Adrian Partridge (Kingspan) continues evidence on K15 test certification issues. Admits 2015 marketing materials misled market about 2005 test materials. Confronted with failed 2016 replica test showing K115 'continued to burn' and 'disintegrated'. Only withdrew 2005 test report in October 2020 after inquiry pressure.
00:22:15 would you ask mr pardon to come back in
00:22:24 please
00:22:32 all right wrist departure ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman mr partner we were looking i i think at kin60s 86
00:22:45 at kin60s 86 and appendix b of that document
00:22:51 which was kingston's roots to compliance august 2015 if you go back to page 17 please in that where we were you can see the three diagrams there set out now i asked you about the reference to the
00:23:03 i asked you about the reference to the six millimeter non-combustible cement board cladding and i was i think halfway through asking you about the the material used in the test if you look at bs8414 part 1 2002 the diagram on the
00:23:16 bs8414 part 1 2002 the diagram on the left hand side you can see underneath it says build up cement board cladding and masonry block work report number 220876 now it's right isn't it that that report number is the
00:23:28 isn't it that that report number is the bre
00:23:29 bre test report test report dated december 2000 for the 31st of may 2005 test isn't it
00:23:40 for the 31st of may 2005 test isn't it yes i believe so and therefore do you accept that by this document you were representing to the market that the cladding
00:23:52 that the cladding used and the rain screen is used rather and the
00:23:56 and the insulation material used in that buildup was as per that report
00:24:06 yes i would agree with that and that was wrong
00:24:11 in in what way was that wrong well that was wrong because in two ways first of all you now say the cement board cladding was actually fiber cementitious board and secondly
00:24:22 fiber cementitious board and secondly you accept that the insulation material being used at the time of this document august 2015 was not as tested in 2005
00:24:35 was not as tested in 2005 so it was wrong in those two respects it was but it wasn't until you know 2016 that it was in my knowledge about the those differences
00:24:47 knowledge about the those differences and and like i've explained you know i didn't think there were significant differences between the five performance of the products but this document predates that so you're getting ahead do you accept first of all
00:24:58 ahead do you accept first of all first of all that those two statements in those two respects was wrong in this document
00:25:07 yes yes and do you accept that anybody not knowing that it was wrong would think it was right and would thereby be misled
00:25:16 i i don't think they would be misled because we're describing the the board as a non-combustible board and the report gives you the rest
00:25:28 board and the report gives you the rest of the details so i think it it's it could be clearer well they would at least be misled into thinking that the material tested in 2005 and the report number identified there was the same as
00:25:40 identified there was the same as identified in the diagram wouldn't they and that wasn't the case well it's a cement board no i'm talking about the report number which is the bre report which identifies
00:25:52 which is the bre report which identifies which is the report in relation to the 2005 test yes and if they looked at that report and looked at this document put the two side by side they might think that the k-15 was the same in the test as it is in this document
00:26:04 test as it is in this document but they would be bounty wouldn't they yes they would yeah and that they would be misled by that wouldn't they
00:26:12 no because the performance of the board would be similar so they wouldn't be misled it's still a phenolic foam board the same as in the 2005 test as in the
00:26:25 the same as in the 2005 test as in the report now you're let's see what you're doing you see is excusing it from being misled by reference to the the outcome the potential consequences i'm putting to you a different point because as a matter of fact as a matter of fact anybody reading this
00:26:37 as a matter of fact anybody reading this 2015 document would think that the k-15 tested in 2005 was the k-15 being sold pursuant to this document
00:26:48 yes and they would be wrong about that and thereby thereby misled by the rep by the reference the uh representation about the report wouldn't they [Music]
00:27:01 [Music] yes yes and when you eventually discovered in 2016 that in fact the material tested in 2005 was different or very likely to be different
00:27:12 different or very likely to be different from that which was being sold by 2016 did it occur to you that you should be qualifying your marketing literature straight away such as this by immediately telling the
00:27:23 such as this by immediately telling the market
00:27:24 market not to rely on appendix b of the august 2015 routes to compliance
00:27:32 no it didn't for the reasons i've given before i didn't think that the differences were were large enough to to warrant that so you took it upon yourself to keep
00:27:45 so you took it upon yourself to keep that to yourself by reason of your own private opinion perhaps shared with mr davis i don't know
00:27:51 know that it didn't matter
00:27:56 yes i think i did
00:27:59 was that plain dealing do you think do you think that was straight i think it was straight yes you think it was
00:28:06 was yes i've got to suggest to you that it wasn't and it was dishonest it was dishonest at all you ever wonder going back to the
00:28:17 you ever wonder going back to the question of particle board or fiberboard did you ever wonder why something like either particleboard or fiberboard was used as the cladding on the test as opposed to a commonly used and clearly identified screen
00:28:29 used and clearly identified screen product
00:28:34 i think it came out when we were looking at the we were looking at why that was done as a it was as a representation of a cladding system which was a
00:28:46 cladding system which was a non-combustible outer rather than a specific
00:28:50 specific system in itself that was the intention i believe
00:29:03 i see so you understood when you did look at it that in fact the 2005 test wasn't intended to be a specific system but a representation by representation do you mean simulation
00:29:16 by representation do you mean simulation yes of a non-combustible system if you like
00:29:23 when can you give us a date when uh you were looking at it as you as you say
00:29:30 say it was probably it would have been when we were looking to do the the replica test um it may also have been
00:29:38 been just discussions in in the office but probably when we were looking at the to do the replica test let me give you a date well that was 2016 early 20s well mid-2016 when we're
00:29:49 2016 early 20s well mid-2016 when we're looking at that k-115 test right we'll come back to that we'll come back to that shortly can i then move to the question of the replica replica tests i think you you've said in your evidence
00:30:00 i think you you've said in your evidence that you made two replica tests of the 2005 test first in 2016 and then in 2019 is that right correct then that's june 2019 yes 6 6th of june
00:30:13 then that's june 2019 yes 6 6th of june to be precise i think so yes um now i want to look at the 19 2019 attempt first and then we'll we'll look at the 2016 attempt um we in relation to the 2019 attempt to
00:30:25 um we in relation to the 2019 attempt to replicate the 2005 test were you the ultimate decision maker within kingspan about having that test but having that test about about undertaking it the 2019
00:30:37 undertaking it the 2019 yes no that was that's part of um a discussion i had with my john garbett and uh divisional managing
00:30:48 john garbett and uh divisional managing director about the replacement test or replica test needed to undertake before we could tell the fire engineers
00:30:58 what the implications of the withdrawal of the test report might be right so this discussion was with john garbert and and a divisional managing director who was that peter wilson peter wilson
00:31:10 who was that peter wilson peter wilson okay so you discussed it with them and when did you have those discussions do you remember they would have been february or march around that time before the withdrawal of the 2005 test
00:31:23 before the withdrawal of the 2005 test report from the from the website from the website yes that's correct i see
00:31:30 and it was the purpose of this 2019 test to demonstrate that had the 2005 test been undertaken with standard k15 in other words the k15 that you were selling
00:31:40 selling in early 2019 uh it would have passed yes now the 2005 test
00:31:51 now the 2005 test report although withdrawn from the website
00:31:54 website was was only withdrawn from circulation in late october 2020 wasn't it [Music]
00:32:03 [Music] well when you say from circulation now we'd written to the fire engineering community
00:32:07 community to explain what we understood about the product
00:32:11 product and provided the replacement or alternative testing to give an indication of how the current product would perform in a similar performance
00:32:22 would perform in a similar performance but it was it was off the alpha website it was off your website but the two you didn't withdraw the 2005 test the bre test 2208 76 until the 23rd of october
00:32:35 test 2208 76 until the 23rd of october 2020 as well that's because we've established why did you not withdraw that test then whilst the testing was being carried out the 2019 replica test was being carried out
00:32:46 out rather than waiting for so many months i think because we needed to understand what the implications were so at the same time as with withdrawing it right we could provide evidence test evidence and opinion
00:32:59 evidence test evidence and opinion on the implications right well let's track this through a little bit more closely
00:33:04 closely uh can we go to your second statement please and turn to page 94 and go to paragraph 10.32 please and we see there that near the center of the page it says
00:33:16 the page it says as a result of these uncertainties as to what was tested in 2005 kingspan has now undertaken a bs 84141 test at bre using a similar build up to that tested in 2005
00:33:27 that tested in 2005 to the best of our knowledge and based on currently available materials using 80 millimeters k15 from current production because of the passage of time it is impossible to be sure that this test exactly replicated the
00:33:38 that this test exactly replicated the 2005 test
00:33:40 2005 test but kingspan nonetheless decided that it should try and replicate the 2005 vs 8414 test as far as possible but using new technology k15 this test was conducted on 6th of june
00:33:51 this test was conducted on 6th of june 2019
00:33:52 2019 and we understand from observing and reviewing the thermocouple's data that it met the br135 criteria once we've received the test report and br 135 classification report it will be made available on the kingspan website
00:34:05 kingspan website and that's uh your statement in october 2019 isn't it yes that's a second statement uh you say in this paragraph that as it was
00:34:18 you say in this paragraph that as it was as a result of these uncertainties that kingspan undertook that test was it in fact the true position that the kingspan attempted to replicate the 2005 test in june 2019 as a result of
00:34:29 2005 test in june 2019 as a result of questions being posed about that test by this inquiry i think it was in relation to the understanding that
00:34:40 understanding that we shouldn't be relying on that test any further and then thinking the implications of what that might mean in terms of its its previous reliance
00:34:52 in terms of its its previous reliance and so then that was why the replication tests
00:34:56 tests were decided to it would be it would be needed to evidence what the implications might be on the current product
00:35:07 well i can understand why you would want to do the test my question is is what is what catalyzed you actually doing the test in june 2019 the questions being posed to kingspan by
00:35:18 the questions being posed to kingspan by this inquiry
00:35:23 uh it's definitely a factor definitely a factor what other factors are there
00:35:32 well we probably wouldn't have gone into the the depths of um investigating it without so i agree yes [Music]
00:35:43 [Music] and it is the reason why uh the um there was a delay between 2016 when you first discovered the problem and no test until mid-2019 the fact that
00:35:56 and no test until mid-2019 the fact that the inquiry kept asking questions about it no i think once obviously once we became core participants the work to provide all the evidence we could find
00:36:08 provide all the evidence we could find it had commenced and we we provided that evidence which which is which shows that the you know the product was old technology versus a new template so we weren't
00:36:19 versus a new template so we weren't just being prompted by questions we provided that evidence to prompt further questions as well but but for this thing is it right that but for this inquiry in indeed but for the fire and then this inquiry you wouldn't have had a
00:36:31 this inquiry you wouldn't have had a replica test in 2019 you wouldn't have withdrawn the test from the website and wouldn't ultimately in october this year withdraw the test report completely i i can't say whether we would or we
