Adrian Pargeter, Kingspan's Product Development Manager and later Head of Marketing and Technical Director, gives evidence about K15 insulation product development, the 2005 fire test, changes from 'old technology' to 'new technology', and the company's marketing practices.
00:22:03 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from another witness from kingspan yes mr janitor good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel yes i now call
00:22:15 members of the panel yes i now call adrian parchetta please
00:22:33 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:22:36 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr podgetter would you like to sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:22:52 yes mr miller mr chairman thank you mr partisan good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we very much appreciate it if you have any difficulty understanding
00:23:03 if you have any difficulty understanding my questions uh or you want me to rephrase the question or ask it in a different way i'm very happy to do that we're going to take scheduled breaks as we do with all witnesses throughout the course of the day but if you feel you need to break it any
00:23:15 but if you feel you need to break it any other time just let us know and we can take a break i should just ask you also to keep your voice up when answering your questions so that the person who sits to your right who is the transcriber can get that down
00:23:26 that down accurately and clearly and also just a tip
00:23:29 tip if you can refrain from nodding or shaking your head but say yes or no as the case may be then that goes on to the transcript whereas the head movement doesn't understood um now
00:23:40 understood um now you've provided four witness statements i think to the inquiry to date can i take them to you they'll be in a folder on your desk in front of you there but you'll also appear on the screen
00:23:50 screen and i'm going to be going to the screen version with you but by all means do consult the paper version if you feel more comfortable with that
00:23:57 with that the first one is the first statement is the first of october 2018 at kin five zeros four nine four
00:24:08 is that your first witness statement to the inquiry yes it is can you please go to page 35
00:24:16 there's a signature there is that your signature that's my signature yes now let's go to the second statement that's dated the 18th of october 2019 just a year or so later kin3020824
00:24:30 just a year or so later kin3020824 please
00:24:33 please is that your second witness statement it is and can you please go to page 116.
00:24:40 is the signature there is that your signature yes and let's look at your third witness statement dated the 18th of september 2020
00:24:50 kin3022610
00:24:55 is that your third witness statement it is and can we go to page 68 please there's a signature above the date of the 18th of september 2020 is that your signature yes thank you and finally our fourth witness
00:25:07 thank you and finally our fourth witness statement of the third of november 2020 kin30s 24385 please is that your fourth witness statement to the inquiry yes thank you and could you
00:25:18 the inquiry yes thank you and could you please go to page 17 you'll see a signature there is that your signature it is have you read these witness statements recently i have and do you say that the contents of these statements
00:25:29 that the contents of these statements are true i do and have you discussed any of your statements or the evidence that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here today only with my legal team right now before we begin uh i just want to
00:25:43 now before we begin uh i just want to ask you a general question about kingspan
00:25:45 kingspan in a sense the name in the first two statements that we've just looked at you refer to your employer as kingspan and that's how you define it but in the third statement you refer to your employer as kingspan
00:25:57 your employer as kingspan as insulation uk and in the fourth statement you refer to your employer as kingspan insulation are they all the same company throughout with different names that you've given them
00:26:07 them or do do they have different names no my witness statements are based on kingspun insulation limited which sometimes gets abbreviated to kingspan but to differentiate it from the other
00:26:18 but to differentiate it from the other parts of the group so i would normally refer to it as kingspan but there are other parts of the group which i'm not speaking about and it's kingspan insulation limited is there any reason why in the first two
00:26:30 there any reason why in the first two statements he referred to the company as kingspan but in the third statement as insulation uk and in the fourth statement as kingspan insulation why not stick to kingspan throughout i think i was it was just pointed out to
00:26:42 think i was it was just pointed out to me by
00:26:42 me by our legal team to do a fuller explanation to differentiate it to make that differentiation but so that we're clear this is the same company throughout it is okay now in your first witness
00:26:55 it is okay now in your first witness statement of the inquiry you set out your education at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 on pages three and four and we can see there if we just have that up on the
00:27:06 there if we just have that up on the screen
00:27:06 screen a summary of that and i can take it i think quite quickly um it's right i think that you completed a higher national diploma in mechanical and production engineering at birmingham polytechnic in 1991.
00:27:18 at birmingham polytechnic in 1991. yes that's correct and then you graduated with a bachelor of science bs on first class degree focusing on design and innovation from the open university in 2002 correct
00:27:29 from the open university in 2002 correct yes
00:27:30 yes and i think you've explained that that degree could be applied to any type of product design is that correct yes it was a general understanding of the process of designing
00:27:39 designing a product right and is it right that in 2013
00:27:43 2013 you first obtained a professional diploma in management and then a master's degree in business administration and management from the open university in 2016. that's
00:27:54 from the open university in 2016. that's correct right now when you were reading for your professional diploma in management which you got in 2013 and then in 2016 for your
00:28:04 for your uh your is it right in mba yes yes mba um you were employed in senior positions by kingspan i was yes did you take time off to study or to or did you fit your studies in around your
00:28:15 around your i fitted my studies in around my role right and how did you balance the time that you were devoting to your studies in those years and the time given to your job at kingspan with a lot of dedication in my
00:28:26 kingspan with a lot of dedication in my own private time right you don't think that the work you were doing the studies that you were doing distracted you in any way no i think on some modules it helped in fact i switched the module around to do
00:28:37 fact i switched the module around to do marketing
00:28:38 marketing because i was um moved into a marketing role right so just to we're clear you weren't distracted from your work at work uh by your work on your academics i tried not to be all
00:28:50 on your academics i tried not to be all right
00:28:53 now you've set out in your second witness statement um the fact that you set you sit on or sat on a number of industry committees and you've set them out yes uh we don't
00:29:05 and you've set them out yes uh we don't need to look at them unless you want to but uh is it fair to say that you are uh an eminent and a respected voice in the insulation industry in this country i wouldn't say that now i'm relatively
00:29:16 i wouldn't say that now i'm relatively new in this in a senior position and relatively new on those committees right um and there are far more you know senior more experienced people within those committees what was the purpose of your setting out in a long
00:29:27 purpose of your setting out in a long list
00:29:28 list your membership of those committees in that statement i think because it was part of the question that was asked so i was trying to give as full and answer as i can and it's right that you've published articles i think about the use of k-15 in reputable construction industry
00:29:40 in reputable construction industry publications yes and there's one example we may need to come to later construction manager october 2015 yes and just for the inquiries reference that's inq three zeros one four one two six we
00:29:51 three zeros one four one two six we don't need to go to it at least at the moment can i then ask you about your your first role at kingspan
00:29:57 kingspan uh in 2009. uh you started i think in a research and development role that's correct and now that was 11 years ago without giving too much away how old were you at the time
00:30:08 the time uh 51 no 41 sorry 41. okay you did give it away um now but that
00:30:16 that that role was it purely confined to developing another of kingspan's products
00:30:20 products optim r yes it was focused on the product called optimal right now you say it was focused on it but did you work at all with any other uh parts of the kingspan range of products at that time
00:30:31 products at that time no so you were just focused on optimal yes now optimal as i understand it and tell me if this isn't right is a pir uh insulation product no that's not correct no it's a vacuum
00:30:43 no that's not correct no it's a vacuum insulation product right okay but it is it's not for use i think above 18 meters is it no no did you deal with phenolic foam at all during that role that you didn't now i think in late 2013
00:30:56 that you didn't now i think in late 2013 early 2014 as you tell us in your first statement
00:30:59 statement you were promoted to the role of product development manager yes that's correct yes and the reason i picked those months and maybe you paused was because you said just over four years after december 2009
00:31:13 just over four years after december 2009 and i just wondered exactly when it was that you were promoted to product development manager yes i think it was the dates you just mentioned right late so let's go with late 2013 early 2014.
00:31:25 early 2014. and um can i just ask you whether the role uh to which you were promoted existed before you were promoted to it
00:31:35 no i don't think it did do you know why it was created um i think because there was a product development system in place called ppds
00:31:46 development system in place called ppds and product and process development system and my boss at the time malcolm rushford felt that that system needed updating and it asked me if i
00:32:00 needed updating and it asked me if i would look at designing a new system a more modern system it was working on old technology old software and if i would like to take the offer of
00:32:13 and if i would like to take the offer of product development manager to develop that new
00:32:16 that new process project development so this was this was not about specific products but about design process system and you say a product and process development system
00:32:29 development system what was wrong with the system that you thought mr rochefort wanted to improve when he promoted you to that role i think one it was working off old software so and it was always
00:32:40 old software so and it was always difficult
00:32:41 difficult to get the right people around the table at the right time i think people thought that it was it was too full of projects as well there were too many projects on it and
00:32:52 there were too many projects on it and it was made the process very slow so we wanted to have a more streamlined system working on more modern software right were there any specific products that were
00:33:03 any specific products that were candidates particular candidates for um improvement in in the sense of the application of this system to them i think what we did what we did do was a
00:33:14 i think what we did what we did do was a review of the products that were on the old system to see what we would move forward
00:33:19 forward onto the new um and the the one of them is the k-15 low lambda development as an example that did move forward onto it amongst amongst others i see so so when you came into this role
00:33:31 see so so when you came into this role at that time is this right you revised or improved the old system for process and development it's in relation to k-15 among other products among other people and what did
00:33:42 products among other people and what did you do by way of improvements to the old ppds system you took well i mean tony milicep and i were both looking at this together right to begin with and we were looking at
00:33:53 to begin with and we were looking at what i wanted to use was what we called now called ids innovation development system
00:33:57 system where we had clear stage gates for product development and then within the stage gates are key decisions key milestones to allow a project to be assessed
00:34:10 to allow a project to be assessed at each stage and then to be taken forward
00:34:15 forward if it successfully completes this stage or to be dropped if if it doesn't so it was that and it was also looking for a software platform that we could run this on so people could access it
00:34:27 on so people could access it we can see where each project is we can get better reporting from it that was the uh the goal did you do that
00:34:35 do that yes we did and that's where innovation development system came from right i see and when you uh built the ids system uh did you specifically look at k-15
00:34:49 did you specifically look at k-15 and its development history not its history no we took it on the project i think i i started to look at that in around september of two thousand
00:35:00 september of two thousand and right um by then it had already been worked on as a as a sort of chemical development um to improve the
00:35:11 chemical development um to improve the thermal performance of the product um and it had had an eight four one four test done and it had some small scale tests done we've done some trials on the line
00:35:22 we've done some trials on the line uh and i think the idea there was we'll win that we've gone through some of the stages already at this juncture but we're at the stage now where we'd like to move it forward into production if we can
00:35:35 into production if we can and you're talking about k-15 are you i'm talking about a low lambda k-15 i understand we'll come to lambda later on in terms in relation to k-15 being sold into the
00:35:46 in relation to k-15 being sold into the market at that time what did your work on the ppds converting it into the ids that you've described what did your work on k-15 require you to look at i didn't look at
00:35:58 require you to look at i didn't look at the current product you didn't look at the current product so you saying that the ids as you were developing it was only in relation to a future or test or trial product
00:36:10 a future or test or trial product a variant of k-15 being then being sold yes that's correct i see so does that tell us that when you looked at the ppds as it came to you you didn't go back over k-15 and its history and look at the documents which no
00:36:22 documents which no no you didn't right um now
00:36:27 you say in your statement at um your first statement of paragraph 2.6 and perhaps we should look at it it's at page four
00:36:37 that in this role as product development manager you say my responsibilities included ensuring that a robust development process was in place to allow cross-functional teams to ensure all relevant legislation
00:36:48 ensure all relevant legislation and regulatory requirements were fully taken into account during product development does does the um the legislation and regulatory requirements does that include legislation
00:37:00 include legislation and requirements relating to fire safety or fire performance it would be any regulation that's related to the particular application or product that was being developed so it would include that for certain
00:37:11 it would include that for certain projects yes now you you say that uh as you do that um testing and certification was also part of your role did that include large-scale fire
00:37:23 did that include large-scale fire testing
00:37:24 testing uh it wasn't part of my role it was part of the
00:37:27 of the role of designing a system which accounted for that i think so the system works on a matrix basis really of a project manager who will
00:37:38 will design the program but then you'll have the
00:37:42 the relevant departmental experts who would feed into that program and that would include anybody in design production testing certification marketing etc
00:37:56 now you say in paragraph 2.6 there that your role was to ensure that a robust development process was in place to ensure that all relevant legislation and regulatory requirements were fully taken into account during product
00:38:08 taken into account during product development do you mean there that the process was to ensure compliance or merely that compliance was thought about
00:38:16 about uh it was to ensure the right people who knew about the compliance were involved in the project what about making sure that the right people actually did their work properly and ensured that
00:38:28 did their work properly and ensured that the product did comply was that not also part of your role no that's part of the whoever's responsibility is to deliver that element of it if that's their responsibility right but those those teams would report to you would they not
00:38:39 teams would report to you would they not they would report into the ids team so there was um there's a monthly ids review meeting and that they would then report their findings into that into that team was
00:38:51 findings into that into that team was your role as pr as uh in this first role uh to oversee
00:38:59 the activities of those teams and to make sure that they were doing their job it was to make sure they were on plan on plan to the target yes but what about making sure that they were doing their job and making sure
00:39:11 were doing their job and making sure that the products they were developing were compliant with regulatory requirements um that would be their job to make sure that they were doing their job it would also be your job to make sure that they were doing their job so to speak
00:39:22 speak um i trusted you know i've got i don't know
00:39:25 know all the internet of every part of every product and that no project manager will um so you've got to trust the people that are doing the allocated parts in their areas to do
00:39:36 allocated parts in their areas to do their role right now you say that the aim is to ensure that a robust development process was in place
00:39:43 place uh was there a view within kingspan at that point that the process as it stood at that time was not robust no i don't think so i just that was just how you know i wanted to make this new
00:39:56 how you know i wanted to make this new one
00:39:56 one robust i didn't mean the other one wasn't
00:39:59 wasn't right and the robust development process you're referring to is that the ids system that you've described yes and how is that system how was the information on that system stored within the kingspan
