Kingspan Evidence - Monday 23rd November 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:09 would you ask mr meredith to come back in please

00:00:27 all right mr meredith ready to carry on yeah thank you very much yes was cringe yes mr meredith thank you um we were talking about the br135 classification

00:00:38 talking about the br135 classification uh just before the break um and i just just another question on that is another reason why kingspan didn't press

00:00:47 press for a br 135 classification report from the bre

00:00:51 the bre that it would have made clear that the classification only applied to the specific system tested was that another reason why you didn't press for that i can see

00:01:05 you didn't press for that i can see that that can be considered advantageous in hindsight but really it was my oversight at the time that i felt a classification report wasn't

00:01:18 felt a classification report wasn't required

00:01:19 required solely because i thought the results were easily interpreted based on the information in br135 so that was my mistake um i can see how

00:01:31 mistake um i can see how it could be considered that it was advantageous to the business but that really wasn't the um the reason behind it yeah and just thinking back to the 2005 test did

00:01:43 2005 test did philip heath actually attend that test we looked at an email where you listed out those that would be present and his name was on that list but we wanted to check whether you remember mr

00:01:54 wanted to check whether you remember mr heath actually being at that test

00:01:58 i don't know if he actually attended okay it would be in the bre's records he'd be in the front of the report who attended okay on that day okay we can check thank

00:02:09 okay on that day okay we can check thank you

00:02:10 you so i now want to um staying on the topic of the 2005 test look at how kingspan used the data from that test in its marketing material can we go to kin30s

00:02:24 which is an activity report number five of 2005 that you've written we can see that

00:02:32 that at the top of the page do you see that there written on the 31st of may was this activity report written for for your boss mr heath yeah this is my monthly report

00:02:45 yeah this is my monthly report and it was drafted on the day of the test can you help us did you write both the passages in in black and those ones in red was that all your writing

00:03:30 um

00:03:35 is this ringing any bells mr meredith

00:03:40 it's just the way it's set out i'm just trying to read it if it is me that's actually written that because it it doesn't the way it's written it doesn't look like it was something that i'd written and it looks like an additional addendum

00:03:53 and it looks like an additional addendum to my yeah the red bit okay just staying with the the first paragraph at the top in black you say there in the second sentence so you report that there's been a full

00:04:04 you report that there's been a full scale 8414 test and then you say a successful test result will remove any limitations on its use in high-rise buildings

00:04:12 buildings above 18 meters therefore increasing the market opportunities by at least 40 percent and giving us an edge above all other cellular plastic insulins

00:04:21 insulins used behind rain screen cladding so is that

00:04:26 that a true reflection of the purpose for which the

00:04:29 which the a successful test was was hoped to achieve

00:04:35 this successful test would box off the question

00:04:39 question as to whether the material was or could be acceptable for use above 18 meters it obviously doesn't highlight

00:04:48 highlight that there are there are limitations it doesn't remove all limitations yes that was my question because you say therefore i mean in hindsight that's probably badly worded by myself okay you accept that yeah because it

00:05:00 okay you accept that yeah because it suggests that you can remove any limitations on its use that's not right is it

00:05:06 and you were aware at that time that this a successful test would only mean that k15 could be used in that specific build up above 80 meters that's correct isn't it

00:05:19 the the the strategy was to present that information to the marketplace as a stepping stone for further testing right now we we we we accepted that it

00:05:31 right now we we we we accepted that it wasn't

00:05:31 wasn't going to answer all the questions it was showing that this is k-15's story if you're using other components which they inevitably will be

00:05:42 will be they need to seek that guidance from the appropriate cladding manufacturers we were hoping that this would bring other manufacturers to us to do further testing and then eventually expand our scope of

00:05:54 and then eventually expand our scope of application where you say the strategy was to present that information to the marketplace as a stepping stone for further testing whose strategy was that it was

00:06:06 whose strategy was that it was um what was agreed between myself and my seniors as a uh as our only opportunity moving forward yeah the marketplace wanted to use high

00:06:19 yeah the marketplace wanted to use high performance installations but we needed to demonstrate its suitability for use but we were limited to the the the finances with regards to this because

00:06:31 this because we weren't getting support from other cladding manufacturers yeah and we weren't getting support from the bre with regards to interpreting test results yeah

00:06:42 interpreting test results yeah if we look on at the red text and i appreciate you're not entirely clear whether you would have written that it says hopefully you will have you have a positive result result to present in your report

00:06:53 your report this is the only major remaining application where rock mineral has been able to get us removed from specifications now just on that was that your understanding that this was the only major remaining application where rock

00:07:06 major remaining application where rock mineral was effectively out competing kingspan from being included in specifications

00:07:15 i believe that to be correct yes yeah

00:07:20 and then it goes on if i can pick it up in the fifth line work will then continue with zurich municipal insurance to get full acceptance of phenolic foam in facades and move to pushing celotex

00:07:32 in facades and move to pushing celotex out of the rain screen marketplace and any other pir producers that are pushing product into this area further driving the point that when high performance thermal and fire requirements are needed phenolic is the

00:07:44 requirements are needed phenolic is the product of choice so again would you agree that that was the objective that kingspan was seeking to achieve push celetex out of this market

00:07:56 we were looking to push the other in what we considered the inferior products out of the marketplace certainly yeah now after the may 2005 test a flyer

00:08:07 yeah now after the may 2005 test a flyer was produced by kingspan entitled what's lurking behind your facade to market k15 for use over 18 meters we can go to that kin405350

00:08:25 this is the what's lurking behind your facade

00:08:29 facade um publication and i want to look at the first paragraph that starts in the red text so it's a bit below that

00:08:40 it's a bit below that on that first page and we just read it together it says kingspan cool firm k-15 rain screen board has not only been tested by the building research establishment bre and awarded certification to bs 8414

00:08:53 and awarded certification to bs 8414 part one

00:08:54 part one but it has also been assessed and approved in accordance with br135 now can you agree with me that that was not the case was it it hadn't been

00:09:05 not the case was it it hadn't been assessed and approved in accordance with br135 certainly we had personally we'd assessed it in accordance with that document but it's unfair to say it had been approved by the bre and it

00:09:18 it had been approved by the bre and it implies that it had been assessed and approved by the bre doesn't it it's badly worded the bre complained about this flyer do you remember that

00:09:30 i think i have a recollection of that yes and the flyer had to be let's withdrawn have a look at an email about that on the 8th of june 2006. can we look at kin 405179

00:09:43 can we look at kin 405179 and the first email there this is an email you write to the technical services

00:09:54 technical services generic email address about k-15 promotional literature and you say please note the k-15 what's lacking behind your facade flyer has been withdrawn by the marketing department partly because

00:10:05 the marketing department partly because it's considered not a good sales tax tick to highlight the fact that you don't need class naught below 18 meters also the bre have complained about the

00:10:16 also the bre have complained about the use of the word approved and certification in our text these are privileges that would cost us an additional 20k therefore when referring to this test method please use the following

00:10:27 method please use the following text and then you're proposing some different

00:10:31 different text to use and the text you propose is then

00:10:35 then kings vancouver mk15 has been successfully tested to bs8414 part one and when assessed in accordance with bre-135 it is acceptable for use above 18 meters

00:10:46 18 meters in accordance with the english scottish and irish building regulations do you see that there yes would you agree that this text that you propose also state is giving the impression

00:10:58 also state is giving the impression that k-15 has been assessed to br 135

00:11:05 you say it is acceptable for use above 18 meters sorry you say and when assessed in accordance with bre-135 it is acceptable for use above 18 meters do you see that

00:11:16 do you see that in your wording

00:11:32 what i'm trying to imply there is when it's cross-referenced with that other document

00:11:36 document it's acceptable for use above 18 meters but assessed is ambiguous isn't it at best

00:11:44 best there

00:11:47 it might imply to the reader that it's been through some sort of formal assessment process in accordance with bre-135 doesn't it

00:12:00 i would choose approved would be less ambiguous but well to say if it was approved it would be more but i i see what you're saying i can understand where you're coming from definitely can you see now

00:12:11 from definitely can you see now how that text might have been misleading and might have led readers to believe that there was a br 135 classification report assessing that 8414 test against the

00:12:23 assessing that 8414 test against the pass fail criteria in 8414

00:12:35 yeah i i don't think we ever the kingsman ever intended to imply that there was a br135 report it was just purely that the test results

00:12:46 it was just purely that the test results are meeting the requirements of but yes i i can see now in hindsight that they are ambiguous that does require some form of expert assessment doesn't it

00:12:57 assessment doesn't it given that you've got to look at things like mechanical performance the full test duration has it reached the top of the rig it isn't simply a question of reading off

00:13:08 question of reading off the thermocouple data is it it's more sophisticated than that

00:13:13 but it is all there in the report but yeah i agree what you're saying can you confirm that the text you suggested there was then regularly used in response to

00:13:24 was then regularly used in response to technical queries from customers

00:13:31 i could imagine it was yes because i targeted this at the technical services department yeah going back to the complaint before this about the previous wording do you know who it was at the bre who

00:13:43 know who it was at the bre who complained about the content of the flyer the previous flyer i don't know if it was tony baker

00:13:51 yeah you think it could have been him i think it could have been him yeah i now want to ask you about the change in production at pembridge from the old technology k15 to the new technology k15

00:14:03 technology k15 if we can look at mr heath's witness statement this is at kin3020709 at page 13 paragraph 3.18

00:14:16 at page 13 paragraph 3.18 and i want to look about three lines down

00:14:20 he's dealing with this uh change in technology and he says three lines down it appears that k-15 using new technology was first produced in pembridge in or around september 2006

00:14:31 pembridge in or around september 2006 for certain product thicknesses it appears that all thicknesses produced using old technology had been transferred to new technology by august 2007. do you

00:14:42 to new technology by august 2007. do you see that

00:14:43 see that yes and does that sound right to you in terms of your understanding of when the new technology k15 came on stream there was a yeah there was a transition where they agreed the standard operating procedures

00:14:54 procedures based on each thickness

00:14:57 i now want to show you a letter very recently received by the inquiry uh from adrian partiter at kingspan if you go to kin3024104

00:15:12 you go to kin3024104 this is a letter of the 23rd of october 2020

00:15:17 2020 so so very recent this letter um i take it you haven't seen this letter before today no it's addressed to debbie smith at the

00:15:28 no it's addressed to debbie smith at the bre

00:15:29 bre this letter dated 23rd of october and if i we look at the second paragraph of page one um sorry pick it up at paragraph one he

00:15:40 um sorry pick it up at paragraph one he says we're writing about uh a number of bs eight four one four test reports and corresponding classification reports featuring k-15 cool thumb k-15 and then in the second paragraph he says

00:15:52 and then in the second paragraph he says as you may be aware kingspan is currently involved as a core participant in the grenfell tower public inquiry as part of our cooperation with requests for information from the inquiry we have undertaken a comprehensive

00:16:03 we have undertaken a comprehensive review of all past and current data which relates to k-15 including 8414 tests and then he says in the next paragraph through our review we have now conduct

00:16:14 through our review we have now conduct concluded that tests carried out in 2005 and 2014 featured product that was not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the marketplace

00:16:26 sold into the marketplace we have listed these reports in a small summary of their construction buildups below

00:16:32 and then if we go down to the table on page one the first entry on his list is the test two two zero eight seven six the test that was carried out in may

00:16:44 carried out in may 2005 with no classification report we see that on the left hand side at the top of the table

00:16:53 and then

00:16:57 if we go over to page two

00:17:01 under this heading test report 220876 8th of december 2005. so that was the date of the test report for the may 2005

00:17:12 date of the test report for the may 2005 test

00:17:15 he he says in the first paragraph that due to the age of the test a lot of the details were hard to come by and then if we look at the second paragraph he says on a review a full review of raw materials and the manufacturing processes

00:17:27 manufacturing processes it became apparent that the k-15 manufactured in 2005 would not be representative of the product currently sold on the market from 2006 to today while both products are still

00:17:38 to today while both products are still phenolic phones kingspan is now of the view that there are sufficient differences to consider withdrawing this test report do you see that there yes so kings banner are now telling us

00:17:50 banner are now telling us that the product tested in 2005 was so different