00:36:42 i i can't say whether we would or we wouldn't i think well you can i think because you were there and i'm asking you is
00:36:48 you is it's really another way of putting the same point it's the fire and the aftermath and this inquiry that has led you to to retest withdraw the original test from your website and ultimately withdraw the test
00:37:00 and ultimately withdraw the test altogether isn't it yes at least i'd agree with that thank you yes now can we look further into paragraph
00:37:08 paragraph into this statement paragraph 1033 you say
00:37:11 say at the bottom of that page i consider that the recent test confirms that if the 2005 bs-8414 test had been conducted with k-15 as currently sold on the market it would have satisfied br 135 criteria given the change in
00:37:25 br 135 criteria given the change in technology however kingspan has removed the 2005 bsa414 test from its website now we looked at this a little bit earlier today but on what basis do you
00:37:36 earlier today but on what basis do you consider that you're qualified to make that judgment
00:37:41 what judgment sorry well the judgment i've just shown you your view that i showed you at the bottom of the previous page and that it would it would pass your
00:37:52 and that it would it would pass your view that the recent product yeah let me just close the question since you asked me to clarify on what basis do you consider that you're qualified to make the judgment that the recent test confirms that if the 2005 bs8414 test had been conducted
00:38:05 the 2005 bs8414 test had been conducted with k15
00:38:07 with k15 as currently sold it would have passed just based on that that test report
00:38:18 that that test report just based on that test report 2019 test yes
00:38:22 yes i see
00:38:25 and does it remain your view today that had the test given that the 2019 test was successful that that confirms that the 2005 test would have been successful if it had used standard k-15
00:38:37 used standard k-15 it's it's my belief yes it would have done yeah
00:38:40 done yeah if that is so can you explain then why you withdrawn the 2005 test as you did in october this year
00:38:50 well one it's a it's an old test now and because of the you know the the differences that we found in terms of the change in technology it was just we just thought
00:39:01 just thought it would be prudent to withdraw it and not and no longer rely on it right we'll come back to that can i then look at the 2016 attempt to replicate the 2005 test with k115
00:39:13 k115 because i think it was it was an attempt to replicate it with k115 as you said earlier yes now
00:39:21 do you remember that you were advised by the bre
00:39:28 the bre excuse me uh that if you repeated the 2005 test using the k-115 product a direct comparison could be made between both sets of data with a view to extending the existing
00:39:39 with a view to extending the existing 2005
00:39:41 2005 k15 test data to k115 that was the intention yes
00:39:48 now it's right isn't it that before kingspan attempted to replicate the 2005 test with standard k15 in 2019 you'd already attempted that in
00:40:00 in 2019 you'd already attempted that in 2016
00:40:02 2016 uh for the reasons we've said you've identified and let's look at an email kin407492 please
00:40:19 and if we look at the second email down the page we can see that this is an email from you to gwyn davis uh and others uh including richard burnley on the 9th of december 2016 at 1324 and
00:40:32 on the 9th of december 2016 at 1324 and you say guys following the latest eight four one four part one for k115 and we observed sustained flaming at the top of the rig so knew it would be a fail we've now received the tc data and it's not
00:40:43 received the tc data and it's not looking good the insulation layer saw temperatures of 900 degrees i've attached the data from the test and the report from the previous test for comparison and then you set out some initial thoughts do you remember
00:40:55 thoughts do you remember how long before you sent this email the test actually took place
00:41:03 i can't remember precisely wouldn't have been
00:41:06 been too long before and you then go on to draw
00:41:11 draw some detailed comparisons between the 2005 test and this test this 2016 test you see and if you look at if you look at the first set of bullet points there are six
00:41:22 first set of bullet points there are six of them
00:41:23 of them if you look at the last bullet point on that page you say the only known difference from the first part one is obviously the insulation and the fire barriers
00:41:32 barriers original had stainless steel 1.5 to 2 millimeter thick vented barriers which were removed from the market as they did not comply with today's performance requirements so we effectively replaced them with better performing ones from siderise mf
00:41:43 better performing ones from siderise mf bats with interest and strip so it looks from that is this right that you attempted to mirror the 2005 test other than the fire barriers and the insulation itself
00:41:55 insulation itself yes we're trying to get um a close replication as we could and what was the cladding used in that test the rain screen cladding used in that test there that was a fibre cement
00:42:06 that test there that was a fibre cement cladding panel and if we go on to the second set of bullet points towards the bottom of the page you say from observations the k115 seemed to continue to burn for longer
00:42:17 seemed to continue to burn for longer after the crib was extinguished compared to previous tests and completely disintegrated all the way to the top of the main wall the wing wall had to be extinguished there were several very loud pops bangs pocking noises during the test not heard
00:42:29 pocking noises during the test not heard before
00:42:30 before the cladding and insulation came away from the wall all the way to the top on the front face unlike the first test the cladding and then you say unlike the first test presumably because of the
00:42:41 first test presumably because of the increased temperature and in the next sentence you say this i have a concern that we do just do not really know what product was tested in the first test 10 years ago so i would like to compare the performance of k115 against k15
00:42:54 performance of k115 against k15 as it is today in a known test now pausing there you're talking about k-15 aren't you yes why didn't you know at that stage
00:43:07 yes why didn't you know at that stage what the tested k-15 product was in 2005 i think i i didn't you know because i didn't have the knowledge of the the history of it and it was so long ago
00:43:18 it was so long ago um it was just a a question mark for me to
00:43:21 to follow up on well you you say we just do not really know that which looks like kingspan doesn't really know as opposed to you personally
00:43:32 to you personally is that wrong um well it's probably me and uh and and my team that but that's probably referring to is the wii there did was there no way that you could investigate exactly what
00:43:44 investigate exactly what the k-15 was that had been used in the 2005 test
00:43:47 2005 test that's the the follow-up email and discussion with gwen davies right we'll look at that in a moment um i was going to ask you did you have the sop for this product the standard operating procedure for it
00:44:01 um i think we might have done that would tell you exactly what was tested in 2005 wouldn't it yes i think it would have been so why didn't you call for that
00:44:14 um i just i didn't i just had that discussion yes i know but it looked pretty critical didn't it looking at this comment that one of the problems was that you didn't actually know what the product was that
00:44:26 actually know what the product was that had been tested in that test ten years ago
00:44:29 ago and that therefore you had to compare the performance of k115 as you just described it rather graphically against k1 k15 as known today that was what the problem was so one
00:44:41 that was what the problem was so one solution
00:44:41 solution instead of going through that rigmarole would have been simply to look at the sap
00:44:45 sap and find out what the product was no it would have been but i don't have access to sops
00:44:51 to sops so that's why i would have discussed it with uh with gwen who would have had access to the sap oh gwyngwyn would have had access to them
00:45:02 and why didn't you ask him to look at them i didn't i didn't think about um sop data at the time
00:45:11 but gwen davis was the first person on this email did he not come back to you and say well look adrian like this is easy i can look at the sops and find out exactly what the session he came back and he did confirm that he
00:45:23 he came back and he did confirm that he thought that was old technology right so your question was answered yes now
00:45:32 yes now can we look at your
00:45:39 uh before we leave this email actually i just want to ask you one thing about it i had later for you but since we're on it i can ask you now looking at the third paragraph there on page two of this email run it says one option is to replicate the
00:45:51 it says one option is to replicate the above part one test with k15 which will give the best direct comparison but that leaves us hoping it is worse than k115 and then we have two failed tests in which to convince the bre to assess k115
00:46:02 which to convince the bre to assess k115 based on it's not as bad what was going on there
00:46:15 on there yes so we've done we've done that system on k115
00:46:20 on k115 so one option would be to to test it with k15 yeah as current as as we know it currently but because that test the first test had failed and
00:46:33 that test the first test had failed and we we weren't under the impression that you know
00:46:37 you know there should be too significant the difference between them then um you know there was always the risk that the k 15 the k-15 might fail
00:46:48 15 the k-15 might fail why do you say that leaves us hoping it's worse than k-115 why would you hope that the
00:46:55 that the selling to the market was worse than k115 because we were looking for reasons to to move k115 uh into the market so if we could show
00:47:06 uh into the market so if we could show it performed better than the current k-15
00:47:09 k-15 then that would potentially lead to being able to use it but when you do a test like that what you're then relying on is that the k-15 would then need to perform at least as well or
00:47:19 well or worse to justif to show the use of k115 if you see what i mean if you did if you did if it did passive blind colors
00:47:28 colors then you're back wondering whether k115 is a product we should move forward with what did you hope to achieve by having two failed tests no i i we didn't pursue that route it was it
00:47:39 we didn't pursue that route it was it was not a logical route no but i'm just really asking and just trying to find out what was in your mind at the time how would how would you hope to have k-15 that you were selling
00:47:50 k-15 that you were selling fail and fail worse than k115 and then go
00:47:54 go go to the bre to assess k115 on the on a better basis how is that going to work it was just in the context of seeing how k115 would perform it
00:48:06 seeing how k115 would perform it wouldn't um it would it wasn't a great option well it doesn't seem to be rational
00:48:15 unless you can explain it yeah and we didn't do it right um now exhibited to your fourth witness statement is a schedule which shows all major
00:48:26 is a schedule which shows all major changes to the k-15 product since inception and that is at kin302230
00:48:36 and we'll need the native version of that
00:48:40 and i just want to be very clear about the
00:48:43 the document we're looking at
00:48:52 we can look at the native version this is an excel spreadsheet
00:49:04 if we go to the second tab major changes which we're on i think at the moment and go down to row seven and this is something you referred to in your statement
00:49:13 statement we looked at earlier we glanced past it if you look at row seven
00:49:23 and i know from my own personal experience this is not a particularly easy
00:49:28 easy document to handle on the screen so but we need to look at that this is this is the test we can see that september 2006 the transfer to kester and technology
00:49:41 transfer to kester and technology took place and that one of the changes introduced was as recorded in column b perforated facings that's right isn't it i understand so yes yeah so that if that's right
00:49:52 that's right that would tend to indicate wouldn't it that that before september 2006 and therefore in may 2005 at the time of the bs8414 test the k-15 product had unperforated foil
00:50:05 the k-15 product had unperforated foil faces
00:50:06 faces it would and if we move across row 7 to column d authorization document we can see
00:50:15 can see an entry there the pr the process change has been recorded in something called ppds128
00:50:21 ppds128 yes yes did you check ppds128
00:50:28 no why's that
00:50:31 when what no why how about when when would i have checked it yeah when you're asking well this document was prepared but by you for the purpose now this this document was it's been prepared
00:50:43 document was it's been prepared by by gwyn davis primarily looking back at the data and then supplied in with my witness statement
00:50:51 statement yes so when you provided this with your witness statement were you not able to look at ppds-128 oh possibly did you no why is that
00:51:02 oh possibly did you no why is that i didn't didn't think i needed to we did not have
00:51:05 not have assisted you in understanding what exactly was tested in 2005.