00:40:09 kingspan um information technology platforms so we've got
00:40:13 we've got a platform for ids which is called plan view
00:40:17 view it's a software provider and on there you can store the timing plans you can store the updates the minutes for the
00:40:29 for the gate reviews and then we can also do reporting from that on certain milestones right with communications with testing houses such as the bre or bre reports or class reports be filed
00:40:41 or bre reports or class reports be filed onto that platform they wouldn't be on that platform where they would be on to the project file that right and could anybody in those teams and you access that whenever you wanted not
00:40:52 you access that whenever you wanted not all of not everybody could access everything could you access it um i could access certain parts not not all of it which parts could you not access
00:41:01 access um well i probably wouldn't have direct access into the individual project files that were kept but the timing plan elements we could look at that from uh from the software why wouldn't
00:41:12 from uh from the software why wouldn't you have access into the individual project files um so i wouldn't i wouldn't have needed to look into it and do it individually but i can understand why you would might not have wanted to or even needed to but were you actually denied accessing no i
00:41:24 were you actually denied accessing no i don't think i was denied right so if you wanted we just didn't use it i i follow um now as a product development manager um who did you report to i think you said
00:41:35 who did you report to i think you said your boss initially was malcolm rochefort
00:41:37 rochefort that's correct i said would he did he remain your line manager well for the period you occupied that role
00:41:45 role which wasn't very long it wasn't very long so i think he retired in december of 2014
00:41:54 of 2014 and then by then i was in the marketing role
00:41:58 role so i was reporting to richard burnley so there's a big glass over so just to be clear from the time you were appointed into this role in december or so 2013
00:42:10 role in december or so 2013 until the time you were appointed into the marketing role i think in november 2014
00:42:16 2014 you were you were reporting to dr rochford yes okay and after that november 14 onwards you were reporting to richard burnley correct and he was the managing director of that stage
00:42:27 managing director of that stage yes he was yes i see now as product development manager you are i think we're in charge of the new a new version of kingspan k15 which was the low lambda version is that
00:42:40 which was the low lambda version is that right
00:42:40 right uh no i was in charge of it and that project had already started like i mentioned before and it was it had gone through some of what we would now call the stage gates they weren't called that in the
00:42:52 gates they weren't called that in the ppds
00:42:52 ppds system but they would be in the new system and i was then asked to look at developing the program to take it further and used it as you know one of
00:43:03 further and used it as you know one of the pilot products that alongside the other ones to use the system
00:43:09 system on were you involved in any fire testing of that product no was there anyone at kingspan who was more closely involved in the development of this low lambda product of k-15 than you yes dr rochford on the
00:43:23 of k-15 than you yes dr rochford on the um the chemistry side of it on the fire testing side of it would have been um either meredith and on the processing side actually trying to process this new material would have been
00:43:37 this new material would have been gwen davis davis yeah yes and they reported well either meredith and gwyn davis would have reported ultimately to you on that project would
00:43:49 ultimately to you on that project would they not
00:43:50 they not that have reported in to that on the at the ids
00:43:54 the ids gate review meeting on those developments but that comes to the same thing i think that in the end although they were reported in i'm not quite sure i understand the
00:44:05 i'm not quite sure i understand the difference in the end who was their line manager in respect of that development process on that product um i'm not sure their line manager
00:44:17 um i'm not sure their line manager direct line managers would have been so but they would definitely be reporting in to me on what was happening on that project all right uh who else would did you work with on the development of phenolic foam
00:44:30 with on the development of phenolic foam generally at that time
00:44:34 so it may have been lindsey hobbs was another one of the processing people um tony milicep would have been involved at the early
00:44:44 the early at my early stages of that now you were promoted to head of marketing in november 2014 as you say in your statement
00:44:52 statement yes um was that promotion by richard burnley did he promote you he did was there a competition for that post uh there was one other person i think
00:45:03 uh there was one other person i think who had expressed an interest in the role who was that peter morgan right were you both interviewed uh i believe so right did you say expressed an interest and was there actually a competition
00:45:15 actually a competition and a choice was made by mr burnley of the two of you uh i think he definitely spoke to both of us
00:45:22 of us right
00:45:26 now was it at this time so this is november 2014 that kingspan decided that the low lambda version of k-15 was not viable that was definitely a point in the
00:45:38 that was definitely a point in the programme where from the processing side
00:45:44 the program was stopped because we couldn't
00:45:47 couldn't process it to get the the objective of a consistently lower lambda performance from the
00:45:54 from the the system do you remember when you took over the job of head of marketing in november 2014 what stage the low lambda project had reached
00:46:06 no i think it was still ongoing when did it actually finally stop do you remember
00:46:13 remember exactly when it stopped right so let's look at paragraph 2.7 of your statement your first statement please at the bottom of page four which i think is on the page in front of
00:46:24 which i think is on the page in front of us you say
00:46:27 in november 2014 i was promoted to head of marketing at kingspan in this role i was responsible for the day-to-day management of the marketing team
00:46:34 team whose function was the creation and delivery of marketing plans and campaigns
00:46:40 campaigns this included the design and production of all marketing materials such as product brochures and newsletters the team was also responsible for the development of technical research and if we go over the page projects and
00:46:52 and if we go over the page projects and kingspan's fire safety compliance campaign
00:46:55 campaign regarding the use of k-15 in rain screen specifications what what knowledge did you have of k-15 and its fire performance at the time you took on
00:47:03 took on the role of head of marketing at that time um very very little it was part of the the learning curve i had of all of the products that we produce we produce many different
00:47:14 produce many different right products and processes do you say it was part of the learning curve did you have a a handover at that stage no there was nobody currently in that
00:47:25 no there was nobody currently in that role no i think the previous induction then a previous incumbent had left
00:47:30 left 12 months maybe before right but there was um the marketing director um john garbett who i was sort of dotted lying if you like into him and was there to
00:47:42 into him and was there to help me you know get on to that learning curve
00:47:45 curve so just help me with this you were head of marketing but john garvin remained in post did he yeah john garbert was divisional director right of marketing so he'd previously been the
00:47:56 of marketing so he'd previously been the um the lead marketing person in kingspan insulation he'd then taken a divisional job at some point i don't know exactly when there was a
00:48:07 when there was a marketing manager appointed when he moved up that marketing manager left i think it was then a lung gap before
00:48:16 before they'd recruited um a replacement which was which was me right i i i thought you told us earlier that your line manager when you were appointed to this role in november 2014 was richard burns that's why i say
00:48:27 was richard burns that's why i say dotted into john garber so does that mean that there was also when you say dotted line do you mean a vega reporting line to john garbett yes i see and he was you say you called him director of marketing i think a minute
00:48:38 director of marketing i think a minute ago but you did is that right was he director of marketing yes i believe so you were head of marketing how do those two roles relate to each other because in the structure of the business so the insulation
00:48:51 so the insulation uk business had got businesses across the world and so i was part of the gb part of that business but then there was a structure above
00:49:03 a structure above the management of those where divisional director sat which oversaw all of the key functions across the globe
00:49:10 globe now you say at the top of this page page five in your statement that you and you were responsible for kingspan's fire safety compliance campaign regarding the use of k-15 in rain screen specifications what was the nature of the safety
00:49:22 what was the nature of the safety compliance campaign it was the routes to compliance campaign i mentioned there i think and that was and when i took over at the time
00:49:32 time there was a lot of i think within the business of view that customers weren't understanding the processes
00:49:40 processes of of compliance the diff various routes the technical teams were getting lots of queries the sales teams were getting lots of queries so there was a desire to put something together
00:49:51 together which would help people understand i think with that bca guidance note which had come out earlier exactly what that meant and what were the what were the four routes to compliance and that's what we set out to
00:50:02 compliance and that's what we set out to try and
00:50:02 try and educate people on you say four routes to compliance do you mean three um well the the this one gets mixed up with two sometimes so i think that's the
00:50:14 sometimes so i think that's the four but with the with the desktop studies is a fourth yeah right but the well we can we can perhaps look at this a little a little bit more closely later on uh when you were uh
00:50:26 uh when you were uh appointed to this role and you you say you you took over or you started kingspan's fire safety compliance campaign
00:50:34 campaign um that was in relation to k-15 in particular what um what did you look at in by reference to previous tests
00:50:45 in by reference to previous tests underlying documents email runs test reports classification reports for clay 15
00:50:53 clay 15 when developing the fire safety compliance campaign you refer to um so i think the program has started and we're one of the key marketeers and
00:51:05 and we're one of the key marketeers and started to talk to the technical team to understand what the
00:51:09 the what the regulations were it was very much driven by what the technical team understood at the time of what the regulations were and what the bca guidance met meant and so we were looking at that
00:51:21 meant and so we were looking at that from the
00:51:22 from the from the information provided by the technical team and what did the technical team tell you about k-15 and its test history um so i understood there was a a an
00:51:35 um so i understood there was a a an older test from 2005 there was another test which was done um in i think 2014
00:51:47 done um in i think 2014 and there was a program ongoing to continue with the testing plan uh you say you understood there was an older test from 2005. let's just look at that a bit more closely when did
00:51:59 look at that a bit more closely when did you understand or learn that there was a 2005 test i don't know exactly when but it would have been while we were developing that um that roots to compliance document okay did you start developing the routes to compliance documents
00:52:10 to compliance documents on your appointment in november i think you did already it had already started there i took it took it over right who started it um i think well there was a marketeer
00:52:21 um i think well there was a marketeer reshma
00:52:22 reshma redundant started to work with iva and tony i think to start it off okay so coming back to your evidence a minute ago that you
00:52:33 ago that you uh you you [Music]
00:52:38 understood that there was an older test from from 2005 did you discuss that test with anybody or see the data from that test or the test report
00:52:50 test report the bre test report not at that time it was at that time was that
00:52:56 i didn't think i needed to i was relying on the information being provided by the teams right did you discuss the 2005 report with anybody
00:53:08 the 2005 report with anybody not at that time was it not important for you really to understand the 2005 report given that it was well let me just ask you did you look and see
00:53:18 and see how k15 was being marketed when you came when you took over this role yes i did yes part of that and what marketing
00:53:29 did yes part of that and what marketing documents did you look at so there was the document in place at the time i think was the 2011 the data sheet version of the literature yes we don't need to look at it but
00:53:40 need to look at it but you recall that that referred specifically to a bs 841 four part one test in 2005. yes i answered anything so so when you took over the role you would have
00:53:52 took over the role you would have known straight away that there was a bs eight four one four part one test for 2005
00:53:58 2005 for kingsman k15 that's correct yes did you
00:54:01 you ask anybody a little bit more about that or no why is that it was already in place and i was moving i was looking to move forward and i wasn't looking back at all given that you were embarked upon
00:54:13 given that you were embarked upon a fire safety compliance campaign as you describe it and looking to understand the bca's technical guidance nate 18 from june 2014 as you've just explained i'd just like to understand a bit more about
00:54:25 just like to understand a bit more about why you didn't involve yourself a little bit more about understanding precisely how the test had taken place and what did it what it involved because i didn't think i needed to you know the information was there the
00:54:36 know the information was there the experts were there in the technical team right what about the july 2014 test you've referred to you said there was a 2014 test for k-15
00:54:47 was a 2014 test for k-15 similarly did you look at the detail of that what was tested the test reports for that
00:54:51 for that no i did not in the marketing role right
00:55:02 who did you work with predominantly on this
00:55:05 this fire safety compliance campaign after it started after your involvement started in november 2017. so it would have been a reshma from the marketing team right and then it would have been i ivar and
00:55:17 and then it would have been i ivar and tony primarily from the technical team right now we'll come back to some of this materials later on i think but uh just moving on in your career you were then i think appointed to a new role
00:55:29 then i think appointed to a new role as head of technical and marketing great britain in may 2015 weren't you yes that's correct uh
00:55:37 uh and when you were appointed did your marketing responsibility continue as it had
00:55:42 had it did so can we take it from that that in addition the the technical was an addition a super addition to that role it was what technical was the technical aspect
00:55:53 aspect added to your role as head of marketing because tony millichat who had been head of technical left kingspan in may 2015. that's correct i see in in your role at your new role
00:56:05 in in your role at your new role um is it right that you thereafter held overall responsibility for the entire technical side of the business um not the whole technical side because
00:56:17 um not the whole technical side because because there's two elements to technical
00:56:19 technical there's technical applications which is what
00:56:22 what tony was in charge of and then there's technical processing so previously when malcolm rochefort was technical director
00:56:33 technical director he oversaw both sides of that and tony would have reported him from the application side of it and when malcolm left
00:56:44 and when malcolm left that role got split out into different people so i think gwyn davis took on the processing side of that and tony scott eventually when he was
00:56:56 tony scott eventually when he was recruited took on the um the sort of r d element of it and then the um application side sat with tony and then subsequently over
00:57:09 sat with tony and then subsequently over to me
00:57:10 to me i see so those individuals you've referred to um gwen davis um uh and mr scott they were reported directly to you no no they're senior directors they were
00:57:22 directors they were group sorry divisional directors oh i see which was the same level that malcolm i see malcolm i see so you you i said did you then report to to them no i reported
00:57:33 them no i reported uh to richard burnley okay but they they were senior to you but they were involved in something but you didn't report to them and they didn't report to you that's correct right that comes i'm slightly puzzled by
00:57:44 right that comes i'm slightly puzzled by that but
00:57:45 that but but um did that does that mean that they were well what sort of relationship in terms of the uh corporate structure did you have with um for example gwyn davis um well open relationship
00:57:59 um well open relationship no i mean i don't mean possible i mean i meant professionally but in response in responsibility terms it's probably better if i try to explain the structure so we've got that divisional team where malcolm rushford
00:58:12 team where malcolm rushford covered two roles in that divisional team which was well three really was r d processing and applications and then when he left that got split up so processing and
00:58:23 up so processing and r d got split up and there wasn't a divisional director then responsible for applications right so applications just sat down then with
00:58:34 so applications just sat down then with the head of technical role when you refer to applications until to be clear what you mean and so applications would be understanding how a product would go
00:58:46 understanding how a product would go into a roof a floor or a wall i see those type of applications where you would put it yes i follow so you actually have somebody responsible for deciding where a product would go on a building
00:58:58 where a product would go on a building yes appropriateness for that place correct right and who was in charge of applications uh when you occupied your role from may 2015 of head of technical and markets so
00:59:10 2015 of head of technical and markets so that would be my role that would be your role yes right uh now how often did you meet with the technical team from may 2015.
