:17 this is something called technical note 73 produced by the cwct in 2011 march 2011.
00:01:28 in 2011 march 2011. have you ever seen this document before do you think um yes i have you have do you when do you think you had seen it before um i was shown to me i think a couple of
00:01:41 i was shown to me i think a couple of years ago
00:01:42 years ago after the grenfell fire um had you seen it at the time of your involvement in the project i don't think i had no don't think you had do you think anybody else within harley had
00:01:53 harley had yes i'm sure he uh would have done who was that do you think uh i think mark stapley when did this what did this come in march 2011. or graham hackley mark state people have
00:02:05 or graham hackley mark state people have seen it what about daniel anchored jones he may have seen it right we can ask him about that was there a system within harley for disseminating guidance documents such as these uh to the professionals involved in particular
00:02:17 the professionals involved in particular projects
00:02:18 projects um mark safety was the uh operations director and chief designer um
00:02:25 um so he would if it was important information he would disseminate it to his design team right i mean did you proceed on the assumption that whoever was doing detailed design on a cladding package would
00:02:36 would have seen documents such as this
00:02:42 um
00:02:46 yes yes um let's see how we go given that you you i think are telling us you weren't familiar with its detail um if you look at the summary in italics
00:02:58 um if you look at the summary in italics to the guidance note it says curtain walls are normally used for areas of the building envelope that are not required to be fire resisting
00:03:07 resisting but they still require appropriate detailing to limit the spread of fire this technical note reviews the aspects relating to fire performance that generally need to be considered in the design of facades that are not required to be fire resisting
00:03:19 required to be fire resisting where the fire is required to be fire resisting additional requirements will apply um was that your understanding in general terms as the as a matter of principle yes yes
00:03:32 as a matter of principle yes yes what was your understanding between the of the distinction between fire resistance of curtain walling compared with fire resistance of rain screen cladding
00:03:46 fire resistance of rain screen cladding i think they're the same the same what did you or what would you understand by the phrase where the facade is required to be far resisting additional requirements will apply
00:03:58 that would um apply if it was um protecting a walkway or a means of escape and it would be
00:04:09 or a means of escape and it would be fire resistant glazing what about buildings over 18 meters
00:04:17 there's i think there's a
00:04:23 there's so there's two sort of sides to this
00:04:27 this fire resisting a fire-resistant kind of wall
00:04:30 wall protects the one side of the wall from the other so if you have a fire on one side you can walk
00:04:42 side you can walk down the other side and that is a physical fire barrier between the fire when we so that's fire resisting
00:04:52 resisting what we're talking about here is whether a curtain wall or a cladding will um be destroyed in a fire that the two they're two different things because a
00:05:04 they're two different things because a curtain wall is glass which will break in a fire made of aluminium which will melt during the course of a fire
00:05:15 right let's look further down the page then on the left hand side under uh introduction and the third paragraph on the left under that heading says the main
00:05:26 under that heading says the main requirement do you see that yes the main requirement for curtain walls that are not required to provide fire resistance is the provision of fire stopping between the external wall and compartment floors and walls
00:05:37 compartment floors and walls in some situations there may also be a requirement to provide fire protection to brackets supporting the wall and limit the combustibility of materials used in the wall
00:05:48 of materials used in the wall and then it goes on rain screen walls are additionally required to limit the spread of fire in the rain screen cavity did you understand that guidance
00:06:00 did you understand that guidance even though you hadn't read it to be applicable at the time yes yes now i want to move to questions about
00:06:06 about class naught if i can and what you understood about class nord and the concept of limited combustibility that's the next topic now the technical note here if you look
00:06:17 now the technical note here if you look at the bottom of page one and over onto page two
00:06:22 says at the very bottom on the right in england and wales and northern ireland materials may be described as non-combustible of limited combustibility or class
00:06:34 of limited combustibility or class naught
00:06:35 naught using definitions given in adb materials may also be classified as class one two three or four in accordance with bs 476 parts six and seven equivalent european
00:06:46 parts six and seven equivalent european classifications are also used were you familiar with class naught as a classification for building materials at the time yes what did you consider class naught
00:06:58 yes what did you consider class naught to mean
00:06:59 to mean it was a product that's difficult to ignite
00:07:03 ignite and if you take the source of flame away from it it won't continue to burn
00:07:12 what was the significance of a material having a class naught certification did you think that it was safe to use on a building safe to use on any building over 18 meters over 18 meters
00:07:24 meters over 18 meters safe to use on any building over 80 meters in any part of that building uh yes was it a phrase or expression class nor used regularly
00:07:36 or expression class nor used regularly in the construction industry at the time yes had you yourself undertaken any training or cpd in relation to the testing of building products and their different classifications fire classifications no
00:07:49 classifications no do you or did you consider yourself
00:07:53 as under a duty to educate yourself as to these different fire classifications that existed at the time of your involvement no as a specialist cladding subcontractor
00:08:04 subcontractor why were you not under that duty did you think
00:08:08 think um as a suspicion something uh subcontractor there's a lot of things that we're involved with um
00:08:19 that we're involved with um finding one of them we're not we're not fire experts
00:08:28 so is the gist of that answer so i'm clear
00:08:31 clear that even though harley was a specialist cladding subcontractor it was not concerned with the fire
00:08:42 it was not concerned with the fire classifications of the products and materials it was using in its envelopes it was applying to buildings no that's not what i said um [Music]
00:08:51 [Music] we supply the material that actually has the correct classification to be used yes
00:09:04 and we are correct we haven't i haven't investigated all the tests that um are required to give the material their particular classification
00:09:16 particular classification you see classifier classification is to do with fire safety and the saving and protection of life and my question is really a simple one which is why as a specialist cladding subcontractor
00:09:30 as a specialist cladding subcontractor at the time of the grenfell tower project harley wasn't concerned to educate itself as to the nature of these fire classifications
00:10:11 i don't i'm not
00:10:15 no we haven't educate ourselves on the tests that are used to provide materials with their classification no i know and i'm just keen to know why that is
00:10:29 well because the materials come classified to a standard
00:10:35 we didn't necessarily understand exactly what the test is
00:10:41 why is that
00:10:56 i don't know were you aware of a distinction between class naught as a concept and limited combustibility as a concept
00:11:09 yes what was your understanding of that difference at the time of the grenfell tower project well i think class o generally in part six
00:11:21 i think class o generally in part six and seven
00:11:22 and seven uh refers to the it's tested for the surface spread of flame and propagation and there's another test that then makes the material
00:11:35 that then makes the material limited combustibility
00:11:40 so does that answer tell us that you understood
00:11:49 that there were separate concepts subject to separate tests there is there a slightly different concept
00:11:59 concept with additional tests
00:12:07 right what was your understanding of how class naught and limited combustibility related to one another there's an additional test which i can
00:12:18 there's an additional test which i can tell you now is bs 476 part 11. you say you can tell me now i knew there was like you told me that in 2013. i would just say there's another test i
00:12:30 i would just say there's another test i don't know what it is sorry um you say with great specificity bs
00:12:36 bs 476 part 11. was that something that you were aware of in 2013 no and you there's another test within ps476 i didn't know which one it was i
00:12:48 ps476 i didn't know which one it was i just absolutely looked at it in its party level yes i see
00:12:54 it's clear from this technical note that class
00:12:57 class naught and libertine combustibility were different
00:13:04 did you understand that they were different as at the time yes did you understand at the time that they weren't interchangeable concepts
00:13:18 actually they are they're interchangeable are they well so then if you look at um table eight in appendix a
00:13:29 um table eight in appendix a it actually says class o and then the european equivalent which is which is the uk classo is described as non-combustible limited
00:13:40 is described as non-combustible limited combustibility or a composite that complies with um section 13b so if you so classo covers all of those
00:13:53 so if you so classo covers all of those three conditions your explanation just now which is technical and detailed is that something that you're telling us as a result of researches and learning
00:14:05 as a result of researches and learning that you've undertaken after the fire or is this something you could have told me if i was asking you these questions in 2013. no this is what i know now right but it also goes
00:14:17 also goes to explain i think part of the confusion that uh is across the industry with picasso and limited combustibility well let me put it more perhaps more simply as at your
00:14:31 perhaps more simply as at your the time of your involvement in the grenfell tower project spanning the years of your involvement did you think that the concept of class naught was interchangeable with the concept of limited combustibility um
00:14:45 of limited combustibility um i actually thought that classo throughout meant that it had passed the additional test so that that actually meant it was of
00:14:56 so that that actually meant it was of limited combustibility
00:15:00 let's um let's see how we get on then uh can i ask you to look at a proof document b which is at clg four five zeros two two four
00:15:10 four and let's go to page one two two please
00:15:19 now this um
00:15:22 and i'd like you to look at paragraph 13.
00:15:29 which says i'll read it to you just say is to familiarize yourself with it the highest national product performance classification for lining materials is class naught
00:15:41 materials is class naught so that's lining materials is class naught
00:15:45 naught this is achieved if a material or the surface of a composite product is either a
00:15:49 a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or be a class one material which has a firepropagation index uh one oh i i think it is of more than
00:16:01 uh one oh i i think it is of more than twelve and a sub index i one of not more than six note class naught is not a classification identified in any british standard test was it your understanding that class
00:16:13 was it your understanding that class naught was a classification that was primarily concerned with lining materials
00:16:20 no so you thought that is this right that it had relevance other than in respect of
00:16:27 of lining materials yes did you consider that it had any relevance other than in respect of the external surface of a product
00:16:38 uh
00:16:41 no
00:16:44 sorry let me just rephrase
00:16:48 if it's class o for surface spread of flame it's on the outside if it's throughout but i told that to me it was of limited combustibility
00:17:00 we can read the words in paragraph 13 and i'm just seeking to get your understanding at the time and maybe it's difficult now to put yourself back in that position i am seeking your contemporaneous understanding
00:17:12 understanding uh and i'm just trying to understand what you thought at the time let me let me try it differently did you understand at the time that if it was of limited combustibility it
00:17:24 if it was of limited combustibility it would be class naught and if it was class naught then it would be of limited combustibility no there's a difference and what was that difference in your mind at the time there was an additional test so
00:17:37 there was an additional test so if it's because classo covers both to be limited must be there's an additional test and i told you at the time i didn't know exactly what that test was
00:17:49 exactly what that test was i know what it is now and that was the and that is the difference so it's classo throughout it means it's with a limited combustibility of its class so it that really is only the
00:18:01 really is only the surface spread of flame
00:18:08 i don't understand what you mean by the reference to classo throughout so that's a that's a phrase that was used
00:18:16 used by uh celetex right we'll come to that documentation later on let me try and put it to you do you accept that on
00:18:28 put it to you do you accept that on paragraph 13 which is as we can see to do with the lining materials something a product is class not if it's
00:18:39 composed of throughout of materials of limited combustibility but and ignore b for the moment not the other way around in other words just because uh
00:18:50 in other words just because uh it is composed of uh of materials of limited combustibility it's not necessarily class naught
00:18:59 sorry i've got that the wrong way around myself just because uh it it it is uh class naught then it's not necessarily of limited combustibility throughout
00:19:13 i think as i said yesterday um at the time of grandfather i had a
00:19:30 didn't have the detailed knowledge of this looking at it now but again this
00:19:40 reading this this is this is achieved if a material all the surface the material of a composite product is composed throughout materials of limited combustibility does
00:19:52 materials of limited combustibility does that read
00:19:54 that read that the surface material is composed throughout of limited combustibility well you're asking a question and maybe is that a question you asked
00:20:05 and maybe is that a question you asked yourself at the time no i'm reading this now and and that's it doesn't seem to me to be crystal clear
00:20:15 clear well let's see um let's see how we go can i ask you to look at your statement please uh
00:20:20 please uh page 29 paragraph 114.