00:51:12 possibly why didn't you look at it then if
00:51:16 if if possibly it would have done um i i did ever cross my mind to look at it
00:51:22 it right
00:51:26 let's go back to your passage in your third witness statement at page 52 look at paragraph 7.1 please you've and we've looked at this before
00:51:38 you've and we've looked at this before this is where you say uh that you think you first became aware uh that the 2005 bsi 8414 test may have used a different version of in 2016.
00:51:52 of in 2016. in fact it's right isn't it that and clear from the 9th of december 2016 email
00:51:58 email that we've been looking at i'll get back to it if you like that by december 2016 you had an extremely detailed understanding of the may 2005 test and the differences between that test
00:52:10 and the differences between that test and the 2016 k115 test because you were able to set them out yes in terms of the build up of it yeah the test yes so it wasn't um so your first awareness
00:52:21 um so your first awareness and detailed understanding was was pretty clear by at least december 2016 wasn't it
00:52:29 of the details of the test yes so when you say in your statement here at 7.1 that your detailed understanding started to develop in 2018
00:52:40 started to develop in 2018 what did you find out uh from the uh or by the end of 2018 or from the end of 2018 as you say that
00:52:51 or from the end of 2018 as you say that you hadn't learned by the end of 2016. i think some of the details around the um
00:52:58 um the kestron changed the exact dates and some of the details that we'd found as part of that investigation and some of them are i
00:53:09 investigation and some of them are i understand the the face of change but some of the chemistry um i i don't understand when did you discover the differences in the face of change and some of the
00:53:20 the face of change and some of the chemistry
00:53:21 chemistry uh well that would have been 2018
00:53:26 onwards
00:53:33 i then want to turn if i can to how this culminates which is the 23rd of october letter that you wrote
00:53:39 you wrote to the bre and this is at kin3024104 please
00:53:52 and this is your letter it's signed by you isn't it it is debbie smith at bre 23rd of october 2020. let's look at it together in the first paragraph you write we are writing to you with reference to
00:54:04 we are writing to you with reference to a number of bsa414 test reports and corresponding classification reports featuring our product cool thumb k-15 which kingspan will formally be withdrawing from circulation
00:54:15 withdrawing from circulation as you may be aware kingspan is currently involved as a core participant in the grenfell tower public inquiry as part of our cooperation with requests for information from the inquiry we have undertaken a comprehensive review of all past and current test data
00:54:27 review of all past and current test data which relates to k-15 including bs8414 tests
00:54:31 tests through our review we've now concluded that tests carried out in 2005 and 2014 feature product that was not sufficiently representative
00:54:42 sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the marketplace we have listed these reports and a small summary of their construction buildups below [Applause] now you say there in that paragraph that
00:54:55 now you say there in that paragraph that we have now concluded when exactly was that conclusion reached
00:55:04 i think that would have been around february
00:55:08 february february which yeah 2019
00:55:13 are you sure about that let's look at it together again this is the letter of the 23rd of october 2020. yes mr partridge and third paragraph through our review we have now concluded
00:55:24 our review we have now concluded ah okay i i just i was wondering when did that conclusion when was that conclusion reached i think once we'd completed the um replica tests
00:55:35 um replica tests that's when we understood that
00:55:50 now the replica test you're referring to
00:55:54 is that the 2019 test
00:55:58 yes that's correct and you've got your test report back from that i think in march 2020 yes i believe so so just thinking about
00:56:10 yes i believe so so just thinking about that
00:56:10 that that chronological detail did you come to the conclusion that you refer to here in march 2020
00:56:22 now i think we come to the conclusion that it wasn't sufficiently representative of the product sold that would have been in february march 2019
00:56:32 2019 and then we undertook the testing in june program which went on then and we had the reports then in february 2020 right so just to summarize you become aware of the problem in 2016
00:56:46 you become aware of the problem in 2016 2000 february 2019 you decide to do a test you withdraw the test from the website the old one you do the do the replica test in 2019
00:56:57 you do the do the replica test in 2019 on the 6th of june that passes you get the report in you say february 2020. so against that chronology that you've helpfully laid out for us
00:57:09 helpfully laid out for us when did you form the conclusion that is identified in the phrase we have now concluded
00:57:18 that would have been february 2019 and that's why we undertook the testing why did you use the word now when in fact
00:57:29 fact the conclusion was some 19 months previous
00:57:39 i don't i think it's just uh just a phrase really we because we'd undertaken the testing um yeah it shouldn't have been now we
00:57:51 yeah it shouldn't have been now we established that earlier i agree
00:57:58 why didn't you say through our review we concluded 18 months ago or so that these tests should be carried that these tests were not sufficiently representative
00:58:09 representative we could we could have done that yes i could have done that well you could have done but why i think it's probably we're ready now to advise you of that that's
00:58:20 advise you of that that's probably what i should have written what was that readiness to advise you now based on given the historic because of the replacement tests we've got we could explain
00:58:33 tests we've got we could explain the differences and that the testing we had now got you had the replica test done in june 19 and the replica test report given to you in february 20 that's
00:58:46 given to you in february 20 that's nine months before this letter so why did you believe it nine months before writing this letter because we wanted the reports as well
00:58:57 because we wanted the reports as well not just
00:58:58 not just our understanding of it we wanted the reports
00:59:01 reports but you had the reports in february february yes so between february 22 and october 2020 is about nine months my question is why did you leave it
00:59:12 did you leave it nine months before writing this letter to the bre i i think because i we just were just so busy we just um didn't really think about writing out
00:59:26 um didn't really think about writing out to the five engineers again until about august september and then we started to put this letter together then
00:59:36 but i can't explain like the gap it was just
00:59:39 just busy answering questions to the inquiry obviously and and running running the business to covet time so it was a it was an oversight well
00:59:50 it was an oversight well an oversight is uh an insight if it was an oversight it's a pretty grave one isn't it
01:00:00 it i don't think it's a grave one i think you know in in hindsight i'd like to have done it earlier well i can see that
01:00:08 see that i'm sorry to pursue this but withdrawing a test report three three test reports but particularly the 2005 test report which had been the linchpin the sheet
01:00:19 which had been the linchpin the sheet anchor of your entire marketing for k-15 over 18 meters for almost 15 years by this point
01:00:27 given that fact why was it not of the utmost urgency to make sure that once you at last had the replica test report in your hands in february 2020 you didn't immediately write to the bre
01:00:38 you didn't immediately write to the bre and withdraw it i think it's like i say i would we could have done it earlier maybe we should have done it um earlier
01:00:51 should have done it um earlier but it didn't change any of the outcomes doesn't change anything the fact that we've done it later than in february or march it is the real reason
01:01:01 reason that you wrote this letter to the bre that you had been bombarded with questions from the inquiry demands for disclosure from the inquiry and had
01:01:11 and had uh had to comply and had come to the realization not long before the 23rd of october that actually the game was up and it was time you withdrew this report publicly
01:01:25 you withdrew this report publicly now the intention was always to to write to the fire engineers about our findings and repeat testing was always the intention but you haven't
01:01:38 was always the intention but you haven't got any
01:01:39 got any explanation for why you left it nine months or so before getting around to doing it
01:01:45 doing it no i think just it just came back into into focus in around august for me personally um to bring it up to the team that we've we should we should complete this this
01:01:56 we should we should complete this this work now
01:01:57 work now and uh your fourth your third witness statement was of course dated the 18th of september 2020 and is it the case that during the course of preparation of that
01:02:08 course of preparation of that statement it it it had become apparent to you
01:02:12 to you that you could go on no longer with that in fact those three reports in circulation it may have been what prompted me to think about completing the the task with that about withdrawing it
01:02:25 the task with that about withdrawing it and
01:02:26 and and writing to the five engineers it could well have been that and the reason you use the words through our review we have now concluded was to give the impression that this was hard work recently done
01:02:37 work recently done when in fact you've been sitting on this conclusion for at least nine months and probably 19. no because obviously this all this we know all this information is going to be public anyway so it wouldn't have been
01:02:49 public anyway so it wouldn't have been to try and give give a false impression now well you say you know this information was going to be public anyway and that rather makes the point that you thought you'd get
01:02:59 you'd get in there before you were examined no i mean even this letter would be would be public would be part of the inquiry
01:03:14 do you accept the keeping a bs 8414 part one classification report and test report out there in circulation for any longer than was reasonably
01:03:25 for any longer than was reasonably necessary was an extremely risky and dangerous thing to do no i don't think it's i don't think it was dangerous i think um like i say we've got the confidence
01:03:37 um like i say we've got the confidence in in the product and we don't think there was a vast amount of difference between them so i don't think it was dangerous in that point of view um but i think it
01:03:48 in that point of view um but i think it you know we could have done it earlier than not and i'm bound to suggest to you that whatever your views about the success or or failure of the 2019 replica test you would not have taken the step to
01:04:00 you would not have taken the step to write to the bre unless you were under significant pressure to provide evidence to the inquiry and felt that you had no other choice i have to suggest that to you i must be
01:04:10 right think would we have gone through the test program without coming to the realization of what we have with in the sort of um
01:04:23 what we have with in the sort of um control of the product changes um i think that's correct when it took you four years between you first being told of the problem in 2016 by gwen davis and october 2020 to decide to withdraw
01:04:36 and october 2020 to decide to withdraw that test
01:04:37 that test do you accept that that is an extraordinarily long time
01:04:43 no not under the circumstances but it's that's that's the fact
01:04:48 and during the entire four-year period you were you were selling k-15 in the knowledge that the test which underpinned those sales was not the same material that was being sold