00:59:22 so i try and sit down with the technical team on a monthly basis but you know i saw them more regularly than that of open door yeah policy and
00:59:33 yeah policy and right and you say open door was the office
00:59:36 office uh an open plan office where you sat and could easily yes after tony left i moved into his i was on a different floor when i was in the marketing team but tony left i went into his office
00:59:50 i see and these meetings with the technical team were they face to face or were they remote no generally face to face right and when you met the technical team did
01:00:02 and when you met the technical team did you brief yourself first did you have a did you look at documents plans reports before meeting the technical team
01:00:15 before meeting the technical team generally what i would do is i'd get them to just update me on the key areas they were working on and then i'd use that as an agenda moving forward for the next for the next meeting so when you became head of
01:00:26 meeting so when you became head of technical what processes were in place if any to ensure that the accurate technical advice was being provided by technical advisors working on the front line if i can put it that way dealing with customers so there was um
01:00:40 dealing with customers so there was um there's different levels of advisor you've got your front line advisor if you like so that would be the entry level role so they would get before they were allowed to answer calls on their own so to speak
01:00:53 answer calls on their own so to speak they'd go through a period of training with the more senior members of that team and the manager running the team and then once they'd got to a certain
01:01:05 and then once they'd got to a certain level
01:01:06 level they were then slowly fed into answering calls on their own and generally that would be monitored by somebody else listening in for the first period of time until they've got confidence they thought they
01:01:18 they've got confidence they thought they knew what they were doing and then they would be on their own that that process can take
01:01:23 can take quite a long time um longer now than than
01:01:26 than first because of the number just here number of products that we now manufacture but who would probably say sorry who would do the monitoring that you just referred to
01:01:34 to so that would be the senior team leaders or the um
01:01:38 or the um the manager right did you make any changes to the way in which um the advice was being given the structure that you just referred to when you entered the role in two things
01:01:49 when you entered the role in two things not on the technical frontline advice team
01:01:51 team right how did you as head of technical satisfy yourself that customers were being given accurate advice by kingspan about the use of kingspan products just by relying on that on that process
01:02:02 just by relying on that on that process and the
01:02:04 and the management of that process by the line manager you let them get on with it yeah you didn't spot check that they were doing was right or no i mean the other direct way my role was very managerial
01:02:15 was very managerial you know some of the detailed technical information they'll be providing they would they'd be more knowledgeable on it than than i would in detail so my main role was on the
01:02:26 in detail so my main role was on the sort of
01:02:26 sort of managing that team rather than understanding the you know the finite technical detail and did that team report back to you regularly via the
01:02:37 report back to you regularly via the manager
01:02:38 manager and if there were any difficulties being encountered by frontline technical advisors
01:02:43 advisors from customers about applications would that filter up to you it could do if it couldn't get resolved do you remember whether there were any particular difficulties after may 2015 indeed after november 2014 when you were
01:02:56 indeed after november 2014 when you were appointed ahead of marketing about k-15 and its use over 18 meters not not in the marketing role in a technical role there were definitely queries coming in which i knew um
01:03:11 queries coming in which i knew um we were struggling to answer the team but the teams were struggling to answer and
01:03:15 and that's when i think that they'd set up a a separate high-rise um inbox so that either and and the project team could answer those questions and more senior
01:03:27 answer those questions and more senior people can answer those questions when was that
01:03:29 was that i think tony set it up but so it was in place when when i took over i don't know exactly the date but so that there was when you came to the role in may 2015 there was a high-rise inbox already set up for quite
01:03:40 inbox already set up for quite questioning i believe so yeah and were there questions specifically about k15 yes that would have made it yes if the only one really recommended did you ask why it was necessary or had to be
01:03:51 why it was necessary or had to be necessary
01:03:52 necessary to establish a high-rise inbox for k-15 i i asked really why what the issues we were getting who did you ask questions that would
01:04:03 who did you ask questions that would have been either meredith would have been the main what did he tell you fine point of contact um and he he would say things like you know they don't understand the routes to compliance they're asking if we've got retrospective
01:04:15 retrospective um applied products on a building asking for
01:04:19 for information and test evidence and so and he was providing that that data right so you let's be clear you had a conversation or conversations with
01:04:31 conversation or conversations with either meredith about um
01:04:37 about um quest customers asking questions about um information and test data about k-15 could you remember when those
01:04:48 about k-15 could you remember when those conversations took place um there wouldn't have been long after after i started because it was something that either was was very busy on started in which role in the technical head of technical roles so that would have been
01:05:00 have been may 15 not before no correct that's right
01:05:03 right do you know how either meredith was providing data um as an understood they'd got um a sort of standard set of um responses
01:05:14 a sort of standard set of um responses that they were using um and usually just taking it on a project query by query basis you see a standard set of data did you what is that is that like a template
01:05:25 what is that is that like a template yeah a standard response which they would then mold to suit the particular application i see
01:05:31 i see and that did you look at that standard response yourself is it a right it's a dot it's a script is it a document which tells you what to say
01:05:40 say um usually i've done an email yes i don't think i looked at it to any great detail at the time did you not familiarize yourself with this document when you came into your role in may 2015.
01:05:50 2015. i don't recall getting into that the granularity of that to start with right did i either merely ever discuss whether that
01:06:02 standard set of data as you call it a standard response was accurate
01:06:09 sorry did i meredith ever seek to have a discussion with you about whether that standard response was accurate no
01:06:21 was accurate no he would have i would have i would assume that it was accurate from his right discussions with me right and did you were you concerned
01:06:33 and did you were you concerned that there was a pattern of customers asking about k-15 and its appropriateness for use over 18 meters to such an extent that it was necessary to set up a designated inbox
01:06:44 designated inbox did that concern you it did concern me i wanted to try and understand what was what was happening and how did you go about understanding what was happening i went to see a couple of customers um at one stage
01:06:58 a couple of customers um at one stage i think it would have been maybe july just to go down and speak to them about what their their issues were right um and it was generally around the fact that we've now got we've put
01:07:10 the fact that we've now got we've put we've put k15 into the application and we need we now need we're now looking for some
01:07:19 for some evidence to say that it was it was okay to do that because either the nhbc was questioning it and it was those types of conversations so by july 15 at the very latest is it can
01:07:30 by july 15 at the very latest is it can we take it that this was a significant a significant enough problem for you to leave the office and go and talk to customers
01:07:36 customers about specific projects i wanted to understand what was yeah what iva was facing
01:07:40 facing i see and what which who are these customers can you identify them well i think one was one was sisk we saw two on the same day and i can't remember what the other one was
01:07:51 what the other one was sisk sisk yes isk that they're maybe wrong here but are they um
01:07:57 they um contractors yes they might be yeah and you can't remember the name of the other one
01:08:02 one no i went down with um mark swift from there was a cool firm sales manager right and
01:08:09 right and where were these projects london do you know where meetings were in london do you know where no i can't remember where right face-to-face meetings yes do you remember whether they were
01:08:20 remember whether they were set up by email or whether there was a response a thank you a a debrief afterwards by email
01:08:28 i can't i can't recall okay now when tony miller chat left was there a handover process there was uh i think a month of uh
01:08:40 there was uh i think a month of uh a month of time allocated to handover right
01:08:44 right and uh did he actually give you a file and hand it to you and say this is what you need to look at to take on your role let's go through it together did anything like that happen no we just we were in different offices
01:08:57 no we just we were in different offices at the time both very busy so we didn't sit down all that
01:09:01 that often but we just sat down and i was trying to understand particularly the front line team had no experience of the the frontline team so we were just generally caught up are you generally
01:09:15 generally caught up are you generally caught up
01:09:16 caught up did he express any particular concerns or raise any particular problems with you
01:09:26 about products yes about products no about anything else um i think you've got concerns over iva and how iva was performing so he
01:09:37 iva and how iva was performing so he he sort of just told me to watch out for that and one of the reasons why i wanted to go and
01:09:41 to go and see what um what he was dealing with and he was concerned with the workload that was coming through right you said concert you say you you wanted to go and see what he was dealing with
01:09:52 to go and see what he was dealing with i'm just interested in this visit to sisk because we i i am told have not seen any any documents about that at all can you remember
01:10:01 remember doing the best you can whether there were any email communications with cisc or about cisc internally no i can't i can't recall you wouldn't have set up a meeting and done it all by telephone i imagine
01:10:13 and done it all by telephone i imagine ivor had set the meeting up so it was iva and mark swift had set the meeting up mark swift yes right
01:10:23 did tony miller chap give you any information about the history of fire testing on k15 during the handover
01:10:33 not that i can recall what about any uh past problems concerns with the nhbc or
01:10:41 or on nhbc's part did he discuss that with you
01:10:45 you no but i was um i was sort of i got a vague awareness of the issue that the sort of recent issue with um the nhbc i was copied into a
01:10:56 with um the nhbc i was copied into a couple of the very early emails around that so that was when i was
01:11:01 was in the marketing role i think it might have been
01:11:04 have been and so i understood a little bit about that
01:11:09 that but not into the the detail which in fault
01:11:12 fault involved afterwards and we may come to that later in due course but did mr miller mention any complaints or problems coming from customers such as wintec or lake smear
01:11:23 as wintec or lake smear two names no i wasn't aware of wintertick or lake smears complaints now moving forward in your career coming back to that um you were then appointed in may 2019
01:11:34 um you were then appointed in may 2019 i think weren't you to uh the post of director of technical marketing and regulatory affairs for kingspan great britain
01:11:43 britain is that right that's correct yes and was that a main board position no that's still within the gb uk right team gb team so you're not on the main board no
01:11:54 main board no no was there a competition for that role do you remember no i don't believe there was do you know who made the decision to appoint you in addition to your roles as head of or director of technical and marketing
01:12:06 director of technical and marketing a director of regulatory affairs for kingspan ralph mannion who's a current md i'm sorry sorry ralph manuel ralph mannion yes okay
01:12:18 ralph manuel ralph mannion yes okay now do you know uh um
01:12:26 so he made that decision did did you have a discussion with him an interview with him or did you just get told by him no we had a discussion what was the was that a pre-existing post
01:12:38 that a pre-existing post no it's it's a it's a new role did he tell you why it was being created i think just in recognition of um efforts
01:12:47 efforts to date i see recognition of your efforts today yes so i see so being appointed to head of regulatory affairs was as it were a reward for your efforts well i was basically i'd already already
01:12:59 well i was basically i'd already already undertaken that work right so i was managing um two two people by then who were looking at uh
01:13:07 at uh regulatory and affairs can you just tell us what uh efforts you were being rewarded for or recognized your word
01:13:18 recognized your word for in in the arena of regulation um so we are taking one of the um
01:13:29 it was a sap advisor a very experienced technical person and i wanted to start to make sure that we got we got brexit coming along we knew brexit was coming along
01:13:41 coming along and i wanted to have somebody in post who could understand the regulations around the products as a whole
01:13:48 whole and not just any one particular product and also
01:13:52 and also some of the more technical details around things like internal wall insulation external wall insulation there's a lot of other things we need to consider other than fire
01:14:03 consider other than fire within those types of applications so and he was in that so i bought him on in that and he was representing us at the cpa technical meetings for example and on other areas
01:14:14 example and on other areas and then we've taken on somebody to look at the sort of public affairs and look at the wider scope of the industry who was this person this
01:14:25 the industry who was this person this spa advisor uh the subadvisor was john jonathan ducker right okay well we may come back to that uh in due course but this is 2000 this is may 2019
01:14:37 is may 2019 isn't it correct so this is after is this right after the hackett review yes consultation in relation to that yes now um
01:14:49 did you do work in relation to kingspan's consultation response to the hackett review yes it was a team
01:14:58 approach right okay but we'll come back to that i think perhaps later can we get your second statement please i'd like to go to page 30 within it and you say on page 30 at paragraph 4.42
01:15:11 and you say on page 30 at paragraph 4.42 as a result of the grenfell inquiry and my subsequent investigations i became concerned that two of the bs-8414 tests referenced in kingspan's marketing literature for k-15
01:15:22 literature for k-15 may have used non-standard k15 in the test
01:15:25 test these were the 2005 test where it appears the product was made from old technology and the first 2014 terracotta test which may have been produced for a development project for improved
01:15:36 development project for improved lambda performance when did your investigations into those problems or issues begin i think we started to look at that probably just around the time we became
01:15:49 probably just around the time we became core participants to the inquiry and so that started the investigation into
01:15:55 into everything that was surrounding k15 and all of its historical testing and uh and marketing which is what fed into the obviously the witness statements on our evidence today can you
01:16:06 statements on our evidence today can you be a bit more precise about dates
01:16:14 no i can't recall exactly when what was the reason for starting those investigations you refer to i think to provide evidence to the inquiry
01:16:25 to provide evidence to the inquiry right so is it the but for the inquiry you wouldn't have started the investigations i think to the degree which we have done uh that
01:16:35 uh that no we probably wouldn't right now we're going to go into this in in some detail in due course um mr pogita but is it your evidence that before undertaking these investigations
01:16:46 before undertaking these investigations in order to assist the inquiry you yourself were not aware not aware of any inconsistencies with fire testing or questions about whether the results of fire testing were genuinely
01:16:57 of fire testing were genuinely representative of the k-15 product then being sold on the 2005 test i did become aware in i think 2016 some
01:17:08 i did become aware in i think 2016 some point in 2016 that the description of the cladding panel seemed to be incorrect and also that it was confirmed to me
01:17:22 and also that it was confirmed to me that it was done on old technology so that we understood prior to that in indeed
01:17:30 indeed and that's why i'm asking you the question really you see a paragraph 4.42 you say that it was a result of the grantful inquiry and your subsequent investigations that
01:17:42 and your subsequent investigations that you became concerned as you say that the bs 8414 tests referenced in kingspan's marketing literature for k-15 may have used non-standard k-15 in the test
01:17:53 test you don't say there that you'd known that fact at least as a basic fact in 2016 do you i do say that elsewhere you do say that elsewhere you might come to this
01:18:04 elsewhere you might come to this statement my question is why you don't say it
01:18:06 say it there
01:18:09 probably because i know i know i explain about it later on or in a different part of the witness statement
01:18:19 well can you just help me is that first sentence
01:18:23 sentence correct or is it incorrect i think maybe the word concerned is the key word there when i became aware of it in 2016 i wasn't i wasn't concerned
01:18:37 2016 i wasn't i wasn't concerned about it i understood what it was i thought i understood what it was and i wasn't concerned by it
01:18:45 you see we'll look at this in a moment but it's not until your third statement in october two thousand and
01:18:55 sorry september 2020 so some weeks ago only that you actually refer to becoming aware of this discrepancy in 2016
01:19:06 this discrepancy in 2016 and what i'd really like to know is why that fact
01:19:09 that fact doesn't appear in either of your first two statements and indeed a paragraph 4.42 is it appears to be contradicted can you explain that
01:19:21 no i think this was just our my response to
01:19:24 to that particular question um i've no attempt to hide that i was aware of it earlier than then well it's it's a it's an odd sentence i have to suggest to you
01:19:35 have to suggest to you because it does suggest that although you use the word concerned it does suggest that in fact you didn't know about the discrepancy that you referred to there until you started looking as a result of
01:19:46 until you started looking as a result of the grenfell tower inquiry investigations that might wasn't my intention to right but you say inference i see so when we read paragraph 4.42 is it we should say
01:19:58 paragraph 4.42 is it we should say you knew about it but only became concerned after the inquiry had begun and your investigations as a result yes
01:20:11 now let's look a little bit more closely together if we can at the 2005 test
01:20:19 2005 test and just to put a figure in your in your mind this is test number 220876 it's a number that comes up a lot in documents and i just want to fix it in your mind and indeed
01:20:31 your mind and indeed mine and just to give you the factual um summary of it it's right isn't it i think that on the 31st of may 2005 kingspan undertook a bs 8414 part
01:20:44 kingspan undertook a bs 8414 part one test so masonry on a system at the bre
01:20:48 bre using k15 and a cement particle board correct that's reports this yeah and as i say we have the report is 220876 and the test report itself is dated the
01:20:59 and the test report itself is dated the 8th of december 2005. and i'll just read the reference into the record it's bre 402511 and there's a classification report in september 2015. it's kin