00:20:30 uh you say that um
00:20:36 uh halfway down cool firm k-15 is described in its bba certificate
00:20:43 you see that yes
00:20:47 uh as being class naught
00:20:51 whilst the test in approved document b paragraph 12.7 is one of limited combustibility it was assumed that as the product was described as class naught in respective behavior in relation to fire
00:21:02 behavior in relation to fire it was compliant with paragraph 12.7 and suitable for buildings over 18 meters that's your statement are you saying there that you thought at the time that a class naught product met the
00:21:13 that a class naught product met the definition of limited combustibility
00:21:24 yes how did you come to that conclusion
00:21:42 one
00:22:03 i think i think this was also described as classical throughout
00:22:18 where's that no it doesn't say that it shouldn't
00:22:21 shouldn't say describe as classo throughout you need to check the
00:22:31 well we may come to the certificate later on
00:22:35 later on but it looks from this at the time you were assuming that just if something was
00:22:42 was class naught it was therefore of limited combustibility i think if it's classified throughout yes
00:22:50 yes and i'm really just asking you how you came to that conclusion because it wasn't just the surface that was glaso
00:23:01 where where do you get the concept of class naught throughout from as opposed to limited combustibility throughout i think this is a confusion
00:23:12 i think this is a confusion whose confusion well i think mind and i think it's quite widespread throughout the industry at the time and i think the answer is yes given what you told us
00:23:23 yes given what you told us just shortly um a few moments ago this morning
00:23:27 morning did you know what tests have to be carried out to meet the definition of limited combustibility as opposed to class north yes they were the the two for class
00:23:39 yes they were the the two for class naughter six and seven which is quite and the
00:23:42 and the additional test is part 11. yes now you've given us the numbers this morning i mean
00:23:47 i mean did you know the numbers at the time i think it was six and seven yes you knew six and seven and nothing i didn't know which he was right but you knew there were different tests
00:23:54 tests and it was an additional test yes an additional test all right um
00:24:02 we looked at appendix a paragraph 13 a moment ago in in the in approved document b which referred to linings we can go back to it if you like but was that the
00:24:13 to it if you like but was that the source of your thinking at the time that class naught equaled limiting combustibility
00:24:21 well given i've explained there is a there is a difference it's an additional test yes but just focusing on paragraph
00:24:32 yes but just focusing on paragraph perhaps you should look back at it uh clg50224 page one two two because i just want to understand precisely the the basis of your thinking at the time we've read it and we can see what it
00:24:44 we've read it and we can see what it says there and i just want to focus on uh a
00:24:50 uh a so class naught is achieved if the material or the surface of a composite product is either composed throughout of limited materials of limited combustibility if you read it properly it says that
00:25:02 if you read it properly it says that class naught will be met for lining products if the product is of limited combustibility throughout but it doesn't say that vice versa it doesn't say that it will
00:25:13 doesn't say that it will it will be of limited combustibility if it's class naught throughout does it
00:25:22 no it doesn't say that in fact it's quite clear i would suggest to you what it's saying
00:25:44 yes and if we look on at pay just on tests
00:25:50 tests at page 132 of the same document this is table a7 you can see there
00:26:01 this is table a7 you can see there and this is the use and definitions of materials of limited combustibility uh you can see there under item eight which is telling you about
00:26:14 item eight which is telling you about insulation material in external wall construction referred to in paragraph 12.7
00:26:23 uh that it can be any of the materials in
00:26:26 in a b or c above and you can see what those are non-combustible and then something of a requisite density which test it to 476 11 doesn't doesn't exceed certain
00:26:37 11 doesn't doesn't exceed certain temperatures and c is to do with thickness and then d any material of density less than less than 300 kilograms per square per cubic meter
00:26:46 meter which when tested to be seven six four seven six eleven doesn't flame for more than ten seconds etc there's nothing in there about being an
00:26:54 an additional test and i'm suggesting to you on this that 476 11 was a completely separate stand-alone test for limiting combustibility it wasn't additional to four seven six
00:27:06 it wasn't additional to four seven six six
00:27:06 six or four seven six seven now did you accept that yes except i was doing this well and therefore your understanding if you told us at the time
00:27:18 understanding if you told us at the time that
00:27:19 that six eleven was additional to four seven six six and four seven six seven was wrong
00:27:23 wrong it appears that it was
00:27:29 d did harley ever train or educate any of its employees as to the distinction between class and a class naught product and a product of limited combustibility um we
00:27:42 um we sent our technical manager on the cwct course and he has a master's degree at the time the chap was graham
00:27:52 graham hackley and his job when he came back was to disseminate knowledge to the rest of the team did he did mr hackley when he came back
00:28:04 hackley when he came back ever sit highly employees done such as yourself
00:28:08 yourself and explain the difference has he understood it between class naught and limited combustibility he didn't sit down and explain that to me
00:28:19 me but with the use of kingspan when that product was first um brought to market after all so to be used when
00:28:29 used when part l was changed um he signed off on using kingspan as a product in exactly the same
00:28:41 way that we've subsequently used selatex signed it off as a product for use on what building um waylon's house
00:28:55 a number of buildings so the architect would specif specified kingspan um graham looked at it um looked and said yes that's the product you can use it's safe to use it
00:29:08 use it's safe to use it was any of the buildings on which graham hatley signed off as you put it the use of kingspan k-15 cool thumb i think that's the product you're referring to uh a high-rise building in excess of 18
00:29:21 uh a high-rise building in excess of 18 meters
00:29:22 meters yes which one it was waylon's house one of those women's houses one of those and when did when was this sign-off
00:29:33 2012 2012. we may revisit that can i move on can i ask you to go to page 20 of your statement
00:29:44 statement paragraph 179
00:29:50 uh you say uh at paragraph 79 there
00:29:58 in terms of the materials used in the building envelope these were all materials manufactured by trusted well-known multi-billion pound global companies
00:30:05 companies the rainer bond acm had been used by harley and many other cladding companies for many years we had no reason to doubt its class naught rating the celetex whilst a relatively new product was manufactured by a well-known reputable manufacturer
00:30:17 by a well-known reputable manufacturer it had been in use for some years and had become widely used after the introduction of part l at the drive to improve u-values
00:30:26 it was clearly sold as being suitable for buildings over 18 meters and described as class naught in its literature we relied on the information given to us by these manufacturers
00:30:37 by these manufacturers would it be fair to say that your assumption which we've been discussing this morning and appears to be wrong uh about class naught was applied to the celetex insulation product as well it was yeah now returning to the
00:30:49 it was yeah now returning to the technical note if i may um which is cwct uh five z i'm sorry sorry five zeros 19 at page
00:30:58 page four i'd like pages four and five to be put up together please
00:31:07 this uh
00:31:13 yeah right at the very bottom of page five you can see regulations and then over to the top of page six for rain screen walls adb requires that cavity barriers are provided
00:31:24 cavity barriers are provided you see that and then it says the top of page five to close the edges of cavities including around window openings and then next bullet point at the junction of the wall with a compartment wall or floor just
00:31:37 with a compartment wall or floor just pausing there did you know that the guidance
00:31:40 guidance drew specific attention to cavity barriers around window openings um yes
00:31:49 um yes did your staff yes let's look at page six please then moving on with it uh under the heading of use of
00:32:00 uh under the heading of use of combustible materials material i'd like to look with you please at the second paragraph there and it says
00:32:07 it says to satisfy the recommendations in adb insulation and filler materials in walls of a building with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level are required to be of limited combustibility they're just pausing
00:32:20 combustibility they're just pausing there at the time of the grenfell tower project where you were aware of the requirement of insulation to be of limited combustibility yes yeah now the guide goes on to say above the heading alternative approaches just
00:32:32 the heading alternative approaches just at the bottom the only commonly used insulation material that will satisfy the definition of limited combustibility is mineral wool it is sometimes argued that
00:32:43 mineral wool it is sometimes argued that thermoset insulation materials with non-combustible facings may be regarded
00:32:48 regarded as satisfying the requirement noting that their decomposition in fire will release
00:32:53 release smoke it's right i think that grenfell tower did not use a mineral wool insulation material did it it didn't
00:33:02 didn't and there's nothing here to say that if if the material or product is class naught
00:33:08 naught then that will satisfy the requirement is there
00:33:12 is there no if that goes on to um
00:33:19 i think we come back to the term classo throughout which is being used
00:33:26 used which is to the belief that the material was a limited combustibility that's based on your error
00:33:33 error that glass naught throughout yes that there was such a thing as class naught throughout which which equals limiting combustibility as opposed to limiting combustibility throughout which equal
00:33:44 combustibility throughout which equal class naught
00:33:50 could that that what you just told us uh which is the term the class naught throughout is an erroneous term because in fact
00:34:02 is an erroneous term because in fact what you
00:34:03 what you are doing is con is equating limited combustibility throughout with class uh naught which would be correct with class naught throughout with limit and combustibility
00:34:14 combustibility which would be incorrect as we've just established earlier okay do you accept that the source of your of your assumption uh is as i have put to you uh yes
00:34:35 is as i have put to you uh yes looking at the cwct technical note 73
00:34:40 and particularly this part about insulation uh were you aware of the argument at the time
00:34:49 time that thermoset insulations might or may be regarded as satisfying the definition of limited combustibility yes that's that's why the king's band
00:35:00 yes that's that's why the king's band was signed off but is it right that in fact the only commonly used insulation that would that would status let me start the question again did you understand at the time that the
00:35:12 did you understand at the time that the only commonly used insulation material that would satisfy the definition of limited combustibility is mineral rule no at the time [Music]
00:35:25 the king's man had become the industry as a product that was suitable for use over 18 meters prior
00:35:36 suitable for use over 18 meters prior to 2009 every project we did had rock wall on it
00:35:49 i think also child cuts had what rockwool didn't did yes that was a 2000 we did that in 2006-2010
00:35:58 2006-2010 that's right but ferrier point that had uh
00:36:01 uh rockport the rockwool as well that was later wasn't it that was 2012. yes
00:36:09 and two i think ferrier point was the most recent high-rise overclouding job that you had done is this right prior to the grenfell tower job
00:36:18 job um
00:36:22 probably probably yeah um
00:36:35 can i ask you then to look at the top of the right hand column on this self same page six in this note which says where testing is carried out
00:36:46 which says where testing is carried out in accordance with bs8414 the test applies to the complete cladding system including insulation rain screen flashings and cavity barriers
00:36:56 barriers changing any of these components may affect the ability of the wall to resist the spread of fire
00:37:04 the time did you appreciate as a matter of principle at least that the compliance of a cladding system with approved document b summarized i would we would say by by this guidance
00:37:16 i would we would say by by this guidance note
00:37:16 note required a contractor to consider all of the components of a particular cladding system against a test rig which had successfully passed the bs
00:37:27 which had successfully passed the bs 8414 test
00:37:33 yes you did understand that
00:37:39 and would you accept that it would follow that at the time you understood that if
00:37:45 that if the insulation used on any tower block but but let's take grenfell celotex rs 5000 and kill them k-15
00:37:55 k-15 were not in fact materials of limited combustibility and we'll come back to them specifically later you understood that their use on grenfell tower as a building over 18 meters could only
00:38:07 as a building over 18 meters could only have complied with the proof document b summarized here where it had either passed a full-scale bs-8414 test as part of the same cladding system used or there was a desktop study or a
00:38:20 used or there was a desktop study or a holistic engineering report to support its use
00:38:25 well i've as i explained
00:38:30 we were comfortable with the celotex two reasons the first the um understanding of classo throughout
00:38:41 um understanding of classo throughout midterms
00:38:42 midterms of limited combustibility which we've discussed
00:38:47 discussed secondly in addition to that it had a past eight four one four test and we sent the details of the cladding system
00:39:00 the details of the cladding system that we were using to
00:39:05 sell a text for them to approve
00:39:12 it says changing and in the comments may affect the ability um for the wall to resist the spread of fire
00:39:19 fire but we're asking celetex this is what we're using are you happy with this and they were just in terms of the principles i'm going to come back to the facts later but just in terms of the general
00:39:30 but just in terms of the general applicable principles and i'm trying to get your understanding of those uh you i think you're telling us but please correct me if i'm wrong about that that that there are you understood at the time there were a number of routes to
00:39:42 time there were a number of routes to compliance for the purposes of limited combustibility either the material was of limited combustibility or it had passed a full scale bs8414 test
00:39:54 it had passed a full scale bs8414 test yes or there was a desktop study or a holistic engineering report i've given you four options there i'm trying to summarize this because
00:40:05 i'm trying to summarize this because there's a lot of material we could look at but
00:40:07 at but is that how you understood it at the time
00:40:13 yes yes which route to compliance for limited combustibility did you think was being followed on the grenfell tower
00:40:24 was being followed on the grenfell tower project
00:40:26 project i thought we were covered in two ways that
00:40:29 that and our thoughts were the material was of limited combustibility
00:40:36 and if that's incorrect we accept that in addition there was a uh bs84 test it was it was a material that had had a whole series of
00:40:48 that had had a whole series of um
00:40:51 it was a fantastic product um
00:40:57 on the certificate you saw that it said it had been tested with different facing material we sent our details to celetex to get them to
00:41:10 our details to celetex to get them to sign off that it was safe so i suppose we're saying we believed that celetex had carried out a study on it you say we sent our details to celetex
00:41:21 you say we sent our details to celetex to get them to sign off that it was safe yeah does that tell us that you were well i thought that maybe that was a poor choice of words to confirm that it was that