01:05:01 the same material that was being sold i think it is the same material it's it's not the same product it's a different used by the same process correct
01:05:11 and that was a and that was i have to suggest to you a dishonest and disreputable way of going about business i don't think it's either of those things and we've seen no evidence do you accept
01:05:23 and we've seen no evidence do you accept this there's no evidence that either you or anybody else at kingspan at any stage took the trouble to alert arab
01:05:29 arab or xover or anybody else who'd conducted a desktop study in 2014 or 15 based on the 2005 test that their reliance on that test was misplaced
01:05:39 misplaced you just didn't do that either did not until this letter no and why's that for for the reasons that we we needed to get that evidence to satisfy ourselves if there was any
01:05:51 satisfy ourselves if there was any impact
01:05:52 impact and difference between the performance of them
01:05:56 did it not occur to you that by permitting the 2005 test to remain out there unwithdrawn for people to rely on you were placing the safety of occupants of buildings
01:06:07 of buildings with k-15 on them at serious risk no i don't accept that at all you don't accept that no
01:06:16 and do you agree that this letter rather gives the impression to the bre and indeed the inquiry because you copied it to us that the fact that the k-15 product tested in 2005 was not representative of the k-15
01:06:28 was not representative of the k-15 products sold from 2006 onwards has only been discovered as a result of your review to assist the inquiry
01:06:38 [Music] i think it it's the confirmation of it and in fact as we've seen the fact that kingspan changed in 2006
01:06:51 that kingspan changed in 2006 from old to new technology was known from that time and when you wrote that letter
01:06:55 letter you knew that yep well kingston were aware that the product had changed or the process making the product had changed
01:07:08 making the product had changed in 2006 that's correct and the sentence through our review that we have now concluded that the tests carried out in 2005 and 14 feature product that was not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the
01:07:19 the product currently sold into the marketplace was a fact known in 2006 to kingspan
01:07:23 kingspan wasn't it
01:07:27 um i don't think at the time i personally didn't think it was insufficiently representative of the product i don't think that well that wasn't my belief
01:07:41 and certainly in terms of its fire performance no belief that it was insufficiently representative [Music]
01:07:49 [Music] and when did it when did it become insufficiently representative then like i've mentioned before really as part of the the inquiry review you're looking at things in a different light and under
01:08:00 light and under uh greater scrutiny and you are over cautious so we say an abundance of caution we thought it was prudent to withdraw that test
01:08:15 when did you come to the conclusion that despite knowing about the change from old to new technology the new technology was not sufficiently representative of the old technology for the purposes
01:08:26 of the old technology for the purposes of that test when was that conclusion reached
01:08:30 reached uh i think that would have been in february
01:08:33 february 2019. and are you saying that it wasn't your personal view that the the product wasn't sufficiently represented
01:08:46 i'm saying prior to that my view was that it wasn't representative but now i'm taking you know advice from the wider team about it does the change in technology
01:08:58 in technology and the way we've produced it um give give a difference that we should we should
01:09:05 should acknowledge and i think obviously the history of the business has been that it we didn't need to um but under the under this scrutiny and you
01:09:16 under the under this scrutiny and you know really looking at it in a different light we've come to the conclusion that we should i'll come back to the 2014 tests that are referred to in the letter
01:09:28 tests that are referred to in the letter on that page there in the box but i just want to ask you specifically about the 2005 test for the moment if we continue with your letter to the bre we can see
01:09:39 bre we can see uh further down we can see the list of buildups there and you uh can see that there you've referred to
01:09:50 can see that there you've referred to tested construction do you see that yes and you refer there to masonry substrate 60 millimeters k15 mechanically fixed aluminium support grid 40 millimeters
01:10:01 aluminium support grid 40 millimeters cavity six millimeters uac cement particle boards you see that yes you don't put in fiber boards there do you no it's just a it's just a section out
01:10:12 no it's just a it's just a section out of the test report so that they're aware of exactly what the buildup was
01:10:20 [Music] now if you go on to page 2 you can see the heading test report 220876
01:10:31 the heading test report 220876 and here you're right due to the age of this test a lot of details and information were hard to come by the drawings used in the test report are limited in detail and the test report description of the tested construction also offers little information on the full design of
01:10:43 little information on the full design of the test
01:10:43 the test construction then you say this on a full review
01:10:47 review of raw materials and the manufacturing processes it became apparent that the k-15 manufactured in 2005 would not be representative of the product currently sold on the market from 2006
01:10:59 currently sold on the market from 2006 to today while both products are still phenolic foams kingspan is now of the view
01:11:04 view that there are sufficient differences to consider withdrawing this test report what were the sufficient different differences between the two phenolic foams that you refer to here
01:11:17 i i don't think there are that sufficient difference but in terms of the processing of it i think is what we're we're talking about there there were significant differences in the way the product is processed
01:11:29 product is processed but what were they
01:11:33 um these differences i think so what efficient to consider withdrawing this test report yeah i think the one that is it's um it's um open cell
01:11:44 um it's um open cell um in terms of the way the foam is constructed i believe it's old technology was open selling current technologies closed cell which means it basically retains its thermal
01:11:55 basically retains its thermal performance for for longer um
01:12:01 but after that i'm not i'm not a chemist so i'm not into the details of that but i believe that
01:12:08 that that's the position what were the differences in raw materials that you refer to i think there may have been supplier differences on some of it
01:12:19 been supplier differences on some of it different suppliers providing the products i don't know that the internet's on the different raw materials when did you find out about those differences i think it's part of that review
01:12:31 i think it's part of that review undertaken you refer to a review just now and indeed you refer to a review here on the page and in the first few paragraphs of this letter was there actually a report that
01:12:42 was there actually a report that summarized the findings which then led to this letter being written not that i'm aware of so so how is this letter generated
01:12:53 so so how is this letter generated you you obviously wrote it yourself but did you write it from a a draft or a report or no it was a draft which was created by me and then the the wide team um reviewed
01:13:06 and then the the wide team um reviewed the draft
01:13:08 the draft and then that was the final the final version that was agreed upon what documents did you use to put this draft together
01:13:17 um
01:13:22 i don't just this just from my initial draft was from the knowledge that i gained um and then the the additional wording was supported by the rest of the team
01:13:34 supported by the rest of the team i don't know whether any specific documents that i used it was just you know i now got an understanding of that this is the situation
01:13:43 situation i want to ask you about the schedule of tests that you appended as appendix c to your fourth witness statement which was dated the third of
01:13:51 third of november 2020 which post dates this letter
01:13:55 letter can we go to that in fact what i want to show you is kin302234 which is actually not the version you exhibited to your statement what you exhibited your
01:14:07 statement what you exhibited your statement
01:14:08 statement it was in fact revised
01:14:12 and the document on the page here uh is um as you can see uh updated and appended
01:14:19 appended to the letter from gowling wlg dated 31st of january 2020. in fact what you've exhibited is an earlier version of this this schedule but we're going to work on this
01:14:30 schedule but we're going to work on this basis
01:14:31 basis the basis of this one uh it it i think is supposed to reflect the comprehensive review that you told bre that you conducted is that right
01:14:50 it's certainly a document related to that yes
01:14:53 that yes and uh to be fair to you this is an appendix to gowling's letter in response to request seven paragraph eight from the inquiry which is about all the tests involving k-15
01:15:05 all the tests involving k-15 commissioned by the kings band at the bre
01:15:07 bre before 14th of june 2017. were you involved in compiling this table
01:15:15 not in the direct detail now who was i believe that would have been gwen davis possibly john garbett as well were you involved in providing any of
01:15:26 were you involved in providing any of the information that's gone into this table
01:15:31 um not from what's on that screen if we look at the may test may 2005 test which is on page two
01:15:42 in the second row
01:15:45 we can see under system tested
01:15:50 i'm afraid we're gonna have to get back i'm sorry page one i think in fact
01:16:05 uh yes you can see the system tested uh was cement particle board you see that
01:16:13 yes so as at the end of january this year
01:16:17 year kingspan was still happy with the description of the system tested a cement particle board no reference to fiberboard there is there
01:16:28 there no what is that i think that's an error an error yeah i think it's probably picking up from old information it was exhibited to your
01:16:39 old information it was exhibited to your statement didn't you check it before you signed off on it i missed i must have missed that right well when was this compiled you know we know it was in january yeah before right at the end of january
01:16:52 yeah before right at the end of january right and if we move along the same row on page two at the sixth column under the heading properties of the tested insulation product all we can see there is thickness 60 millimeters
01:17:03 there is thickness 60 millimeters and then under the column of the heading was the tested insulation product the same as k15 being offered for sale by kingspan insulation at the time you can see it says unknown you see that yes in fact it was named
01:17:15 you see that yes in fact it was named wasn't it
01:17:16 wasn't it as at least as of january 2020 and the answer would be no
01:17:25 yes i'd agree with that so can you account for why it says unknown no i can't
01:17:34 did you take any care over this document before exhibiting it to your statement did you check it i checked a lot of a lot of documents um with the four
01:17:46 a lot of documents um with the four witness statements that i've given and it's
01:17:48 it's obviously just i've mismissed this right
01:17:54 let's turn to the bre's comments in 2015 can we go to bre-302074 please bre three zeros two
01:18:07 bre three zeros two double zero seven four this is an email chain
01:18:15 chain from adam heath of kingspan
01:18:19 uh and if you go to the very end of this chain on page one over to page two it's an email from adam heath on the 8th of september 2015 at 15 23.