01:21:11 september 2015. it's kin 50134 if people want to look at that as we go now i just want to ask you first
01:21:18 first um about the k15 used in the 2005 test and i apologize in advance we're going to be jumping around between your witness statements as we do this process so bear with me can we look first at your first
01:21:29 can we look first at your first statement please at kin50496 and go to page 12
01:21:38 and we look at paragraph 4.13 a now you say that as at the supply date this is
01:21:45 this is may or june 2015 that's the date of supply
01:21:49 supply of k-15 to the grenfell tower site
01:21:54 you say king spaniard commissioned bs841 for test and classification reports for the following bs8414 tests of systems incorporating k15 a bs 8414 part 1 2002
01:22:07 a bs 8414 part 1 2002 test on a phenolic insulated rain screen system test report number 220876 stated 8th december 2005. the system tested included k15 with a uac
01:22:18 uac manufactured cement particle board rain screen
01:22:22 screen fixed to an aluminium range railing system the tested system satisfied the br 135 classification criteria however it appears that a formal report to certify this was not commissioned
01:22:33 to certify this was not commissioned until 2015. now you say nothing more in this statement your first statement october 2018 about that test and nothing about any inconsistencies or regular or
01:22:45 about any inconsistencies or regular or irregularities with it do you no i was just purely stating there what was in the evidence of the supply date would have been on the report right now this is of course late 2018
01:22:58 now this is of course late 2018 but at this stage of course you knew because you told us that you'd name that since 2016 that uh there was a a a at least a question mark about whether the k-15
01:23:09 question mark about whether the k-15 tested
01:23:10 tested was the k-15 now being sold it had been sold after 2006. so my question is why didn't you refer to that in paragraph 413 there i think we were doing our investigations and we needed to be sure
01:23:21 needed to be sure that although there was you know we thought it could have been all tech and new tech we needed to be sure exactly what it was right why not just say we're because we have this concern we're still
01:23:32 because we have this concern we're still investigating we'll come back to you i think i was just putting what was in evidence at the time for people to see at the time of the supply not what was known later right well let's track it
01:23:43 known later right well let's track it through um you then go to the same test that you refer to it in your as you refer to it in your second statement let's look at that and that's october 2019
01:23:53 2019 18th of october 2019 page 94 please uh paragraph 10.30 there under the heading 2005 ps8414 test you say as i've explained above i was not
01:24:04 as i've explained above i was not involved in the 2005 bsa414 test but during my time as head of technical i became aware that the k-15 being produced at this time may have been manufactured from a process referred to
01:24:15 manufactured from a process referred to as
01:24:15 as old technology quotes i was not aware as to when
01:24:18 to when the product manufactured and sold on the market changed from old technology to the current product or whether there was any significant difference between the two processes or in the performance fire or otherwise of the resulting products
01:24:29 of the resulting products however as a result of information which has come to light as a result of this inquiry
01:24:33 inquiry i understand that new technology may have been employed in the production of k-15 at pembridge from september 2006 and then you go on to say at page 95 if
01:24:44 and then you go on to say at page 95 if we can just turn the page at paragraph 1033 there at the last sentence you say given the change in technology however kingspan has removed the 2005
01:24:56 however kingspan has removed the 2005 bs8414
01:24:57 bs8414 test report from its website do you know when the 2005 test report was removed from kingspan's website i think it was
01:25:10 march 2019 march yes so some six months before this witness statement which is october yes right
01:25:25 and the reason you give is the change in technology from old to new
01:25:32 when the decision was made was uh well who made the decision that's the first question the decision about to withdraw the test from the website
01:25:43 from the website i think it was a a group decision from the team involved in the inquiry that with what we understood then about that test it was prudent to withdraw withdraw it from the
01:25:54 prudent to withdraw withdraw it from the website
01:25:55 website right now who was in that team um well gwen davis is part of that team our lawyers group council part of that team john
01:26:07 group council part of that team john garbett
01:26:08 garbett is part of that team right and um [Music]
01:26:12 [Music] who in in the corporate sense made the decision to remove the test report from the website he actually made the ultimate decision within kingspend
01:26:23 within kingspend to take it down i would say that probably from a corporate sense would be look endowed uh right it was is there a report
01:26:31 report about the recommendations and the findings
01:26:36 findings which led to that decision i think there are some
01:26:40 are some some notes on that from the um with the lawyers
01:26:43 lawyers i've got well
01:26:47 are there any notes within the company that lead to the decision
01:26:55 not that i can specifically right clear about this are you telling us that the uh decision-making process
01:27:07 the uh decision-making process was all all done as a result of legal advice or as part of legal advice being given it's important i know that i think they were certainly involved in a lot of the work
01:27:20 certainly involved in a lot of the work obviously post or involvement within the inquiry right
01:27:26 i i whilst and i don't want to know about the legal advice uh because and that's not right you should tell me and you indeed can't so be careful what you say here but what i want to know is whether there are any documents which
01:27:39 is whether there are any documents which show the decision being made as a result of the legal advice being given i'm not 100 sure right
01:27:50 but it's right to think that the change in technology from altenew was something that had been known to kingspan in the 11 years
01:27:57 11 years that the 2000 test report had been used by kingspan up to that date that's correct is that not a concern to you at the time
01:28:10 march 2019 um not really in that really because from what i understood and still
01:28:21 because from what i understood and still we do understand that the difference between
01:28:24 between the technologies is is relatively small it's not a big change in the chemistry it was more of a change in the processing of the product
01:28:35 processing of the product to ensure we could make it more effectively and efficiently and that's how i understood and and still do to quite a large extent the the degree of the difference between old
01:28:47 the degree of the difference between old and new tech
01:28:50 well we'll come to explore that in in due course but it was sufficiently important wasn't it for a decision to be made at the highest level to remove this long-standing test report from
01:29:02 this long-standing test report from kingspan's website yes i think it was out of an abundance of
01:29:07 of caution on it i think would we classify it
01:29:11 it as a small change or a large change and i think you know on balance we felt the team felt that it would be it would be a fairly significant change so
01:29:22 so in the process not so much in the product but it would then as a result felt it was it was different enough to no longer require
01:29:33 no longer require rely on it now if we go to your third witness statement
01:29:39 kin-3022610 and page 52 please let's look together at paragraph 7.1 the top of that page and uh you're asked the question there's a bit of a run-up to it but what
01:29:52 there's a bit of a run-up to it but what when specifically did this information come to your knowledge and that's about the change and your answer is i think i first became aware that the 2005 bsa414 test may have used a different version of k-15
01:30:04 a different version of k-15 than sold post 2006 to towards the end of 2016
01:30:10 of 2016 my detailed understanding of the issue started to develop from the end of 2018 onwards
01:30:16 onwards now if you were aware of the fact that the 2005 test had been undertaken with a different version of k15
01:30:26 at any stage in 2016 even without the full details why is there no mention of that in your first witness statement which is october 2018
01:30:37 october 2018 because again i wasn't really fact we suspected it was um green day we suspected it was if it was in 2005 so again needed to be
01:30:48 2005 so again needed to be sure of exactly when the crossover was but i did know that there was a potential that was in old technology
01:31:04 so does it follow that from at some point in 2016 you say towards the end of that year
01:31:12 that year you'd been aware that kingspan was continuing to rely on a large-scale bs-8414 test fire test that did not represent or might not have represented the product then being sold
01:31:24 represented the product then being sold to the market that's correct
01:31:28 but nonetheless you allowed that product to continue to be sold as if it were until well until 2020
01:31:39 well until 2020 in fact
01:31:43 yes because you know i was advised by um green davis that the performance in fire
01:31:50 fire would not have been any difference i didn't have any concerns about its performance in fire just that it was a processing change and part of the process of development
01:32:01 and part of the process of development of
01:32:02 of of the k-15 product so i wasn't concerned
01:32:05 concerned by it so
01:32:08 by it so that's why i continued to rely on it right
01:32:13 right you you say you weren't concerned by it
01:32:19 i want to explore that but just but other than removing the 2005 test report from kingspan's own website did you actually do anything in 2016 or after 2016 until
01:32:32 in 2016 or after 2016 until march 19 to have the test report removed from circulation or withdrawn no i didn't did you do anything in 2016 or after that year to investigate how it
01:32:44 or after that year to investigate how it could be
01:32:45 could be that for 11 years perhaps 10 years or so up to that point k-15 was being sold to the market which was not the same product as had been the subject of the 2005 test
01:32:56 as had been the subject of the 2005 test no i didn't because it was you know i assumed it was common knowledge
01:33:01 knowledge within the organization it had been there for a long time and people you know had understood the changes a lot better than i during the the process so
01:33:10 so i didn't take any any further steps
01:33:15 you didn't take any further steps
01:33:19 once the grenfell tower fire had happened were you not concerned from june 2017 that customers were still buying k15 on
01:33:30 that customers were still buying k15 on the basis
01:33:31 the basis of a bs 8414 test which was a test done on a different product no because i didn't expect that there was any difference in in the fire performance it
01:33:42 difference in in the fire performance it wasn't something that you didn't expect there was any difference in performance did you actually
01:33:47 actually seek to get to the bottom of that question and have it absolutely and thoroughly answered we have as a team trying to do that as well and we're still
01:33:58 well and we're still still i'm still not convinced there is a large difference any difference in fire performance from the 2005 product and the product that we're producing today if as you say you weren't concerned that
01:34:10 if as you say you weren't concerned that there was any difference and you were able to continue selling it without withdrawing it why withdraw it then in march 2019 i think because from the website yeah
01:34:21 i think because from the website yeah exactly
01:34:22 exactly the team the team view was that even though
01:34:26 though the belief is that um there is no difference in fire that you know on reflection we should we should withdraw it from now on can you help me with this um i think you
01:34:38 can you help me with this um i think you said earlier and we've heard this even from other people that mr meredith was the man who was most uh involved in fire testing of products including k-15
01:34:51 fire testing of products including k-15 did you ever ask mr meredith about the relative performance of old technology and new technology in fire no i i didn't
01:35:02 fire no i i didn't wasn't he the obvious person to ask well in 2016 he wasn't he wasn't in the business no oh you didn't ever ask him earlier um i don't recall any discussions
01:35:13 um i don't recall any discussions specifically about old technology and new technology
01:35:21 all right thank you once you discovered in 2016
01:35:27 in 2016 that what was being sold was not what had been tested
01:35:32 did you take any steps to inform the market
01:35:35 market by revising your product literature no i didn't why not because i i can say i
01:35:42 i wasn't concerned i thought the fire performance was the same and it was extensively the same product it was just produced in you know in a different method
01:35:52 method and what precisely led you to the view that it was the same fire performance just by discussions with um with gwyn davis for example who believed at the time i think still does
01:36:03 believed at the time i think still does as well that the fire performance was always been a c s uh in the euro class of cs1 and to the best of your knowledge what was gwen
01:36:14 best of your knowledge what was gwen davis basing his information on uh just his experience i think he would have been around at the time of the technology transfer
01:36:25 technology transfer right why did you not seek either to take
01:36:29 take expert independent external advice about whether the fire performance was the same on the product being sold as it had been on the 2005 test or do a test
01:36:43 i i don't know where we would have gone to have got independent advice on the fire performance of the old technology did you realize from late 2016
01:36:54 did you realize from late 2016 that you were continuing to market k15 for use about compliant use above 18 meters
01:37:02 meters on the basis of the 2005 test which by then you knew had been done on a different product yes i was aware that was still in the literature yes and that was clearly misleading literature wasn't it
01:37:14 literature wasn't it i i don't think it was misleading certainly not deliberately i i checked out as far as i i could at the time
01:37:22 time um and that i was assured reassured that the fire performance was was the same so you say not deliberately we'll come to this but i just i feel i need to pursue this right now you say not deliberately but given that
01:37:33 you say not deliberately but given that you knew
01:37:35 you knew that the products were different and the customers did not it surely must have occurred to you that when they read the marketing literature relying on the 2005 test that they would be misled by
01:37:46 2005 test that they would be misled by that
01:37:48 that but different in what sense they you know they weren't different in the performance that they were looking at in terms of that fire test they were you know they were the same performance in fire
01:38:00 they were the same performance in fire so why not tell them candidly that although the 2005 test was done on a different product you do not believe that the new product
01:38:11 you do not believe that the new product would perform any differently so that the customer buying k15 for use above eight 18 meters would know precisely what it is they were buying that could have been a course of action
01:38:23 that could have been a course of action but not one that i did take no and i've got to suggest to you that you didn't take it deliberately you deliberately didn't take that step no i don't think i did deliberately not
01:38:34 no i don't think i did deliberately not take that step and you you decided for yourself that it didn't matter and let the customers believe that k-15 they were buying was based on a test on a product which
01:38:45 was based on a test on a product which was actually the same when it wasn't
01:38:50 i believe that we're getting the same performance from the product from the 2005 product that they were getting from the 2015 or 16 products and that was a belief based on no science
01:39:01 belief based on no science no independent assessment and no test not just on internal investigations internal discussions internal discussions correct mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very
01:39:14 moment yes i think it is thank you very much
01:39:14 much uh mr partnership we have a short break during each session and we'll take one now
01:39:19 now we'll uh come back at least 25 to 12 and i have to ask you on this occasion and indeed on others when you're out of the room please don't speak to anyone about your evidence or anything
01:39:29 anything relating to it of course all right thank you very much would you like to go the usher please
01:39:44 right 25 to 12 please
01:57:43 yes would you answer mr participator to come back in please thank you
01:57:55 [Music]
01:58:00 all right mr farges are ready to carry on i am thank you very much thank you chairman uh mr partners i'd like to go to your recently disclosed notebooks in uh
01:58:12 your recently disclosed notebooks in uh in respect of your reference to sisk can we go to kin30s24414 please
01:58:22 now this is part of or an extract from your
01:58:25 your notebook and at the head of the page we can see there's a date of the 15th of july
01:58:30 july which was the date of the next management meeting in glossop and then underneath that consultation responses
01:58:38 responses first few weeks iva missed meeting with sisk
01:58:41 sisk and bellway and then his other material there and a little bit lower down that page you can see um technical report question
01:58:53 um technical report question four page presentation on next steps reply to sisk where is it now uh my question about that is first of all was bellway the
01:59:04 that is first of all was bellway the other customer you went to see yes it was
01:59:06 was uh it looks as if mr uh meredith didn't go to either of those meetings is that right that's correct so did you go on your own i went with mark swift
01:59:17 i went with mark swift with mark swift what's the reference to technical report
01:59:22 so either would produce a monthly technical report and he hadn't been on time with the one at that particular time so that's what i was
01:59:33 particular time so that's what i was it's a question to for iva really where is where's your technical right was that anything to do with cisc no or bellwether no no it wasn't and what about the four page presentation on next steps was that about cisco beltway no and then reply to cisc where is it
01:59:45 no and then reply to cisc where is it were you expecting to be to to send a written reply to sisk yeah i was expecting either to send a written did you get one from him i don't recall did you send one to them
01:59:56 did you send one to them i suspect we would have done because we did
01:59:59 did you know the the issue was resolved eventually do you recall that whether there was a document to which you were going to reply as this note indicates i don't recall
02:00:11 this note indicates i don't recall right what was the upshot of your meetings with sisk and bellway
02:00:20 i i think whatever their concerns were at the time we you know they were resolved at some point in the future i don't think there was any any follow-up on those there were
02:00:30 were project specific requests right now let's look at your first witness statement and go please to page 14 at paragraph 4.17
02:00:46 you say there prior to the supply date kingspan had access to copies of the following desktop studies for rain screen cladding systems incorporating k15 which were considered to be compliant with br135
02:00:57 considered to be compliant with br135 and then you set out six desktop studies done in and after 2014
02:01:03 2014 using k15 don't you yes yes and we can see over the page what those are
02:01:09 are um those are the those are the five there the sixth is all the first one is on the page before um would you agree that the 2005 test
02:01:20 um would you agree that the 2005 test is referred to in each of these six desktop reports to which you refer yes i would yeah let's look at two together
02:01:28 together um and the first one is the first street north that's back on the previous page it's the first of those to which you refer july 31st july 2014
02:01:42 refer july 31st july 2014 and you say this was a report commissioned from arab by carillion and assessed a system incorporating k-15 with either eurocloud architectural al pollock acm or cep petrarch stone
02:01:54 al pollock acm or cep petrarch stone rain screen and you referred to the report in the footnote there at footnote 16.