00:17:53 different from the product sold after 2006 through to today that it's um withdrawing the test report and it's writing to the bre saying that now would you agree that

00:18:07 saying that now would you agree that far from being something that kingspan recently concluded it was well known from september 2006 onwards that the 2005 test was undertaken with old technology k-15 that's right isn't

00:18:20 old technology k-15 that's right isn't it

00:18:21 it i think that was common knowledge yes yeah

00:18:26 and you were aware weren't you that the fire performance of the new technology product

00:18:31 product was different from the product tested in 2005 weren't you yes

00:18:39 you flagged that issue specifically to philip heath and malcolm rochford more than once would you agree yes that's definitely and i'm going to take you to some of those emails where you're raising concerns

00:18:51 emails where you're raising concerns about the new technology k15 in a moment can you help us why did kingspan continue to rely on the 2005 test

00:18:59 test data after september 2006 when the new technology was introduced

00:19:08 it was very difficult although i was constantly pushing back trying to box out the the formulations used and the different characteristics of the

00:19:19 the different characteristics of the product

00:19:21 product i was basically being told that the materials were the same the new technology was essentially better and in a lot of properties it was but it performed differently in fire

00:19:34 but it performed differently in fire i wouldn't say worse it just performed differently you wouldn't say it performed worse no i wouldn't say it performed worse you just performed differently

00:19:44 and where are you giving directions from from your managers about this about continuing to rely on the 2005 data even though the product had changed

00:20:00 the um the process the the phil alluded to the actual completion of the sop

00:20:09 the sop for the new technology my impression was that went on for a couple of years so they obviously procured the business and then it took quite a while before

00:20:21 and then it took quite a while before old technology was phased out did you feel comfortable telling customers that the k-15 product that kingspan was selling had been successfully tested to bs

00:20:32 had been successfully tested to bs 8414 part one

00:20:46 i think i had concerns over the new technology which i voiced

00:20:54 in hindsight obviously now definitely without you know i'm very sorry for what's happened you know so this is

00:21:09 you know we perhaps should have perhaps been clearer in our marketing okay well we'll come on to the 2007-2008 test in a moment

00:21:20 in a moment um but just before we do i want to look at some other things that were going on at the time if we if we go to paragraph nine of your witness statement at the top of page

00:21:31 witness statement at the top of page five

00:21:35 and this very much picks up on the scene you've been talking about already today at a at the top of that page you say kingsman tried on numerous occasions to obtain a bigger

00:21:46 on numerous occasions to obtain a bigger scope of application for k15 to 8414 parts one and two after performing indicative testing of k15 to 841.1

00:21:56 841.1 exposed to the full fire load without cladding we arranged a test behind a non-combustible building board we did this as the bre advised that if we tested behind a non-combustible building board they would give us scope to say that the

00:22:08 they would give us scope to say that the system tested could meet the br 135 requirements when used behind all non-combustible cladding types unfortunately after testing successfully i am meeting the br135 requirements the bre

00:22:19 br135 requirements the bre moved the goal posts and retracted this statement leaving us a little in the lurch

00:22:26 lurch um now we've been discussing this already

00:22:30 already and you've explained to us that it was either sarah colwell or david hall that you'd had these discussions with about extended application of the test did you ever think

00:22:42 of the test did you ever think to get that in writing from the bre given how

00:22:45 given how important it was to kingspan's strategy that that's what the bre were promising they could do i don't think i ever got any responses

00:22:57 i don't think i ever got any responses to sarah colwell's emails i don't know if that's correct me saying that or not but

00:23:06 yeah i think i i would have wanted that in writing after i'm i'd be shocked if i didn't try yeah when was it exactly because it's not

00:23:17 when was it exactly because it's not clear from your statement when the bre moved the gold cup goal posts and retracted this statement leaving us a little in the lurch can you help us as to when that was

00:23:28 help us as to when that was um shortly after the 2005 full bs 8414 part one test and who was it who retracted the statement and left you in the lurch at

00:23:39 statement and left you in the lurch at the bre

00:23:43 i would have thought it's sarah colwell but then it could have been david hall or it could have been sarah's husband um richard colwell right who was working

00:23:55 richard colwell right who was working around the the burn hall at the time

00:23:59 i mean so obviously we i was looking to for them to steer me as to what we would need to test so we could get our scope of application and it was them that pointed us down the

00:24:10 and it was them that pointed us down the non-combustible route so we went out and sourced a non-combustible board and then after the testing we were

00:24:20 they didn't want to really know about it right and they said that they you know it was a verbal conversation i believe that they said that they didn't want to

00:24:28 want to move that forward and then myself and phil went down at a later date and had a meeting with one of the directors of the bre quite a a big meeting

00:24:39 quite a a big meeting with lots of heavy hitters in there and we

00:24:42 we they started describing you know the the number of different tests we would have to do just to get five different buildups tested and this was where they were talking about

00:24:53 were talking about 300 grams worth of testing and then they wouldn't know then they would know how many more tests we'd have to do to get certification i see i think that was when phil took the stance that

00:25:04 the stance that you know maybe we've done what we can we need to put this out to the the other component suppliers right so you go on in your statement here and you

00:25:15 you go on in your statement here and you describe that meeting you say shortly after this myself philip he's technical manager and the director of kingspan offside went to the bre sarah colwell and tony baker and the director of the bre we were in attendance i believe

00:25:26 attendance i believe to attempt to obtain this when kingspan launched the off-site division that included about five different build-ups lining substrate k-15 insulation cladding

00:25:36 cladding the meeting became very heated as the bre could not commit to a route to getting full and comprehensive certification for the systems to bs84 parts one and two

00:25:47 parts one and two and then you say the meeting finished with the bre stating that even after 15 tests at 8 000 test cost alone they could not commit to being able to give kingspan scope of

00:25:58 being able to give kingspan scope of application as they simply did not have the knowledge of these systems this was very apparent as a lot of the tests were conducted we conducted numerous bre personnel would wish to

00:26:09 would wish to witness the testing all they could commit to was after we conducted 250k of test work

00:26:15 test work they would hopefully be able to identify some extended application rules that would allow them to write something more comprehensive about the performance of the systems so i think that's what you're describing

00:26:26 so i think that's what you're describing in your statement and can you be more precise about when that meeting the one that became heated when did that take place do you know it was some time after the

00:26:39 do you know it was some time after the uh 2006 testing and before kingspan offside performed their testing yeah

00:26:47 yeah who was the director of kingspan offsite that attended with you can you remember

00:27:00 stephen something was the technical director i know it was anthony wilkinson was the guy at my level that i was dealing with but i can't remember the directors at

00:27:11 but i can't remember the directors at that time

00:27:11 that time yeah how did this meeting become heated how did that happen because the bre didn't have answers to

00:27:23 because the bre didn't have answers to the questions that they couldn't give us a line in the sand where it they couldn't tell us

00:27:32 what we needed to do to get certification or approval it just wasn't possible and that was where

00:27:40 where in my boss they were talking about you know

00:27:43 know two years budget for a product just to justify its use in the marketplace and it was something that we couldn't

00:27:52 we weren't comfortable with at the time yeah it was the expense the resource and the fact that there was no kind of line in the sand after we'd done that work after we've done that work they would be able to come back to us

00:28:03 they would be able to come back to us and say where the position was then they weren't going to say definitely you could you know you'd be acceptable for this or that yeah we were very very disappointed that they couldn't answer any of our

00:28:14 they couldn't answer any of our questions basically do you accept that even if at some earlier stage you thought that the may 2005 8414 test data could be used in a representative way at this meeting the

00:28:27 representative way at this meeting the bre made absolutely clear to kingspan that this was not the view they took and they were not prepared to extend the scope of that test

00:28:44 the scope of that test at this point we were looking at the tests we did in 2005 and potentially the five system tests that offsite were going to do

00:28:56 that offsite were going to do and we were looking to lump all those tests together and then the bre could present us their picture on that but it was at that point that they kind of said well you know we we

00:29:08 they kind of said well you know we we need you to do a hell of a lot more testing you know you're not getting you're not going to get what you want the only thing you can do at the moment is you test a specific system and we

00:29:19 is you test a specific system and we will give you a classification for that system yeah there was no no flexibility really yeah so as a component manufacturer that has no

00:29:31 component manufacturer that has no allegiance to cladding system or um you know framing system or range screen barrier type we had no route to market apart from to simply present

00:29:42 present this is what we have you know you've got to go and speak to the other component manufacturers if you want a full acceptability of use yeah i think the answer to the question

00:29:53 yeah i think the answer to the question i pose therefore is yes that you did certainly by this stage understand that you couldn't be using that data in a representative way do you agree

00:30:08 representative way do you agree if i remember i don't think i walked out of that meeting thinking that that data was

00:30:13 was irrelevant

00:30:16 but i did walk out of that meeting like phil did we were scratching our head as to the to the way forward really did you ever think or discuss with mr heath that actually maybe k15 shouldn't

00:30:28 heath that actually maybe k15 shouldn't be used on buildings above 18 meters at

00:30:34 all

00:30:52 in my earlier years at kingspan i was criticized for being very negative that was the first feedback i'd ever got through my line manager from my director

00:31:03 through my line manager from my director so i i tried to sit on some of my opinions a little bit because they weren't doing me any benefit to my career it was my first job

00:31:15 job so i tried to be a little bit more positive about things so my job was simply go out there and try and

00:31:25 try and get what verification you could from the marketplace to verify that the system was suitable or a product was suitable so does it follow that you felt under pressure to find some way in which to

00:31:37 pressure to find some way in which to justify

00:31:38 justify the use of k15 over 18 meters i was continually under pressure for this but this wasn't helped by the fact that the the the main certification bodies who'd

00:31:50 the the main certification bodies who'd we

00:31:50 we supported in getting the test method accepted and putting it out there weren't helping us really to

00:32:02 promote their test methods

00:32:06 would you agree that none of the marketing material put out by kingspan refers to the specific system tested including the cement particle board

00:32:21 i requested uh an addendum to the literature which puts put the reader in contact with the technical department yeah but if there was a building above 18 meters

00:32:33 18 meters they needed to speak to the technical department and go through the specifics with us

00:32:40 with us it was our intention to highlight to them at that point that they would you know we didn't have all the answers you needed to go out and source these from the other component manufacturers

00:32:53 from the other component manufacturers yeah would you agree that the marketing material uses the the generic wording non-combustible cladding in relation to

00:33:04 non-combustible cladding in relation to that 2005 test to bs 8414 it doesn't refer specifically to cement particle board

00:33:17 yeah i would agree that the literature says that

00:33:20 says that and in in hindsight it's it's an oversight isn't it and technical queries also use the same wording didn't it non-combustible cladding it didn't descend into the particulars of the

00:33:31 particulars of the the materials used did it no because we considered the six mil cement particle board to be a worst case non-combustible cladding right any other

00:33:42 non-combustible cladding right any other non-combustible cladding would you you don't get a six mil rain screen cladding of that type so anything else would be considerably more resilient so it was our belief that this was a

00:33:54 so it was our belief that this was a kind of a worse case you wouldn't have known would you because you'd only done that one 2005 test i think as you mentioned earlier this morning it's not until people started testing all manner of different

00:34:06 all manner of different exterior panels that people realize that it can have a very significant impact on the way it performs doesn't it

00:34:15 yeah let's just look at the kings fan marketing literature um if we can go to kin403545 which is the ninth issue of the product

00:34:27 the ninth issue of the product literature for k-15

00:34:32 now um we can see that ninth issue in the top right hand corner march 2011. are you aware that this issue was not actually updated until july 2016.