00:41:32 confirm that it was that they were happy for us to use in that situation so whichever choice of words you take does it come to this that you were delegating uh the sign off or confirmation if you like
00:41:46 the sign off or confirmation if you like of the safety of this product to the very person who had made it and was selling it to you yeah we wanted celetex confirmation that they were happy for us to use it
00:42:00 was it not up to harley to satisfy itself
00:42:03 itself that it was safe to use by making the appropriate investigations well we made the investigations with the
00:42:14 manufacturer was there any reason why you couldn't ask either studio e or x over who had been involved in this project and work and remained involved in this project
00:42:25 project to undertake the investigations of of the fire safety nature of this product
00:42:31 product well the the product was specified by um studio e x over were their fire consultant
00:42:42 x over were their fire consultant so by the time the
00:42:46 design was passed down to us the prescriptive design was passed down to us
00:42:53 to us celetex was named we were doing a our own backup check to stuff that already been signed off by them
00:43:05 them so we did our own checks as
00:43:10 as and took all proper and necessary means in our view to confirm that what they'd specified for us
00:43:21 for us was correct well you say that the product was specified by studio e and maybe correct in relation to fr5000 but what about when it changed to rs 5000
00:43:33 rs 5000 when it changed the rs 5000 we passed the information back to studio e did you yeah we told them it's this is the product cylitex and i think we've confirmed
00:43:45 think we've confirmed since they actually are the same product just marketed differently well did you ask studio e to investigate the fire safety nature of this new product or newly branded product rs 5000 i'm not sure we asked them to do
00:43:58 rs 5000 i'm not sure we asked them to do that
00:43:58 that no what about kingspan cool firm k15 that wasn't specified at all by studio he was it
00:44:05 he was it no no so how did in the absence of your own architect knowing how did you undertake any checks to see whether or not that was far safe well because it had been signed off as um fire safe
00:44:17 um fire safe previously by our uh technical manager on previous projects
00:44:24 projects some some years before yes what did you undertake any checks to see whether or not the product had changed in any way in those years uh
00:44:35 in those years uh no although it is interesting that
00:44:43 the there is a subsequent um bba certificate for
00:44:53 kingspan that came out after we had
00:44:58 started grenfell
00:45:01 that actually changed its performance criteria
00:45:05 criteria now that's this i can't understand how
00:45:11 you can have a product with the same name
00:45:15 name change its composition but not change its composition have it re-tested and carry on selling carrying on selling it when its performance has been completely downgraded that's something you know now
00:45:27 downgraded that's something you know now but it's not something you knew at the time is that right it's not something that you knew something was not so it was advertised and if they called it something different king spain k 10 he said k15 is no longer available
00:45:41 k 10 he said k15 is no longer available it would have alerted everyone there had been a change and had had checks and investigations being carried out harley would have found that out
00:45:51 at the time that we actually got the k-15
00:45:55 k-15 it's i don't think the um the bacteria had changed
00:46:06 what about the product
00:46:11 no they're still sending kingspan k15 there was no change in name of the product and you why would you be alerted if they're saying the same stuff
00:46:23 and we'll come to k-15 later on but just for the present purposes did you think that k15 was a material of limited combustibility
00:46:33 okay from what would have been solved before yes
00:46:39 or perhaps and did you think that it had passed an 8414 test
00:46:44 uh kingspan has passed a4 uh 8414 tests yes so it has as a fact do you know that do you yes that does
00:46:56 that does i know that for sure now how do you know that i've seen in the past year or so i've seen a number of tests with kingspan k15 right
00:47:12 number of tests with kingspan k15 right let's then turn to a different topic which is renamond and the bba certificate we talked to some extent yesterday about this mr bailey can i start with
00:47:23 mr bailey can i start with um some evidence or some proposed evidence from mr vela of arconic i'd like you to see his statement please it's met3053190
00:47:35 it's met3053190 and i'd like you to go to page 20.
00:47:40 and paragraph 68 he says on the 7th of november 2013 the cstb
00:47:50 which is the french testing system organization informed uh philippe that the first sbi test had been completed on the sample sent and that the rivet sample had
00:48:01 sent and that the rivet sample had indicated behavior equivalent to a c classification on the one sample and that the test on the cassette sample had been stopped due to a flashover so the best
00:48:12 due to a flashover so the best achievable classification for that variant
00:48:14 variant would be an e using an ignitability test now just just pausing there it appears from this excerpt from his statement that a cassette system was significantly
00:48:26 that a cassette system was significantly more combustible compared with a riveted system um and i'm suggesting to you that that's more that's effectively what that says my question is were you aware of that at
00:48:37 my question is were you aware of that at the time of your involvement of the grenfell tower project absolutely not did anybody from alcoa or arconic tell you about the testing that had been conducted by the cstb
00:48:48 cstb and the ratings which had been achieved on flat panels and cassettes respectively absolutely not what about jeff blades of cep did he tell you that a cassette had achieved an e
00:49:00 that a cassette had achieved an e absolutely not or there's been a flashover during the test no did you consider in general terms and we'll look at the certificate in a moment but did you consider in general terms
00:49:12 consider in general terms whether there was a distinction between the two methods of fixing of rayno raynor bond pe acm so far as regards fire safety or classification
00:49:23 fire safety or classification no did you ever make any investigations yourself
00:49:26 yourself or anybody else at harley into how the fixing method might affect fire performance no on the dba certificate it shows both as being uh conformed to carter
00:49:39 as being uh conformed to carter it does and we'll come well we'll come to that in a moment let's just go on with mr vela's statement can i ask you to go to page 21 please paragraph 70. he
00:49:50 paragraph 70. he says uh in the first two sentences at the top of the page the next en
00:49:57 13501 testing that i organized on reynobond 55pe was later in 2014. it had become clear from discussions within aap sas
00:50:08 from discussions within aap sas and the wider market that there was a desire to again have separate classification reports for the pe rivet and cassette variants to more accurately reflect the classifications that each had in
00:50:20 classifications that each had in practice
00:50:20 practice obtained now this is 2014 were you aware at that time or by that time of any desire in the wider market as he calls it to have different
00:50:32 as he calls it to have different classification reports for the pe rivet and the cassette variant respectively no were you aware that alcoa as they were then called were sending their cassettes
00:50:43 then called were sending their cassettes off for retesting no assuming that mr vela is right in his evidence
00:50:50 evidence are you able to explain how as a specialist subcontractor operating on major multi-million pound cladding projects in london and the southeast of england
00:50:59 england you weren't aware of any noises in the market about the desire to have separate classification reports for pe rivet and cassette respectively as far as
00:51:09 far as i'm aware there were none right so when he says there were discussions in the wider market and assuming you were part of that wider
00:51:20 and assuming you were part of that wider market
00:51:21 market can you you're telling us that as far as you know there were no such discussions no right can i then uh ask you to go to your statement and i want to turn to
00:51:32 to your statement and i want to turn to the question of class naught and reina bond acm very specifically if you look at page six of your statement you'll see paragraph 24 and three lines
00:51:43 you'll see paragraph 24 and three lines up from the bottom of that paragraph you say
00:51:48 excuse me um as i will detail further below it
00:51:51 below it came with a class naught rating as indicated in the bba certificate and the rayner bond literature according to diagram 40 of approved document b class naught is suitable for use on
00:52:02 class naught is suitable for use on buildings over 18 meters now was what you've written there something you knew at the time yes okay so did you
00:52:13 yes okay so did you actually look at the bba certificate for the rayna bond acm when it was sent by rayna bond to harley on the 23rd of april 2014. um i saw it but it was a document i'd
00:52:26 um i saw it but it was a document i'd seen
00:52:27 seen previously yes and you told us yesterday i think that uh you'd seen it when it first when it was first published in 2008. yes did you have caused to look at it between 2008 and
00:52:39 between 2008 and and april 2014 not not to reread it i knew it was on there okay now just to refresh your memory um i'll show you the document it's cep
00:52:52 you the document it's cep 50281
00:52:55 50281 because this is where i get the date of the 23rd of april 2014 from this is an email from deborah french at alcoa arconic 23rd of april 2014 to mark harris
00:53:09 23rd of april 2014 to mark harris copy to mike albiston at harley and jeff blades at cep and she attaches among other documents the bba certificate zero eight four five
00:53:21 the bba certificate zero eight four five one zero
00:53:23 one zero and she says in the first line hi mark as per your couple of emails i've attached copies of our reyna bond bba specimen warranty i think you're telling us that even though that came into harley on this
00:53:36 though that came into harley on this date you didn't you yourself didn't re-read it or refresh your memory about it uh did you ever after this date have any
00:53:47 uh did you ever after this date have any calls to look at the bba certificate no on the on the grenfell tower project no no
00:53:55 how do you
00:53:58 or did did mr harris or anybody else at harley
00:54:02 harley ever discuss the contents of the bba certificate uh with you on this project no did you ever discuss the contents of the
00:54:13 did you ever discuss the contents of the bba certificate with mr sones or anyone else's studio e on this project
00:54:18 project no i think mark sent them the render bond bba certificate
00:54:26 did you consider that it was harley's responsibility to examine the certificates that you were given by manufacturers to make sure that you were satisfied that harley was satisfied that it was complying with its
00:54:38 satisfied that it was complying with its duties under the building regulations
00:54:48 uh yes but we also have a duty to pass them on to
00:54:53 the main contractor to pass on to the architect from building control when you first read the ad the um bba certificate did you yourself cross check it with
00:55:05 did you yourself cross check it with approved document b
00:55:10 no to your knowledge did anybody cross check it with approved document b so can you
00:55:22 so can you it says um it has it is class o
00:55:30 how do you mean cross check it with well did anybody put the two documents side by side and look at the certificate look at approved document b and read across from one to the other to
00:55:42 and read across from one to the other to make sure that the bba certificate was saying some something that made sense in the context of adb i'm not sure people uh anybody put them side by side but
00:55:53 uh anybody put them side by side but if the product has to be class o and the bb-86 said it's class so then we've checked it with adb shortly so in truth is it right that the in fact the only piece of information
00:56:05 the only piece of information that you yourself considered in terms of fire performance for rayner bond um acm pe was your belief that the panels achieved class naught
00:56:18 yes
00:56:26 and what did that tell you in relation to
00:56:29 to use on buildings over 18 meters they're suitable
00:56:33 suitable for cladding on buildings over 18 meters now let's look at the
00:56:40 at the certificate you've exhibited this to your witness statement as rb13 exhibit 13
00:56:45 13 let's look at it it's bba 6047 please
00:56:55 and it's dated the 14th of january 2008 and here we can we can see the agreement certificate number zero eight four five one zero so we know that it's the same document that debbie french was attaching to her 23rd of april email
00:57:08 attaching to her 23rd of april email and uh let's just look at it it says under section one
00:57:14 you see it says that it relates to rainer bond architectural wall cladding panels aluminium polyethylene composite panels used to provide a decorative stroke
00:57:26 used to provide a decorative stroke protective facade over external walls of buildings
00:57:30 buildings and then it says under key factors assessed
00:57:38 it says in the third item down behavior in relation to fire in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class naught
00:57:49 regarded as having a class naught surface in england and wales and a low-risk material in scotland c section six
00:57:56 now i want to ask you about the expression class naught surface what did you understand a class naught surface to mean
00:58:09 surface to mean that it's um it's class o um and that relates to the surface but it's not a limited combustibility
00:58:26 did you understand that that description applied to both the pe and the fr versions of acm panels yes
00:58:39 was it your understanding that from this that the acm panels would be classed as the external surface for the purposes of approved document b
00:58:48 yes
00:58:53 and therefore being class naught it was suitable for buildings over 80 meters in any circumstances is that right right well i wonder if you can help me a bit
00:59:04 bit further on that uh mr bailey this certificate is actually only speaking about the panels isn't it it is yeah and the language it uses is
00:59:15 it is yeah and the language it uses is speaking of the panel it has a class naught surface does it say anything about the
00:59:23 about the rest of the panel
00:59:38 um
00:59:41 no it doesn't no it doesn't tell you anything about the core of the panel does it no
00:59:55 i'm going to take a slight detour for a moment or two from the certificate
01:00:01 and ask you just to look at appendix a of the of adb can you please go to clg 50224 and look at page 119
01:00:17 i'm going to come back to the certificate in just a moment mr bailey said bear with me but i just want to ask you this
01:00:23 you this um this is appendix a performance of materials products and structures and there's a lengthy introduction in the first column that you'll see there and if you look at the
01:00:35 there and if you look at the second column the column on the right there's note two you see that it says any test evidence used to substantiate the fire resistance rating of a construction should be carefully checked to ensure
01:00:46 should be carefully checked to ensure that it demonstrates compliance that is adequate
01:00:49 adequate and applicable to the intended use small differences in detail such as fixing method joints dimensions and the introduction of insulation materials etc may
01:01:00 of insulation materials etc may significantly affect the rating were you aware at the time of your involvement in grant the grenfell tower project
01:01:07 project of that note no were you aware in print in principle of the of the idea the concept that that note indicates
01:01:30 can you repeat that well even though you weren't aware of the note itself my question was more general one were you aware of the principle that any test evidence used to substantiate the fire resistance rating of a construction should be carefully
01:01:42 of a construction should be carefully checked
01:01:50 no but it would follow i think therefore that tell me if this is right that you and nobody else at harley requested the test data relating to the rainer bond panels in order to
01:02:01 panels in order to interrogate the fire resistance rating correct and the same applies in relation to celetex and k-15 i suppose is that right
01:02:09 right yes um can i then get back to the bba certificate bba 6-0 is 47 please at page 3.