02:02:04 16. now let's look at the report it's a kin three zero is one zero nine seven four
02:02:17 and this is the first page of that report and if we go to page 11
02:02:25 we can see that under section 4.1 k15 is to be the insulation see that
02:02:33 see that yes yes uh and uh you can see that in the third box down insulation kingspan cool firm k15 and it's a c-section 5.3 and then if we
02:02:46 and it's a c-section 5.3 and then if we move on to page 15 under section 5.1
02:02:53 we can see there is a reference to the bs 8414 part 1 test from 2005. you can see that in the first part of the text there on the left hand side yes
02:03:03 side yes yes yes and then if we move on to page 17 and look at the second item down on that page we can see insulation you see it there 100 millimeters and 80 millimeters thick
02:03:15 100 millimeters and 80 millimeters thick kingspan k15 compared to 60 millimeters thick k15 used in test and the test there is the 8414 test in 2005 wasn't it yes and the point being made here is
02:03:26 yes and the point being made here is that the only difference between the k-15
02:03:28 k-15 used in the 2005 test and the k-15 to go into the first street north system was the increased thickness
02:03:37 yes yes page 18 please paragraph 5.3.3
02:03:49 and on
02:03:55 that page uh we can see um there i think it's better to see it in appendix a on page 27 and 28
02:04:06 appendix a on page 27 and 28 but 5.3 itself refers on page 19
02:04:12 to
02:04:15 the material k15 see that so properties under properties of insulation material and material makeup and underneath that
02:04:27 and material makeup and underneath that 5.3.2 the k15 board has been confirmed as a thermoset and then you've got a long description there about how it would perform in a fire
02:04:38 fire you see that and then the 476 tests parts
02:04:42 parts seven and six on the right hand side of the page in the box just pick that up there
02:04:50 and then if we look at appendix a which is referred to under paragraph 3.5.3.1
02:04:59 uh we on page 27 and 28.
02:05:09 we have appendix a schedule of kingspan responses to k-15 fire performance queries
02:05:14 queries and a1 if we go to page 28 is the information provided by kingspan the table below is a duplicate copy of the information requested from kingspan in regards to obtaining further
02:05:25 in regards to obtaining further information on the k-15 board performance in fire as previously mentioned a specific test data for the 100 mil board has been provided and if you look at the box on the right hand
02:05:36 if you look at the box on the right hand side of the page you can see that the tests are referred to
02:05:43 to and then if you look at the third well the one two three fifth fifth box down uh you could see that there's a reference to the bs eight four one four
02:05:54 reference to the bs eight four one four test details and results for 60 millimeters k15 c attached bre report uh you see that yes uh nothing there to indicate
02:06:05 indicate that the k-15 was different from the k-15 tested in that report is there not that i'm aware can you account for why neither arab nor carillion appear to know that the 2005 test was on
02:06:16 appear to know that the 2005 test was on a different k15 project product
02:06:23 because at the time we were still relying on that test for the for its use with the current product indeed
02:06:35 product indeed say do you accept that this test this desktop is actually worthless because the bs8414 test was on a different product no i think it is worthless because one like
02:06:46 think it is worthless because one like i've mentioned before the fire performance of the old technology and the current technology or new technology is uh is similar and we've also we've demonstrated that by a subsequent test
02:06:58 demonstrated that by a subsequent test on a
02:06:59 on a very similar system as similar as we could replicate with the current product and that also passes do you accept that those people who compiled this test were proceeding
02:07:10 proceeding on the assumption that the k-15 product tested in the 2005 test was the same as that going into the north street building yes do you accept and and you told us you
02:07:22 do you accept and and you told us you didn't know about this difference until 2016 but do you accept knowing what you know now
02:07:26 know now that that was misleading and in fact kingspan knew very well that it was selling kingspan k15 as a different product from what had been tested in the 2005 test
02:07:38 i don't think i said before it's not a different product it's essentially the same product it's still a phenolic foam which has got the same type of thickness for coating on it it's just a
02:07:49 thickness for coating on it it's just a process
02:07:50 process that was different so i think at the time you know the belief was that it was it was representative of the current product in terms of its fire performance particularly in a system test
02:08:02 particularly in a system test now when you made your statement your first statement in which this desktop appears
02:08:07 appears as one of six six examples this is october 2018 when you made this statement you knew by then that the k-15 being sold was different from the k-15 as tested
02:08:20 from the k-15 as tested why given that knowledge at the time of that statement did you identify this desktop but not qualify it by telling the inquiry that arab and carillion had proceeded on a
02:08:32 carillion had proceeded on a misapprehension as to precisely what the product was that was going on to first street
02:08:40 it hadn't crossed across my mind to do so
02:08:43 so i can't quite understand why it hadn't crossed your mind to do so given that you had been told two years previous that it was a different product
02:08:52 i don't like i said it isn't a different product it's a different process so my belief is it's the same potentially the same product manufactured in a different process i
02:09:03 manufactured in a different process i was going to ask you questions about one or two of these others do you accept also that in fact these desktops also proceed upon a fundamental misassumption as to
02:09:15 upon a fundamental misassumption as to precisely what k-15 was it
02:09:20 was it the reports don't tell you the difference between the um the processing of the product now they just reference its performance in that particular test system test that's all
02:09:32 test system test that's all right now we've seen that all right can you just help me give a moment um were you aware that there had been a change in the nature of the foil
02:09:43 the foil facer run about 2006
02:09:49 no as far as i wasn't aware the full face of thickness has remained the same from 2005 test which was a 20 i believe 25 micron and and
02:10:00 and and they introduced perforations didn't they in connection with the with the introduction of new technology yes yes i believe so did you consider whether the introduction of perforations might
02:10:12 introduction of perforations might affect the performance i don't believe the introductions of perforations has any effect
02:10:18 effect on the fire performance of the product in a large-scale system test
02:10:24 and what was the basis for that understanding i i believe that now and i probably would have believed that from when i started to understand exactly how that
02:10:35 i started to understand exactly how that test performs and what the requirements of that test are right thank you those desktop assessments were not
02:10:46 those desktop assessments were not withdrawn in 2019 were they
02:10:51 uh not as far as i'm aware now even though in march 2019 kingspan had decided to withdraw the test
02:11:00 test from its website that's correct so can you explain why having made that decision
02:11:07 decision kingspan did not write to each of the contractors or architects who had produced these desktop reports in reliance on the bsa four one four part one test from 2005 and tell them
02:11:19 part one test from 2005 and tell them that you had withdrawn that test from your website and why yes because what we wanted to do was to understand exactly what the implication might be of the differences if any in
02:11:30 might be of the differences if any in the performance of those products so we undertook a test program which i mentioned just to try and replicate it so that when we did go back to the fire engineers
02:11:42 did go back to the fire engineers with that evidence we got replication if you like test evidence on the current product or the new technology for them to make a judgment on whether
02:11:53 for them to make a judgment on whether the any um assessments or judgments that made in the past would still hold or whether they felt they were compromised enough to withdraw them what was the purpose of withdrawing the
02:12:06 what was the purpose of withdrawing the test report from your website on the one hand
02:12:09 hand but leaving these building owners who owns the these who owned these six buildings in the dark about precisely the basis on which it had been safe to
02:12:20 the basis on which it had been safe to apply
02:12:21 apply k15 i think uh to remove from the website was just ensure that any further assessments don't rely on that evidence anymore and
02:12:32 on that evidence anymore and obviously to in order to unders for them to understand the fire engineers and the building areas to understand the implication of the differences we needed to provide some you know test
02:12:43 we needed to provide some you know test evidence
02:12:44 evidence to support that so me just piece that together a little bit you withdrew the test report from the website because you knew it was no longer reliable yes that's what you just said i just
02:12:57 yes that's what you just said i just want to make sure i've understood it correctly
02:12:59 correctly just just because then people couldn't rely on it going forward exactly and that's because you thought that it was no longer reliable going forward
02:13:08 forward i guess correct but on the other hand you didn't tell the owners of the six buildings in respect of which desktop studies had been
02:13:16 been done that the reports the desktop reports that they had relied on safely to put k15 above 18 meters were also no longer reliable can you explain why you were prepared to
02:13:28 can you explain why you were prepared to withdraw the tests but not tell the building owners yeah because i think exactly why it was i think because there's still there's a belief that the reports are still reliable um because of the belief that the
02:13:40 um because of the belief that the product performance isn't that different if if different at all but that belief needed to have some basis of
02:13:49 basis of evidence so you know if we had just withdrawn the reports and said well we think it's the same would that have been enough and these reports and these buildings are already in existence that they're already there so
02:14:02 already there so the um the next action was to move forward and do some testing to satisfy ourselves that that statement that there is no implication can
02:14:13 implication can can be stood behind or if it proves that there was
02:14:17 there was then it you know it's a different conversation with the fire engineers
02:14:23 why not simply write to these building owners and tell them in the interim that these reports are not reliable that you're doing a retesting program and that they ought to know that
02:14:34 to know that in the interim and you'll report back to them as soon as you could once you had the results i i think we could have done but i don't know what benefit that would have done without any backup evidence
02:14:45 backup evidence well i suppose let me put it to you you don't know but let me put it to you that it would have informed the building owners
02:14:50 owners that the basis on which they had applied k-15
02:14:53 k-15 at the date or after the date of these desktop reports was potentially erroneous wouldn't it but that could have been a false
02:15:05 but that could have been a false potential
02:15:07 potential why didn't you trust them to make their own minds up about that because they can't make their minds up without any test evidence and needed test evidence to know whether that assumption is correct when kingspan
02:15:20 that assumption is correct when kingspan removed the 2005 test from its website did kingspan either on the website or elsewhere offer any reasons for doing so or did the test report simply just disappear one day
02:15:31 disappear one day we just we just took took them off just so that they couldn't be referenced any further and i'm taking it from the exchange we've just had about the desktops that
02:15:42 we've just had about the desktops that you didn't thereafter contact any building owners who owned buildings on which you had known that k15 had been applied and tell them that they were working on the basis
02:15:53 the basis of a misassumption as to what had been tested in 2005. no not until recently not until recently and when you say recently you mean the 23rd of october 2015 and 20
02:16:05 23rd of october 2015 and 20 correct
02:16:08 so when you refer to these six desktops into your 2018 statement you didn't reveal to the inquiry that you had known for some two years that k-15 the k-15 that is referred to in those tests as having passed that test
02:16:19 those tests as having passed that test was not the same as the k-15 that was used on those buildings clearly you didn't do that why is that so what was the question when was this evidence provided in my second witness statement your first witness statement
02:16:31 statement your first witness statement okay i'll rephrase the question why when you did your first witness statement and referred to these six desktops in october 2018 did you not reveal that you
02:16:43 october 2018 did you not reveal that you had known
02:16:43 had known for some two years by then that the k-15 referred to in these desktops was different from the k-15
02:16:51 k-15 that had been tested i think if we just wanted to be sure of the of the facts when did the tech exactly when did the technology change and what were the implications well what
02:17:03 and what were the implications well what was it that you didn't know in october 2018 when you did your statement that you that you knew in march 2019 which led you to withdraw the test reports i think
02:17:14 the test reports i think personally you know i didn't um i've said it before that you know i wasn't aware there was any difference in fire performance and so that's why i didn't i didn't consider it again
02:17:27 i didn't consider it again with any external organization nhbc bre bba lebc told that
02:17:37 told that k-15 has tested in 2005 was different from k-15 as applied from 2006. no not not at the time what we did do was
02:17:47 was contact the bba and ask them to be removed from the certificate and and also labc they were removed from their certification as well i think by april
02:17:58 april 2019 the labc certificate was was amended and we started the process with the bre
02:18:05 the bre at around the same time sorry bba not b.i i'm looking at the report you see by this point 2019 uh the grenfell tower fire was already
02:18:16 uh the grenfell tower fire was already some 20 months before that did it not occur to you particularly given that what we had seen with the grenfell tower fire
02:18:28 with the grenfell tower fire and the external fire spread did not occur to you that leaving out there uh k-15 on buildings with building owners thinking that it was safely passed a 2005 8414 test
02:18:41 was safely passed a 2005 8414 test was dangerous no i don't believe it it is dangerous i believe the performances um are the same the same material so it's
02:18:51 it's it's um it's more of a technicality over what exactly was tested rather than a difference in performance to give a concern over safety did it not occur to you that it was a
02:19:03 did it not occur to you that it was a matter of the gravest urgency if you were going to take that view to verify it with the most robust science possible
02:19:12 possible yes and that's why we undertook the testing program that we did and to do so as a matter of the extremist urgency yes and i think we did it in fairly quick time as well how can you account for the fact that
02:19:24 how can you account for the fact that about 18 months then passed between withdrawing the test of from the website in march 2019 withdrawing the test and the classification report only in october 2020 a matter of weeks ago
02:19:36 october 2020 a matter of weeks ago um because we undertook a series of tests um
02:19:39 tests um including an eight four one four which they take time to arrange and and do we have to investigate it and then we got the reports back which we could use to contact fire engineers which
02:19:51 use to contact fire engineers which would be useful for them i think in around
02:19:53 around february of 2020
02:20:00 we're going to come back to what happens in 2020 just shortly i just want to ask you about how you first became aware of the fact that the 2005 test used a different k-15 product from the product sold to the public from
02:20:12 from the product sold to the public from 2006.