00:35:00 were you aware of that or was that not something you would know how i kept sort of you know i wasn't directly involved in the literature side of it i may have

00:35:11 the literature side of it i may have been on the the circulation for reading literature but it was primarily the responsibility of the marketing manager okay yeah yeah we were we were there to

00:35:22 yeah yeah we were we were there to advise and present the new test evidence when we had it but like i said i was that busy i just you know things like this just floated past in the day-to-day really okay

00:35:33 okay if we look on the third bullet point on that side it's been highlighted in yellow there in this version the first bullet point it says successfully tested to bs 841 for 2002

00:35:44 for 2002 can meet the criteria within br135 and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters do you see that yes and that's a claim about k-15 as a

00:35:55 yes and that's a claim about k-15 as a product

00:35:56 product isn't it

00:36:02 yes and would you agree with me looking at that

00:36:07 at that now that that statement is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters is is wholly misleading it doesn't say that it's only suitable for use above 18 meters in one specific configuration does it

00:36:20 specific configuration does it no

00:36:24 and i know also under bs8414 it doesn't tell you whether it's tested to eight four one four part one or part two does it there

00:36:32 it there no and if we don't think about so sorry that's a um that would be a typo i don't think that was deliberately done okay we go to page two

00:36:43 okay we go to page two under typical constructions these are typical design details i said sorry look at these typical constructions first so you see figure one

00:36:55 first so you see figure one insulated rain screen cladding systems and then if we go down insulated rain screen cladding systems terracotta clay tile external finish do

00:37:07 terracotta clay tile external finish do you see that so the first one's a non-proprietary external finish the second one is a terracotta clay style external finish and then the third one is insulated rain screen cladding systems on a steel frame

00:37:19 systems on a steel frame do you see that there yes and there these typical design details are not said to apply only to buildings under 18 meters in height are they

00:37:29 are they no and then as that march 2011 when this product this marketing material was issued

00:37:36 issued k-15 had not been tested as part of an external facade system clad in terracotta clay tar panels had it sorry what date was this again march

00:37:48 2011. no it hadn't been tested and by this time k15 had been tested on a steel frame system four times and it's right isn't it that

00:38:01 four times and it's right isn't it that not one of those tested systems could achieve the past criteria in br135 that's right isn't it this is including the tests done by offsite yes that's correct

00:38:14 offsite yes that's correct and moving down to page six under the heading five performance in the top right hand corner

00:38:21 if we can zoom in on that

00:38:25 it says kingspan calls them rain screen board and it's rigid thermostat insulation core or class nor as defined by the building regulations and then it says

00:38:38 when subjected to the british standard fire test specified in the table below has achieved the results shown and then below that it says kingspan call firm k-15 rain screen board in the construction specified in the table

00:38:50 construction specified in the table below

00:38:51 below when subjected to the british standard fire test bs-8414 for our performance of external cladding systems test methods for non-load-bearing external cladding

00:39:02 non-load-bearing external cladding systems applied to the face of a building

00:39:04 building has achieved the results shown do you see that there yes and then that sounds as though it might qualify the specific construction but if you see below the construction just says six

00:39:17 see below the construction just says six millimeter non-combustible cladding fixed to an aluminium railing rail system do you see that there yes and those were the generic terms used which i was asking about earlier

00:39:28 used which i was asking about earlier weren't they just to refer to it as non-combustible cladding yes and then on page six on the right there in under result it says the tested

00:39:39 there in under result it says the tested product meets the criteria stated within bre-135 fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the

00:39:51 above 18 meters in accordance with the building regulations and standards do you see that there yes and would you agree with me looking at it now that that's misleading isn't it the product on its own can't meet the

00:40:02 the product on its own can't meet the br135 criteria

00:40:12 it does say cool firm k-15 rain screen board in the construction specified um when subjected to meets the following i i agree with your

00:40:24 meets the following i i agree with your um your comments but also that they have tried to make clear

00:40:33 the scenario here that it's just based on this specific construction i see but it doesn't really go far enough doesn't it certainly doesn't say that the product can only be used in

00:40:45 that the product can only be used in that specific situation does it no definitely not [Applause]

00:40:57 and that statement that k-15 was suitable for use with any non-combustible cladding system was made by kingspan on many occasions after 2005 wasn't it

00:41:18 yeah we were under the i think that information had been released to the sales department and i don't think we were able to claw it back after we told them i think yeah on the basis of

00:41:32 told them i think yeah on the basis of that one 2005 test kingspan continued to assert for many years

00:41:37 years that its product could be used on buildings over 18 meters didn't it yes and would you agree that this was despite

00:41:45 despite the test not being representative of a rain screen cladding system and only being on a masonry substrate and even more fundamentally kingspan changing its product

00:41:56 changing its product so that what was sold to market actually performed worse in fire didn't it

00:42:06 to some fire tests it performed worse yes yeah

00:42:12 and as a result k-15 ended up on many hundreds of high-rise buildings didn't it

00:42:18 it i believe so yes when it shouldn't have any been

00:42:21 any been anywhere near those buildings should it

00:42:29 it should have been dependent on construction it should have only been on buildings with that one specific system specified shouldn't it

00:42:51 i think i'd have to look back at some of the the letters we wrote as part of this just to support that but i thought we were kind of clear in saying that this wasn't

00:43:03 saying that this wasn't the final hurdle that you have to pass this is just showing that that the k-15 can meet i see okay i mean there's intention and there's how it was implied in the marketing literature

00:43:14 implied in the marketing literature which is

00:43:14 which is maybe a little bit more misleading okay yeah

00:43:18 yeah i i will take you to some of those letters

00:43:21 letters um so now looking at the testing i want to move on and just look at the testing you did in 2007 and 2008. now you say in an email in 2008 which

00:43:34 now you say in an email in 2008 which will go to you shortly that 80 percent of the market was out of bounds to kingspan and k15 unless you could pass a bs 8414 part 2 test given the preference for steel

00:43:46 2 test given the preference for steel frame buildups do you agree yes that's the case and so would you agree it was critical that king's ban obtain and k-15 obtained favorable fire

00:43:57 obtain and k-15 obtained favorable fire tests on steel frame systems in order to retain kingspan's share of the high-rise market

00:44:05 that was one of the goals yes

00:44:11 at this stage and after the successful 2005 test do you recall what share of the over 18 meter market kingspan occupied approximately

00:44:23 approximately i would have only put that sort of information in my reports i would have got it off a sales manager or the sales director or something i'd not really okay with sales to be honest

00:44:37 let's look now at the 8414 part 2 test that you undertook in partnership with metsec

00:44:43 metsec steel frame manufacturers and sotek who made

00:44:46 made aluminium cassette rain screen cladding on the 20th of december 2007. if we can look at the executive summary you prepared after the test at kin if we go to kin408847

00:45:02 and this is dated the 7th of january 2008 this is a you can see in the middle a strictly confidential executive summary version paper that you

00:45:14 executive summary version paper that you produced there's your signature and name at the bottom do you see that yes i do and if we can go to the second page in the second paragraph

00:45:25 under the heading project stakeholders so it's the third paragraph there it says

00:45:30 says um sorry

00:45:34 under project stakeholders you say that it's a jointly run project with sotek and metsec and kingspan cost split three ways and then in the next paragraph down you say this information is essential to

00:45:45 this information is essential to kingspan for all facade sales above 18 i think you mean 18 meters not 18 millimeters yeah yeah that's correct throughout the uk and ireland not having evidence that our product performs on us

00:45:56 evidence that our product performs on us onto a steel frame is causing job losses specifically in scotland on a daily basis

00:46:02 basis however we are fighting the case for each project with the bs 84141 onto masonry test data performed in 2005. so do you agree that at this stage test

00:46:14 so do you agree that at this stage test data from

00:46:15 data from 8414 part 2 was desperately needed in order that you could say that k15 could be used on steel frame structures

00:46:27 at that point the the market was suggesting that we needed a part two test

00:46:31 test well that's what i felt strongly about anyway yeah and you say in your witness statement to the inquiry that you were present at this test on the 20th of december 2007 do you remember that

00:46:42 do you remember that yes i do and if we look under test date on the same page

00:46:50 page it says there

00:46:53 originally 14th of december then it moved to the 17th and then at the last minute they switched it to the 20th of december i was on holiday from the 15th and mark swift was to attend on the 17th however he did not make the 20th but we

00:47:06 however he did not make the 20th but we we will soon have the dvd of the test and we performed a full dissection on tuesday so we're happy that we know exactly what happened do you see that there all right okay so

00:47:18 do you see that there all right okay so this seems to suggest that you're on holiday as the date changed and then the test witnesses are listed if we go below

00:47:29 witnesses are listed if we go below this we see there there's a heading test witnesses it's john eggington sotek james galla yeah yeah metsec tony baker

00:47:39 baker sarah colwell phil clark bre yeah i actually witnessed the the previous test which was a failure on a um a non-combustible

00:47:50 failure on a um a non-combustible incident

00:47:51 incident yeah that was when i'm getting confused yeah

00:47:55 yeah and then if we go to page six of your executive summary this same same document and look at the heading the tested system

00:48:03 at the top of that page there in the first paragraph you say following much discussion we agreed on a system that we in the bre believed had the best chance of passing

00:48:14 the best chance of passing do you see that there yes now when you say

00:48:17 say um we agreed on a system that we and the bre believed had the best chance of passing who within kingspan was involved in those discussions

00:48:32 this is um the wii would be myself john eggington from so tech um the chat from metsec who escapes me and maybe phil clark

00:48:43 who escapes me and maybe phil clark or david hall and it was to do with the position of the fire barriers yeah really that was the

00:48:52 the obviously i think they were still learning with this test and there was an optimum position for fire barriers to give it to be representative of what's used floor to floor and

00:49:03 floor to floor and to actually meet the requirements right i think you could deviate the height of the fire barrier and i think

00:49:11 think i don't know it might suggest that you could be a better chance of passing if the fire barriers were slightly higher than the floor level um

00:49:24 slightly higher than the floor level um or slightly higher than what slightly higher than the aperture so the window aperture but this is you know we're we're spending big money on this and we're pushing everyone in the laboratory

00:49:35 we're pushing everyone in the laboratory to give us their feedback on you know what they think works and what doesn't yeah so i think what you've just said there is that the members of the bre were trying to help you design this test so it had the best

00:49:47 design this test so it had the best chance of passing would you agree

00:49:53 yeah they were being helpful i think and what involvement did philip heath and malcolm rochford have in this test

00:50:09 because this system was very much a so-tech system such the the instant the insulation incorporated in it

00:50:20 incorporated in it we were restricted to installing it in the pattern that we normally install our installation with the fixings that we normally install with the tape that we normally use

00:50:32 use so the design of the system was very much

00:50:35 much a so-tech because it was basically we were testing their cladding yeah with the kingspan product within it yeah

00:50:45 yeah and who selected the k15 insulation that was sent to the bre for the test did you do that

00:50:53 i think i just requested um

00:50:57 product from our production department yeah been grin or doug or something like that yeah and by this time that would be new technology or kester end technology k15 wouldn't it i should imagine so yes yeah and this

00:51:10 i should imagine so yes yeah and this was the first large-scale fire test on new technology k-15 wasn't it i think it was yes

00:51:22 was yes and the thickness of the and the foil phaser that was used that would be a perforated foil wouldn't it it would be a perforated wool yes

00:51:34 if we just look at the um spreadsheet that we looked at earlier

00:51:40 kin3022357

00:51:44 and we look at major changes

00:51:53 and we want to look in the sixth column on page one um relating to the 2007 test if we go down this page

00:52:06 and again and again

00:52:14 actually i think i might have a wrong reference there i'll come back to that let's go to your report um back to your report again kin 408847

00:52:29 at the bottom of page two now under the heading result we'll go to page two

00:52:38 and we can see there you say this by 17 minutes the top fire barrier had breached

00:52:44 breached and the raging inferno moved up to the top thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of br135

00:52:55 failing the simple criteria of br135 do you see that there yes and then if we go

00:52:58 go over the page to the top of the next page page three you say the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was

00:53:09 the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory you see that there yes and then in the third paragraph you say this under the heading why did it fail you

00:53:20 under the heading why did it fail you say the new technology phenolic is very different

00:53:23 different in a fire situation to the previous technology which has passed several similar tests the old technology would turn into a light ash

00:53:32 light ash and fall away leaving to substance to feed the fire they're supposed to be leaving no substance to feed the farmer yeah thank you please refer to archive

00:53:43 yeah thank you please refer to archive test pictures 47 and 48 which clearly shows this we'll come back to those and then you say this the phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity barrier a serious hammering

00:53:55 barrier a serious hammering it did however hold out and there was a slim chance that it may have held out long enough for the crypt to start burning down and then this test would have been successful do you see that there yes

00:54:06 do you see that there yes now would you agree that it became clear to you very quickly that this new k-15 could not repeat the fire performance of old technology k-15