01:18:31 on the 8th of september 2015 at 15 23. you can see that to to the bre somebody called gab saeeta vida or vida gabzaita i think is her name and he asks her if you look at the top of page
01:18:42 the top of page two of this email run the question thanks for the prompt response on a slightly
01:18:47 slightly related topic it has come up in discussions recently that we never commissioned a classification report for our bs8414 part 1 test attached to reference this test was originally completed in
01:18:58 this test was originally completed in 2005. i have three questions really can a classification report be issued for this test how much will it cost what is the time scale for delivery in the event this is possible any guidance you can offer here would be much appreciated
01:19:10 appreciated now uh did who do you know who instructed adam heath to write this email send this request i think we we had discussions adam had noted that we
01:19:22 discussions adam had noted that we hadn't
01:19:23 hadn't um ever seemed to request a 135 he thought it would be a good idea i agreed
01:19:31 i agreed with him so i asked him to look into it what uh what why did you think it was a good idea
01:19:43 good idea because we'd we got into the practice um latterly of once we'd got a pass test was to re
01:19:50 was to re request the 135 classification because really the 135 classification just makes it easier to explain that the test had achieved the compliance
01:20:03 had achieved the compliance criteria without having to show people the thermocouple data and that it
01:20:10 that it didn't fail on the flaming and so we thought it'd be a good idea to get it for that test just to complete it for completeness really did you ask yourself or did you ask anyone within
01:20:21 anyone within kingspan why there had been no classification report done either at the time or at any point
01:20:28 point in the decade between the test and this email i
01:20:32 email i i wondered why and uh probably the only two people who may have been able to answer that um well certainly would have been either but he had gone by then and maybe um tony who had also gone
01:20:45 maybe um tony who had also gone so i don't think there was anybody in the
01:20:48 the left in the business who would know the answer to that question but but mr millerchat went in the may of 2015 and mr meredith left i think early august i think well a week a matter of
01:21:00 august i think well a week a matter of days or weeks before this evening did it not occur to you before the 8th or 7th of september 2015 to ask yourself the question i wonder where the classification report for this is and why don't we have one
01:21:12 for this is and why don't we have one no it didn't so what prompted the request at this point i think just a discussion with um with adam adam had um had identified it um i think we might
01:21:24 had identified it um i think we might have been under the impression that we thought it was unnecessary or it was it was expensive and i said well let's let's have a look when you were preparing what became the august 2015 roots to
01:21:35 what became the august 2015 roots to compliance document which referred to the test as we've seen the bre test for the 2005 test report yes did it not occur to you at that stage to ask the question i wonder where
01:21:46 stage to ask the question i wonder where the classification report is for that it didn't it didn't occur to me may have been developing that that prompted adam to to think about it but it didn't didn't occur to me i can't say well i
01:21:57 didn't occur to me i can't say well i mean it's hard to give reasons for why things don't occur to you but can you explain why it didn't occur to you that you had come in as a head of marketing in november 14 head of technical and marketing in may 15
01:22:09 marketing in may 15 and here we are in september 2015 and k-15 is being sold all through that time on the basis of a test but without a classification report the question is why did it only occur to you at this point
01:22:21 you at this point september 15 that you didn't have and might want to have a classification report i don't know why it only occurred to me then i mean just the fact that it did occur to me i you know it was shown to me and i thought it was
01:22:34 it was shown to me and i thought it was a good idea to get one i think they're not i don't think they're necessary um in in order to show compliance of a test and that's obviously what um kingspan has done over
01:22:46 obviously what um kingspan has done over the years
01:22:47 the years but i just thought it was a good idea when it was pointed out to get one it was a good idea that would cost money though isn't it yes it was going to cost yeah custom money
01:22:58 money now we can see that the request is sent on
01:23:01 on if we look up the email chain to page one by
01:23:05 one by uh vida garbsite to uh tony baker on the 9th of september now you're not in on this email but let's just have a look at the the text uh she says
01:23:16 the text uh she says dear tony please be so kind to advice regarding our client request below and then he comes back the next day 9th september hi veda this is not a straightforward one in theory we could issue a classification document however i can
01:23:27 classification document however i can understand why one was not issued for this test as it seems like an indicative type test
01:23:32 type test the s8414 br135 is a system test and classification system and from what i can see from this report there is no external weather protection system included
01:23:41 included for example render system or rain screen cladding once they have a cement board over cladding i doubt this would be considered a complete system data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past
01:23:52 misrepresented in the market in the past i suggest this question should be passed by steve howard and or debbie smith before a response is sent [Applause] did you do you remember receiving a response from the bre
01:24:03 response from the bre i don't i just remember receiving the um acceptance that they could do a classification report right i wasn't made aware of this this sort of background discussion right
01:24:14 background discussion right on what you know and what you knew perhaps in september 15 do you agree with the view that mr baker was expressing that the build up of the 2005 test was not representative of a complete system
01:24:28 well i think we understood that the the cladding
01:24:31 cladding on it might not be but i wouldn't have i wouldn't have had any reason to think why that would still preclude a 135 classification report mr meredith gave evidence to the inquiry
01:24:44 mr meredith gave evidence to the inquiry uh
01:24:45 uh and it's day 75 page 69 lines 20 to page 70
01:24:50 70 line 24. and there's no need to turn it up
01:24:54 up but the gist of his evidence was that this was not supposed to be a cladding system only supposed to be a representative of
01:25:05 only supposed to be a representative of a non-combustible outer layer
01:25:09 and not representative of a real-life real world cladding system at the time i saw that yes yeah that's what he said you agree
01:25:17 you agree well i agree that's what the intention seemed to be at the time yes as at september 2015 on what you knew then
01:25:25 then did you know at least that much too well i knew that the out of cladding was not i was 2015 i don't know then i knew in 2016.
01:25:36 knew in 2016. possibly not at 2015.
01:25:42 now let's look at kin404791 please this is an email dated the 30th of may 2005.
01:25:54 2005. from iva meredith
01:25:57 to the bre david hall and sarah colwell
01:26:04 about the up uh the imminent uh bs8414 test scheduled for the 31st of may 2005. this is the day before um have you ever seen this email before
01:26:16 um have you ever seen this email before no
01:26:16 no you've never seen this before i can recall now i appreciate that this email was generated before you worked for kingspan but uh let's just look at the email
01:26:24 the email a little bit more closely if you look about two-thirds of the way down there's a sentence that begins cos or cosh cos double h data do you see that yes cos double h
01:26:36 do you see that yes cos double h data will follow in the morning for the cool term k15 and then it goes on and the six millimeter cement board that simulates the cladding
01:26:47 the cladding would you agree that on what we've seen that the contemporaneous description would indicate that either meredith did not consider that the cement board was genuine cladding it was a simulation
01:26:58 simulation yes it would and it wasn't hiding that fact from the bre no was that something that was ever expressed to you no i didn't understand that
01:27:05 that detail of it when you were alerted to the problems with the 2005 bre test by mr davis quinn davis in um in the latter part of 2016.
01:27:17 um in the latter part of 2016. yes or perhaps again in 2018 when you say you began to look at it a little bit more closely did you not discover then at either of those points that the cladding was only a simulation
01:27:31 a simulation well i guess like i said 2016 we understood that that cement particle board was not a uh you know a
01:27:43 a uh you know a product usually used in a facade so that so we understood that from then yes whether it was cementitious particle or fiber
01:27:52 fiber the idea was that only that it was a simulation and not a representative system
01:27:56 system it appears so from that indeed and did you discover that fact in 2016 or 2018. that it was no that it was an intention just purely
01:28:08 no that it was an intention just purely to simulate uh not not specifically now when did you discover that
01:28:15 um i wasn't i wasn't aware of the discussions that ivory had with bre about
01:28:24 bre about the extended application that he was looking to get from this until until his evidence the day
01:28:34 that was the original intention for this so are you telling us that the first time you discovered
01:28:46 time you discovered that the cladding system used in the 2005
01:28:49 2005 bs8414 test was a simulation as opposed to an intended representative system or part of a system was when mr meredith gave evidence in terms of it was intended as a simulation
01:29:01 simulation um on the discussions he had with bre about the extended application i wouldn't i wasn't aware of that but i was aware that that was a a
01:29:12 but i was aware that that was a a simulation of the system right and when did you become aware that it was a simulation when we found out that the
01:29:19 that the um probably i don't well when i found out that cp board um
01:29:26 board um and the fiber cement board issue in 2016. yes
01:29:30 2016. yes that's that's the earliest i would have uh understood that right so as you said earlier and it's in your statements you started to focus on this question
01:29:37 question about whether it was cementitious particle board or fibrous cement fiberboard in 2016 as you've told us that was at the same time as you discovered that
01:29:48 discovered that the system was tested was a simulation at least
01:29:51 at least as far as the rain screen material was concerned um i don't recall being aware that it was a you know intended simulation
01:30:03 forget intended get intended because you keep introducing that i'm not that's not in my question my question i think you've given it to me at line 10 on this page but i think you're telling
01:30:14 on this page but i think you're telling us that
01:30:14 us that you first discovered that the um the rig for the 2005 test was a simulation at least so far as concerns the
01:30:23 the outer cladding in 2016.
01:30:30 is that right in yes but in reality it actually wasn't because in reality it was a fibrous cement board so in reality it was a it was a
01:30:41 so in reality it was a it was a potential real system so that's why i say intention the intention
01:30:48 intention with this was to seems to be to us to stimulate
01:30:51 stimulate one but um it appears from the investigations we've done that actually the product to use could actually have been a product that was used on the outside of a building potentially but given that this is the
01:31:02 but given that this is the contemporaneous documentation it says the day before the test yes from mr meredith the man and kingspan responsible for the test who describes the six millimeter cement
01:31:13 who describes the six millimeter cement board as
01:31:13 board as a simulated cladding looking at that now you've got no reason to think that that is wrong and that in fact it was a representative system using a fiber
01:31:28 board sorry answer that question again please yes i mean here is the email from mr meredith he's describing the six millimeter cement board as a simulated cladding he says it
01:31:39 board as a simulated cladding he says it simulates the cladding uh my question is why is he likely to be wrong about that i i don't think he's wrong that's why i say it looks like that's what
01:31:50 say it looks like that's what everybody's intention was and therefore your understanding that you gleaned in 2016 that it was fiberboard and therefore intended to be representative was wrong
01:32:01 no i didn't say it was intended to be representative it's just that that appears to be what board was used but it could still be i mean really you could have used
01:32:10 have used any non-combustible facade product to simulate how the system would perform using k-15 whether it be a product which
01:32:21 using k-15 whether it be a product which is generally used on the market or not when you were told by mr davis about the discrepancies or oddities about the rain screen material
01:32:32 rain screen material did you seek to have a discussion with philip heath about that because he was still at kingspan at the time wasn't he uh he was but um
01:32:43 uh he was but um i i didn't no i didn't seek to go any further with um with philip so you you left the discrepancy between old 15 and uk 15 and you left the discrepancy
01:32:54 and you left the discrepancy between the cementitious cladding cladding board and the fibre board could you account for your apathy at the time
01:33:02 time i wasn't apathetic i just um i just came to the you know the conclusion that from the information i'd had
01:33:14 from the information i'd had that there was you know there was um nothing to be concerned about in terms of the fire performance of the product or the system
01:33:26 of the product or the system and had you done a documentary exercise of examining in the records what exactly it was used was used by way of the cladding system you would have come across this email in the records and found out that
01:33:38 the records and found out that as mr meredith writes here it was six millimeter cement board simulating the cladding
01:33:43 cladding that that information was within your reach at the time potentially well that's why i'm afraid i'd use the word apathy i mean it's the only way of explaining why you
01:33:54 it's the only way of explaining why you didn't actually undertake an investigation to find out exactly what it was that had been used and why well i think obviously these documents have been pulled up
01:34:04 pulled up because of you know intensive document searches i possibly could have gone back through all of all of his emails but i didn't see any need to do
01:34:16 emails but i didn't see any need to do that
01:34:23 then i suggest you that you as you said you could have done and i suggest you should have done
01:34:30 do you accept that [Music]
01:34:34 [Music] no i don't you don't so you you're you remain of the the position do you that it was perfectly acceptable to leave this doubt about what the rain
01:34:46 to leave this doubt about what the rain screen chatting system was whether it was representative or not whether it was a simulation or not whether k-15 new or old well i don't think finding out that
01:34:57 think finding out that it was intended as a simulation actually changes
01:35:02 changes what i understood of the test in 2016.