02:20:14 2006. can we look at your third witness statement please which is the 18th of september 2020 this year at page 52 and look at paragraph 7.2
02:20:37 uh and here we have the question how did this information come to your knowledge and your answer is in 2016 gwen davis director of processing flagged the issue to me
02:20:47 to me as part of our discussions around trying to replicate the 2005 bs-8414 test for the testing of k115 as explained in paragraph 7.9 below
02:20:59 paragraph 7.9 below i was not concerned i'll read it all to you i was not concerned about the issue at this time and did not investigate it further given that insulation uk had been relying on the test for years and i was not aware of any indication that the change had any impact on the
02:21:10 that the change had any impact on the product's fire performance the issue was then drawn to my attention in 2018
02:21:15 in 2018 by insulation uk solicitors who have been advising insulation uk in relation to the grenfell tower inquiry now just looking at the first part of that sentence what what exactly did gwyn davis flag to
02:21:28 what what exactly did gwyn davis flag to you
02:21:29 you at the time so we were doing a second iteration of the low lambda
02:21:35 lambda development of the product which is phrased there was k115 and we wanted to we'd ask the bre how we could assess
02:21:48 bre how we could assess the performance of k115 against all the other tests evidence that we got in in the um armory at the time
02:22:00 in the um armory at the time and they'd suggested that the the 2005 test would be a good one to compare to and so we've done that we built a system as close as we could with the materials
02:22:12 as close as we could with the materials that were
02:22:12 that were now currently available and the k115 didn't didn't get the same result so i inquired to green as
02:22:24 so i inquired to green as could there be any difference between the products that i'm missing on it's mostly i think system differences and and that was where gwyn then came back and said well in 2005 that
02:22:36 and said well in 2005 that could well have been old technology but you wouldn't be seeing a difference in fire performance it was just a different process
02:22:50 it was just a different process right and that was the first time was it that you'd heard reference to old technology no old technology was you know a phrase used
02:22:59 used in the business commonly i would say i see
02:23:04 see was it the first this was therefore the first time that you'd find out that k-15 was a old technology is that right that will have the whole phenolic range changed from
02:23:16 changed from i believe from old tech to new tech right so
02:23:21 so you discovered i think that the 2005 that there had been a full scale fire test in 2005 i think you told us
02:23:32 fire test in 2005 i think you told us earlier in november 2014 when you took over your marketing role that's correct yes
02:23:36 yes so you knew they'd been a full-scale test
02:23:39 test uh at that point um given that you knew that as you've just told us uh the whole phenolic range changed from old tech to new tech
02:23:50 old tech to new tech did it did it not occur to you at that stage november 14 that in fact the k-15 being sold was new tech not old tech
02:24:03 i would have assumed it was new tech yes because it was right it was current production right and
02:24:09 and uh given that it was common knowledge that had been this change was it common knowledge that the change had happened in 2006
02:24:14 in 2006 no no what was the date i didn't have it i didn't have a date in mind it was just it had happened you know years years ago it happened years ago so given that it happened years ago
02:24:26 that it happened years ago you must have realized at some point when you realized that the test had been done in 2005 that the test had been done on old tech or did you think then that the test had been done on new tech
02:24:37 been done on new tech it could have been done on new tech i didn't know did you not explore that no the date no not until this until we were doing this retesting right now you were asked i think by the inquiry about the source of the
02:24:49 inquiry about the source of the information that you set out here and you you answered that in your third witness statement
02:24:53 statement in september this year um page 53
02:25:00 uh at
02:25:04 the next uh page and i misled you by that question i'm afraid in fact you you elaborate uh on what you've said rather than answering a further question and what you say here is this information well the question is
02:25:18 information well the question is sorry can we get back it's page 53 you say
02:25:27 that's it this information is not contained in specific documents see my answer to question b above the information came to my attention as part of the process of the document review and disclosure exercise undertaken to assist the grenfell tower
02:25:38 undertaken to assist the grenfell tower inquiry
02:25:39 inquiry see also the spreadsheet prepared to assist the inquiry which sets out all of the changes made in the production of k-15
02:25:44 k-15 which concert confirms this change at row seven
02:25:50 and uh you say the same thing at paragraph 10.30 of your second witness statement uh say i just want you to be clear if
02:26:01 uh say i just want you to be clear if you can mr partner with me did your awareness about the 2005 test using old technology k15 come about as a result of
02:26:10 result of it coming to your attention as part of the process of the document review and disclosure exercise for the inquiry as you say in paragraph 7.3
02:26:20 7.3 no i think the the fact that it was old technology was probably when uh the discussion i had with gwyn davies in 2016
02:26:29 in 2016 right what was it that came to your attention as part of the process of the document
02:26:34 document just exactly when the change occurred
02:26:40 right so it was i think it was september 2006 i think is the the date that it's recorded as changing from old tech to new tech right i see
02:26:53 so just to unpick this a little bit you learned about the fact that k-15 tested was different from mr davis in 2016 but you only found out about the date of the change as a result of reviewing documents to assist
02:27:05 result of reviewing documents to assist this inquiry have i got that right that's correct yeah i follow um now you say in this sentence this information is not contained in specific documents so i see my answer to question
02:27:16 documents so i see my answer to question b above the information came to my attention as part of the process of the document review and disclosure exercise undertaking to assist the grenfell inquiry
02:27:25 what documents exactly do you recall demonstrated to you that the change from old to new technology occurred in 2006 um so i didn't do the review itself in
02:27:37 um so i didn't do the review itself in terms of the detail that was done by by gwyn and
02:27:41 gwyn and his team and so it would have been his research into i'd imagine old tech lam meeting minutes um which then compiled into that
02:27:55 which then compiled into that kingspan document we've attached there right would you say in this sentence this information is not contained in specific documents the information came to my attention as part of the process of the document
02:28:06 part of the process of the document review and disclosure exercise if the information isn't contained in specific documents how could it come to your attention as part of the document review process and disclosure exercise undertaken to assist the inquiry well i
02:28:18 undertaken to assist the inquiry well i think the document review is just a phrase um and it was just the you know the investigations that were done with what evidence we could we could find back in that
02:28:29 back in that historical period well was it documents or wasn't to documents um there must be there must have been some
02:28:37 some documents which linked to this this change but it was just compiled and collated into this this one when you spoke to mr davis about this
02:28:48 when you spoke to mr davis about this when he flagged the issue to you in 2016 did he show you any documents or invites you to look yourself with any documents no did you ask for any
02:29:00 ask for any no did it not shock you or surprise you to learn that the kingspan k-15 that was being sold by kingspan at that point was not the same as a bit
02:29:11 at that point was not the same as a bit that had been tested or may not have been the same as tested in 2005. it didn't know because you know products progress and change through their their history so i
02:29:23 change through their their history so i would have just expected that that change had been controlled and through that that period of time i wouldn't have looked back any further well that great respect doesn't make a lot of sense
02:29:34 respect doesn't make a lot of sense did you ask him whether there had been a most a recent test say that people buying k15 and putting it on their buildings were doing so on the basis of an eight four one four test of what was going on to the building well in 2016 had been several recent
02:29:47 well in 2016 had been several recent tests right that anyway so i knew um the current product had been tested to eight four one four in different
02:29:59 system tests it's not quite an answer to my question you see what you're told by mr davis is that what's being summarizing it and
02:30:10 is that what's being summarizing it and tell me if this is an inaccurate summary that what is being sold by kingspan at that time 2016 was not what had been tested under the 2008 uh and five eight four one four test
02:30:21 test so did it not surprise you to learn that the product being bought by people was not the same product as had undergone a fire safety test 11 years previous
02:30:33 11 years previous no i don't think it did why is that
02:30:37 because there was an understanding that there wasn't a difference in the product although it was a different technology it was a different processing methodology the product itself
02:30:47 itself essentially is the same product we've been around this a number of times
02:30:54 but when you first heard about it did was it mr davis who said to you well there's been this change but don't worry about it
02:31:01 about it or did you come to the conclusion that you really shouldn't worry about it or do anything about it after after further discussions and investigation i think after my discussions with green i thought i don't need to do anything
02:31:13 i thought i don't need to do anything further with that right so does it come to this i'm just trying to piece this conversation together in my head as it were in real time
02:31:21 time he tells you that this there's a that what's being sold is different at that moment it did not occur to you that that was something irregular or surprising before we come on to the explanation was
02:31:32 before we come on to the explanation was the news not a shock to you
02:31:36 um i i don't think it was i don't recall exactly but i don't think it was and then how did the conversation go after that
02:31:46 um it was just about what was the difference and he explained that it was a different process and we we can process it faster and i was concerned about then how do we
02:31:57 and i was concerned about then how do we how do we move the k115 project forward is there a problem now with the k-115 material um that we're looking at is that not performing in the same
02:32:08 that not performing in the same manner as the current production gwyn davis was he is he a fire engineer no no can he does he have any fire safety qualifications
02:32:19 any fire safety qualifications not that i'm aware of no um did you have a discussion about uh what uh the fire safety implications of the changing process
02:32:31 the changing process might be only that the product performance that in the sort of small scale testing that we would do with was it was a euro class c then and it's
02:32:43 was it was a euro class c then and it's a euro class c now so in that respect the chemistry tells
02:32:48 tells tells them that there's not significant difference and then that euro class tells them there's not a significant difference now let's just examine that a bit further and go back a page please
02:32:59 bit further and go back a page please in this third witness statement paragraph 7.2 you say there and this is where we see the discussion you're referring to we've been davis in 2016. in the last
02:33:12 i'm sorry the first sentence you say in 2016 gwen davis director of processing flagged the issue to me as part of our discussions around trying to replicate the the uh 2005 bs 8414 test for the testing
02:33:25 the uh 2005 bs 8414 test for the testing of k115 as explained and i've read this tube before you say i was not concerned about the issue at this time i did not investigate it further given that insulation uk had been relying on the test for years
02:33:37 relying on the test for years and i was not aware of any indication that the change had any impact on the product's fire performance then you go on
02:33:45 you go on to say that the issue was then drawn again to your attention in 2018. now looking at your your reasons there you cite the fact first that the 2005 test had been relied
02:33:56 first that the 2005 test had been relied on by kingspan for years was that not in fact all the more reason to do something urgently
02:34:04 urgently about what you just learned from mr davis
02:34:07 davis namely actually quickly to get to the bottom no i think if he'd have indicated to me that there was a you know a big difference in fire performance let's say you know it used to be an e on the euro class and
02:34:18 to be an e on the euro class and or or a b and now we're a c then that may have caused more of a question for me to investigate but you also cite the fact that you were not aware of any indication
02:34:29 aware of any indication that the change had any impact on the product's fire performance but you don't say here that you actually positively investigated that question do you well i mean positively
02:34:42 do you well i mean positively investigated it to the point of having the discussion with gwyn no i didn't go beyond that would you don't say here that um i was not aware of any indication that the change had any impact because
02:34:53 that the change had any impact because of what gwyn davis told me do you no you don't refer to a discussion with gwen davis about the technical far safety implications of the change in
02:35:04 far safety implications of the change in the manufacturing process here in your statement do you no why is
02:35:10 that um but i think because i'm just really answering the question there how did this information come to your knowledge and that is how the information came to my knowledge
02:35:21 my knowledge now you have been head of technical as well as marketing since may 2015 so some 18 months or so perhaps a little less
02:35:29 less did you not even think as head of technical to instigate a technical investigation into the actual changes in technology or process
02:35:39 process that had occurred some years many years before
02:35:43 before in order to decide what to do next
02:35:47 no i didn't why is that because i was just moving forward with the testing of the current product and of um any new replacement lower lambda version
02:35:58 version i didn't think to look to look back i didn't think to look back with some for someone with a respect for with a first class science degree in design and innovation
02:36:09 design and innovation surely the fact that a different version of the phenolic foam had been used raised questions in your mind about the potential differences in fire performance
02:36:22 fire performance and and those questions were allied with the discussions with green and that's well i didn't take it any further would you agree that any of the num a number of things could affect fire performance such as changes to chemical composition
02:36:33 to chemical composition changes to the face of thickness changes to
02:36:37 to the um perforations whether there were any or use of adhesives things like that any of those could affect fire performance they could most of those would be affected small scale fire performance if you like
02:36:49 scale fire performance if you like rather than the the large scale did you investigate whether any of those particular differences between old and new technology existed no i didn't why is that that
02:37:01 no i didn't why is that that it didn't occur to me
02:37:07 now as i say you were head of technical uh
02:37:10 uh d did you report what gwen davis had told you
02:37:14 told you about the change in technology and the fact that k15 may have been the old technology to anybody
02:37:21 anybody else did you discuss it did you seek a discussion with anybody on the main board
02:37:27 board no i think i did
02:37:38 what was it that changed between the discovery in 2016 as you've discussed uh from mr davis
02:37:50 as you've discussed uh from mr davis and the 23rd of october 2020 when you wrote to
02:37:53 wrote to various fire engineers including the bre and to the inquiry to acknowledge that the test relied on in 2005 was not in fact carried out on the k-15 which had been sold since 2006.