00:54:23 there's there's two things at play here there's the my first experience of an aluminium cladding system which i'd not seen before and obviously there is the

00:54:34 there is the performance of the the new phenolic which i'd not seen before either yeah so

00:54:43 yeah so and because of this system it kind of the

00:54:46 the sorry the um the metal work buckled producing a chimney which kind of flapped in front of the cladding allowing it to leap over the fire barriers

00:54:57 barriers which allowed a large fire to develop which allowed the phenolic to become fully involved in the test i was um i mean i was shocked as you can

00:55:10 i was um i mean i was shocked as you can see by my words that the the phenolic was burning ferociously um i think you know the the they're they're like say there's two things at play there's the there's the

00:55:22 things at play there's the there's the cladding which is causing partially for the fault of failure and there is also the um the new phenolic which i believe was improving as i believe there was

00:55:35 was improving as i believe there was work

00:55:35 work being done to the ovens at the time i was told to actually improve the performance of the phenolic and there was talk of fire barrier not fire various fire retardants being added

00:55:46 fire various fire retardants being added or

00:55:47 or agents being added to improve the material so this is what i wanted from this so that's probably why i sent a very animated report around to my superiors to make sure that they

00:55:58 to my superiors to make sure that they were aware that i wasn't really overly pleased with the new version from this tests perspective yeah

00:56:08 would you agree that one of the things you were particularly surprised about was that the phenolic was burning on its own steam as you record here

00:56:19 yeah because i was brought up with those um frequently asked questions answers

00:56:27 answers where i was told that it would not contribute to to fire growth um and would die out under its own steam yeah so this was quite shocking for me

00:56:40 yeah so this was quite shocking for me and the other guy that attended i believe

00:56:45 you go on in page on page three to record your observations on why the test failed and what improvements could be made for future success and you note if we go eight paragraphs

00:56:56 and you note if we go eight paragraphs down

00:56:59 down at the bottom at the bottom of that screen as we can currently see it can you see there's a heading it begins perforations in the phenolic foil can you see that yes and you say perforations in the

00:57:11 yes and you say perforations in the phenolic foil faces have caused a reduction in the euro class when tested to

00:57:16 to in the sbi the single burning item yes loss of the perforations may help question mark you see that there yes can you help us so you were obviously aware that the perforations

00:57:28 obviously aware that the perforations had reduced the euro class when tested under the single bone burning item test when had you done those tests and what was the level of reduction

00:57:40 reduction i i felt this was a hypothesis of mine i felt the um okay if i take you back to the old technology when i tried to test that to the euro

00:57:51 when i tried to test that to the euro class

00:57:52 class the sbi what actually happened was the material would initially flash fire and then it would drop a light ash would fall and it would block the flame

00:58:03 block the flame so it would sort of auto extinguish the um

00:58:07 um the crib in the sbi test so it would create a void test it was actually impossible to get a euro class as far as i was aware on the old technology

00:58:18 technology so when the new technology tend to remain

00:58:21 remain more integral it held together and because it was there it glowed and obviously if the flames were continuous then it would at some point become involved in the fire

00:58:34 become involved in the fire but you could see in this test that and you can see on the on the pictures of that terrible building

00:58:41 building that there's still pink foam on the outside of the building where it's only a surface jar the material hasn't become fully involved you need to introduce quite a lot of

00:58:53 you need to introduce quite a lot of heat

00:58:53 heat to actually get the product to go up so you know although i you know i i still believe a lot of the the information that i was given about k-15 that it is a more it's

00:59:06 k-15 that it is a more it's it's one of the better combustible incidents in the marketplace back to my question had you actually got formal sbi testing done for the new technology foam and

00:59:19 done for the new technology foam and what did

00:59:20 what did what classification did it achieve

00:59:26 i think it was um euro class c right but would you agree looking at that

00:59:33 that that sentence that i just read to you the two sentences that you clearly think at this time that the perforations may well have caused a worsening of its fire performance

00:59:45 fire performance that seems to be what you're speculating about at the time i considered that a possibility yes and did you ever carry out investigations into why that might be

00:59:57 we thought it was potentially ignition of the blowing agent

01:00:03 because the perforations allow the ignition of the blowing agent more readily is that right more readily but like i say it was a hypothesis that was never

01:00:11 was never really proven i was stuck although i lobbied for a foil face and unperforated version on the one side it was impossible to manufacture the product in that way

01:00:22 product in that way so i just had to test what i was given which was the the perforated version did you discuss the effect on fire performance of the introduction of perforations with anyone else within

01:00:34 perforations with anyone else within kingspan at this time i would have discussed it at the monthly technical meeting it was my current thinking so i would have discussed it with all my colleagues yeah if we go to the paragraph below

01:00:49 yeah if we go to the paragraph below that one that we just read

01:00:52 you say this you say in all honesty from what i've seen the way the phenolic burned is of the most concern therefore we need to add a fire retardant

01:01:02 retardant which could also help us get class naught do you see that there

01:01:08 yes what was the reaction from philip heath and mike malcolm rochford to the news that this test had become a raging inferno and performed so badly

01:01:33 i can't remember their exact um reactions

01:01:37 reactions it might have been that this was potentially the fault of the cladding system

01:01:42 system at the time yeah um

01:01:50 i can't remember any real sort of shock but this was this was the first time this this these were pioneering tests for kingsman you know they they weren't they hadn't

01:02:01 you know they they weren't they hadn't been performed before so there was nothing similar done in europe at the time

01:02:07 we can see that you're clearly concerned about the way the phenolic burned did philip heath and malcolm rochford share

01:02:15 share your concern about the fire performance of the new technology k-15 at this time

01:02:23 like i say i think this might have been the time that i was criticized for not being very positive about our products or sorry the kingsman products

01:02:32 products so does it follow that you didn't think your managers were concerned or concerned in the same way i don't think they were concerned in the same way as me

01:02:42 way as me yeah i i felt a tremendous responsibility for this because the the buck stopped with the technical department to make sure that it was suitable for the marketplace and

01:02:55 it was suitable for the marketplace and we had to do the testing after you wrote this and and obviously this report was delivered to the technical team did you feel at the time that your concerns about the

01:03:06 the time that your concerns about the fire performance of new technology k-15 were being taken seriously by philip heath and malcolm rochford

01:03:24 i felt like i wasn't never heard actually when it came to issues like this

01:03:30 this did you actually have conversations with them

01:03:34 them as well as writing this in which you said i'm really concerned about how k15 performs given the testing we've just done

01:03:42 just done how it performs in fire did you have those conversations with them we we were always there was always a new solution on the horizon we could try

01:03:54 solution on the horizon we could try this or we could do this so there was i was constantly being you know there was a there was something around the corner that could help us move forward so

01:04:05 help us move forward so i guess i was always um hoping that that would be the end of it really but do you actually have a specific recollection of raising concerns

01:04:17 recollection of raising concerns with them i raised concerns on on numerous occasions when it came to new technology yeah about its fire performance yeah yeah but you didn't think you were listened to is

01:04:28 you didn't think you were listened to is that what you're saying

01:04:31 i might have been listened to but they certainly didn't respond to it and you said earlier that you thought it was around this time that you were criticized for being too negative who was it who criticized you for being

01:04:43 who was it who criticized you for being too negative it would have been the managing director so who's that malcolm peter wilson peter wilson okay but that was came secondary through my line manager

01:04:55 came secondary through my line manager okay

01:04:57 okay now keeping with this document underneath what you've written are comments from the bre we can see that at the bottom of that page if we could go down the page

01:05:09 if we could go down the page and look at those so here we can see it's written comments from the bre the official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure

01:05:21 held responsible for the failure however unofficial comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished

01:05:33 flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that last time did you see that there who was it from the bre who made these unofficial comments that you've recorded

01:05:48 here i feel it was phil clark he was the i think the most easy to talk to and he was constantly available to discuss

01:06:00 constantly available to discuss testing with so he was always there the other people although we'd request the presence of sarah colwell tony baker those sort of people

01:06:10 people they only you know came in quickly just to witness the test from the back of the room

01:06:15 room yeah was anyone at the bre this time aware that the product tested on the 20th of december 2007 was a different one from the product that had been tested in 2005.

01:06:33 had been tested in 2005. i think i might have discussed this with phil clark

01:06:39 you know because i was looking to see you know

01:06:42 you know i was looking to see his opinion on what what he thought really i needed to glean as much information from him as possible so i was quite open with him right and you say i might have discussed

01:06:54 right and you say i might have discussed it how sure are you that you did discuss it

01:07:07 i'm sure i told him something about our new technology in our ovens along the way okay yeah

01:07:16 now so but other than phil clark was there anyone else at the bre that you remember discussing or informing of

01:07:26 that i might have voiced it to tony baker because we were obviously the end goal especially with the introduction of the kestrel technology we were looking to

01:07:38 kestrel technology we were looking to spend lots of money so we could justify potentially certification for k-15 and that's what i wanted really was

01:07:46 was something that would ensure the the formulation remained constant and we had visiting certification bodies who would come in and you know make my life easier a bit

01:07:58 and you know make my life easier a bit and make sure that you know we we stuck to our formulations yeah now you've included in your executive summary photographs from the 2007 test as well as some

01:08:10 the 2007 test as well as some photographs from the 2005 test just want to look at those now if we can look on page seven of this report

01:08:21 i think we can see there the um k-15 sotech metsex system that was tested on the 20th of december 2007. and we can see the clock on the right

01:08:33 and we can see the clock on the right there shows 13 minutes and one second do you see that there yes and so that's the rig at 13 minutes into the test

01:08:44 at 13 minutes into the test and then if we go on to page nine the next page of the report's blank but if we then go to page nine we can see the test at almost 14 minutes 13 minutes 57 do you see that there

01:08:56 13 minutes 57 do you see that there yes and then if we go to page 10 that's 15 minutes in and then at page 12

01:09:08 we go and this is it's a bit faint but i think we can see it's 17 minutes and 43 seconds

01:09:16 seconds and it's almost at the top of the rig by that point isn't it yes that's correct and we know from your summary that the top fire barrier was breached around the 17 minute mark now if we could put side by

01:09:30 minute mark now if we could put side by side with that photograph the photograph on page 21 from the 2005 test

01:09:37 test if we can do that

01:09:46 so on the right we can see the the old technology phenolic test 2005. do you see the caption at the bottom

01:09:55 bottom and yeah this is the naked test isn't it i think ah is it it looks like it there's no cladding system in there i see and there's no um fire barriers either i see

01:10:06 see so that's 25 minutes in on that test yeah yeah i see and you can see what i was saying there that it just it just fell away it didn't

01:10:19 it just fell away it didn't move up i see so is this what you're doing by including these photographs in the report is it is to try and illustrate the difference the difference in the way the k-15 was

01:10:30 difference in the way the k-15 was performing i mean to give a fairer picture i should have put

01:10:36 have put the picture of the test failure that was um that happened a week before with the with the mineral wall insulation because i believe that failed in a similar manner right although not quite as dramatic it

01:10:48 right although not quite as dramatic it was still the the cladding melted and the fire jumped up the side of the facade

01:10:54 facade yeah and

01:10:57 yeah and if we carry on with photos of the 2007 test

01:11:00 test once the crib's been extinguished if we go to page 13 now and just look at that

01:11:09 so these are photos you've included this is a

01:11:12 is a you can see 36 minutes and 10 do you see that this is after it's been extinguished yes and then page 14

01:11:23 you're including pictures close up pictures then of the insulation after the test is that right

01:11:30 right that's correct yeah and then if you look at page 16

01:11:38 that shows the damage to the front of the rig and also the wing wall can you see that there yes

01:11:48 and if we can contrast that with the photo on page 22 which i think was what you were trying to achieve in the report from the 2005.