01:35:14 what i understood of the test in 2016. well it wouldn't it because it would tell you
01:35:17 tell you that the test undertaken in 2005 was on any view
01:35:22 any view not a test which if replicated could be used
01:35:25 used by a real builder in the real world on a real building well and i think in 2016 um understanding that it'd been described as a cement particle board
01:35:37 described as a cement particle board probably would i'd agreed with that i want to ask you now about the july 2014
01:35:46 2014 uh bs8414 test that was undertaken at the bre
01:35:50 the bre visit are we going to have a startup mr chairman yes that's a good match that's good
01:35:53 good i think it might be a good idea for a break yes we'll stop now and return please at 25 to 4 and again no talking to your course to anyone about your evidence
01:36:14 thank you 25 to 4.
01:52:44 would you ask mr party to come back in
01:52:56 please
01:53:03 all right ready to carry on mr podge i am thank you yes mister thank you mr chairman mr partial i'm going to take a step out um from going to the july 2014 test and i want to ask you just a little bit more
01:53:15 i want to ask you just a little bit more about what mr davis gwyn davis might have told you in 2016 when you had the discussion about old k15 and uk 15. can i ask you to go please to kin four zeros eight eight four seven
01:53:34 now this is a a report uh dated the seventh of january 2008 uh signed by iva meredith and if you go
01:53:45 uh signed by iva meredith and if you go down in it to page four
01:54:07 yes you can see that on page it's actually page five uh in fact that's what i want um you can see uh that on page five
01:54:18 um you can see uh that on page five uh there's the background to the test and in the second paragraph there you can see that there's a description of what the test is
01:54:29 and the use of the non-combustible board and then the on page six you can see that there's the detail here of the tested system
01:54:41 you see that and then if you go down a little bit further past the photographs
01:54:57 to uh page well i probably want page three actually in the first place and we'll come to some photographs if we need them if you go to page three
01:55:08 need them if you go to page three um
01:55:11 you top of the page you can see that the report says the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory
01:55:22 laboratory why did it fail the new technology phenolic is very different in a fire situation to the previous technology which has passed several similar tests the old technology would turn into a light ash and fall away
01:55:33 light ash and fall away leaving to substance leaving subs leaving no substance i think it should be to feed the fire please refer to archive test pictures 47 and 48
01:55:42 and 48 which clearly shows this and those are lower down in the report the phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity a barrier a serious hammering it did however hold out and there was a slim chance that it
01:55:53 out and there was a slim chance that it may have held that long enough for the crib to start burning down and then this test would have been successful and then if you look a little bit lower down that page in the last two paragraphs it says
01:56:04 paragraphs it says unofficial official comments from the bre official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure however unofficial comments it was apparently the insulation was fully
01:56:15 apparently the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that last time
01:56:28 like that last time [Music]
01:56:30 [Music] now this report is discussed at a meeting at which mr davis was present we can
01:56:41 at which mr davis was present we can just look at that kin3022466
01:56:57 just look at that kin3022466 where we can see on the 30th of january 2008
01:57:01 2008 present vince coppock gwynne davis phil heath and ivan meredith and others you see that yes and urgent topics for discussion item number one phenolic fire performance uh
01:57:14 phenolic fire performance uh and you can see metsec facade test failure you see that yes uh and uh uh i'm not asking you to tell me what was in mr davis's mind
01:57:25 was in mr davis's mind in 2016 eight years later but given uh what i've shown you in in this report did mr davis discuss this report or
01:57:36 did mr davis discuss this report or anything like this with you when in 2016 he told you that the 2005 test had
01:57:43 test had been carried out with old technology no when was the have you ever seen this test report not the document on the screen the document i've just referred you to
01:57:55 i've just referred you to before no i saw it referenced in evidence earlier right is that the first time you yes that's the first time you've seen it
01:58:08 can you be absolutely sure that you never had a discussion with gwyn davis along the lines that the new technology burned ferociously and contributed to the fire when
01:58:20 and contributed to the fire when subjected to an 8414 test no we didn't [Music]
01:58:26 [Music] so could i just can you just help me with this then um you told us earlier that you had understood that there was no material difference between the reaction of the new product of fire
01:58:38 of the new product of fire and the reaction of the old product yes old tectifier how did you form that view [Music]
01:58:47 [Music] just by looking at discussions with um with gwen about the the changes the differences um and that you know i understood from gwen that the fire
01:58:58 i understood from gwen that the fire performance in terms of its what we would test in the lab or euro class was this was the same as the product we were manufacturing in 2016
01:59:09 product we were manufacturing in 2016 for example that i is a little surprising given the fact that it was we can see from yes this document grin davis clearly did know
01:59:19 know that at least in the view of ivor meredith there was a significant difference in the way the products
01:59:26 products performed and he didn't mention anything of the sort to you no but this is 2008. um i'm not sure whether grin was of the
01:59:39 um i'm not sure whether grin was of the opinion that there was a significant difference at the time these are system tests
01:59:44 tests and how much proportion you can give to the performance of the insulation versus the performance of the system is favored in the system performance
01:59:55 is favored in the system performance rather than the insulation so and we can see there that you know at the same test with with a mineral wool had failed so it would indicate that to me and possibly to grin but i'm
02:00:07 that to me and possibly to grin but i'm putting words in his mouth and his mind that um it was more the system was the perfor
02:00:13 perfor was the problem with the performance than the
02:00:17 than the the k-15 itself well i do understand that it's a system test yes but um mr meredith did draw attention to certain characteristics of the
02:00:27 the new technology uh reaction to fire but you say gwen davis didn't mention that to you at all no
02:00:38 all no no when in 2016 um the
02:00:44 um the test that i observed um it didn't get you know sustained burning it did self-extinguish when the source was removed
02:00:55 removed so it just didn't seem to it doesn't seem to tally with that description at that time as i now look at it
02:01:02 at it but also i understand from iva's evidence that he wasn't at that test and that he's he i think he said himself he was over
02:01:14 i think he said himself he was over inflating the performance to to get a reaction from the team to look closely so i believe he thought there was a
02:01:21 was a a difference in the performance but he couldn't
02:01:25 couldn't to me seem to be able to quantify that it was
02:01:29 it was the k-15 as opposed to the system that's that's looking back on it now you're commenting on it thank you i'm so sorry no no no but what you've just told us is a comment now from where
02:01:40 just told us is a comment now from where you're sitting yes two weeks ago right yes that's not can i then show you one more document on this line and then we'll get back to where we were which is kin four zeros eight
02:01:48 eight eight four three
02:01:53 this is an email run from uh the summer of 2008
02:01:57 of 2008 and if i go to ask you to go to page two then over to page three at the bottom of page two is an email from either either meredith to malcolm rochford vincent copper
02:02:08 vincent copper copper coppock philip heath and gwyn davis k-15 problems malcolm vincent in the name of the top of page three he says the question of k-15's bad fire
02:02:19 he says the question of k-15's bad fire performance is no longer just an internal one it would seem off-site have a very dramatic test failure therefore i need to know how soon i can have samples of the oap op90 phenolic for business critical r d
02:02:33 op90 phenolic for business critical r d once i've reviewed the information i'll provide a more comprehensive report later however the attached picture shows the most recent k-15 test performed by off-site
02:02:40 off-site and k-15 burning under its own steam in bold ten minutes after the test was put out off-site are gravely concerned that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does
02:02:51 doesn't do what we say it does now that email is something which was sent to gwyn davis at any time anytime during your tenure overseeing k-15
02:03:03 tenure overseeing k-15 from the latter part of 2013 end of 2013. did gwyn davis ever tell you about the history of k-15 and
02:03:14 tell you about the history of k-15 and these apparently dramatic failures no not the oracle not a single word no do you have any reason to belie to think that he might have kept
02:03:26 belie to think that he might have kept that from you no i can only put it down to that whether he believed it was the k-15 product
02:03:35 product at the time and there has been you know um
02:03:39 um improvements and developments on the product as outlined in the changes and whether
02:03:46 whether there was a view this this might have been a bad batch but i think actually the view the view is that that there wasn't
02:03:54 wasn't um a significant difference in performance of the product but if the context of your discussion with mr davis in in the latter part of 2016
02:04:05 in the latter part of 2016 was as you told us testing of the k-115 against the original k-15 test yes you're looking at a comparison between
02:04:15 between that test and the new test or potential new test
02:04:19 new test yes can you explain why mr davis wouldn't have said to you well the old technology under the k15 test in 2005 was radically different
02:04:31 test in 2005 was radically different from the performance of anything we tested after 2006 when we started selling new technology he might have added and things have got better since but why wouldn't he have told you that
02:04:42 told you that well because i i'm not sure he's he he's of that belief i would i would imagine but you got you sitting there have no reason to to to suggest
02:04:53 to to to suggest for why he would have kept any of this from you no right can we then turn to the july 2014 test which was undertaken at the bre now it's right isn't it that that test
02:05:05 now it's right isn't it that that test was the subject of bre's report number two nine
02:05:08 two nine seven double nine nine
02:05:13 uh which i think you also withdrew in your 23rd of october letter that's correct yes i've got the number wrong two seven two nine seven zero nine nine that's right now um
02:05:24 zero nine nine that's right now um that was the third of the tests withdrawn at the time of that test july 14 you were kingspan's product development manager weren't you july 14 yes you haven't yet been
02:05:35 july 14 yes you haven't yet been promoted to head of technical no that's correct or head of marketing uh now
02:05:40 uh now you say in your third witness statement on page 28 we can just go to that please
02:05:50 uh at paragraph 3.38 um that you were in charge of developing the research and development product which was used in the july 2014 test