02:38:05 sold since 2006. what had changed
02:38:10 i think we were looking at it under a much different light obviously um much more focus on it and i think that just the opinion then was
02:38:21 was it would be prudent to to withdraw it at this stage
02:38:31 well okay you say looking it under a much different light what what what made the light different obviously under the
02:38:39 under the the um the deep investigation we've done as part of the inquiry we looked at a lot of different term issues and that was one that we thought was probably should have been
02:38:51 we thought was probably should have been dealt with at the time um differently and shouldn't have been relied on going forward but um there's no thought that the
02:39:02 um there's no thought that the difference in fire performance between the two technologies
02:39:09 so the difference between 2016 and 2020
02:39:17 and 2020 between your 2016 conversation with mr davis and the withdrawal of the tests in october this year the only difference was the degree of scrutiny being applied to the question by the inquiry
02:39:30 inquiry uh i think potentially yes let's say potentially what else is there well right yeah that's correct you mean actually yes yes and there was no technical discovery or
02:39:43 and there was no technical discovery or anything else that led you to think that any assumptions that you'd made were wrong
02:39:48 wrong no there's no technical decision thank you
02:39:51 you and just going back to this discovery about old tech and new tech is it the case that until the discussion that you'd had in 2016 you'd never seen any reference to kester
02:40:03 you'd never seen any reference to kester end technology or new technology k-15 within the business like i said it was common
02:40:11 common knowledge of the the change in technology and kestren was a phrase used wouldn't have understood what that meant um up until
02:40:22 um up until we started to do the work for the inquiry
02:40:26 inquiry so it was a common common knowledge
02:40:30 and when you became head of technical in 2015 may 15 did you never take it upon yourself to study or at least look over the large-scale fire testing
02:40:42 over the large-scale fire testing that had been conducted by kingspan on k-15
02:40:46 k-15 no not not into detail no were you not told about the issues with fire performance with new technology k15 that had
02:40:54 that had occurred in 2007 or 2008
02:40:59 i was at some point i was made aware of i think the so-tech testing was um something that was mentioned i think ivan mayer mentioned that with um aluminium um
02:41:11 with um aluminium um systems i knew there was some system testing when did you come across that historical i think it probably would have been
02:41:20 just a few months after taking over the role
02:41:23 role right i'm sorry i interrupted your answer with my next question did you want to finish off your answer about the aluminium systems no not finished all right
02:41:35 did you not come across reports in relation to the increased heat output or quicker times to ignition and continued burning that occurred during tests such as the sotech that you
02:41:46 during tests such as the sotech that you referred to no i didn't
02:41:54 you say that it would have been a few months after taking over the role that you discovered that um k-15
02:42:03 uh burnt in the way that it did in relation to the sotex test is that right uh no i discovered that there'd been um system tests done with sotech that
02:42:15 um system tests done with sotech that hadn't passed that hadn't passed yes and who did you just how did you discover that i i imagine i can't remember exactly would have been discussions with um with ivan potentially with tony as well right would either have told you
02:42:27 right would either have told you do you remember being told that the result of the sotech result was not just a fail but a spectacular fail no did you not ever use the expression raging inferno to you
02:42:38 raging inferno to you no
02:42:42 when you became product development manager in 2013 or perhaps early 14 late 13 early 14s we discussed
02:42:51 discussed um and were given the job of developing the new lower lambda k-15 or k-115 as i think it's been named didn't you sit down with either meredith and go through the fire testing that had
02:43:02 and go through the fire testing that had been undertaken on k-15
02:43:06 no i didn't what about with tony miller no
02:43:09 no how would you be able to develop or further the development of k115 without doing that because at the time when i took over i don't think i would have even understood
02:43:20 don't think i would have even understood what an 8414 test was um so i just knew there were a series of fire tests required to introduce a new product against the product standard for one and they would have been
02:43:32 they would have been small scale fire tests as well as a large-scale fire test if you wanted to use it above 18 meters but i wouldn't have understood exactly what it was but i guess i didn't need to as a product
02:43:44 i guess i didn't need to as a product development manager it was just that was part of the requirement of each of the
02:43:49 of the departments to achieve the testing to be done
02:43:52 done and that testing had already been done actually but i took over that project at the large scale was and then they were continuing with the production trials
02:44:02 trials and then the testing that's required as part of the product standard which would be your
02:44:07 be your um sbi your single burn item is it really right that when you took over as product manager product development manager in late 13 early 14 the
02:44:18 early 14 the k115 large scale test had been done is that right well there's two there's two lower lambda developments there's one which was just called lower lambda so it was k15 ll
02:44:30 lambda so it was k15 ll you feel like as a terminology and that was the earlier development which we're talking about now the k-115 was slightly later it was in 2016 right but it was based on the same premise it
02:44:42 but it was based on the same premise it was still based on using a a solstice blown system to get our lower lambda version so we stopped the project
02:44:53 project back in 2014-15 and restarted it again on k-15
02:44:58 on k-15 in in 2016. and when you came into the project you were looking at the lower lambda as opposed to the k115 is that where you are yes i see but wouldn't it have been required reading in order to develop the lower
02:45:10 reading in order to develop the lower lambda project further to look back and see what the k15 tests were
02:45:17 not for me no i didn't think right not for you
02:45:21 for you what about to get a brief on them so that you could understand what the previous test was and what the lower lambda product being developed would have to go through
02:45:33 sorry again sorry yes but but let me try it a different way what system what test would be applied to the lower lambda product to make it safe for use above 18 meters
02:45:47 to make it safe for use above 18 meters yeah so as that would be the bs8 for one for test it would be a bsa for one full test yes
02:45:52 test yes and did did you not want to know how bs 8414 had
02:45:56 8414 had uh how k15 rather had fared in any previous
02:45:59 previous 8414 test so that would inform your knowledge
02:46:03 knowledge about how low a lambda might fare or what you had to do in order to set up such a test no like i said that the test for the low lambda one had already been done
02:46:13 done so for me it was it was a number rather than i had no con concept of the size of the test or or what was involved in it it was a number and that test had already been carried out so it was almost a tick
02:46:25 been carried out so it was almost a tick in the box for the lower lambda development
02:46:31 and when that discussion occurred about the lower lambda test but was there any mention at that stage about
02:46:40 about old and new technology k-15 not that i recall because that would have been long before 2016 wouldn't it that would have been yeah 2014
02:46:52 that would have been yeah 2014 yes time
02:46:56 i want to ask you some questions about the cladding used in the 2005 test now can we start by going to your first statement please at page 12 and i'd like to go
02:47:06 to go in that to paragraph 4.13 a and i've read this to you before and you refer there to a uac manufactured cement particle board
02:47:18 a uac manufactured cement particle board rain screen fixed to an aluminium railing system you see that
02:47:22 see that now in your second statement let's just look at that um page 100 you say paragraph 10.55 the top of the page although i was not involved in the 2005
02:47:34 although i was not involved in the 2005 bs 8414 test i did become aware during the development testing of k115 a second project looking to improve thermal performance of the product that the cladding in the test report may not have been correctly reported
02:47:49 not have been correctly reported and then you go on if you look a little bit lower down that page to say this the test report for the 2005 bs8414 test refers to a six millimeter uac cement particle board being used
02:48:00 particle board being used as the external cladding element of the system tested this would be unusual and would not be representative of an external cladding element because such material is not designed for an external application
02:48:11 designed for an external application and may be subject to degradation upon weathering however having investigated the issue further kingspan is of the belief
02:48:17 belief that the test report correct incorrectly references the type of cladding used and that the cladding actually used in the external cladding system tested in 2005
02:48:26 2005 was a fiber cement board non-combustible as opposed to cement particle board which is generally rated as euro class b which would be more representative of an external cladding system used in
02:48:37 external cladding system used in practice at that time but i think it likely that the fiber cement board was chosen to simply replicate a non-combustible facade element as representative of the cladding used at the time and i've read all that out to you um so
02:48:50 and i've read all that out to you um so that so that everyone can see what you say
02:48:53 say um that that statement there led to uh some questions from the inquiry as a result of which you produced your third statement or part of it and can we go to page 54
02:49:04 part of it and can we go to page 54 in that document paragraph 7.10 at the bottom of page 54
02:49:14 and you're asked the question on what basis
02:49:17 basis sorry on what do you base your view that a fiber cement board would be more representative of an external clouding system used in practice at the time and your answer at 7.10 is this
02:49:28 and your answer at 7.10 is this cement particle board is not typically a product that is used in external range green facade system systems whereas fibre cement board is adam
02:49:36 adam adrian brazer also undertook a desktop analysis and cladding products and this is the basis of my understanding now cement particleboard is a building board isn't it yes please and if we go over page
02:49:49 yes please and if we go over page 54 to page 55 at paragraph 7.12 we can see what you say about your investigations you say adam heath reviewed the delivery notes
02:50:00 notes to confirm what products had been delivered to insulation uk for the 2005 bsa414 test and then you go on to say
02:50:11 and then you go on to say in the last part of that paragraph i believe that adrian brazier also carried out a desktop analysis which identified that fiber cement board was more representative of products used in external clouding systems i do not
02:50:23 in external clouding systems i do not recall his findings being recorded in writing
02:50:26 writing now i've led you all through that how did adrian brazer impart the knowledge of this desktop analysis to you
02:50:34 to you just in discussions right so no writing no document no no email no report i don't recall any no right when did he tell you that
02:50:46 no right when did he tell you that well it would have been at the time we were looking at that that test again in 2016 because we were looking to replicate the test for the k115
02:50:59 replicate the test for the k115 project so we wanted to see if we could get exactly the same or close to the original items tested when you say he carried out a desktop analysis do you mean that
02:51:11 analysis do you mean that he didn't write anything down but he did it in his head now he searched the internet to see what was currently available in terms of product descriptions and because i don't think you know i certainly wasn't aware of
02:51:23 certainly wasn't aware of what a the difference between a cement particle board and a fibre cement board was right and so um and i don't think adrian did either so adrian said he'd
02:51:34 either so adrian said he'd have a look and came back and said yeah it looks like a cement particle board is more like something we put on the inside of the system and that a fiber cement board is more likely to be used on the outside i see so when
02:51:46 to be used on the outside i see so when you refer to a desktop analysis you're not actually referring to a a a a written analysis no a review or scamper through the internet to see what's out there a review i see did you make any notes of the
02:51:58 i see did you make any notes of the so-called analysis that he's undertaken and the products to which it related not that i recall
02:52:07 is adam is adrian actually calling him adam we do have other adams it is adrian brazer fire engineer no he's not so all he did was it was
02:52:18 no he's not so all he did was it was just look in the internet and see what people used as cladding yeah what the suppliers were putting forward as cement board cladding products and that would have been in when 2016
02:52:30 been in when 2016 yes yeah but that wouldn't have been a retrospective analysis of the market as it stood in 2005 would it
02:52:39 no no it was what was available at that time
02:52:42 time so when you refer to the desktop analysis which identified that fiber cement board is more representative of products using external cladding systems that's the more representative in 2016 but not 2005.
02:52:54 but not 2005. correct
02:52:57 can we look at the statement of adam heath
02:53:03 this is at kin408834 he's the individual that you refer to as having written to uac to ask them if they manufacture cement particle board
02:53:15 cement particle board in this in the paragraph we've just looked at and if we go to page 96 in his statement
02:53:20 statement with the inquiry paragraph 11.53 he says in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph i'm afraid it's rather a long chunk of
02:53:31 i'm afraid it's rather a long chunk of text
02:53:33 text it's third line from the bottom he says based on this understanding
02:53:41 that the 2005 bs-8414 test used fiber cement boards my view is that these boards were used as the cladding element of the tested system
02:53:50 system i do not believe he says i do not believe that these boards are intended for use as rain screen cladding and i am not aware of any buildings on which these boards have been used for
02:54:01 on which these boards have been used for this purpose i am aware that there are now fiber cement cladding materials available on the market for use as rain screen cladding now from that it appears that adam heath at the time he wrote this statement was
02:54:13 at the time he wrote this statement was of the opinion that fiber cement board was not a typical cladding material at the time of the test were you not aware also of his view when you signed your second and third witness statements
02:54:27 um
02:54:32 at the time it wasn't in 2005 i probably would have thought it
02:54:39 it had never been
02:54:43 but adam heath is saying that he was of the view that fiber cement board was not a typical cladding material at the time of the test
02:54:53 test were you not aware that that was his view when you made your second or third witness statements no i probably would have shared that view right so what was the point then of referring to
02:55:04 referring to the opinion your opinion that fiber it would have been a fiber cement board because that was more representative when in fact at the time of the test and adam adam heath was
02:55:15 adam adam heath was thinking the exact opposite
02:55:21 i'm a bit confused by the question fibrous cement is a board that is typically used yes and was
02:55:27 and was at the time fibre cement cement particle board
02:55:31 board wasn't at 2016 wasn't in 2005. no we may be at cross purposes my question really is why you thought that it would have been more likely that
02:55:42 that it would have been more likely that the s8414 test in 2005 used cement particle board as opposed to its fiber particle board as opposed to cement particle board and in fact adam heath's view is that
02:55:56 and in fact adam heath's view is that fiber cement particle board would not at that time have been representative i don't think that's correct i don't think he has that belief i think he i believe that fibre cement is more
02:56:07 i believe that fibre cement is more likely to have been a cladding material at the time than a cement particle board well he says i do not believe
02:56:18 well he says i do not believe that these boards that's fiber cement boards are intended for use as rain screen cladding i'm not aware of any buildings on which these boards have been used for this purpose
02:56:27 purpose are you saying he's wrong about that
02:56:37 i i don't know what what it means by that and maybe i was under the impression that fiber cement boards were available at the time as used as external cladding but not cement particle boards
02:56:49 cement particle boards as an external cladding that was my understanding we saw from your first witness statement from october 2018 which i showed to you that
02:57:00 that when you describe the 2005 test uh the build-up of the cladding included uac manufactured cement particle board rain screen
02:57:08 screen that's what you said at paragraph 4.13 a yes are you saying that's wrong now that's what's yeah that's what's in the report in the first in the first witness
02:57:19 in the first in the first witness statement all i'm doing there is explaining what was in the report that people could see at the time but in 2016 we came to the understanding that it was unlikely to be a cement particle board
02:57:32 unlikely to be a cement particle board more likely to be a fiber cement board you don't say that in your first statement no either by way of qualification or revelation do you no i don't why is that because like i say i'm just stating
02:57:43 because like i say i'm just stating there
02:57:43 there what would have been available in the report for people to see at the time right
02:57:49 right but when we come to the evolution of this point uh it looks like adam heath who'd done some work on this was of the view that fiber cement boards
02:58:01 that fiber cement boards as opposed to cement particle boards were not intended for use as rain screen cladding
02:58:06 cladding and he's not aware of any buildings on which those boards would be used for that purpose well fibre cement boards are used nowadays he says there are now fibrous cladding materials
02:58:17 there are now fibrous cladding materials available
02:58:20 so my question is when you signed your second and third witness statements did you take into account adam heath's view
02:58:28 view that there are no buildings he's aware of on which fiber cement boards are used no i wasn't aware he had that view right
02:58:44 now
02:58:48 i think you say in your third statement let's go to that please at page 53 that you became aware that the cladding material in the 2005 test was
02:59:00 material in the 2005 test was incorrectly reported as you say in august 2016. if we go to paragraph 7.6 you can see that that is what you say see that
02:59:12 see that that is what you say see that yes
02:59:19 now given that you had been told this in 2016 august 2016 was that before
02:59:32 august 2016 was that before or after the conversation with gwyn davis where he told you that the 2005 test used a different version of k-15
02:59:42 of k-15 or was it part of the same conversation it was part of the same development so it probably would have been before i would have understood that that
02:59:50 that building board is different because i spoke to gwyn davis after the test of the k-115 product whereas we would have found this out
03:00:01 whereas we would have found this out before the test in order to design the test for the k115 product
03:00:08 just so i'm clear are there two conversations with gwyn davis about the two no i didn't speak to gwyn davis about the building board you didn't no so how did you discover in
03:00:19 you didn't no so how did you discover in august 2016 that the cladding material or product used in the 2005 test
03:00:26 2005 test was not cement particle board as described in the test but fiber cement board so that was the discussions with my team that were looking at doing the replica test for k115 which was earlier in 2016.