01:02:20 bba 6-0 is 47 please at page 3. and i'd just like to look at paragraph 1.1
01:02:23 1.1 this is under the technical specification and uh it says the rhinobond architecture wall cladding panels comprise two half millimeter thick aluminium alloy sheets
01:02:34 aluminium alloy sheets bonded to either side of a core of lay density polyethylene the panels are available either plain edged riveted system or flanged cassette system to suit
01:02:45 or flanged cassette system to suit architectural requirements see figure one just pausing there you can see figure one uh on the bottom of that page figure one and there's a pair of diagrams
01:02:58 and then it goes on a duragloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face a polyester primer protects the unexposed face the products are also
01:03:09 unexposed face the products are also available in a fire retardant grade fr and then there's something about thicknesses um did you um
01:03:21 have any understanding about the differences between the pe and the fr core described there
01:03:29 no did you ever ask anybody on the grenfell tower project whether fr should be specified instead of pe or should be used instead of pe no
01:03:45 or should be used instead of pe no turning to the turning to pe polyethylene did you have any understanding at the time of what polyethylene actually was
01:03:55 it was a plastic type core did you have any understanding of its fire performance
01:04:05 i think polyethylene actually has quite a high ignition point um
01:04:14 point um [Music]
01:04:19 well at the time did you have any understanding of this no not particularly it was it common for harley to use products on external wall constructions without understanding
01:04:30 constructions without understanding uh what how those products can come would perform in a fire
01:04:38 no i we actually have products which have been
01:04:43 have been tested and supplied for that specific use exactly their chemical composition and how they're made is
01:04:54 made is perhaps a little bit beyond us did the reference to fire retardant panel in the bba certificate not alert you to the fact that the standard product was not fire retardant
01:05:07 the performance of the panels um if you go further in certificate it is the only difference is one produces
01:05:18 is the only difference is one produces slightly more smoke than the other was that your understanding at the time yes
01:05:29 which produced slightly more smoke than the other the the pe produces slightly more smoke than the fr so was it your understanding at the time that so far as uh fire performance is concerned there
01:05:41 uh fire performance is concerned there was no difference between fr and pe yes where did you unders get that understanding from because because of the difference in or the
01:05:50 the the only difference in their fire performance there's two this class so and there's a a the european standard is be
01:06:03 standard is be s1 d0 for the fr and b
01:06:12 fr and b s2 d0 for
01:06:16 s2 d0 for the pe i see so your understanding about smoke
01:06:20 smoke production was based entirely on the differences in those two standards yes which we'll come to in a moment did you ever see any information from deborah french about the fire retardant version of the product
01:06:32 product or did anyone at harley
01:06:35 no i think the when we saw the certificate back in 2008 eight
01:06:46 certificate back in 2008 eight there was a queer what's the difference between the two which is why i
01:06:53 why i knew the difference was the smoke whether that came from debra french or through some other route i can't remember can we look at
01:07:05 remember can we look at page five of this document section six under the heading behavior in relation to fire
01:07:11 to fire and it says at six one a standard sample of the product with a gray straight green duragloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire
01:07:20 fire achieved a classification of b s2 ds naught
01:07:23 naught in accordance with en 13501
01:07:30 what did you understand that to mean that is um classo or equivalent to classo
01:07:42 or equivalent to classo did you consider whether the finish that was on the product may have made a difference to its classification
01:07:48 it's strange it was a question that i asked at the time who did you ask believe it or not i can't recall who asked whether it was rent-a-bond direct or through cep
01:07:59 rent-a-bond direct or through cep and if it was through cep you'd probably be in roy feuster um and
01:08:07 um and the reason for the question was the delamination we were having with the ettel bond and it was suggested that the paint on that may have had something to do with the delamination so when i saw grey green
01:08:19 so when i saw grey green does this only apply to this certificate and they said and i was told that no it's almost because that's the color that was tested and it has to go on
01:08:30 that was tested and it has to go on there
01:08:30 there and does it apply to everything else well yes otherwise there'd be 200 of these certificates one for each color
01:08:38 color they sell
01:08:43 so that was the answer you were told it made no difference yes who was it who told you that i i believe that came back through roy fuser though
01:08:54 through roy fuser though like it's a long time coming of who it was but i think that's the roots that it came back through um
01:09:02 well if you look at 6.4 it actually says these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and designations of a particular color should be confirmed
01:09:13 should be confirmed in england and wales by a test or assessment in accordance with the proof document b appendix a clause 1. i'm not quite sure how
01:09:21 how mr feustel or anybody else could have given you the assurance you've just told us about in light of paragraph 6.4 can you explain no so does it come to this that your unders
01:09:34 so does it come to this that your unders you relied on what you were told about the colors rather than what the certificate actually said in black and white
01:09:41 white paragraph 6.4
01:09:48 yes and just to be clear when was that when was this assurance that you were given you say 2008. the the time when you first read the certificate i see
01:09:59 the certificate i see can i ask you to look at section 6.2 please
01:10:03 please um it says a fire retardant sample of the product with a metallic grave pdp vdf finish when tested in accordance with bs4766
01:10:14 with bs4766 achieved a fire propagation index i of naught and were tested in accordance with bs4767 achieved a class 1 surface spread of flame
01:10:23 flame now on its face the bba certificate would appear to state that the only fire retardant sample had been tested in accordance with
01:10:35 had been tested in accordance with glass nought in other words it actually passed those tests um
01:10:50 yes did you notice at the time that although the fire retardant sample had been tested uh the pe the standard had not been
01:11:03 tested in accordance with those tests um no it had been tested to the european standard which is equivalent
01:11:16 did you notice that at the time when you of your consideration of this
01:11:24 certificate
01:11:28 yeah i noticed that they were they were different
01:11:31 different but they both classo as it said on the front of the certificate well let me ask you this did you ever investigate with arconic or alcoa
01:11:43 ever investigate with arconic or alcoa how the panels
01:11:48 complied with diagram 40 of approved document b that you've referred to earlier well they comply diagram b
01:11:59 well they comply diagram b because it's b s 2 d 0. did you ever ask her whether uh a standard sample of the product had actually been tested in
01:12:10 product had actually been tested in accordance with bs four seven six six and bs four seven seven seven no i didn't
01:12:17 why is that it actually had a b s 2 d o rating
01:12:28 s 2 d o rating which is equivalent to class 0 right did you not consider that it might be safer to use the fr product rather than the standard pe version given that only the fr product had passed a
01:12:39 the fr product had passed a uk class naught test
01:12:44 it no it didn't occur to me and if it was
01:12:48 was um significant i would have expected brenda bond to
01:12:58 suggest that that's what we did
01:13:03 so you would have relied on reyna bond in other words alkyl or iconic to make that suggestion rather than investigating it for yourself if it if
01:13:15 investigating it for yourself if it if they thought it was a significant thing they would have i would expect in the told us
01:13:22 told us and
01:13:27 but the pe product is classroom and complies with diagram 40. looking at paragraph 6.3 it says
01:13:40 looking at paragraph 6.3 it says as a consequence of sections 6 1 and 6 2 the products may be regarded as having a class naught surface in relation to the approved document b of the building regulations etc i don't think i need the rest
01:13:54 uh and it goes on to say at the end of that paragraph the unexposed side of the product may also be regarded as having a class naught surface um what did you understand
01:14:07 um what did you understand that statement to mean the unexposed side
01:14:10 side on both sides in other words the back as opposed to the front back as well as the front what about the
01:14:26 edge
01:14:40 um
01:15:05 well as a as a that's an interesting as a composite
01:15:12 the whole product if it has a both surfaces of class o
01:15:24 both surfaces of class o so the sort of both surfaces are
01:15:30 the lynch compatibility will
01:15:34 it'll be classic so the whole product is regarded as class so so that's right yeah
01:15:46 so that's it that's an interesting question i can't can't answer that is it one that you asked at the time no i mean the the prod as far as the
01:15:57 no i mean the the prod as far as the prodigies
01:15:58 prodigies classo um
01:16:02 like by dint having a european classification and the certificate says class on it and we didn't actually i think consider with the edge would
01:16:13 i think consider with the edge would have a different classification of the rest of the product
01:16:17 let's look at clause 6.3 says as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class north surface in relation to the
01:16:28 north surface in relation to the approved
01:16:29 approved approved document b i've just read you that i just remind you of it but what did you understand by the phrase the products in that line the products plural
01:16:40 in that line the products plural may be regarded render bond with a pe or an one with an fr core now given the diagram on page two of the certificate let's just go back to
01:16:51 of the certificate let's just go back to that if we can i'm sorry figure one we looked at it briefly before i just want to share it to you um this is the diagram on page two
01:17:04 figure one which shows the two systems
01:17:12 did you looking did you study that diagram at the time
01:17:19 not not in great detail i mean they're both standard type um
01:17:26 acm fixing methods did you draw any distinction in your mind between the rivet or face fixed system
01:17:37 between the rivet or face fixed system and the cassette system when it came to the application of the class naught classification to the products no why is that
01:17:48 no why is that given that the product or products are capable of being used in two different
01:17:56 different fixing systems well this certificate covers both of those systems
01:18:03 that's how you read it is it yes
01:18:11 going back to paragraph 6.4 on page 5 please
01:18:24 we looked at this a moment ago it says these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and the designations of a particular color should be confirmed by i showed you this um
01:18:35 by i showed you this um a test in accordance with the proof document b we know that the finish uh that was tested the finish of the product that was tested in the standard sample the gray green duragloss 5000
01:18:47 sample the gray green duragloss 5000 wasn't the one that was chosen for grenfell was it no no that was smoke silver in the end correct were any investigations made as to what differences in fire performance
01:18:58 to what differences in fire performance the different finish made
01:19:04 no other than the um well so let me just go back on all the reno bond sales literature there is
01:19:17 the reno bond sales literature there is no it says clearly that the p panels and the fr panels achieve class o there is no distinction
01:19:28 achieve class o there is no distinction on any of their literature that it only applies to one color of panel the explanation i was given back
01:19:40 panel the explanation i was given back in 2008 made sense to me that if you're selling
01:19:48 104 colors in three different shades of finishing
01:19:54 you would therefore have to have 300 certificates therefore the certificate cover whatever color
01:20:01 color was selected so what did you make then of paragraph 6.4 6.4 was it may not be achieved
01:20:12 6.4 was it may not be achieved and not that it won't that it may not and doesn't that tell you that
01:20:18 you that when you're selecting a color or finish different from the gray green duragloss you would have to check out whether or not it would be achieved
01:20:27 achieved i
01:20:31 it didn't um
01:20:34 it didn't mean that to me and again if we are
01:20:43 ordering panels from renabond and the color affects the fire performance we would expect
01:20:54 the fire performance we would expect then well first i wouldn't expect to sell the paddles
01:20:59 and if there was they would they would tell us so i can't see how renderbond
01:21:08 the only color they can sell into the market is
01:21:11 market is grey green but when it says the designations of a particular color should be confirmed by a test in accordance with the proof document p when you read the certificate who was it
01:21:23 when you read the certificate who was it who would ask for that test to be carried out on the color that was to be chosen if it wasn't grey green
01:21:32 and
01:21:39 this is never a point i considered i mean if you're asking me now i presume it would
01:21:45 it would we'd wait for the architect to pick the color he wants and then around the board would have to test on it
01:21:54 did you ever go back to our conic or alcoa and and seek any assurances as to the fire performance of the smoke silver that was eventually selected no because of the the um conversation
01:22:06 the um conversation back in 2008 that it actually made no difference notwithstanding the presence of 6.4 accepted right uh
01:22:17 accepted right uh paragraph mr chairman i'm still on the certificate i i've got a little bit of the way to go um does it make sense to
01:22:26 sense to break now is it going to destroy your well
01:22:30 well it it makes sense in one sense and makes no sense in another um it's an appropriate time given that we've been going for an hour and 25 minutes but i'm in the middle of the certificate and there's a critical
01:22:41 certificate and there's a critical document on any of you yeah yes i'm not trying to hurry you through the certificate at all well if we take us if we take them yes right