01:11:59 if we can put those two side by side that one and page 16 22 and 16 side by side

01:12:11 now this time that that page on the right page 22 isn't that the the test you did do in 2005 with the non-combustible cladding board

01:12:22 board on it yes that's correct and we can see the difference there between the test on the right and the test on the left yes yes now i appreciate they're not they're

01:12:33 yes now i appreciate they're not they're not directly comparable because one's on a masonry substrate and one's on a steel frame substrate but again were you including these pictures in order to give the reader a flavor of how

01:12:44 give the reader a flavor of how different

01:12:45 different the performance had been of the k-15 in the 2007 tests yes definitely

01:13:00 we talked about your concerns just a moment ago was one of your concerns that at this point that what kingspan was actually selling to the public was potentially dangerous in terms of its performance in fire was that one of

01:13:12 its performance in fire was that one of your concerns

01:13:16 i'd say certainly yeah did you ever give consideration or discuss with anyone else within kingspan where the sales of k-15 should be halted immediately and the product recalled from the market

01:13:37 i think like i said before this the product was going through an evolution from old technology to new technology so i was always being sort of

01:13:49 so i was always being sort of suggested that you know we just need to box out these um issues and the better variant will be around the corner potentially but no i i never discussed that it should be

01:14:00 no i i never discussed that it should be fully

01:14:01 fully we should not have it in the marketplace i kind of sat on my hands with that a little bit i was the bottom of the rung i was already told not to be too negative so i was just going with the flow a little bit i'm afraid to say

01:14:16 were you aware of anybody else considering that question within kingspan whether it should be removed from sale given how differently it was performing

01:14:29 given how differently it was performing nobody that was talking to me okay we'll come back to talk about class naught much later probably tomorrow but um in your report we saw that you

01:14:40 um in your report we saw that you said let's add a fire retardant to the product what was the response to that suggestion

01:14:49 i think my suggestion for a fire retardant was it came from the r d people because i was looking at obviously we weren't we weren't

01:15:02 obviously we weren't we weren't successfully able to repeat the class a results that we had on the kestrel in technology so i was just trying to be comprehensive and

01:15:13 and you know say okay well if we needed it for class o it would be a benefit for this situation as well to try and add a bit of weight to the argument really that we needed we needed to do something

01:15:24 to do something okay had any fire retardance been added to samples of k-15 for testing before this time to your knowledge

01:15:38 this time to your knowledge not as far as i'm aware like i say my chemistry is not brilliant and i've been told that

01:15:43 told that fire retardance had been added to pir for to modify the viscosity of the material it wasn't specifically for adding fire retardancy

01:15:54 specifically for adding fire retardancy so i could say i'm not up on the chemistry really okay mr chairman i think that would be a good moment for a break because i'm moving to them did you go into a new topic

01:16:05 them did you go into a new topic yeah yeah all right well then we'll have a short break we have a short break now then um mr meredith we'll come back at 25 to 4 please

01:16:14 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right thank you very much

01:16:27 right 25 to 4 please

01:36:09 yes would you like to ask mr meredith to come back in please

01:36:25 come back in please right that's very right thank you yes ms grange yes thank you now moving forward with the story um it's right isn't it that on the 1st of april 2008

01:36:36 april 2008 there was another large-scale fire test uh with sotek aluminium panels and a metsec steel frame that's right isn't it

01:36:48 this is the one that we were just looking at the photos of yeah no that was from

01:36:52 was from 2007 um

01:36:55 2007 um and this one is now first of april 2008. [Applause] yeah there was um there was two tests in the program originally yep

01:37:06 two tests in the program originally yep there was a a mineral wall test and then a phenolic test

01:37:11 test both those first two tests failed yes um the test was repeated with mineral wall only yeah um

01:37:22 with mineral wall only yeah um on sotex requests we

01:37:25 we could see that there were issues with the sotech material for starters right you know it failed with a non-comb a combustible uh non-combustible insulin

01:37:37 non-combustible insulin so you know we we could see that that would be something that we'd have to not be used with really so that test was also a fail wasn't it first of april 2008

01:37:48 2008 yeah i now want to move on to some testing that was undertaken in partnership with kingspan off-site that subsidiary company of kingspan

01:37:56 kingspan on the 9th of april and the 6th of june 2008 using k15 if we can go to an internal email chain within kingspan this is at kin

01:38:07 within kingspan this is at kin 408843 and i want to start at the bottom of

01:38:12 of page 2.

01:38:16 page 2. there's an email right at the bottom there

01:38:21 at 9 37 on the 9th of june from you to malcolm rochefort and vincent coppock copying in philip heath and gwyn davis and the subject is k15 problems do you

01:38:32 and the subject is k15 problems do you see that there yes i see the top of it yep don't worry we'll go to the body of it and then we go over the page and we can see that you say this the question of k15 is bad far

01:38:43 question of k15 is bad far performance is no longer just an internal one it would seem off-site had a very dramatic test failure therefore i need to know how soon i can have samples of the op90 phenolic for

01:38:56 have samples of the op90 phenolic for business critical r d is that research and development yes yeah

01:39:01 yeah once i've reviewed the information i will provide a more comprehensive report later however the attached picture shows the most recent k-15 test performed by offset and k-15 burning under its own

01:39:13 offset and k-15 burning under its own steam

01:39:14 steam 10 minutes after the test was put out off-site are gravely concerned that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does and then he says to validate the new

01:39:25 and then he says to validate the new product from a far point of view i'd need samples of the following and then you set out um some various uh requirements for the new testing

01:39:36 new testing do you see that there yes i do now when you say there it's no longer just an internal one a the problem with k-15 and its bad fire performance is no longer just an

01:39:48 performance is no longer just an internal one and do you say that there because it was already a matter which was known internally within kingspan including to philip heath and mike malcolm rochford

01:39:59 heath and mike malcolm rochford yes yeah

01:40:04 now on the face of this document it appears that you had serious concerns about the performance of the product is that fair that's correct yes

01:40:15 and the views of philip heath and malcolm rochford is your answer that the same as the answer you gave earlier about what their views were of how concerning

01:40:26 what their views were of how concerning this was

01:40:33 i think they were they were they were listening to me and looking for solutions um but i don't remember anything

01:40:45 you know they weren't as concerned i didn't feel they were concerned as as concerned as i was yeah sorry can i just ask did they know about what's described here as a very dramatic

01:40:56 what's described here as a very dramatic test failure did they know about that yes i think they're on this email chat yeah they would have been that they would have had their opposite numbers in that part of the business probably would have communicated this to

01:41:08 probably would have communicated this to them as well and i'm not privy to it but i obviously informed them of this you know as far as i was aware this was what the first time they were hearing about it but i wouldn't be surprised if they knew

01:41:19 i wouldn't be surprised if they knew about it already yeah thank you yes it's great when kingsman offsite asked if kingspan was selling something that doesn't do as we say it does that's what you said there at the end of the third paragraph

01:41:30 third paragraph was anyone at kingspan off-site aware that the 2005 test had used a different version of k-15

01:41:44 i don't think so yeah you don't think kingspan offset site were aware that it was a different product

01:41:52 product no no

01:41:55 we can see that you're asking for samples of an op90 product in the second sentence there at the top of that page

01:42:06 sentence there at the top of that page i need to know how soon i can have samples of the op90 phenolic for business quick critical r and d what's op90 referring to this was

01:42:15 was one of the latest um considered uh modifications of the kestrel technology i think it might have been a fire retardant

01:42:26 might have been a fire retardant or an additive that was being considered by vincent that was being talked about as a possible inclusion i think so i i was trying to push for

01:42:38 i think so i i was trying to push for this to be available let's do a trial once they've done a trial and i would put it through that testing regime that i'd stipulated you know i'd be able to formulate you

01:42:51 you know i'd be able to formulate you know

01:42:51 know our our best route forward really yeah i understand so if you've got a a product with a fire retardant

01:42:59 retardant added to it you could do some testing and see how far that got yes yeah yeah in the last paragraph of this email you say in respect of using just one perforated side on the structural

01:43:10 one perforated side on the structural foil faced pf that's phenolic foams it was agreed at the meeting that this could happen but how do we put it in place and make sure

01:43:18 sure it happens is this a ppds situation does anyone know the cost implications so what you're also suggesting there is this right that you might also test using one perforated side and

01:43:32 also test using one perforated side and one

01:43:32 one unperforated side this was um something i desired and in technical meetings it was said that this was a possibility but i don't think he'd ever i don't

01:43:43 but i don't think he'd ever i don't think they could actually manufacture it when they tried were you keen to return to an unperforated foil facer from a fire i i wanted something that

01:43:54 from a fire i i wanted something that would

01:43:54 would um comfortably meet the requirements yeah if we go to another email in the same string this is

01:44:05 zero kin403704 [Music]

01:44:14 if we look at the top of page one on the ninth of june 2008 at 9 22 am it's within the string k15 problems this is philip heath to malcolm rochford

01:44:25 rochford to you vincent coppock copying and gwyn davis

01:44:30 davis we can see he says either i think it's important we see the fire test report from off-site whilst also looking at the facade assembly cavity widths and materials adopted within the test rig and then he says this any response to

01:44:42 and then he says this any response to offsite on this matter should be run past myself before it is sent to the outside world as you know off-site are extremely reactionary and then he says with regards to their comment that we are selling something

01:44:54 comment that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does what statements are they referring to do you see that there yes

01:45:04 now what did you understand him to mean when he said off-site are extremely reactionary he's obviously concerned about whatever response is sent to them yeah off-site would um

01:45:17 yeah off-site would um would include any material that would help them

01:45:20 help them sell their system and they would often use

01:45:26 use a non-combustible mineral wall type insulin

01:45:31 insulin i know phil and others in kingsman felt this was

01:45:35 this was not running with the kingsman way really if you're going to sell a kingsman system it needs to include a kingspan insulation so i think he was concerned

01:45:46 insulation so i think he was concerned that

01:45:46 that the off-site leg of the business might not have been solely on the same page as the rest of the business i see so are you saying that king's van off-site

01:45:57 off-site testing a system which didn't have the kingspan insulation as part of it and and what we're passing that off no no no not at all no no what i'm saying is kingspan

01:46:11 no no what i'm saying is kingspan that they would use that they'd have no issues with using a mineral fiber insulin in their wall system

01:46:17 system i see and marketing it as having a mineral fiber insulin their wall system yeah phil and others in kingspan believe that

01:46:24 that if you're selling a kingspan system it needs to have kingspan insulation in there it was a bit kind of like many of us were offended by the fact that they would seek to use something else really they

01:46:35 seek to use something else really they should be sticking with their own right yeah and in the meantime malcolm rochford has responded to you if you get look at the email below that

01:46:48 if you get look at the email below that on the 9th of june at 9 42 we can go below that to that email he says to you

01:46:59 please expedite this trial either if you're confident that old process will pass the test we may have no choice but to provide old process k-15 for off-site

01:47:09 off-site until the fr issue is sorted out do you see that there yes and then he says gwen i know this is a nightmare for processing but we can't carry on providing something that we know

01:47:18 know fails a fire test so it is what he's referring to there that you might have to make

01:47:24 to make a batch of old technology at k15 to provide to offsite for the fire testing not just for the fire test he's talking about providing

01:47:35 talking about providing old process k-15 to off-site generally generally that's what he's angling out there i see the thing is there is a there's a battle going on here there's a transition that

01:47:47 going on here there's a transition that they're

01:47:47 they're changing the technology from old to new and this is not going to be good news to the processing manager that we're trying to

01:47:55 to go back towards old technology so you know he's going to want to focus on new technology and we need to get new technology sorted not old technologies

01:48:06 technology sorted not old technologies right yeah it's quite an emotive comment there by malcolm but it's a fair comment as well

01:48:12 as well which bits which bit are you saying is the emotive comment that can't provide some carriers he's saying that you can't provide something which is true you you've got to provide the

01:48:21 the the right solution for the job so it does mean

01:48:25 does mean it's going to be a nightmare for production to have to produce old technology one day and new technology the next yeah but if that's what the market needs to sell that product

01:48:36 to sell that product then that's what we were going to have to do right but you didn't take him to be saying that

01:48:44 that actually new technology k15 shouldn't be being provided to anybody not just off-site to anybody

01:48:59 he says we may have no choice but to provide old process k-15 for off-site

01:49:25 could you rephrase the question again yeah so i think you said it's quite an emotive comment by him that we can't keep providing a product that we know fails but isn't it a fair reading of his

01:49:37 fails but isn't it a fair reading of his emails that what he's saying is we can't provide old process or we've got no choice but to provide old process k-15 to off-site until the fast issue

01:49:49 to off-site until the fast issue sorry the the emotive nature is the upset