03:00:39 for k115 which was earlier in 2016. so when they were looking to source the products that were used in the original test
03:00:45 test and we came across this anomaly that it was reported as a uac cement particle board so we contacted i think adam contacted uac and said we'd like to source some of
03:00:57 and said we'd like to source some of this material they said we don't do cement particle board so then that raised the question then well what was it right and you inferred i think or somebody
03:01:10 and you inferred i think or somebody inferred that it was fiber cement particle board if it was cement board sorry if it was uac
03:01:17 uac supplied it would have had to have been we understood a fiber cement board rather than a cement particle board right
03:01:29 now i want to put to you what either meredith said about this can we go to day 75
03:01:32 day 75 page 67 please
03:01:43 at line 3 miss grange is examining him and she's asks in this question now staying on page six if we look at two below that we get fixing details in bold
03:01:55 get fixing details in bold and we've got details of the cool thumb again in the first line then if you look at the end of the second line we can see it gives the description of the cladding that was used for this test and you have 1200 millimeters times 900
03:02:07 and you have 1200 millimeters times 900 millimeters times six millimeters thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac were mechanically fixed at 600 millimeter centers to an aluminium railing system which was also mechanically fixed to the block work
03:02:19 mechanically fixed to the block work substrate
03:02:20 substrate do you see that there yes as far as you were aware were those cement particle boards non-combustible answer it was a non-combustible cement board but particle board manufactured by uac bahad
03:02:30 uac bahad they were a middle eastern manufacturer but yes it was a non-combustible as far as i was aware is that description of the outer cladding system given they're correct that it had those dimensions six millimeter thick cement particle boards
03:02:42 millimeter thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac is that description accurate answer that's definitely accurate do you have any reason mr paul to suggest why ivan meredith would be wrong in his recollection as
03:02:53 in his recollection as that evidence suggests other than the potential confusion between what is the difference between cement particle board fibre cement board
03:03:05 cement particle board fibre cement board i think you can see quite regular references to cement board and so i i suspect that the difference between the two wasn't really understood and that he
03:03:17 wasn't really understood and that he is just referencing it as a cement particle board and that is his belief but actually our belief is it was a fiber cement board but manufactured by the
03:03:28 cement board but manufactured by the same pc he was there at the time and did the test and you weren't that's correct so my question is why would he get that wrong and you be right based only on inference
03:03:39 inference because we when we just did we just did the research we tried to find out exactly what was tested by looking at what records we got and what records the bre had got um it didn't give us
03:03:50 bre had got um it didn't give us anything conclusive other than the fact that uac didn't make a cement particle board so it was either a different supplier and it wasn't uac providing a fiber
03:04:02 and it wasn't uac providing a fiber cement board a cement particle board sorry
03:04:05 sorry or it was uac providing a fibrous cement board
03:04:09 board and i think the and the other thing the other clue is that it is very regularly described as a non-combustible building board well a cement particle board
03:04:21 board as i understand it is generally a b rated
03:04:24 rated product so it would be combustible or maybe an a i'm not sure a limited combustibility whereas a fibrous cement board
03:04:31 board is a non-combustible product so certainly over believed in my view that it was a non-combustible board that he was testing with
03:04:42 testing with and if it was a cement particle board that's probably unlikely and either way we've got either merida's
03:04:54 and either way we've got either merida's recollection as the man there at the time of the test as against your inference later and i put it i'm going to suggest to you that his recollection is more likely to be accurate than your
03:05:06 accurate than your 2016 inferences based on market research done only at that time
03:05:12 uh well if uac made a cement particle board then there's a chance he'd be correct but he he was wrong on one of the counts and you might be wrong on one of those we might be yeah okay now um can you go
03:05:25 we might be yeah okay now um can you go to
03:05:26 to your third statement please at page 54 and uh look at paragraph 7.8 there you you're asked the question what action did you take if any when you came
03:05:37 action did you take if any when you came to understand that this may be the case and that's the fiber cement board you said the fact that the terminology in the report was incorrect did not concern me too much because as far as i was aware at the time based on client communications during my
03:05:49 on client communications during my tenure
03:05:49 tenure as head of marketing and technical great britain we described the 2005 test bs8414 test as having been undertaken with a non-combustible cladding what do you mean there by based on
03:06:00 what do you mean there by based on client communications during your tenure um always under the opinion i don't think we ever described it otherwise that that that system used was a a non-combustible board on the outside
03:06:15 a non-combustible board on the outside and and so whether it was fiber cement or cement particle board was kind of terminology if the performance was always described as a non-combustible cladding
03:06:28 non-combustible cladding no i i'll repeat the question perhaps you haven't made it clear i'm asking you about what you mean by client communications
03:06:37 you refer yeah i think any any anybody inquiring about the test or our description of that test um two clients would have would have been a you know a non-combustible
03:06:49 building board but we're not compostable basically so are you saying here that
03:06:58 customers were told by kingspan during your tenure as head of marketing that the 2005 bs 8414 test had been undertaken with a non-combustible
03:07:09 undertaken with a non-combustible cladding
03:07:10 cladding without being specific as to whether it was cement that's that's a particle board or
03:07:14 board or or cement fiberboard yes right
03:07:22 now just taking the stages would you first agree that the best practice would require
03:07:28 require that the description of a tested system tested under bs8414 uh should at the very least identify precisely the components of the test
03:07:41 yes i would agree and do that fully and accurately yes were you aware in 2015 that the bs 8414 test was a system test
03:07:52 that the bs 8414 test was a system test at the very late at the very least yes yeah
03:07:55 yeah and were you also aware that any successful bs 8414 test could only ever relate
03:08:01 relate to the specific build up tested
03:08:05 at in 2015 yes other than the desktop study or an assessment route but yes the the test is on a very specific system
03:08:16 the test is on a very specific system yes i understand the qualification you make about the desktop study and i'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise that that comes from bca technical guidance in 8 18 june
03:08:27 from bca technical guidance in 8 18 june 2014
03:08:29 2014 yes but but leaving that on one side would you be would you have been aware were you aware at the time that any error
03:08:37 error in the description of the precise components of the build up of the s full-scale system as tested any error would be a fundamental importance because otherwise if a designer sought
03:08:49 because otherwise if a designer sought to replicate the system said to have been tested they wouldn't be doing so
03:08:56 yes i would agree with that and therefore
03:09:00 therefore your statement about kingspan recording the cladding or telling clients that the cladding system was simply non-combustible would go against the very nature of bsa414 because you would need to be able to
03:09:11 because you would need to be able to identify the precise system components so that they could be replicated by the customer
03:09:16 customer do you agree with that yes i would agree with that
03:09:19 with that so far from reassuring you the fact that this generic term non-combustible cladding was ever used to describe an important component of the system i would suggest to you must have been a matter of concern to you
03:09:30 matter of concern to you when you discovered it no
03:09:36 no i just i just thought it was just confusing the differences between cement boards and that you know it was always under the
03:09:46 under the impression that it was non-combustible and therefore any system relied on would need to have been a non-combustible cladding board as well but you were were you not did it not occur to you that you were leading customers to think
03:09:58 customers to think that so long as they used any old non-combustible cladding that would sat that would satisfy br135 and bs8414
03:10:10 uh i don't think we were not in 2015 because
03:10:13 because i think we we'd um you know understood now that that system is just one particular system and they'd have to have a desktop study or an assessment done on it
03:10:25 an assessment done on it based on you know that data
03:10:28 you say come that that may be the case in 2015 but did not concern you that that had been the case historically that historically custer's customers have been told that the cloning was non-combustible
03:10:39 non-combustible without identifying precisely what it was
03:10:45 no it didn't why is that well i think because
03:10:49 because it was very unlikely anything was ever built with a cement particle board so it could have only really been used as part of an assessment because they wouldn't have been using cement particle board they may have been using an alternative
03:11:01 using an alternative non-combustible board to build their buildings with but not a cement particle board but how could you have thought even historically that it was acceptable to put out a report or description of the bs8414 test that only described the
03:11:13 the bs8414 test that only described the cladding as non-combustible now the report does the report says uac cement particle board but um the description of the performance of
03:11:25 um the description of the performance of that
03:11:25 that board has always been non-combustible now were you aware that the building research establishment the bre had specifically told kingspan at a meeting in 2006 and i appreciate that was before
03:11:37 in 2006 and i appreciate that was before your time
03:11:38 your time that uh the scope for the bs 8414 test in 2005
03:11:44 in 2005 didn't cover non-combustible cladding as a generic expression and can only be relevant for particular boards used as outer cladding in the actual test i wasn't aware of that time now
03:12:00 you would agree i think that if a bsa414 report simply said metal cladding that would be useless to anybody wishing to replicate the build-up to replicate it precisely yes well to
03:12:11 to replicate it precisely yes well to replicate it in such a way that the external wall construction they put on their building complied with the building regulations
03:12:21 correct yes yes and i would suggest that kingspan deliberately describe the system
03:12:27 system tested as using non-combustible cladding so that they could say that the test applied to any non-combustible cladding system as opposed only specifically to the boards whether they were fiber or
03:12:39 boards whether they were fiber or particle used in the test i think historically that seems to be the evidence that we've seen yes you accept that
03:12:51 yes you accept that and did that discuss when you made that discovery
03:12:56 discovery and you made that discovery what did you do about it about the difference in the description of the
03:13:06 of the board yes during your tenure as head of marketing and technical um as you say other than to try to ensure that the repeat test was done on
03:13:17 repeat test was done on a fiber cement board i didn't do anything further than that why didn't you undertake an investigation immediately as to how it could come about the clients were being told
03:13:28 told that the cladding used was simply non-combustible as opposed to directing clients precisely to what the test report said namely it was cement particle board or
03:13:40 namely it was cement particle board or to tell the clients that in fact that the test report was wrong and it was fiber board why did you do not do that because like i said you know it was it was always
03:13:51 i said you know it was it was always inferred that it was a non-combustible board it was never going to be a system that was going to be built precisely
03:14:01 as a cement particle board so i just i just took it that as we'd always described it as a non-combustible board however they were using that
03:14:12 board however they were using that report would still be would still be fine
03:14:19 do you accept that kingspan's product literature for k-15 throughout the entire period from may 2007 before your time to july 2016 well into your time makes no reference at all to the
03:14:31 makes no reference at all to the specific material used as the outer cladding in the may 2005 test uh that's correct
03:14:44 yes
03:14:48 and and again do you accept that that was done
03:14:52 was done deliberately by kingspan in order to ensure that k-15 could be more widely used
03:14:57 used than the ambit of the test prescribed by the build up of the 2005 test itself i can say i think the evidence that's come out that that was the intention of the 2005 test was to try and get
03:15:10 of the 2005 test was to try and get a baseline system tested which from that then could develop
03:15:17 develop assessments and you know we've seen in ive as
03:15:20 ive as evidence that that was the intention to do with the bre that they would give that assessment so i think that was the um the view yes did you ever investigate even after 2016
03:15:32 even after 2016 why kingspan's product literature up to that time in this respect used this uh useless and misleading nomenclature for the cladding uh no i didn't i didn't think why is
03:15:44 uh no i didn't i didn't think why is that
03:15:44 that i didn't think it was useless and um i thought it was still useful to use in terms of a desktop study for example
03:15:56 but it wouldn't have been useful in a desktop study unless the person conducting the desktop knew exactly what the product was to accept that but that's correct yes and and is it right that in
03:16:08 correct yes and and is it right that in fact having discovered in august 2016 that uac berhad cement particle board as you say wasn't used in the 2005 test did you actually then seek to verify the
03:16:19 did you actually then seek to verify the product that had actually been used
03:16:23 i think we did with uh with uac um i can't remember now i think adam found a delivery note or something which might have indicated the
03:16:34 might have indicated the the product name but i can't remember precisely i might be wrong there right did you what did you do to satisfy yourselves that it actually was non-combustible
03:16:46 um
03:16:50 i can't recall and i think i think we did find out exactly what board it was and that was not but generally really fiber boards i might be wrong but generally fibre boards are non-combustible
03:17:02 boards are non-combustible right i want to look now uh and we'll stop mr chairman we're going to start this topic we won't finish it before one o'clock but i'm going to have a yes i may all right um uh i'm going to
03:17:13 uh i'm going to ask you now to help me with how the cladding is referred to in documents can we
03:17:18 we start with your second witness statement please at page 101 and go to the top of that page please at paragraph 10.59 and this is a reference to
03:17:31 and this is a reference to the bs8414 test in 2005. the question is did you believe that the test had been successful if so on what basis
03:17:39 basis and you say when i took over as head of technical in may 2015 the 2005 bs8414 test report was being relied on by the technical team and was included in k15's bba certificate and abc registered detail in
03:17:52 certificate and abc registered detail in k-15 project literature i understood that the 2005 test had been successful on this basis this understanding was further supported with the issue by the bre of the br135 classification report
03:18:03 classification report report number p101812 1000 in 2015 without any issues being raised now it's right isn't it that the numerous bba certificates for k-15 that
03:18:15 numerous bba certificates for k-15 that we've seen and we can look at them in a moment some of them listed the specific build-up of the 2005 test don't they correct yes yes and if we go to
03:18:26 correct yes yes and if we go to one of those which is the um the one for october 2015 bba 6040 please this is the uh bba certificate for k-15
03:18:40 this is the uh bba certificate for k-15 issued uh on the fifth uh on the 8th of october 2015. if you look at the bottom of the page you see that there and that's while you were head of technical and marketing wasn't it
03:18:52 and marketing wasn't it yes yes and if we scroll down to page five please and look at the heading behavior in fire at the bottom of the page we can see section 8.2 that the construction build
03:19:05 section 8.2 that the construction build ups lit
03:19:05 ups lit buildups are listed there and there are a specific build up from the 2005 test that are listed under the heading construction one isn't that right correct and it goes over the page
03:19:17 over the page and you can see that the first uh element there is the 60 millimeters k15 insulation board and the second is six millimeter cement particle boards mechanically fixed at
03:19:29 particle boards mechanically fixed at 600 millimeters centers to an aluminium railing system so that's that's clearly the 2005 test as you've just accepted if we go to kin 5 kin 5
03:19:40 if we go to kin 5 kin 5 i'm sorry kin6077 this is the labc certificate for k-15 issued in august 2013 and
03:19:51 issued in august 2013 and uh and then issued again on the 24th of march 2016 and by this time you are head of technical and and marketing aren't you and if we go to
03:20:03 marketing aren't you and if we go to page
03:20:03 page that's right isn't it so which take was that
03:20:07 that march 2016. no yes issue dated 24th march 2016. first issue 28th 28th of august 2013. yes
03:20:16 yes correct so and so this is issued at a time when you are head of technical and marketing
03:20:20 marketing yes correct yeah and if we go to page six at this document we see there under supporting documentation that the third item down is the k15
03:20:32 that the third item down is the k15 product specification and classification report index
03:20:38 and if we want to see that document that's at kin 6075
03:20:50 and if we have that blown up we can see that that's a list of bs 8414 test build-ups involving k-15 and in the first line it's rather
03:21:01 and in the first line it's rather indistinct i'm afraid but you can see that the
03:21:04 that the and if you can't i i i'll try i can i can see it says cement particle it says six millimeter thick uac cement particle board yes thank you so so the bba certificate and the labc
03:21:16 so so the bba certificate and the labc certificate either states expressly or incorporate references to cement particle board now if we go to kn five
03:21:27 now if we go to kn five six zeros 86
03:21:34 we can see this is kingspan's route to compliance fire safety literature first released in august 2015 which you i think signed off before it was finally signed off by richard
03:21:45 was finally signed off by richard bromwich and richard burnley correct in that month wasn't it yes yeah and if we go in that document to page six
03:21:52 six on the left hand side of that page we can see large-scale test data
03:22:00 you see under performance based root and it says large-scale test data kingspan coolphone k15 range green board has been tested in differing thicknesses with a range of cladding materials to bs8414 part one
03:22:11 part one 2002 and bs8414 part 2 2005. in accordance with the performance criteria set out of br135 refer to appendix b for details of the buildups that have been successfully tested and
03:22:23 that have been successfully tested and we can go to appendix b on page 17 of this document and we can see
03:22:27 see there a heading large scale test data you see that there and there are three buildups
03:22:34 buildups identified and the first one on the left-hand side is the 8414 2002 test done in 2005. you see that yes and it has a line
03:22:45 you see that yes and it has a line there to the cladding and the in the image and it says six millimeter non-combustible cement board cladding doesn't it it does and it refers also to the bre 2005 report which i think we've seen also refers to the cement particle board
03:22:59 also refers to the cement particle board that's right isn't it okay so this this document dated 2015 wasn't intended to correct that description it was in a way perpetuating it yes it was perpetuating the fact that it
03:23:11 yes it was perpetuating the fact that it was a non-combustible cement board yes cement board cladding yes yes doesn't say cementitious fiberboard does it no it doesn't uh and can you think of a reason why that description was used
03:23:22 that description was used non-combustible cement board cladding if in fact cementitious fiberboard had been
03:23:28 used um i don't know whether that was just a
03:23:31 just a lift from previous descriptions and it probably
03:23:35 probably also predates the um the knowledge that it was a fiber cement board
03:23:43 board and the desktop assessments done in 2014 and 15 which you listed in your statement all refer to the may 2005 test which
03:23:52 which refers to cement particle board don't they
03:23:55 they yes yes so can you confirm that all the documents that we've looked at the bba certificate the labc certificate the roots to compliance august 2015
03:24:06 the roots to compliance august 2015 kingspan document and all six desktops would have been incorrect in their description of the cladding referred to in the 2005 test if in fact it had been fiberboard and not cementitious particleboard
03:24:19 cementitious particleboard yes i do
03:24:27 yes i do and do you also accept that each of these documents that we've been examining is misleading because they conceal the fact that the k-15 being sold after 2006 is not as
03:24:38 k-15 being sold after 2006 is not as tested in the tests referred to i i don't think it's misleading now you don't think it's misleading why is that like i've explained the performance of the well we expected it was the same and the impression it
03:24:51 it was the same and the impression it was the same so um from my perspective um it wouldn't be misleading in your perspective it wouldn't be misleading but perhaps we can continue that
03:25:03 but perhaps we can continue that debate after the after the lunch break mr chairman got a good point mr i think it's time we all had a break for lunch departure so we're going to stop now we will come
03:25:14 so we're going to stop now we will come back at five past two please and um again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break of course right you'd like to give the archer please
03:25:33 thank you five past two please
03:30:16 you