01:22:48 right mr maybe we'll have a short break now okay um and we'll come back at 20 to 12 please okay and again i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it
01:22:59 to do with it when you're out of the room okay good thank you very much we'd like to go to the usher
01:23:13 20 to 12 please
01:41:02 yes would you ask mr bailey to come back in please okay
01:41:19 in please okay all right mr bailey ready to carry on yes thank you thank you mr chairman mr bailey just a question arising out of an exchange we had earlier on about the differences between fr and pe the question is did you ever ask
01:41:31 and pe the question is did you ever ask alcoa
01:41:32 alcoa rayna bond um what the difference was between
01:41:35 between fr and pe
01:41:39 no only i think um
01:41:44 in 2008 probably been through roy but not directly no right were you not interested to know what the difference was um
01:41:59 yeah yes what were you told the the the difference between them was the amount of smoke that they generated in the fire did you ever ask them which was better
01:42:11 did you ever ask them which was better the effort slow less smoke right why would you have a p e if an fr produce less smoke
01:42:23 that is
01:42:26 a fair question than looking at it now i don't know why the pe product um needed to exist
01:42:37 um needed to exist no and is that a question that occurred to you at the time they didn't know just tell me a little further on that uh mr bailey i mean why would you prefer to use a non-fire
01:42:49 why would you prefer to use a non-fire retardant version in preference to a fire version no i don't think it was a it was a christian would be preferred to use it that was the reynolds bond
01:43:00 use it that was the reynolds bond product well the renault bond as i understand it were offering two products one was billed as being fire retardant and so on the face of it it would give you something that the ordinary pe
01:43:11 you something that the ordinary pe version didn't give you and something that would be on the face of it to be preferred
01:43:19 um i wouldn't disagree with you on that but it it was a
01:43:26 when we were doing the high rise block at camden and we were um renault were involved with that and they said renault bond p is fine
01:43:40 they said renault bond p is fine um and at that point we didn't interrogate
01:43:47 whether fr would have been a better product like you know how much more money is looking back now um it would seem there was no point in
01:43:58 um it would seem there was no point in producing pe for for renault well that might depend on different applications perhaps from what i've looked at i can't see
01:44:11 from what i've looked at i can't see anything that pe can do that fr can't and as it turned as we found out now that the price differential between them is
01:44:22 differential between them is minimal all right thank you very much just in that last answer you told the chairman that reina bond were involved with camden that's chalcott's i think
01:44:33 that's chalcott's i think they said reyno bond pe is fine is that is that
01:44:38 is that are you telling us that reino bond confirmed to you that their own product at channel cuts was acceptable yes and they issued a warranty
01:44:49 warranty um for all those buildings right and you you relied on renault bonds say so did you on their say so and their warranty can
01:45:00 on their say so and their warranty can we go back to the bba certificate which is still on should still be on the screen somewhere paragraph 6.5
01:45:11 [Applause]
01:45:14 that says for resistance to fire the performance of a wall incorporating the product can only be determined by tests from a suitably accredited laboratory and is not covered by this certificate what do you understand that statement to
01:45:28 mean
01:45:42 uh
01:45:57 the ability of the products to resist the fire from going one side of the wall to another
01:46:16 did the wording in there alert you to the fact that the fire performance of a wall incorporating the cladding in a in a different system could not be
01:46:27 in a different system could not be ascertained by reference to this certificate alone no why is that
01:46:34 i read that as [Music]
01:46:39 the resistor stopping the passage of fire from one side of a wall to another
01:46:52 can i ask you to look at paragraph 6.6 then please this is cavity barriers and it says cavity barriers should be incorporated behind the cladding as required by the national building regulations but should not block
01:47:03 regulations but should not block essential ventilation pathways particular attention should be paid to preventing the spread of fire from within a building breaching the clouding system through window and door openings
01:47:14 when you read this what did you consider that statement to mean do we need to put cavity power is in the cladding system
01:47:24 and specifically around window openings
01:47:31 depending on the layout of the windows yes
01:47:35 yes depending on the layout of the windows what do you mean by that i think we going back to the
01:47:46 to the interpretation
01:47:49 all the industry presses there's a single window in contained within an opening the uh the compartmentalization around
01:48:01 uh the compartmentalization around the opening around the compartment that means that the
01:48:12 cavity barriers directly around the window may not be necessary i think we've accepted previously that that's an
01:48:20 that's an error
01:48:28 do you agree that the bba certificate for rayner bond as we see here itself recommends the inclusion of cavity barriers around the windows in order to prevent internal fire spreading
01:48:41 can i ask you to look at section 10 then please on page six let's just look at paragraph or section 10.2 this is under general
01:48:52 10.2 this is under general installers must be trained and approved by the certificate holder who can provide technical assistance at the design stage and at the start of installation now would you accept that
01:49:05 installation now would you accept that harley in the case of the grenfell tower project was the certificate holder for this purpose
01:49:13 uh yes uh
01:49:19 what steps did you take or did you take any steps to ensure that osborne berry um as the installers were appropriately trained
01:49:31 so osborne very installed acms on a number of projects for us so we've done training with them over the years
01:49:48 on these panels the installation of these panels the installation of these panels
01:49:52 panels right um i see
01:50:13 in i may have misled you by suggesting that the certificate holder was harley if as a matter of correct reading the certificate holder was the person to whom the certificate was issued
01:50:27 whom the certificate was issued that would mean that the installers would have to be trained and approved by arconic to your knowledge were osborne berry ever trained and approved by
01:50:37 by arconic
01:50:41 no in your experience generally in the industry were cladding installers uh ever trained and approved by the person who had received a bba
01:50:52 the person who had received a bba certificate in respect of its product
01:50:56 i'm going to turn to a different topic um can i ask you to look at ryd3023468 please
01:51:11 now this is a an email which people in this inquiry have called the lack of moment
01:51:17 moment email it's from claire williams of the tmo
01:51:20 tmo to simon lawrence on the 12th of november 2014 copy to phil booth at artelia and he and she says
01:51:28 she says simon i am just writing to get clarification on the fire retardance of the new cladding i just had a latino moment and she then goes on to set out some excerpts which
01:51:39 goes on to set out some excerpts which we
01:51:40 we believe are from the nbs specification there's a reference to the cwct standard and a section from the grc cladding um now you weren't copied in on
01:51:52 cladding um now you weren't copied in on this email and so we don't expect you to have seen it at the time but do you recognize it
01:51:59 maybe it had been in a bundle of documents i've looked at i see now simon lawrence when he gave evidence said that um he would have forwarded miss
01:52:08 miss williams's query to harley to your knowledge mr bailey did he ever do so i i can't recall right now mr lawrence
01:52:20 right now mr lawrence went on to say in his evidence uh and perhaps i just should show it to you uh it's day 24 please page 163
01:52:36 and
01:52:40 if you look at line 16 please first of all
01:52:44 all or we can see there's a passage there
01:52:48 where he says the concern
01:52:56 she says i'm saying sorry page 163 uh he says there was a design conversation going on in the background about whether grc products could be substituted for
01:53:07 grc products could be substituted for renabond or a another there was a long conversation about whether stainless steel was acceptable whether rayna bond was acceptable whether they had to stick with grc products
01:53:17 products do you recall any such discussion about whether or not the grc products proposed for the lower four floors of the building were suitable in terms of their fire performance no i i don't do glc's class room
01:53:31 no i i don't do glc's class room it's concrete
01:53:37 and grc um columns were provided at the lower floors right
01:53:45 do you recall any discussions with ryden about whether grc products could be substituted for rayna bond
01:53:56 no i think if anything it would have been the other way around what can you just explain why that that is
01:54:05 is the glc columns at ground floor level are big and heavy to get in whereas the um the red-borne panels are light
01:54:16 um the red-borne panels are light so if there was going to be a change it would have made sense to put um asim at the bottom of the glc for that reason but typically we would
01:54:27 for that reason but typically we would put a heavy duty product at the base for impact resistance so if people run into they don't damage it so i i'm not sure what that conversation was about
01:54:39 sure what that conversation was about but i think your evidence is you don't recall any such conversations yourself
01:54:45 can you and i don't want you to speculate but are you able to help me with who at harley would be the person to have had such conversations with mr lawrence if they had taken place so what was the
01:54:57 if they had taken place so what was the date of
01:54:57 date of this email 12th of november 2014. so
01:55:10 maybe i'm only speculating maybe
01:55:15 i'm speculating mark possibly mark harris harris yeah i see all right
01:55:22 um i'd like then to turn to ask you some questions about the insulation and let's start with celetex can we first look please at your statement of page 28
01:55:34 statement of page 28 paragraph 113
01:55:42 and here you say
01:55:52 the celetex rs 5000 pir insulation was a relatively new product at the time of the project and this was the first time that harley had used it
01:56:03 had used it as with the rhino bomb acm it had been specified by the architects in the nba specification document prior to this max folder but also specified the use of cellotex you say and then you go on to say
01:56:16 you say and then you go on to say over the page page 29
01:56:23 uh about six lines down uh the labc certificate in relation to the cell effects rs 5000 confirmed that it had been assessed uh by the bre i'm so sorry i
01:56:36 assessed uh by the bre i'm so sorry i should have read i'm so sorry to the top of the page the celetex marketing material first of all the celetex marketing material stated clearly that it was suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height
01:56:47 in height one of its selling points was that it was the first pir insulation board to successfully test to bs 8414 and meet the criteria set out in pre
01:56:55 in pre in br 135 and was therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
01:57:02 height and then you um i think exhibit the labc certificate in relation to that product i've just read that bit now you you say in numerous points in
01:57:14 now you you say in numerous points in your statement as well as this that the architects specified
01:57:18 specified rs 5000 in fact in the nbs specification actually specified fr 5000 didn't it it did yeah now as far as you were aware
01:57:29 it did yeah now as far as you were aware was rs 5000 a new product or did you think that it was an old material or product fr 5000 simply rebranded and launched as a new product no we we thought it was
01:57:42 as a new product no we we thought it was a
01:57:44 a new product you thought it was a new product
01:57:47 product yes why did you think that because of the marketing that it was the rs 5000 right now let's some look at your statement at page eight
01:57:59 look at your statement at page eight then if we can go to paragraph 31.
01:58:09 um you say there
01:58:18 that
01:58:22 uh in the last sentence celetex informed us that the relevant product was in fact the rs rain screen product rather than the fr flat roof product which had been specified
01:58:34 which had been specified um do you know when celetex told you or harley that the relevant product was in fact the rs range screen rather than the fr
01:58:45 the rs range screen rather than the fr which had been specified
01:58:50 i'm guessing but i would imagine it would have been towards the end of 2014.
01:59:07 the end of 2014. at that stage did you raise any queries as to whether the change was significant
01:59:15 respect well did you ask celotex whether this was actually a change of product or just a change of name
01:59:27 no i didn't actually deal with this personally so i'm um
01:59:34 speculating a little bit that they told us this was the product for rain screen as opposed to the fr for flat roof given your answer earlier that you
01:59:45 given your answer earlier that you thought it was a new product did you raise any queries as to whether the well did you ask them whether there were any differences
01:59:54 i i did i didn't speak to them no did anybody harley ask them whether there were differences i think daniel's dealing with them so he may well have asked him i don't know right do you know whether he asked them
02:00:05 right do you know whether he asked them whether the change from from fr to rs was significant in any way i don't know right as a new product at least as you thought it was do you agree that harley should have
02:00:16 do you agree that harley should have satisfied itself that it had been appropriately selected for use at grenfell tower
02:00:22 uh yes and but we also put it back up the chain to the architecture that specifies i think the answer is you say yes and we
02:00:33 i think the answer is you say yes and we put it back up the chain you say to the architect and the specifiers who are the specifiers the wrong word the the the architect who would then pass it through to the
02:00:44 would then pass it through to the rest of the professional team who was that
02:00:48 that that would i am suggesting that would be x over and max fordham
02:01:01 to your knowledge are you
02:01:06 recalling that there was a discussion between
02:01:10 between studio e and x over about rs 5000.