01:49:52 upset to the production process by providing new technology one day and old technology the next right so to satisfy malcolm's desire that we provide old technology k-15 to

01:50:04 that we provide old technology k-15 to off-site

01:50:05 off-site or maybe to the market until the fr issue is sorted out that's going to be a nightmare for our production teams that's why i said that was emotive yeah mr rochford has said in his witness

01:50:17 yeah mr rochford has said in his witness statement that he was concerned that new technology k15 was not supplied to customers if the fire performance was inferior to old technology did you understand

01:50:30 technology did you understand him to mean that or to understand him to to say that on another occasion but he was concerned that it wasn't supplied to customers if the fire performance was inferior

01:50:54 i don't know what that refers to apart from this particular issue here yeah he says this is why i responded in this way in this email he's saying that in this email he's expressing a

01:51:05 that in this email he's expressing a concern about providing it to customers and what i'm asking is when you receive this email is that how you understood it

01:51:26 yeah i thought to be honest reading it now i i think i might have thought that he was just talking about let's make sure off-site receive this product

01:51:37 product for their testing and maybe for their ongoing purchases until we can iron out the issues right so i don't you know this was one

01:51:48 right so i don't you know this was one of this would have been a

01:51:52 this would have caused a lot of trouble this email really so i think they they battled it out between them as to what they were going to supply going forward yeah just putting this email to one side for the

01:52:04 putting this email to one side for the moment and just thinking generally did mr rochford ever raise any concerns with you about supplying customers with new technology k15 given the far risk it posed

01:52:19 i don't think as far as i recollect malcolm didn't raise issues with me it would be me raising issues with him i would always go to him with my problems not vice versa so

01:52:32 vice versa so [Music]

01:52:34 [Music] i can't recollect unfortunately okay let's go now to any another email chain from the 9th of june 2008 so this is

01:52:45 kin3020913

01:52:49 and this email chain that we were looking at continues and i want to look on page

01:52:56 five we we see at the bottom there the email from mr rochford that we were just looking at and then immediately above that there's

01:53:07 and then immediately above that there's an email from gwyn davis at 1009 where he says either please confirm that the old process passes the test as i was under the impression that the old ko 1500 millimeter trial i made a few

01:53:20 ko 1500 millimeter trial i made a few weeks ago was no better either do you see that there so is old ko15 100 millimeter trial that he made a few weeks ago is that a reference to

01:53:32 weeks ago is that a reference to remaking

01:53:33 remaking old technology k15

01:53:44 i don't know and this could be for any number of tests so i'm not sure what this was for unless this was um no i don't know let's look at your

01:53:56 no i don't know let's look at your response if that helps if we go up to page

01:53:59 page four we can see your response at 1801 on the 9th of june and you say to gwyn davis and also malcolm rochford philip heath is copied

01:54:11 malcolm rochford philip heath is copied you say you're correct the old process i recently tested unfortunately also failed however the new process would not have a chance whereas old process will self-extinguish

01:54:22 whereas old process will self-extinguish new process has proven itself in a vertical situation to continue to burn when the flame source is removed we do have a paper trail that shows considerably better performance with old

01:54:33 considerably better performance with old tech

01:54:34 tech however this cannot be applied to steel frame facade situations which is 80 of the market i don't currently suggest we revert to old technology yet just give top priority to getting the

01:54:45 just give top priority to getting the op90 trialled do you see that there yeah and when you're referring to a paper trail showing considerably better performance for old tech k-15 compared to the new tech what are you

01:54:57 compared to the new tech what are you referring to there to analysis of the existing test data yeah so some of the documents i've just taken yeah

01:55:12 now i want to ask you about some email correspondence where you and philip heath were dealing with inquiries from kingspan

01:55:19 kingspan offside about the poor performance of k15 and in june 2008 and following if we can go to kin3020917

01:55:31 and following if we can go to kin3020917 and if we look about halfway down page two

01:55:34 two with an email from mark stevens of kingspan offsite center 1548 there at the bottom half of that page he sends this on the 2nd of july to you and

01:55:45 sends this on the 2nd of july to you and philip heath and he says this overfill i'm concerned with the lack of response with regard to the performance of the k-15 product on the bs 8414 tests that we have completed

01:55:56 the bs 8414 tests that we have completed i have a further four tests booked as you're aware and at this time i'm unsure of the way forward in terms of detailing the samples to pass the test we have the samples built here at sherburne insulated with material from

01:56:08 sherburne insulated with material from the same batch as the previous failed tests is the material

01:56:13 material appropriate to use on future tech on the future tests is the reason for the failure specific to a batch of k-15 to the current formulation of k-15 or to the details that we used

01:56:25 the details that we used is it normal for k-15 to continue to burn for in excess of 30 minutes from the removal of the ignition source do you see that there yes now

01:56:36 yes now he's saying in those opening words i'm concerned with the lack of response about the performance of k-15 had there been a lack of response to them about its performance at this point

01:56:50 i think he may have called myself or phil

01:56:54 phil i think i may have um remembered uh you know phil

01:56:57 know phil said specifically that i'd need to pass anything through him so i i allowed phil to deal with this so um yeah there might have been not an

01:57:10 so um yeah there might have been not an instant response

01:57:14 these questions can't have come as a surprise to you can they given what you'd witnessed um in the 2007-2008 tests

01:57:37 yeah then they're not a surprise but it's a very complex story because there's a number of things going on here there's the changing technology there's what there's the performance of

01:57:48 there's what there's the performance of the actual cladding element you know what type of cladding it was was it their um aluminium cassette or their

01:57:54 their uh their steel cassette or whatever it was

01:57:58 was um also

01:58:01 um also you know we're trying to back we're trying to fix out the formulation that we're using at the time i'm trying to i wasn't i don't think i was involved in supplying the k15 that they used for this

01:58:12 they used for this so it was making you know making sure that that what batch that was okay

01:58:19 was okay um if we look at the next email in the chain at the top of page two we can see that philip heath responds about an hour just over an hour later at 16 52.

01:58:31 um he writes as follows he says mark as you're aware there are always inconsistencies in relation to fire tests both large and small scale you have seen the results achieved by kingspan insulation with regards k15

01:58:43 kingspan insulation with regards k15 both with a generic cladding and without cladding

01:58:46 cladding and the result was similar with the temperature of the thermocouples being within the guidelines of the standard the burn pattern of the k-15 was also identical in each instance with no continuation of the burning seen in your

01:58:57 continuation of the burning seen in your test

01:58:57 test as with all companies within the group we are always striving to improve the performance of our products with this in mind we are currently waiting confirmation of the availability of formula

01:59:08 of formula formulation additive that we believe may improve the fire performance of k15 our resin suppliers are working to understand the viscosity increase that may be seen with this addition to the formulation which may or

01:59:20 addition to the formulation which may or may not affect our processing this being standard practice in resin manufacture in line with health and safety of chemical reactors and then he says basically we're waiting confirmation of time scales and

01:59:32 confirmation of time scales and two months before we get a trial online and then he says with regards to the reason for failure this is difficult for us to determine especially having already had some success with bs-8414 i would suggest only the bre technicians

01:59:45 i would suggest only the bre technicians can confirm if it was due to the details that were adopted you see that there now can you remember discussing this response with philip heath you're copied in there before it was sent

02:00:04 i believe i would have discussed it i might have even assisted with some of the uh maybe the first couple of sentences but um the latter stuff with regards to

02:00:17 but um the latter stuff with regards to the viscosity increase and the availability of resin etc that wouldn't have been

02:00:22 have been something that came from me but i'm sure you know we would have discussed it or he would have rung me up to say look hold fire i'm answering this one or can you help us as to why

02:00:34 or can you help us as to why he doesn't in this email make plain the k15 product that they were testing was different to the k-15 product tested in 2005.

02:00:45 to the k-15 product tested in 2005. isn't that a very important piece of information that kingspan offsite ought to be being told at this point

02:01:06 i feel that that phil and myself at the time believed that there were so many complicated factors involved in this that yes

02:01:19 that yes there was a difference in the performance of the materials but also there was a great deal of difference in the performance of the test

02:01:28 test when utilizing different cladding systems

02:01:31 systems we really didn't have a proper understanding at this point and i don't think anyone in the industry had as to what all the answers were so i

02:01:42 as to what all the answers were so i feel

02:01:43 feel phil's just holding back a little bit of information yes you know it perhaps would have helped if he'd

02:01:50 he'd you know given him the full story but

02:01:54 would you agree with me if he was being open and transparent with kingspan off-site they would have been told that the performance of the tests that he's referring to there which are

02:02:05 he's referring to there which are clearly the earlier tests on old k15 were if we're on a different product

02:02:11 product do you agree with that if he was being open and transparent yeah of course yes

02:02:17 if we scroll up to the next email in the chain it's from you to philip heath on the 3rd of july 2008 so the next day it's right at the bottom of that page and and you say this help i'm getting

02:02:29 and and you say this help i'm getting seriously grilled now based on this email i'm currently on the phone we need to ensure continuity of our answers otherwise we will destroy our relationship and never be taken seriously again also i may get accused of being a liar

02:02:42 also i may get accused of being a liar if we change our story are we saying that the product supplied which failed their test is the same product that we got to pass the test

02:02:50 the test i've been working closely with the bre technicians and they are currently helping us understand why old tech worked and new tech doesn't and whether od

02:02:59 od 90 will have a chance obviously the pf the phenolic foam i have been supplying is called a b and c therefore they have minimal information

02:03:10 information do you see that there yeah so that was what i mentioned earlier that i was very open

02:03:17 open with the bre about we were changing technology because we were trying i was trying to glean as much information out of them

02:03:24 of them but obviously phil would taken a different route with our um sister company so i felt that was compromising us even more

02:03:35 more yeah did you ever get can we just look at the body of the email again and have it in front of us while we're looking back on the other page you ask a question in the third

02:03:46 you ask a question in the third paragraph there are we saying that the product supplies is the same product that we got to pass the test did you ever get a response to that what was philip heath's response um who are you getting grilled by i

02:03:57 um who are you getting grilled by i think was

02:04:01 that was his response so i don't

02:04:05 a bit of a political answer isn't it yeah and when you say at the very bottom there obviously the phenolic foam i've been supplying is called a b and c do you mean that the phenolic foam you were supplying

02:04:17 foam you were supplying to kingspan offsite was called no the phenolic foam i would supply to the bre yeah

02:04:23 bre yeah i would give them the production date perhaps the production number and i would say batch a batch b so you gave

02:04:30 gave the bre a lot of detail yeah you will you wouldn't say that batch a is the op 90 variant batch b is the calcium carbonate variant or whatever i wouldn't go into that sort

02:04:41 or whatever i wouldn't go into that sort of detail but i would give them the production numbers so at a later date they could trace those back

02:04:51 but you weren't doing the same with kingspan offside is that what you're saying

02:04:54 saying i think kingsman off-site would just supply k-15 i don't actually think um i think if i remember correctly that they didn't involve us in the

02:05:05 that they didn't involve us in the procurement of the materials for the test they just took what they had as standard product out of their warehouse and you know there was a question as to how old that product was or whatever but

02:05:17 how old that product was or whatever but yeah that's why i always wanted to be involved whenever we were supplying then from a test i wanted it to come from myself or my team so we knew exactly what was sent yeah whether that

02:05:28 exactly what was sent yeah whether that was listed in the report or not at least somebody knew what we'd actually tested so we could glean the best we could out of the results

02:05:35 results yeah yes i think this culminates this chain in phillip heath replying and saying

02:05:41 saying he's replied there who you're getting grilled by at the top of that page and then he says why don't you ask king spanofsak to put their concerns in writing

02:05:48 writing and so we can look at that just up at the top of that page see if we can see that yeah there at the top there he says forward emails and or

02:05:59 top there he says forward emails and or ask them to put concerns in writing can we look now at an email from aidan wilkinson of kingspan off site dated the 16th of july 2008. this is kin 403714

02:06:14 and it's the email at the bottom of page one at 9 58 on the 16th of july

02:06:21 and he writes in a similar vein as mark stevens is from kingspan offside and he says this hello iva following the recent fire test at the bre we are having the following concerns