02:06:01 was used in the july 2014 test is that right no i don't say i was in charge right i say i was the well you were the you were the product development manager and were involved in the project to develop k 50 uh low lambda k
02:06:13 develop k 50 uh low lambda k 15. that's right i was involved in that project right yes i see what did you know about the fire characteristics of that product before the test
02:06:24 i understood the before the test probably before the test i wouldn't have had any understanding i don't think of the um fire performance i know from
02:06:37 the um fire performance i know from when i started to look at i think it was september
02:06:41 september in that year after the test had been completed
02:06:44 completed that looking at the the data from the small scale we weren't expecting it to be any different than the standard product
02:06:55 would you agree that tests to bs 8414 require significant planning yes and require significant investment both in terms of management time and cost
02:07:06 cost yes and in july 2014 were you aware that kingspan were actually under some pressure
02:07:11 pressure both from the nhbc do you remember and from a customer or potential customer called wintec to provide evidence of successful tests to bs8414 part two steel frame for k15
02:07:25 two steel frame for k15 yeah i think was it november 2014 around that time i became aware of that i think it was earlier than that in fact january
02:07:33 january 2014 2014 yes possibly i was aware that the nhbc
02:07:44 possibly i was aware that the nhbc would put in um well pretty difficult questions into the team about their intention potentially to stop recommending k15
02:07:55 recommending k15 on projects yes all right and that you were aware of you were aware of that by july of that year yes yes were you also aware by july 2014 that no tests on systems
02:08:06 2014 that no tests on systems incorporating the standard new tech k-15 had yet been able to meet the criteria
02:08:11 criteria in br-135
02:08:17 um i don't think i was aware of the what test
02:08:21 test bank of evidence would have had on the standard product
02:08:26 right we can do this via appendix b of your fourth witness statement if need be um but if i can summarize it for you that maybe it may be easier do you remember at the time that before
02:08:39 do you remember at the time that before july 2015 there had been uh four tests uh in 2007 and 2008
02:08:50 uh in 2007 and 2008 two with so tech and metsec one on the 7th of january 2014 and one on the 19th of march 2014 all unsuccessful
02:09:02 possibly not in 2014 now in preparing for the july 2014 a414 test did you not yourself just go back
02:09:11 back through the files and work out what 8414 tests
02:09:14 tests had been conducted on k-15 no like i said test was already uh undertaken before i was asked to look at the timing program to become the project manager on that that test was already done
02:09:27 that test was already done so i was asked i think it was set in september
02:09:30 september to look at completing the program um to launch the product so i think it was
02:09:37 was the confidence from the passing of that test
02:09:40 test um moved it to the next stage in the stage gate process if you like it's right isn't it that in fact the k-15 tested in july 2014
02:09:51 k-15 tested in july 2014 was not the same as that being offered for sale at the time that's correct why was that because it was a development project what was the point of testing a version of k-15 that was not for sale
02:10:02 of k-15 that was not for sale because there was the intention to move to a lower lambda cool firm range and k-15 was part of that of that move
02:10:13 and k-15 was part of that of that move now we know that that test passed in july 2014
02:10:17 july 2014 uh do you accept that to your knowledge at the time kingspan then used that test pass to sell standard k-15
02:10:26 not knowledge at the time no right we'll come back to that
02:10:33 uh we know that you withdrew this test for the july 2014 test he drew that report in october this
02:10:45 test he drew that report in october this year along along with the test for the 2005 test what was the point of doing that for the july 2014 test because it was on a development product
02:10:58 because it was on a development product so it got a different blowing agent and it got a different um phaser thickness yes i understand that it was on the development
02:11:09 development product or project but why withdraw it unless it had been out there being used i was aware in 2019 that we've been
02:11:22 in 2019 that we've been relying on that test i just wasn't aware of 2014.
02:11:26 of 2014. well let's see how we go with that can we get your first witness statement at page 12 please and look at paragraph 4.13
02:11:35 now you say there as at the supply date kingspan had commissioned bs841 testing classification reports for the following ps8414 tests of systems incorporating
02:11:46 ps8414 tests of systems incorporating k-15 we looked at a earlier that's the 2005 test and if you go over the page to sub paragraph c we can see that there's the july test yes yes that's the july 2014
02:11:59 july test yes yes that's the july 2014 test and it's described there as a bs8414 part 2 2005 tests on a kingspan k15 insulated system with a ventilated terracotta tile range screen test report 297099 the system included
02:12:12 test report 297099 the system included k15
02:12:13 k15 with the taylor maxwell standard classico tile rain screen and you then go on to say in paragraph 414 just below it the test results at a and c demonstrated that these rain
02:12:24 and c demonstrated that these rain screen clouding systems incorporating k15 achieved compliance with br 135 and therefore option b in paragraph 3.3 b above now option b just to clarify for everybody else's
02:12:35 just to clarify for everybody else's benefit is the alternative route to compliance using bs8414 to be our 135 criteria isn't it
02:12:43 isn't it correct yes uh now in fact as i think you now accept um by way of appendix b of your fourth witness statement
02:12:52 statement signed in november this year your reference to k-15 in paragraph 4.13 and 4 14 here of your first witness statement i'm misleading so far as concerns this test because
02:13:04 test because the k-15 tested was not the k-15 being sold
02:13:07 sold and not the same as the one tested in 2005.
02:13:10 2005. that's correct yeah can you explain why your first statement gave such a misleading impression in that respect again i think i was just trying to answer the question about what was
02:13:23 answer the question about what was available for information at the time of the um of the fire and that's what that
02:13:30 that was that's what it said and that's what it referred to you did you know as i think you did when you signed this first statement that the bsa414 test done in july 2000
02:13:41 that the bsa414 test done in july 2000 and
02:13:43 and july 2014 was on a research and development product and not k15 has sold
02:13:50 yes i think we do then yes yes so why didn't you make it clear instead of leading the reader to believe that there were three tests including the one in july 2014
02:14:01 the one in july 2014 on k15 and as sold which had passed an 8414 test
02:14:07 8414 test like i said i was just trying to represent what was in circulation at the time indeed mr pogita and and what was in circulation at the time
02:14:18 circulation at the time indeed suggested that k-15 as sold had passed
02:14:23 passed a bs8414 part 2 test in july 2014
02:14:29 that's correct yeah and this witness statement simply perpetuates that misleading impression without correcting it doesn't it
02:14:38 what wasn't my intention to perpetuate it
02:14:41 it but it does doesn't it
02:14:46 potentially well actually it does doesn't it that wasn't my intention it does isn't
02:14:57 that wasn't my intention it does isn't it
02:14:58 it yes yes
02:15:03 and if you go to your second witness statement produced a year later let's see how this goes um page 95 you can see it page 95 paragraph 1035.
02:15:15 95 paragraph 1035. you then say that i consider the july 2014 terracotta test to be unusual because of doubts over the thickness of the foil used and then you go on as far as i can recall in october november 14 there was
02:15:28 recall in october november 14 there was a discussion about future k-15 bs-8414 tests
02:15:32 tests and there was some confusion as to what product was used in the july 2014 low lambda
02:15:35 lambda development terracotta test either meredith supported by malcolm rochefort appear to have understood that the product used was solstice blown k-15 using a 50 micron phaser which was perforated on
02:15:46 50 micron phaser which was perforated on one side
02:15:47 one side and unperforated on the other side quinn davis king span's divisional technical processing director whose team would have been responsible for producing the trial product used in the july 2014 terracotta test
02:15:59 used in the july 2014 terracotta test believed that the product tested was solstice blown with a 25 micron unperforated foil facer the standard k15 face of thickness
02:16:12 now what did you believe
02:16:17 at the time you wrote this statement this is your second statement so october 19
02:16:25 19 what did you believe was being tested in 2014
02:16:30 july 2014 i i thought it was more than likely a 50 micron phaser but i bet
02:16:41 micron phaser but i bet i wasn't sure was there any means of discovery uh i think we did i think i think we
02:16:52 uh i think we did i think i think we have confirmed it was most likely a 50 micron phase and there's one thing that tells me that is that there was
02:17:00 was a an sbi
02:17:03 a an sbi test done on that which gave a b rating which would indicate that the phaser was was thicker
02:17:15 phaser was was thicker now in appendix c of your witness statement
02:17:18 statement and indeed in the updated version of that
02:17:22 that earlier document that we that we had earlier which is uh kin3022 for the transcript we can see that you've um recorded the thickness
02:17:33 thickness of the foil as 50 micron you've opted for that so you've gone with the meredith rochefort view as opposed to the davis view about thickness yes yes and that's what you've
02:17:46 thickness yes yes and that's what you've just confirmed in your evidence just now
02:17:53 either way there was no uncertainty or doubt was there as to the foam used it was a solstice blown phenolic foam that's correct and that was different on any view from the
02:18:08 blowing agent used in 2005. it's a different blowing age yes and if we go to the next paragraph paragraph 1036 you say there appears to be some uncertainty by those involved at
02:18:19 be some uncertainty by those involved at the time
02:18:20 the time as to what exactly was tested but i understand regardless but the product used was solstice blown and the test was commissioned as part of our product development research into a low lambda version of k-15 during this
02:18:32 low lambda version of k-15 during this period
02:18:33 period for the avoidance of doubt standard k-15 sold on the market is a non-soldiers blown frame with a 25 micron perforated foil
02:18:42 and again my my question is why didn't you mention that in your first statement of the inquiry
02:18:57 what was your previous question about my first statement yes i think it didn't come to
02:19:05 to um
02:19:08 can be confirmed that that was what we were relying on until um it would have been later and that's why it's in my second witness statements
02:19:19 why it's in my second witness statements on my first witness statement that's what i believe that to be but in the second witness statement i understand it was actually on that development test
02:19:30 development test that was done and that's where this information comes through
02:19:36 no that's not quite what i was asking you was why didn't you mention
02:19:46 mention the fact that k15 was in fact non-solstice blown foam with a 25 micron perforated foil as opposed to what was tested in 2005.