02:01:16 not specifically xover um were the fire specialists so if we're changing a product that's or we're suggesting a change that would
02:01:27 or we're suggesting a change that would be
02:01:28 be um who
02:01:31 um who the architect would talk to well is that an assumption you're making now or are you recalling actual conversations that you knew about
02:01:42 actual conversations that you knew about at the time there's an assumption i'm making now that would be the normal course of events right now
02:01:52 do you accept just to press the point a bit more that harley should have satisfied itself that given that it thought it was a new product
02:02:00 product that it was safe to use at grenfell tower
02:02:04 tower yes and as far as harley are concerned we carried out the
02:02:13 all possible reasonable investigations on it
02:02:18 primarily talking to the manufacturers who've produced the product we've sent them
02:02:25 them a series of drawings showing its application and the products it's being used with for them to confirm that they're happy with it well let's just examine that a little bit in a little bit more detail if we can
02:02:37 in a little bit more detail if we can can you go back to paragraph uh 113 of your statement please on page 29
02:02:44 29 i just want to follow that through
02:02:49 about seven lines up from the bottom of that paragraph you say there in additionally representative of celetex jonathan room also attended harley's offices
02:03:00 room also attended harley's offices to talk with harley staff about the benefits of rs 5000 products specifically for the grenfell project
02:03:07 project do you recall why such a meeting took place
02:03:12 i think that jonathan was called in specifically to talk about um the use of cylotex at grenfell
02:03:23 the use of cylotex at grenfell and it may have been at that meeting that daniel gave him drawings to take away but i i wasn't i can't
02:03:30 can't um do you know who called jonathan roomin
02:03:35 roomin i don't i i suspect it was daniel right but i might be wrong and why did he call him in do you know
02:03:46 because this was a new product um we want to assure ourselves that it was safe and i did see an email from daniel 2 celetex saying
02:03:57 from daniel 2 celetex saying you need to convince us that this stuff is as good as rock hall or who won't be using it do you know why it was jonathan room who attended harley's offices
02:04:09 harley's offices as he said as you say rather than studio e
02:04:13 e or ryden in order to discuss the proposed use of rs5000 because we were
02:04:24 because we were trying to satisfy ourselves that the product
02:04:27 product as far as we would the the use of celetex
02:04:31 celetex was suitable for the um for the project
02:04:37 can we look at cel 40 is 9973 please
02:04:51 now this is a celetex sales force entry and if we look at page two
02:05:02 we can see that next to a meeting on the 24th of november 2014
02:05:12 your name is mentioned where is that
02:05:18 well it's about two-thirds of the way down the page it may need to be expanded a little bit more but looking at what's on the screen at the moment we can see
02:05:28 can see uh about two-thirds of the way down the screen
02:05:31 screen yes uh if you look at the meeting identity rain screen contractor ray bailey
02:05:39 bailey and then reading across to the very far right hand column 24th of november 2014. do you see that i do
02:05:46 do yes um were you present at a meeting as identified here with jonathan room on the 24th of november 2014.
02:06:00 i don't i don't think i don't think it was i
02:06:04 was i i may have met jonathan when he was in the office but i didn't recall sitting down to a meeting with him now
02:06:11 him now i know this is not your document and we will investigate it with others but i just want to try and get your recollection looking at this document it may be that it the meeting was about premier house
02:06:23 it the meeting was about premier house because
02:06:24 because we can see that the entry above it mike alberston
02:06:28 alberston is next to something premier something to do with premier house and that's also all those are the same dates only they were at the same date as is as is entered
02:06:38 entered there seems to have been a meeting between mark with mark harris premier in t4 heathrow mike alveston premier house and ray bailey no entry uh all on the 24th of november it may be
02:06:52 uh all on the 24th of november it may be we know jonathan he's worked for a number of
02:06:55 number of companies and and it may be you know the bus stop and said hello teams i don't know what that meeting was about
02:07:03 about do you remember having a meeting with jonathan rooney about this time yourself no i don't mean to have a meeting jonathan i um i've had
02:07:14 um i've had i've met a champion i don't require you having a meeting with him but i'm not saying that i wasn't there on that day do you remember having a meeting with anybody else at celetex on or about the 2014
02:07:23 2014 november 23rd the only person that we had contact with from celetex as far as i'm aware
02:07:27 i'm aware jonathan i see um can i then ask you to look at cel 6018 this is an email
02:07:40 to look at cel 6018 this is an email from jonathan room at celetex to daniel lancaster jones at harley dated the same day 24th of november 2014 as you can see hi dan i spoke with mark and the team regarding a few
02:07:51 mark and the team regarding a few projects
02:07:52 projects you can see the premier projects are set out there as well as another one chartwell house south end the first one is grenfell tower as you can see and he says
02:08:01 says under the heading grenfell tower when we last looked at this we came to a conclusion of using three thousand square meters of 150 millimeter rs 5000 is this still so mark's drawings
02:08:14 5000 is this still so mark's drawings were showing a mix of 100 millimeter and 160 millimeter
02:08:21 do does this prompt a recollection about a discussion between harley and and celetex at that time
02:08:29 no it doesn't but they clearly um mark i i suspect that's mark's state because it's talking about drawings um
02:08:40 talking about drawings um but david chatting about various projects that may or may not happen did mr roon to your recollection give any assurances to you or to anybody else at harley about the seller the about the
02:08:51 about the seller the about the suitability of celetex rs 5000 on high-rise buildings uh yes what were they sure what were these assurances
02:09:02 assurances well that it was perfectly safe for the job did he say that to you in a conversation no not to me did he say that to anybody else in a conversation
02:09:16 to your knowledge
02:09:23 the conversation regardless suitability of this i think would have daniel and he certainly assured him otherwise he wouldn't put it on the job right what i'm seeking really to
02:09:34 right what i'm seeking really to establish is whether or not apart from what was on the certificate um
02:09:40 um harley had any conversations with celetex in which celtics gave assurances as to the suitability of this material on high-rise buildings yes but i wasn't present
02:09:48 present i see did
02:09:52 i see did to your knowledge and if you weren't present you weren't present but to your knowledge did anybody at harley discuss the fire performance of rs 5000 with mr room
02:10:00 room either on this occasion or any other yeah i think that was the um intention of daniel's first email when he was talking about um
02:10:12 he needs to be convinced that otherwise we'll be staying or we're staying going with rockwool
02:10:21 so you you think that daniel lancaster jones
02:10:25 jones was wanted to be convinced that it was safe
02:10:30 safe is that what you're saying yes from a fire safety perspective yes otherwise you wouldn't use it and would go with rockwell you say you think that what what leads you to think that i've seen an email
02:10:43 you to think that i've seen an email okay uh
02:10:47 can you help us any further with that or is this something we should be asking mr anchor to jones i'd ask daniel that's yeah all right um now mr roon goes on as we
02:10:59 all right um now mr roon goes on as we can see in this email to uh give the measurements uh in respect of um the product for the tower and asks is this still so is it fair to say that
02:11:10 is this still so is it fair to say that the decision to use rs 5000 had been made by this point 24th of november 2014.
02:11:23 um yes i would
02:11:30 so i i would imagine so but i'm not 100 certain of the timeline on this
02:11:37 this who would have made the decision to use rs 5000
02:11:44 the decision to use to use the selatex was part of the specification that we came down so that was handed down to us so unless there was a good reason to
02:11:58 so unless there was a good reason to change it
02:11:59 change it um the decision was made
02:12:05 by the architect back in
02:12:10 all right now i'm going to losing track of the years well just let me help you the original decision of course was made in 2012 but that was fr 5000 yeah so maybe it will pro a bit more precise with my question who
02:12:21 a bit more precise with my question who made the decision to use rs 5000 as opposed to fr 5000 uh
02:12:30 the architect you know that do you well yeah this is we've pointed out that there's a difference and this is one to be used it
02:12:41 difference and this is one to be used it has to be signed off for us to use it
02:12:46 who would harley uh made did anybody at harley make the decision
02:12:55 decision that rs 5000 should be used the senate said this is the product you need to use we've passed it up the line to
02:13:04 to the architect they've signed it off so we've used it who was it who passed it up to the architect to sign off it would have been daniel or maybe ben
02:13:17 it would have been daniel or maybe ben are you aware of any discussions between daniel or ben but on the one hand and the architect on the other about whether or not rs 5000 should be used
02:13:28 should be used no i can't recall right and when you say the architect obviously studio e who at studio e would have as you say signed off on the use of rs5000
02:13:39 signed off on the use of rs5000 since i wasn't part of the conference i can't tell but i suspect it would have been um neil crawford
02:13:50 now i just want to show you something in neil crawford's evidence on that point um can you please go to day 10. page 46
02:14:09 if you go to page
02:14:14 46 he says at line
02:14:20 13 do i recall the period when it was specified and this is in the context of earlier questions about rs 5000 in place of fr 5000 and he says at line
02:14:31 in place of fr 5000 and he says at line 15
02:14:32 15 yes it was forwarded to me i think by ray
02:14:36 ray harley 17 18 september about i think 2014.
02:14:42 2014. question what makes you recall that say specifically because we were having a conversation i think they had raised their rfi1 in relation to the cavity barrier strategy
02:14:53 to the cavity barrier strategy now do you recall a conversation with with mr crawford on 17th or 18th of september 2014 or
02:15:04 17th or 18th of september 2014 or thereabouts about changing from fr 5000 to rs 5000 no
02:15:23 to rs 5000 no [Applause] at the time of the change did anybody have harley to your knowledge consider how
02:15:30 how rs 5000 met the requirements of approved document b
02:15:45 i think we've discussed this earlier uh
02:15:58 well remind me in summary in summary
02:16:06 we sent the details in the information to celetex to make sure that they were satisfied
02:16:17 to make sure that they were satisfied that it
02:16:21 complied with their effectively their 8414 certificate and because we changed the pell on the front that it was safe to use it so effectively they would have
02:16:33 to use it so effectively they would have been doing a desktop study on it right all right
02:16:48 did you ask them or make any assessment of whether or not rs 5000 was a material of limited combustibility
02:17:01 of limited combustibility i didn't know did anybody at harley i i don't know did anybody at harley check what system
02:17:15 rs 5000 had been tested in as part of its 8414 test and certification i think that was
02:17:27 test and certification i think that was the reason for sending them our details to get them to get sell a text to compare them and confirm that with their study
02:17:38 and confirm that with their study that it complied did you think there was a
02:17:42 a you mentioned the word desktop a moment ago did were you did you think there was a desktop study in relation to i thought there was a a perhaps desktop study there was an
02:17:54 perhaps desktop study there was an assessment carried out by selatex on our system compared to the rate for one for test did you ask for the bba certificate in
02:18:07 did you ask for the bba certificate in relation to rs 5000 i'm sure we've i didn't but i'm sure we had one from them
02:18:16 all right
02:18:21 did you consider how rainer bond pe would interact with rs 5000 in terms of fire safety
02:18:32 fire safety that's the reason we sent the details to celetex to um assess that i see does that tell us that you were alive to
02:18:43 does that tell us that you were alive to the the risks of using rs 5000 with raino bond pe acm no it's we need
02:18:57 no it's we need to ensure that the product we put with it
02:19:01 it whether it be because it's something different to what they use in the test we need them to assess that is
02:19:13 still relevant
02:19:18 you say there was an assessment carried out by celetex what was that assessment i don't know did you ever ask for it
02:19:27 i i didn't again dan was dealing with this
02:19:31 this did dan ever ask for it i don't know we have to ask him i suppose right okay let's look at the brochures in respect of rs 5000.