02:06:31 concerns after the heat source was extinguished the k-15 continued to burn on for considerable time in fact it was in excess of 30 minutes it was only extinguished when the bre applied water to it at the end of

02:06:42 applied water to it at the end of the one-hour duration the heat source had been extinguished at 22 minutes is that what is is this what is expected of this material is it normal for k-15 to continue to burn for in excess of 30 minutes after

02:06:54 burn for in excess of 30 minutes after the removal of the ignition source is the reason for the failure specific to a batch of k15 to the current formulation etc we are concerned with the lack of response with regard to the performance of the k15

02:07:05 regard to the performance of the k15 product on the bs8414 test that we have completed

02:07:09 completed we have a further four tests booked as you're aware and at this time we're unsure of the way forward in terms of detailing the samples to pass the test

02:07:18 we see that

02:07:22 now it's over two weeks now since mark stevens has sent a very similar email and philip heather replied and if we look at the next email above

02:07:34 and if we look at the next email above on the same day it's from philip heath who writes to you and malcolm roxford if we could look at this he says good evening we need to be careful how we answer the concerns of offsite any suggestions

02:07:48 offsite any suggestions do you see that there yes

02:07:53 and did you understand um this comment to be in relation to not letting offsite find out that the k15 they were using was new technology k15

02:08:05 technology k15 which could not repeat the test results of old technology k15

02:08:33 sorry what was the question again yes it was whether you understood that comment to be in relation to not letting off-site

02:08:39 off-site find out that the k-15 they tested was new technology k-15 is that why he's saying we need to be careful how we answer the concerns of offsite

02:08:55 i think he didn't want us to put anything in writing that they could use as justification for not using phenolic foam in any of their cladding systems now he

02:09:08 in any of their cladding systems now he was just being cautious uh it's not black and white as to whether

02:09:13 whether new technology is considerably worse than old technology in in a rain screen test there are so many other factors

02:09:24 many other factors yes it is it's marginally worse but when you're looking at different cladding systems etc there are so many factors that have become involved

02:09:34 involved can we look at kin408844 and if we go to page two about halfway down

02:09:43 down we see the same email from philipp heath we just looked at about the need to be careful

02:09:48 careful and then we get your response above that starting at the bottom of page one and over to page two if we can just look at the bottom of page one just to see that it's on the 17th of july 11 29 right at

02:10:01 it's on the 17th of july 11 29 right at that

02:10:02 that bottom and then if we go over we can see that you say aiden is pushing me for a meeting so we can work together on getting a pass for off-site this collective work could be a great

02:10:13 this collective work could be a great benefit but first we need to agree what can be disclosed and then you say i've inserted some answers below however believe we should tread very carefully here by offstag

02:10:24 here by offstag offsite going all out for lpcb approval with their first tests i fully witnessed has not been wise and this move could be responsible for a lot of the questions we are now getting from

02:10:36 of the questions we are now getting from industry and then you say i think we should at least discount the product previously supplied as an especially bad batch however and then you go on and you talk about

02:10:47 and then you go on and you talk about what you can see in the video on that test now you're saying early on in that email that we've got to agree what can be disclosed who was deciding what should be disclosed to kingspan

02:10:59 what should be disclosed to kingspan offsite at this time

02:11:02 well i would say my my line manager phil was driving you know everything had to be passed through him yeah so but i was simply just throwing

02:11:13 yeah so but i was simply just throwing ideas at the wall here because i needed i've got a relationship with off-site as well i needed those things to be resolved

02:11:20 resolved so i could move forward because i saw the the body of evidence that was being created by offsite as a great benefit to kingspan insulation because this could be helped

02:11:31 insulation because this could be helped to

02:11:31 to push for exam details with the bre right so i wanted the issue boxed out as soon as possible on bottom down sorry yeah

02:11:43 can you help us understand the sentence there about um the questions kingspan we're getting from industry you're obviously concerned that people have fully witnessed that test and it's not been wise

02:11:54 and it's not been wise you say this move could be responsible for a lot of the questions we're now getting from industry that's in that second paragraph right this what was the date of this again so it's the 17th of july 2008

02:12:09 i think there was a lot of systems range you know rainstream was really kind of taking off what we were seeing it take off

02:12:17 off [Music]

02:12:18 [Music] i'd say our competitors were becoming aware of it and they were you know pushing back at kingspan for you know trying to you know just

02:12:31 you know trying to you know just just push back ass lost to questions people were trying to get hold of reports on the sly were they questions about the suitability of k15 for use over 18

02:12:43 suitability of k15 for use over 18 meters

02:12:43 meters of course they were yes and how were those questions being answered by kingspan at this time my understanding at the time was that we were simply

02:12:54 were simply presenting the information that we had as this is what we have to verify its suitability of use but you need to go out and seek

02:13:06 need to go out and seek verification with your appropriate building engineer fire engineer or and the other component suppliers

02:13:16 suppliers because we only had we could only show that our product had the ability to perform it didn't perform in all scenarios

02:13:29 why do you say in that second paragraph that it was not wise for off-site's tests on systems including k-15 to have been fully witnessed what what was there to hide

02:13:39 to hide okay when you go for certification i explained this earlier but you um rather than the manufacturer just send the product to the laboratory and the laboratory test it

02:13:50 laboratory test it and just record the batch number etc the the laboratory would often send somebody to the manufacturer they'd witness the production run they'd make note of the standard operating procedure

02:14:02 operating procedure they'd probably sign the product and then they would once it's delivered to the test house they would check that the signature was the same that the seal hadn't been removed or

02:14:13 that the seal hadn't been removed or whatever

02:14:14 whatever that would then be verifying that what what the manufacturer was producing was the same as what they tested so then they trace that back when they visit the factory on further dates

02:14:27 visit the factory on further dates so i mean my concern there was it's not wise

02:14:31 wise because we hadn't oh sorry kingspan hadn't bottomed out the formulation issues at that point right i what uh could be used to pass these full-scale

02:14:42 could be used to pass these full-scale file tests yeah yeah or how k-15 was configured really right i see but just to be clear k-15 was being sold at this time wasn't it yeah of course

02:14:55 yeah of course now if we go back to the chain kin403714 and look on page one we can see at 9

02:15:06 and look on page one we can see at 9 19. malcolm rochefort says to you and philip heath and vincent koppak

02:15:15 koppak he says this i think the best response at the moment is to say that we're investigating possible reasons for the failure and we'll come back to them as soon as we're clearer on what caused it meanwhile we recommend they do not test the other material they have used to

02:15:26 the other material they have used to fabricate the installations as that was the same batch and may suffer from a similar problem if necessary i suppose we could send old formulation material for the testing if you think this has a better chance and they are pressing but this is

02:15:38 and they are pressing but this is undesirable for several reasons i'd rather delay and get the new fr product made as soon as hexian

02:15:45 as hexian can supply material which we are waiting on do you see that there yes so um if that would occurred effectively you delayed with kingspan off-site

02:15:56 off-site um while you tried to work out whether there was a better fr k-15 product that could be developed i think that was how it went down yes

02:16:11 [Applause] can we look now at um a document from april 2008 this is kin 403698

02:16:22 403698 this is your monthly report for the technical department that you sent to philip heath it would appear if you look at the top report period 4th of april 2008 by ivan meredith

02:16:36 of april 2008 by ivan meredith sorry can i just clarify i i should have put that as a question is this the monthly report for the technical department that you sent philip heath it's my monthly report yesterday yeah

02:16:48 and then if we go in the third bullet down

02:16:55 and look at on this page we can see there's a sent a paragraph that says this indicative calorimeter tests on new k-15 versus old have shown a quicker time to ignition

02:17:06 time to ignition and double the heat output for the newer product thus confirming initial suspicions in respect of reaction to fire do you see that there yes

02:17:16 there yes so by now you've done some more some calorie

02:17:20 calorie calorimeter tests on new k15 is that right

02:17:24 right yes i've done some on on the new k15 at that time i've done some testing at x over i believe

02:17:33 and this information was being shared with all of the technical team in kingspan

02:17:37 kingspan or just this would have been shared with the the technical meeting which was the sort of direct level technical technical meeting yeah and this information was known before

02:17:48 and this information was known before the kingspan off-site tests yes

02:17:58 without seeing the reports i wouldn't be able to see the see the exact times okay i mean it was always something i i had a suspicion of it was just i had more concrete evidence to present

02:18:09 i had more concrete evidence to present to my uh

02:18:12 to my uh my line managers if we now go to the monthly report for july 2008 kin 408848

02:18:23 this is the technical services monthly report for july 2008 would this have been written by you as well no this would have been done by andrew pack or matthew evans

02:18:35 pack or matthew evans right okay but would you have received this

02:18:39 this technical services department monthly report i would have received the copy yeah if we go to page two under the heading projects

02:18:49 the bottom okay yeah i um i think i would write that section and send it to andrew pack who would include that in these

02:19:03 it's i think it's just an abbreviated form of what i sent to phil actually yeah i see and it says there immediately under projects a sample of the op90 fire retardant phenolic has been sent to the

02:19:14 retardant phenolic has been sent to the bre for indicative calorimetry testing we hope to find a lower calorific output and slower time to ignition a product with these characteristics is required to maintain our position

02:19:25 required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market above 18 meters do you see that there yes

02:19:33 so what you're hoping to do now is some calorimetry testing on a product with with some form of fire retardant in it that's correct isn't it yes

02:19:45 that's correct isn't it yes i'm hoping there because of the frustrations with getting um exact rules out of the bre we're looking at small scale bench size tests that we can use to prove

02:19:56 prove that the new variant is of similar performance to the old technology yeah as far as you were aware was malcolm rochford aware

02:20:08 malcolm rochford aware of this kind of information um so about the calorific output and time to ignition of new technology k15 and also what you

02:20:19 new technology k15 and also what you were hoping to achieve with the fire retardant version yes

02:20:27 what about any managers further up the hierarchy

02:20:30 hierarchy was anybody beyond mark and rochford aware as far as you knew of the different fire performance of the k-15 new technology k-15

02:20:43 i wasn't given many chances to mix with the hierarchy above malcolm um and like i say i was accused of being negative so

02:20:54 negative so i kind of sat on my hands a little bit when i was around them so i'm sure they were aware i'm sure malcolm would have voiced these opinions

02:21:05 malcolm would have voiced these opinions were you ever a party too or told about any discussions taking place regarding stopping sales of k15 due to life safety issues given how it's performing in fire

02:21:18 issues given how it's performing in fire by this time

02:21:25 i think i remember a discussion with one of the um

02:21:30 one of the irish sales directors i don't know if it was alan or ralph or somebody like that i'm not sure

02:21:39 not sure but i remember having them coming at me and discussing this and what did you discuss

02:21:47 i i put my concerns forward you know they you know they asked if it was right and i i said yes

02:21:55 yes if what was right and what were you saying yes to well if if my my opinion was the the the fire performance is degraded yeah and can you give us an idea when you had that discussion

02:22:07 you had that discussion i i i would be very yeah couldn't place that to be honest yeah i remember having it but the date

02:22:15 now i want to look at what the bba position was at this time you've said and for the transcript this is at paragraph 61 of your witness statement on page 28

02:22:26 statement on page 28 that to be generally accepted in industry by the big insurers including the nhbc

02:22:31 the nhbc zurich etc having a bba certificate is essential

02:22:35 essential that's right isn't it yes definitely and was a bba certificate also essential for working on sites used by the public such as school schools or hospitals or in order to be

02:22:46 schools or hospitals or in order to be considered for housing associations and local authority product projects

02:22:53 i think a bba certificate is a general green light of acceptability um i don't know what the specifics are with

02:23:01 with those types but i would have thought it gives confidence to any buyer when they see that badge yeah once it was awarded how did the bba certificate influence the sales of k-15

02:23:24 i wouldn't know the sales figures to be honest

02:23:27 honest now you explain in your witness statement and and we'll be asking him about this that is it right that gareth mills had the primary role for obtaining the bba certificate for

02:23:38 for obtaining the bba certificate for k-15 is that right he was the key contact at that time yeah and if he had issues he would come to myself or

02:23:47 myself or or tony i think it was then now if we go to the first issue of the bba certificate on the 27th of october 2008 we look at this this is bba six zeros

02:23:58 we look at this this is bba six zeros 38.