02:19:44 you i think exhibit at rb52 the celetex rain screen cladding specification guide that's cel 6013 let's just start with that
02:20:01 uh is this document familiar to you it should be because you've exhibited it right was it did you read that document at the time um no
02:20:12 um no the one i've read at the time was this sales brochure right if you if you didn't read it at the time
02:20:20 the time why why did you exhibit it uh i think there may be yes there may be a
02:20:27 a maybe the wrong one that was put in there all right well let's look at it um let's see how we go can you look at page five please
02:20:41 fire performance left hand side and there's a big set of words in there between two purple lines celetex rs-5000 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 2005 fire performance of
02:20:53 to bs 8414 2005 fire performance of external
02:20:54 external cladding systems and then it says uh under rain screen insulation celatex fi
02:21:01 fi rs 5000 is class not fire rated as described
02:21:05 described by the national building regulations having achieved both a pass to bs 476 part 6
02:21:10 part 6 and classification as class one in accordance with bs 476 part seven you see that yes did does this ring a bell with you
02:21:23 yes the the the documentary actually should have been included the wrong one it was the the sales bros but just carrying on this i've read this sims so you have read this
02:21:32 this yes i see uh so at the time did this confirm to you that our the rs 5000 product was class naught
02:21:43 yes well like i said i read this subsequent two so this is the uh
02:21:55 subsequent two so this is the uh it wasn't the documents that should have been uh includes a different one but carry on with this well all right um well i don't know i don't want to ask you questions on a false basis but i mean assuming you had read it at
02:22:07 but i mean assuming you had read it at the time
02:22:08 the time did we take it from your answers earlier on that um that you understood from the reference to class naught that that meant that it was a material of limited combustibility
02:22:20 it's more clear in here that this relates to part six and part seven
02:22:26 when you say more clear well on the sales um brochure referred to as being classo
02:22:34 classo throughout and this is um relates to classos part six and seven
02:22:45 now i just read you the part on the left hand side where it says uh rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs
02:22:52 to bs 8414 yeah
02:22:55 and it then says the same thing underneath building above 18 meters yes and it then goes on to say at the end of that first paragraph meets the criteria set out in br135 and
02:23:07 meets the criteria set out in br135 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
02:23:13 assuming i'm not sure about this that you read this at the time what did you or would you have taken from that
02:23:21 that it was suitable for buildings above 80 meters height including grenfell including graph did you notice that the sheet also set out the system within which the
02:23:32 also set out the system within which the insulation had passed the a414 test it's set out just below that yes yes let's look at it together the system tested to bs 8414 was as follows
02:23:43 follows 12 millimeter fiber cement panels supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails 100 millimeter celitex rs 5000 12 millimeter non-combustible sheathing board 12 millimeter sfs system and
02:23:56 board 12 millimeter sfs system and and two times 12 and a half millimeters plasterboard was it clear to you at the time that the system was different from the system proposed for use at
02:24:07 from the system proposed for use at grenfell tower
02:24:12 um with regard to the face paddle uh yes it was the backing wall here is this which because this is a bs 8414 part 2
02:24:24 which because this is a bs 8414 part 2 test
02:24:25 test is a sfs backing which is the 12 mil non-combustible sheathing 10ml sfs and the
02:24:32 the two skins of plasterboard a grenfell we actually had 100 millimeter thick concrete wall which would have been an 8414
02:24:43 wall which would have been an 8414 part one test so in terms of the um the cladding elements the difference was the fiber panel cement on the front
02:24:55 panel cement on the front yes which is why we if you read on it says if the if there's a change to it it needs to be considered which is why the
02:25:07 considered which is why the details were sent to celetex indeed did you did you notice that at the time just just to be clear so that other people listening to this will understand what you're talking about let's look together at the right hand
02:25:18 let's look together at the right hand column
02:25:19 column third paragraph down the fire performance and classification report for celetex rs 5000 only relates to the components detailed above any changes to the components listed will need to be considered by the
02:25:30 will need to be considered by the building designer and i think what you're telling us in the last composite answer was that you noticed that at the time i i think daniel
02:25:42 i i think daniel picked that up i see and to your knowledge
02:25:46 knowledge were the changes to the components listed considered by the building designer
02:25:56 i am assuming that they were the building designer being the architect but we sent the details to
02:26:07 sent the details to celetex to have them assess it as well when you say the building designer was the architect did you send the details and requests to
02:26:20 details and requests to se to studio e to ask them to assess whether or not the differences between the system tested by celetex and that to be applied to grenfell
02:26:31 that to be applied to grenfell were satisfaction from from a fire safety point of view do we send them the the uh the rs 5000 details and they have our
02:26:44 the rs 5000 details and they have our or and they had in fact their cladding details
02:26:54 i'm sorry i'm not sure that's an answer to my question did you send the details and the request to studio e to ask them to make an assessment about whether or not the differences between the
02:27:05 or not the differences between the cladding system to be used at grenville and the cladding system used in the 8414 test by celetex made a difference from a fire safety point of view
02:27:15 i don't think we specifically did though um
02:27:18 um did daniel ankita jones or anybody else of harley
02:27:23 of harley assuming for the moment them to be the building designer make any such assessment
02:27:29 our assessment on this would have been
02:27:33 through celetex so again you were content to rely on what the manufacturer is telling you rather than making an independent assessment of those differences either yourself or with other professionals engaged on the project
02:27:51 um
02:27:55 we're not fire experts and that's why we asked statistics of the manufacturers for their
02:28:02 for their input on it well
02:28:07 you say we're not fire experts you are cladding experts and although there may be a debate about whether you're the building designer celetex are clearly saying here are they not
02:28:18 not that any changes to the components should be considered by the building designer
02:28:22 designer they're not inviting questions to them that's that's right isn't it it was the building designers job to get to the bottom of what differences the changes made
02:28:38 okay
02:28:46 it does that is seems to be what they're saying but not how they acted
02:28:58 can we look at a different document a slightly different document this is the rain screen cladding compliance guide
02:29:07 guide which is cel
02:29:11 six zeros 12.
02:29:15 and i'd like first of all just to ask you whether this is a document you're familiar with i've seen this yes had you seen it at the time
02:29:23 the time no right well let's see how we go with that can i ask you to look at page three it's a similar point but look at page three right hand column um it set out the performance criteria
02:29:36 um it set out the performance criteria in some detail br 135 and then the performance criteria of that with some diagrams beneath that and then it says in the right hand column at the top of the page the
02:29:48 column at the top of the page the performance of the system under investigation is evaluated against three criteria external fire spread internal fire spread and mechanical performance and then it says the classification applies only to the system as tested
02:29:59 applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check
02:30:11 system it is important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application
02:30:17 did you know that at the time of the selection of rs5000
02:30:30 um
02:30:38 yes can you look at page four please
02:30:48 this is uh a depiction in a drawing it's figure four of the system as tested for the purposes of the eight four one four tests that celetex are saying they carried out for this
02:31:01 are saying they carried out for this product
02:31:04 and you can see there what the
02:31:10 composite elements of the test were you've got a helping hand bracket and then on the outside you've got
02:31:21 and then on the outside you've got a 12 millimeter mali eternity natura panel
02:31:25 panel that's different isn't it from rayno bond pe55 acm it is
02:31:32 and then you've got below that a 12 millimeter magnesium oxide board that's different
02:31:38 different from the substrate that you had at grenfell isn't it yeah we had a 100 mil of concrete as opposed to 12 magazine outside board and then you also
02:31:49 magazine outside board and then you also had 100
02:31:50 had 100 on the test 100 millimeters of lf lsf system what's that do you know lsf you know what that might be a lightweight steel frame right
02:32:04 again different from grenfell yes can you roll the tiger up a little i'm so sorry you're quite right
02:32:18 can you see it there yes so the the the the
02:32:23 the lima steel frame and the magnesium oxide board
02:32:27 board are the backing wall in this system yeah compared to the 100 mil thick concrete grand file yeah so so different
02:32:38 grand file yeah so so different different
02:32:40 different grandfathers far better than that in terms of
02:32:44 terms of i understand that i understand what you're saying but different and then underneath that aluminium 60 by 40 by two continuous rail and then underneath that the celetex
02:32:57 now you refer to paragraph 113 of your statement
02:33:01 statement we can just get back to that to the labc certificate and the bre assessment we just look at that very briefly it's page 29 paragraph 113 and i i touched on this earlier when i
02:33:14 and i i touched on this earlier when i read this part of the paragraph to you you can see that it says uh seven lines down the labc certificate in relation to the celetex rs 5000
02:33:25 relation to the celetex rs 5000 confirmed that it had been assessed by the bre
02:33:27 the bre building research establishment and complied with br 135 for use in range screen walls above 18 meters you see that yes did you look
02:33:38 you see that yes did you look at the labc certificate at the time no did you look at any documents demonstrating the assessment by bre
02:33:49 demonstrating the assessment by bre at the time not personally no
02:33:54 you see you referred to it in your statement and um i confess that i had thought that that was something that you were speaking to at the time so do we read your statement here as something that um you came to came to know
02:34:06 that um you came to came to know afterwards no the the the la bc um
02:34:15 all the statements there were on the front page of their sales literature which is the the document i was referring to
02:34:32 let's look at the certificate but did but before i go to that with you um does that tell us that although you noticed it in the sales literature you didn't actually look at the certificate itself
02:34:43 itself uh correct right did anybody at harley actually look at the labc certificate and the bre assessment itself um i can't say for sure but if
02:34:55 um i can't say for sure but if um it would have been daniel if um we did indeed look at it okay well let's look at the um uh the bre classification report first of all
02:35:08 bre classification report first of all this is for rs 5000 this is at cel 6011 page
02:35:15 6011 page that first page is the first page and i'd like to look at page four with you but let's look at the first page is this document familiar to you i can't recall as you go through it i
02:35:26 can't recall as you go through it i don't i may recognize right well this is um dated the 11th of august 2014
02:35:32 2014 uh and uh it's issue two it appears produced by the bre and if we go to page four section 5.3 i want to focus on that with you
02:35:48 uh it says under
02:35:52 5.3 field of application i should just perhaps show you 5.2 first of all although it's only a sentence the system described in this classification report has been tested and met the performance criteria set out
02:36:04 and met the performance criteria set out in nxb of br135 and then the field of application under 5.3 says this classification is valid only
02:36:11 only for the system as installed and detailed in section 2 of this classification report
02:36:15 report and the associated details found in the related test reports referenced in section 4. did you know that the bre classification report for rs 5000 was valid only for the system as installed
02:36:27 the system as installed and detailed in section 2 of the report itself and not otherwise that seems to be a repeat of the clause that was in the installation menu later so taking the product literature
02:36:39 later so taking the product literature and the certificate do you accept that they don't say that any cladding system configuration incorporating rs 5000 would be covered by the bs 84145 performance
02:36:50 by the bs 84145 performance and classification report
02:36:54 which is why we
02:36:58 asked celetex to confirm that we could use the the product effectively getting them to do an assessment of it
02:37:10 assessment of it well i'll take that as a yes unless you tell me i shouldn't
02:37:17 is that a yes sorry can you repeat that well yes
02:37:21 well yes you do you accept that neither the sales literature which we've looked at or the certificate say that any cladding system configuration which incorporated
02:37:32 system configuration which incorporated rs 5000 would be covered by the bs 8414 test as having met the relevant
02:37:38 relevant criteria in br135
02:37:52 yes or no so yes
02:37:55 now would it follow from that that had harley perhaps you taken the trouble to familiarize yourself thoroughly with the sales literature and the certificates you or
02:38:08 and the certificates you or others at harley would have realized that it could only be used rs 5000 could only be used in a cladding system which was exactly the same
02:38:17 the same as the system tested which gave rise to a certificate the certification under 8414. that's why we investigated a product with celetex
02:38:29 we investigated a product with celetex to go through this to ensure that it was compliant
02:38:36 but but even though the system was different as we've accepted and even though the sales literature and the signifi and the certificate say that the 8414 test wouldn't cover a different system what is it that celetex
02:38:48 different system what is it that celetex said to harley that led harley to believe that it was covered
02:38:53 well they said it was
02:38:58 safe and acceptable to use it with um in the configuration we had
02:39:11 in the configuration we had if i told us it wasn't the safeness it would not be on the building
02:39:16 they said it was safe and acceptable to use you say did anybody undertake any independent verification of that assurance or did you just take
02:39:27 of that assurance or did you just take it on trust from celetex
02:39:32 senate x are major insulation manufacturer they're a huge corporation we do not expect to be misled
02:39:44 we do not expect to be misled by them um so yeah we trusted what they told us
02:39:50 even though they had a vested interest in
02:39:53 in making sure you bought the product because they were making it and selling it
02:40:02 yet why how why would they lie to us well that is a question
02:40:10 question uh to which there may be a number of answers but i'm afraid not equipped to answer them mr bailey just help me with this you referred to the exercise that you asked
02:40:21 referred to the exercise that you asked celetex to carry out i think at an earlier stage as a desktop study which shorthand for an assessment an assessment did they provide you with any detailed analysis to explain
02:40:33 analysis to explain why they were came to the conclusion that it was an acceptable use um i haven't seen it so i don't know what they gave to daniel
02:40:45 they gave to daniel you would normally i suppose expect a desktop
02:40:49 desktop assessment to be based on some form of analysis of the products actually used and comparing them with the materials used in the testing correct
02:41:01 materials used in the testing correct but you you don't know whether any such analysis was supplied i don't know what that analysis was supplied thank you now in paragraph 113 you also refer to
02:41:12 now in paragraph 113 you also refer to the labc certificate as we've seen we don't need to go back to it can we look at the certificate this is cel50539
02:41:22 and we can see there it is again just to be clear with you is that a document you ever saw at the time do you think
02:41:30 you think i'm not sure i saw it at the time right uh
02:41:33 uh we could see from the bottom of the page that it was issued first on the 21st of august 2014 and had a three-year validity life okay and
02:41:42 and this one is issued this particular version they said on the 19th of august 2016.
02:41:48 2016. uh and it covers rs 5000 insulation board but then there's a description of the product there on the first page um and it says this is an assessment of a pir insulation board by celatex
02:41:59 a pir insulation board by celatex designed for use within rain screen construction and then it goes on to say towards the bottom of that paragraph it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135 for use in rain
02:42:10 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height
02:42:13 height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate see conditions of certificate for more information can we then look at the second page of the certificate
02:42:27 the certificate says under the scope of registration um under the six lines down celitex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 meets the criteria set out in
02:42:39 to bs 8414 meets the criteria set out in br135
02:42:40 br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height
02:42:45 in height subject to matching the specification criteria of the bre classification report carried out as an alternative compliance to adb you see that yes and then under
02:42:56 you see that yes and then under conditions of certificate
02:43:02 it says reading from the eighth line down for use on buildings with a floor do you see that for use on buildings with the floor more than 18 meters above ground level celetex rs 5000 has been successfully
02:43:15 celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bsa414 part 2 and meets the criteria set out in annex bfbr 135. this classification is only valid for the system specification and detailed detailing
02:43:26 specification and detailed detailing outlined in section two of the bre classification report including the associated details found in section 4 test reports as an alternative complies to adb a full copy of the report should be made available by celetex
02:43:38 available by celetex and it goes on to to particularize the details of the build-up of the test
02:43:44 and again would you agree that the labc certificate although you didn't i think see it at the time sets out quite clearly the exact system which the rs 5000 was said to have passed
02:43:56 passed yes and that was different from grenfell i think we've established and again this certificate makes clear in a number of places that the classification related only to the system that was tested
02:44:09 yes yes and therefore just reading the certificate do you accept that it couldn't be read or can't be read or shouldn't have been read as permitting the use of rs 5000 in buildings over 18 meters in all
02:44:20 buildings over 18 meters in all circumstances whatever the build up of the
02:44:22 the of the crack of the cladding system really that i i accepted it shouldn't have been can you look at page three please of this document
02:44:38 it's got a section as we can see headed the building regulations 2010 as amended england and wales and under under a note you see sorry under adb
02:44:50 under a note you see sorry under adb fire safety note you can see the second note down
02:44:53 note down it says thermosetting insulins rigid polyurethane foam boards do not meet the limited combustibility requirements of ad 82 tables a7 and so should not be accepted as meeting
02:45:05 and so should not be accepted as meeting ad82 paragraph 12.7 did you know that at the time did you know that this certificate was making it crystal clear that rs 5000 was
02:45:17 that rs 5000 was not a material of limited combustibility no had you read this certificate you would have done wouldn't you
02:45:28 would have done wouldn't you yes it would have um
02:45:33 been at complete odds with the uh classo throughout statement that was put on there advertising
02:45:45 but you say it completes odds you say at complete odds in accordance with your understanding at the time of what cl of what class north meant classo
02:46:02 and it's clear i would suggest to you from this that the only reason it could be used above 18 meters is if it was included as part of a system tested to br 135
02:46:14 system tested to br 135 and bs 8414 using exactly the same elements in the system
02:46:22 yes it would mean that there's only one configuration or panel that celetex can be used for anywhere in the kitchen
02:46:36 can be used for anywhere in the kitchen so there's no other products that could be used which is really what it's saying and as a and as an insulation
02:46:49 as an insulation product being sold all over the uk for use on high rise blocks that
02:47:02 it makes no makes no logical sense
02:47:10 just summarizing it leaving aside what you say celetex told harley yes
02:47:18 if rs 5000 was not let me try it again if you read this certificate and read the bre report on which it was based you would have
02:47:29 on which it was based you would have realized
02:47:30 realized first of all that rs 5000 was not a material of limited combustibility correct yes and you would have realized that because the system to be applied at grenfell was different
02:47:42 to be applied at grenfell was different from the components of the system the subject of the bs8414 test that the fact that
02:47:49 fact that uh the the bsx 8414 test had been passed did not mean that you could use it at grenfell
02:47:58 unless there was an assessment yes and you can't put your finger on a separate individual assessment can you i can't thank you i'm now going to turn to
02:48:09 to kingspan k15 can i ask you to go please to paragraph 114 of your witness statement which is at page 29. and you say that a small amount of
02:48:20 and you say that a small amount of kingspan cool femme k15 was used in place of the celetex the reason for this was that sig plc these suppliers had sold the allocation intended for grenfell tower to another
02:48:31 intended for grenfell tower to another customer
02:48:32 customer sig offered to supply harley with the kingsman cool firm k15 as a substitute to help keep the project progressing kingspan coulther coolthem k15 is described in its bba certificate as
02:48:43 described in its bba certificate as being class naught whilst the test in approved document b paragraph 12.7 is one of limited combustibility it was assumed that as the product was described as class naught in respective behavior in relation to fire
02:48:54 behavior in relation to fire it was compliant with paragraph 12.7 and suitable
02:48:57 suitable for buildings over 18 meters
02:49:03 and first of all i'll come back to class north in a moment but first of all do you know where on the building k15 was used even roughly um
02:49:18 no i don't but but there are long-range photographs of the building in construction with the king's panel logo on it so it is it would be possible to locate it right
02:49:31 it would be possible to locate it right well we may come back to that but you say here that kingspan cool firm k15 is described in its bba certificate as having a class naught rating did you
02:49:44 as having a class naught rating did you actually read the kingspan k15 bba certificate at the time
02:49:51 time no as i explained earlier the call firm k15 had been signed off um
02:50:00 some while some years ago
02:50:05 and therefore we we used it on other projects
02:50:10 projects and so when there was some k-15 to go on here
02:50:18 it was signed off by our technical guys
02:50:24 so what signed off for all projects
02:50:28 k15 going back to the initial use of it in
02:50:32 in 2010 2011
02:50:36 2010 2011 is yeah it became an industry standard insulation project tall buildings it was regarded other than rock hall as the only other product you could use
02:50:49 as the only other product you could use on high-rise buildings and then subsequently celatex have moved into the market
02:50:57 and with the problems that we currently started looking at now kingspan cool firm k15 wasn't uh specified in any of the
02:51:08 k15 wasn't uh specified in any of the specification documents for this project can you think of any reason why it was that when it was substituted on one or two occasions in fact i think for
02:51:22 two occasions in fact i think for celetex rs 5000 nobody had hardly thought to double check the certification
02:51:31 i think it's because it's it's been checked um previously on previous projects but you would have realized that in order to ensure its safety for
02:51:43 that in order to ensure its safety for use above 18 meters it would either have to be a material of limited combustibility or have passed an 8414 test
02:51:50 test or would there be a desktop study in relation to it did anybody at harley to your knowledge actually
02:51:56 actually address their mind to what route to compliance the cool phone would take no they dressed their mind to it as i said some
02:52:07 said some um years ago so on this particular side i don't know quite what was done when this small amount of kingspan was
02:52:19 when this small amount of kingspan was substituted
02:52:24 but when it was signed off by your technical guys as you say earlier in your answers just now
02:52:35 it wasn't signed office i think you said for all projects or was it
02:52:41 back in well yes initially um it was signed off for use pretty much on all projects regardless of whether the the cloud was
02:52:52 regardless of whether the the cloud was above 18 meters or not yes without any reference or qualification about limited combustibility or 8414 or any other route to compliance
02:53:03 8414 or any other route to compliance it was signed off by then technical management since then we've used it is there a document under which we can see this sign off um no but we've got
02:53:16 um no but we've got a number of uh tenders with with this project product referenced in
02:53:29 well that may be is there an internal document at harley to which anybody engaged on any project could look at when confronted with k-15 just to double check that it was safe to use
02:53:40 check that it was safe to use on a high-rise building in other words a building above 18 meters i don't there's a specific document for that no
02:53:51 so how would for example daniel anchoville jones who i think wasn't there in 2009 or anybody else who wanted to know whether k-15 was safe how would they
02:54:02 whether k-15 was safe how would they know
02:54:02 know i think daniel was there in 2009 but not in that role all right but how would anybody at harley
02:54:09 harley or any independent contractor of harley brought in to assist with design how would anybody know whether k15 was safe unless there was something they could go to to tell them i think just historic data historical
02:54:21 i think just historic data historical detail held by whom
02:54:25 on details on previous projects in people's heads no there's on projects which we completed
02:54:33 completed with o m manuals and product data from from those projects okay
02:54:45 does that explain why nobody requested nobody had harley requested a copy of the bba certificate for kingspan when it was suggested by sig as a substitute product
02:54:56 uh yes we had a we had a copy of the bba certificate which is a 2008 copy
02:55:11 can we go to the bba certificate it's a k i
02:55:15 k i n 50454
02:55:23 this is a
02:55:28 second issue of this certificate dated 2013
02:55:36 do you accept i mean it's common sense but do you accept that if anybody did want to see the bba certificate for kingspan cool them k15 this is what they would have got
02:55:48 they would have got after 2013 yes indeed 17th of december 2013.
02:55:57 uh and
02:56:01 you can see that it says under key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire the product will not contribute to the development stages of the fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard c-section eight
02:56:13 toxic hazard c-section eight now section eight is on page five one let's just look at that sorry page five i'm sorry let's just look at that
02:56:22 and let's look at section eight point one at the bottom of page five behavior in relation to fire the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the
02:56:33 naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations right it doesn't say class naught throughout was it no class north throughout
02:56:44 was it no class north throughout um monica was a celetex
02:56:52 um advertising phrase
02:56:59 but do you accept that on this product the fact that it was class naught did not mean that it was a product of limited combustibility i accept that right did anybody hardly ever investigate whether there was any test evidence which showed
02:57:12 there was any test evidence which showed that cool them k-15 met the definition of limited combustibility and not in 2014 now
02:57:23 so i don't know exactly what was done in 2009.
02:57:30 we can look at this document in total but take it from me that there is no reference in it too limited combustibility at all and can you say that right
02:57:45 now we looked yesterday at the curtin's structural performance specification which uh formed part of your contract with ryden and in particular clause
02:57:58 with ryden and in particular clause 7.1.14
02:57:59 7.1.14 which related to fire hazards if the insulin was exposed given the contractual relation contractual obligations we looked at yesterday in some detail mr bailey do you accept that in order to comply with
02:58:11 you accept that in order to comply with them
02:58:12 them harley should have made further investigations in respect of the combustibility of k-15 before ordering it and applying it to the building
02:58:32 it to the building yes i think there's gonna check on it yes yes and if we turn the page on this certificate just before we finish off
02:58:40 before the lunch lunch break um it it it refers to the bs 8414 test under paragraph 8.2 at the top there and
02:58:51 under paragraph 8.2 at the top there and it shows what the specific cladding construction was which met the criteria in br135 and again just casting all eye down
02:59:00 down those elements it's clear that they were different again from the elements making up the clouding system at grenfell yes and so again that means that k for k-15 was neither
02:59:12 k-15 was neither a limit material of limited combustibility nor reliable as a route to compliance on the basis of a successful pass of an eight four one four test
02:59:26 trade yeah
02:59:30 mr chairman is that a convenient moment i think it is yes thank you very much we'll have a break now mr bailey uh we'll resume at two o'clock and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it while
02:59:42 evidence or anything related to it while you're out all right thanks so much you go with the usher then please thank you two o'clock
02:59:56 usher then please thank you two o'clock man please thank you
03:01:16 you