02:24:02 [Applause] so here we have it we can see from the bottom

02:24:08 bottom left-hand um part of the page that it says date of first issue 27th of october 2008. do you see that there yes and then

02:24:19 yes and then starting with the first page and they're section headed key factors assessed section there we've got it in that page that's great there we can see there

02:24:30 that's great there we can see there it's got thermal performance etcetera another thing and then we have behavior in relation to fire third heading down do you see that yes and it says this um the boards will not

02:24:42 and it says this um the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard c-section seven do you see that there yes now leaving us aside the smoke and toxic hazard for now

02:24:55 aside the smoke and toxic hazard for now can you tell me what those words mean what does it mean when it says will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

02:25:10 a fire it it it's very ambiguous it depends what test

02:25:14 what test well quite what what situation um to be honest i think it's historical it's a historical statement which might be in all the core firm bba certificates right do you

02:25:25 core firm bba certificates right do you understand that assertion to be based on some sort of actual test standard or test methodology or data i think it's a historical statement that

02:25:36 i think it's a historical statement that was probably predates my involvement with the bba right um when you first read this certificate can you remember when that was

02:25:49 i would have been on a circulation for proof reading it but our involvement was literally proof reading we we would give

02:26:00 proof reading we we would give test evidence to the bba they would come into the factory produce audits um they were the specialists they were the ones that were writing this certificate we just basically had to most of the

02:26:13 we just basically had to most of the time go along with what they were saying when you read it did you believe that to be correct given everything you knew by october 2008 about the way it

02:26:24 by october 2008 about the way it performed in fire

02:26:33 i guess i don't know what the statement i don't know what the development stages of a fire are i see in respect to that they've obviously got that out of

02:26:44 obviously got that out of somewhere some test report where they thought that was acceptable to include but i don't know where they've gleaned that from to be honest would you agree looking at it now that it sounds very much like a description of a

02:26:55 much like a description of a non-combustible product that's the impression it's trying to give

02:27:04 no this is it's a thermoset material it's not going to run melt or drip and they they do char at the earlier stages of the fire and they do they have been shown to prevent

02:27:17 they have been shown to prevent further burning so i i believed it was a plausible statement but say it was one of i will admit to around this time i was that bombarded by

02:27:29 around this time i was that bombarded by work i

02:27:29 work i i might have not looked at one of these things properly i see but i don't feel it it's to do with a non-combustible insulin i just think it's a very um it's something that's come out of a

02:27:41 um it's something that's come out of a test report and they've they've used it throughout all the call firms certificates i believe let's look at section seven now at the bottom of page five

02:27:50 five this is the section which deals in detail with k15's performance in relation to fire we just go in and zoomer from that at 7.1 there is a description of the

02:28:01 at 7.1 there is a description of the system

02:28:02 system tested to bs 8414 in may 2005. do you see that there yes so we can see it's got six millimeter thick

02:28:13 we can see it's got six millimeter thick cement particle boards mechanically fixed

02:28:15 fixed in the second line there

02:28:22 and then if we look at the end of the description of the system tested to 8414 at the end of the third line from the bottom we can see it says this within the

02:28:33 we can see it says this within the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria

02:28:45 and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre-135 do you see that there

02:28:49 there yes i do now would you agree looking at this now that that simply can't be correct because a product can't meet the criteria stated

02:29:00 product can't meet the criteria stated within bre 135 can it yeah that's correct it's a system test so it's the whole system that met the criteria not that product

02:29:12 criteria not that product that's right isn't it

02:29:15 that's correct yes can you help as to why

02:29:19 why that point wasn't raised with the bba prior to publication of this certificate so that that was clarified so as to be accurate

02:29:32 [Applause] the bba allow us to check the bba certificate it's it's a courtesy really they give us they

02:29:42 they you know that they send a pre-print draft and they say you've got 24 hours before we publish this i think so you know we've got to quickly look at it in that time and go back to

02:29:53 look at it in that time and go back to them and say yeah that's okay and we'll quickly make sure that a lot of the references are correct and to be honest i'm so busy i'll admit to

02:30:05 to be honest i'm so busy i'll admit to probably

02:30:06 probably not looking at this properly in the time but it could be corrected even after it's issued couldn't it if it's inaccurate you could speak to the bba and say actually we've realized that's simply not correct

02:30:19 realized that's simply not correct it doesn't all have to be before

02:30:25 yeah in hindsight maybe this was something that should have been done yes mr chairman if i can be permitted to do so and if the witness is able to i'd just like in 10 minutes just finish this topic

02:30:36 finish this topic if that's okay we have got a lot to cover with this witness how do you feel mr meredith can you keep going for another 10 minutes just about yeah yes it's been a long day i know right that's very kind thank you

02:30:48 i know right that's very kind thank you now shortly after the release of the bba certificate for k-15 kings van were contacted by george lee of the bba about the wording in the certificate do you recall that

02:31:01 recall that i have some recollection of that going on yeah

02:31:04 on yeah i want to look at an email chain which was not copied to you originally but was forwarded to you on the 5th of march 2008 by philip heath if we can go to

02:31:15 kin409103 and look at the bottom email in the second half of page one

02:31:26 this is george lee on the 24th of december 2008 at 9 50. and he writes we've recently received a number of comments on the case

02:31:35 case 15 certificate in relation to the clarity of wording used as part of this certificate fire section in response to this we have a suggested amendment to the text which we wish to make

02:31:45 make this amendment we will make at no cost to yourselves and has as an improvement to the certificate which i hope you will agree will improve how this certificate will be read in the future and then you can see if you look at the

02:31:57 and then you can see if you look at the second bullet he says the changes i propose are as follows and in that second bullet under key factors assessed he says it's going to say behavior in relation to fire the boards are classified as class

02:32:08 fire the boards are classified as class naught the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire the product has been tested to bs 84141 for a specific construction on masonry walls do you see that there

02:32:21 walls do you see that there yes so they're wanting them to add in that the product has been tested for a specific construction on masonry walls and did you consider there to be anything

02:32:32 anything inaccurate in that proposed amendment when you were made aware of it it was entirely accurate and appropriate wasn't it

02:32:49 so he's going to include the boards will not contribute to the development stage of the fire he's keeping that in yeah but then he said the product's been tested to bs 84141 for a specific construction on masonry

02:33:04 walls

02:33:12 that's correct yeah that that sentence that they're adding is correct isn't it no issues with those yeah going up the email chain we can see philip heath doesn't respond to mr lee until the

02:33:25 doesn't respond to mr lee until the fifth of march 2009 at 14 47 so over 10 weeks later mr heath responds can you help us as to

02:33:36 mr heath responds can you help us as to why it might have taken 10 weeks to respond

02:33:40 respond to that request by the bba to amend the certificate

02:33:46 i know phil was very busy i know i complain about how busy i was but phil was a lot busier but then it says here that phil saying let the file gather dust

02:33:55 dust um i think he was in no rush to respond yes i'm going to come to that um but but you can't think of a specific reason other than that he was busy as to

02:34:07 reason other than that he was busy as to why it would have taken him so long to respond to the bba

02:34:13 i think was the previous email directed to phil or was it gareth that included

02:34:19 included i think it was directed to him um no he writes to mr mills you're right uh he writes to gareth mills i mean gareth could have sat with that for a while as

02:34:30 could have sat with that for a while as well i don't i don't quite know what happened there but if we look at what he says he says good afternoon george gareth mills is brought to my attention your recent emails in relation to our bba certificate for k-15

02:34:41 relation to our bba certificate for k-15 firstly may we register our concern at the proposal to reissue this certificate so soon after publication when we have waited some considerable time for its issue secondly your request is receiving our attention however

02:34:53 attention however we are determining the implications to kingspan of this speedy reissue as documentation has been published that refers to the current certificate and the wording therein therefore there could be cost implications to kingspan

02:35:05 could be cost implications to kingspan that we would have no option but to pass on the bba if we are in agreement to your request once we've completed our audit to determine the implications for kingspan insulation we will be back to you regards philip do

02:35:17 we will be back to you regards philip do you see that there yes and then we can see that um two minutes later

02:35:30 we can see that um two minutes later at the top of that page so he sends the email to george leon at 1447 and two minutes later he sends an email to you andrew pack

02:35:41 he sends an email to you andrew pack gareth mills let the file dab gather dust guys regards phil

02:35:50 what did you take that to mean he doesn't want us to worry about it it's just

02:35:57 it's just you know it's gareth's action to move that forward but let's just you know let the file gather dust as it says you know there's no rushing back to george lee on this one

02:36:09 george lee on this one no i mean they used to take a cr an incredible amount of time to produce a certificate and then you know then they grabbed all of this and wanted to do changes immediately so

02:36:22 and wanted to do changes immediately so they're quite frustrating to work with really but then that's just he doesn't say in his email gareth this one's for you to action everyone else got you can let the file

02:36:33 everyone else got you can let the file that gather dust does he it's a general instruction isn't it and wouldn't you have taken it that way yeah

02:36:42 are you suggesting that nobody work on it isn't it yeah yeah

02:36:49 did you take that as a clear instruction from philip heath to stall yeah certainly and did you stall

02:36:58 i was not directly involved in the bba anyway although it came sort of under my umbrella you know it was that important to the business that it was reported up above me all the

02:37:09 that it was reported up above me all the time

02:37:09 time so yeah you said in your witness statement

02:37:14 statement when you asked questions about kingspan employing any policy or strategy of delay

02:37:20 delay between 2006 and 2016. sorry 2008 and 2016 in relation to k-15 you said

02:37:28 you said that there was no uh strategy or policy of delay

02:37:32 of delay now looking at this now would you agree that this is an example of this is an example of something i overlooked when i answered my witness statement yeah yeah you agree with that yeah

02:37:46 you agree with that yeah why was kingspan not prepared for the bba to make it clear to the public that there were restrictions on the use of k-15 over 18 meters

02:37:57 because it could limit sales yeah philip heath wanted the file to gather dust because it was in kingspan's commercial interests to keep the then version of the bba

02:38:08 to keep the then version of the bba certificate in play wasn't it yeah of course

02:38:16 did you find it concerning at the time that your

02:38:19 that your superior your line manager was dismissing the concerns of a respected certification body in terms of

02:38:26 terms of fire safety and accuracy over fire safety were you concerned about that i've raised my concerns on numerous occasions about this kind of thing so you know you get to a point where

02:38:41 so you know you get to a point where you know you get embroiled in the culture of a business and it you know it just becomes second nature

02:38:49 nature and how would you describe that culture at kingspan they were they were assertive going after sales you know they were

02:39:04 they had a lot of momentum you know a lot of

02:39:07 lot of you know there's a lot of people there that were very devoted to the business they were

02:39:12 they were you know it was my first job i thought they were a great company to work for and were they assertive at going after sales even in the face of of life safety problems with their

02:39:25 of life safety problems with their product

02:39:28 i mean nobody could have seen what what could have happened really you know in hindsight this is this is all terrible but not that you know then it was just

02:39:42 but not that you know then it was just it was just more sales i believe but to ask my question again were they assertive at going after sales even though

02:39:49 though realizing that there were life safety issues with their product i think looking at the information and the evidence now yes

02:40:01 well do you recall any conversation with any of the senior managers which gave you the impression that they were aware of the dangers but didn't really mind about them

02:40:14 um i remember having a conversation with one of the irish directors um who came to me with his concerns but i had to sort of point him in the

02:40:27 but i had to sort of point him in the direction of my boss because i was you know like like what happened with off-site you know it wasn't my level to discuss that with him in a way i discussed the issues with my immediate

02:40:39 i discussed the issues with my immediate superiors

02:40:41 superiors thank you and who was that irish director just one last question um i don't know if it was ralph mannion or alan scapan i can't remember okay thank you mr chairman thank you for

02:40:53 okay thank you mr chairman thank you for that indulgence right thank you all right that's great thank you um

02:40:57 you um well i think we have reached i've done enough for today uh mr meredith say we'll stop there um again have to ask you to come back for some more questions tomorrow i'm afraid but i think you were expecting that anyway um

02:41:10 think you were expecting that anyway um so we'll resume at ten o'clock please and again

02:41:13 and again um please don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it while you're away all right thank you very much thank you

02:41:31 very much thank you good thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please

02:41:59 you