02:20:02 as opposed to what was tested in 2005. i don't know why i would have needed to why would i would have done that
02:20:11 now there was also a test in march 2014 wasn't there
02:20:17 march 2014 yes yes and that was terminated early due to flames over topping the rig wasn't it trespassed yes and that system was never classified to br 135 at all was it that's correct
02:20:31 br 135 at all was it that's correct if we look at kingspan's schedule of bs8414 tests before june 2017 this is at kin223022357
02:20:43 before june 2017 this is at kin223022357 we can see that page three you i you set out the 2014 tests and there is the march test
02:20:54 and at the top of the table on page three there's also one in january
02:21:00 and there again under properties of the tested insulation product we can see unknown do you know why as late as this year the properties of
02:21:11 as late as this year the properties of the tested insulation in that 2014 test were unknown
02:21:18 no i can only assume it's been difficult to
02:21:21 to to find the um the information for it no after all january 2014 you had i think just about taken over the role of product manager
02:21:32 product development manager hadn't you correct
02:21:35 correct and therefore this is modern times can you explain why no record well was there a record kept of what properties the tested insulation product had
02:21:46 um i'm not sure i'm not sure what records they were are you able now to assist us fill in the blank
02:21:53 the blank about what the installation was that was used in that test i i thought we'd already established that it was a similar trial product right
02:22:04 similar trial product right so it wasn't it wasn't k15 or sold whatever
02:22:07 whatever whatever else it was is that your that's my understanding right
02:22:16 now can we go to kin30s 219045 please
02:22:24 this is a document that was put together by iva meredith and it's a powerpoint presentation uh
02:22:33 and i'll just wait until it comes up
02:22:39 okay k i n three zeros
02:22:45 two one nine
02:22:49 zero four five
02:22:58 uh let me try again it's kin three zeros two one
02:23:02 two one nine four five
02:23:09 and it's called k15 the facade insulation solution strategy update 18th of may 2015. i'm a meredith technical projects manager
02:23:18 manager now by this time mr meredith was essentially reporting in to a group which over which you had supervisory oversight didn't you correct
02:23:29 supervisory oversight didn't you correct yes
02:23:31 yes did you see this document at the time do you think no can you explain why that but that might have been
02:23:38 have been i i can't no i don't know what what um i was doing with this i had requested off him the
02:23:49 i had requested off him the what what to do going forward
02:23:53 plan so whether this was in preparation for that
02:24:00 for that right it's odd isn't it that you you wouldn't have seen a document like this given that the reporting structure i don't know what he did with it no i know but it
02:24:12 know but it would it be usual for you not to see a document such as this produced by over meredith
02:24:18 yes it would and when i saw this come up on the um i was witness evidence because it wasn't in my witness pack
02:24:29 witness pack i asked the legal team to see if we could find what that was and they've provided me with a copy of it since and then we searched and iva did send this to me as an email
02:24:41 this to me as an email right um but i never i never opened that email why is that i don't know we said late at night i've recorded but i don't know why i didn't okay well let's look at it and
02:24:53 i didn't okay well let's look at it and see how we go can we go to slide 17 on page 24.
02:25:00 there's a table there yes slide 17
02:25:13 yes slide 17 page 17 and here's a table entitled testing to date and you can see if we go down to the january 2014 test
02:25:25 january 2014 test about three quarters of the way down you can see
02:25:28 can see that under the fourth column formula stroke phaser this test is recorded as having been carried out on 25 micron unperforated you see that yes now standard new technology k15 had a 25
02:25:41 now standard new technology k15 had a 25 micron
02:25:42 micron perforated phaser didn't it it did so was this does the fact that what's described here um uh 25 micron unperforated
02:25:53 um uh 25 micron unperforated uh tell you that this was an r d product or
02:25:56 or in fact old very like old technology which i think also had a 25 micron perforated i don't think it would have been old technology we couldn't have produced that off the line
02:26:08 line right so the foam was new tech but the facer was old tech
02:26:15 is that is that how to read this possibly i see possibly d do you do you know what the january 2014 test comprised
02:26:27 2014 test comprised what what what product was being tested i thought from our own investigations that was also proved to be a solstice product right but it doesn't say there so
02:26:40 and again can you confirm that this was not the same product that was for sale to the public
02:26:47 i'm not sure because i'm looking at other parts of that where that's the other other things aren't correct as well from my understanding the sotek tests known as acm
02:27:01 the sotek tests known as acm and i think we've we've established that that's actually not correct they should be
02:27:05 be aluminium
02:27:08 and the dates those so tech tests don't look right so i'm just i don't i can't
02:27:16 can't tell from that right well can i just push my question again can you confirm looking at this entry for this test that this material was not
02:27:27 for this test that this material was not the same product that was for sale to the public
02:27:32 only by virtue of the unperforated element
02:27:36 element but i couldn't confirm that right you don't know do you know why a test might have been being carried out at this time on a research and development product rather than standard k-15 being sold not unless it was also
02:27:48 being sold not unless it was also solstice blown right
02:27:54 can we then go back to kin3022357 which is the updated version of appendix ct or fourth witness statement go to page three the next test listed on
02:28:05 go to page three the next test listed on that page is the 19th of march 2014 and that's the one you refer to a paragraph four
02:28:10 four point thirteen b of your first witness statement
02:28:14 statement and we can see if we look along the columns that that test was with the trespa decorative rain screen board and it was unsuccessful as it had to be terminated early and if you look at the properties of the
02:28:25 and if you look at the properties of the tested insulation it says foil unperforated 50 micron or 100 micron full stroke five times five scrim stroke glass mat core r33 ouf one calcium carbonate a polyol blend
02:28:38 ouf one calcium carbonate a polyol blend added alternative blowing agent now like is it true that like the test a few months later in july 2014 this march test also used a version of k15
02:28:50 test also used a version of k15 that was not on the market correct so again this was another r d development exercise was there and there's there's i think dispute about whether the phaser was 100 or 50
02:29:01 about whether the phaser was 100 or 50 microns
02:29:02 microns is that right we don't no i think that's the next
02:29:05 the next the next test that dispute right is there a record of exactly which it was or do you not know
02:29:14 in in terms of the july 2014 test that was the march 2014 test oh the thickness it says there 50 oh now 50 or 100
02:29:22 50 or 100 yes and i'm not sure actually whether we have been able to establish whether it was 50 or 100. then why is that i don't know okay um now what is r33 uf1
02:29:39 i don't know maybe maybe the code for solstice i'm not sure what about the standard k15 phenolic resin might it be that
02:29:49 be that it could be you know i'm not uh i'm not chemist i'm not into that was the w was calcium carbonate and polio blend as you can see there uh part of
02:30:00 as you can see there uh part of the standard k-15 composition i believe so
02:30:04 so right and the alternative blowing agent for that test do you know what that was that i think that's probably where the reference to solstice that's solstice is it right
02:30:14 it right then if we look uh again at the july 14 test bottom of this page and over to the top of page four we can see the properties of the tested insulation product there are listed as foil
02:30:25 foil perforated and unperforated 50 micron and then over the top foil five times five scrim glass mat core r33 a uf1 calcium carbonate and
02:30:36 core r33 a uf1 calcium carbonate and polyol blend alternative blowing agents that again is solstice so that confirms what you told us earlier doesn't it yes and then you say in your
02:30:49 if if we go to your second statement at page 96
02:30:56 page 1037 towards the top of page 96 that you say in my view neither the solstice blown element of the product not used nor the 50 micron unperforated foil likely impacted the outcome of the july
02:31:08 likely impacted the outcome of the july 2014 terra cotta test looking at the whole product my understanding is supported by the two subsequent bs8414 tests which have been conducted using terracotta cladding systems in standard k-15
02:31:21 and then a little bit further down the paragraph you say about two-thirds of the way down both of these tests satisfy the criteria of br135
02:31:30 br135 this is i'm so sorry this is april 15 and january 16. you say both of these tests satisfy the criteria of br-135 and given that the standard k-15 with the 25 micron 4
02:31:41 the 25 micron 4 and standard blowing agent had passed these tests this eased any concerns kingspan may have had as to whether or not or not a 25 or 50 micron 4 was used in the july 14 terracotta test now it's a little
02:31:53 terracotta test now it's a little complex that but just to confirm i'm right am i in thinking that you've got no qualifications or education in fire engineering that's correct and and you've never worked for a testing house have you no uh uh or a fire engineering
02:32:05 no uh uh or a fire engineering organization no that's just that's overall no you haven't now if kingspan wanted a desktop study done using an 8414 test or provide a br 135
02:32:16 using an 8414 test or provide a br 135 classification opinion they wouldn't come to you would they no no so your opinion being expressed in this paragraph here is not a professional expert opinion it's just your private layer opinion
02:32:29 it's just your private layer opinion based on the experience that i've seen of the testing and the the nature of that test it's based on that experience yes was that an opinion you held at the
02:32:40 yes was that an opinion you held at the time did you express in 1037
02:32:44 at the time of writing my statement no at the time of the tests um it probably would have been by the april 2015 test because that was
02:32:55 by the april 2015 test because that was the first test that i witnessed
02:33:03 so you say probably would have been i mean you don't make it clear in your statement that that is the case and this is intended to be a factual witness statement was it the fact that you held the opinion
02:33:15 you held the opinion that you expressed in this paragraph at the time of these tests
02:33:23 um like so possibly from april 2015 i would have had that opinion but the opinion would have been based on nothing more than your experience
02:33:35 nothing more than your experience that's correct did you share that opinion with anybody more expert in the science than you or seek to verify it in any way
02:33:45 no did you ask either meredith or tony miller chap after all they were still there in april 2015.
02:33:54 no i wouldn't why is that
02:34:04 because i wouldn't have thought i needed to
02:34:07 to what scientific testing or processes are you referring to when you say that you don't believe that the solstice element would not react differently in fire from the standard blowing agent we've
02:34:20 from the standard blowing agent we've since the development of the solstice product we have rolled that technology or product out across other cool firm
02:34:33 other cool firm products just not k15 yet and k5 but and in those we we're not seeing any improvement in fire classification from the what would be then the standard
02:34:45 the what would be then the standard technology [Music]
02:34:48 [Music] or so it it doesn't add any fire benefit in the terms of the chemistry and the resulting product testing we need to do yes that's later though isn't it that's
02:35:00 yes that's later though isn't it that's later than april 15 and january 16 isn't it uh no january 16 i think we started to to roll
02:35:08 roll giroli out we just hadn't rolled it out for
02:35:11 for yeah so you're relying on experience perhaps or lessons learned later than the time of these tests to inform an opinion that you say
02:35:19 you say you held at the time of the test is that right
02:35:22 right now at the time of the test i wouldn't have had an opinion on the time of the test whether solstice or the 50 micron
02:35:33 solstice or the 50 micron phaser would have had any difference at the time of the test yeah that's my opinion now and from right data well that's what i was asking you this is why i was a paints to ask you whether this is an opinion you have
02:35:44 you whether this is an opinion you have now when writing your statement sorry or when at the time of the tests yes and you did say it was at the time of the test but in fact i think you clarified that so the second test i would probably would have had that opinion from then but
02:35:56 opinion from then but and what testing or processes are you referring to when you say that the microns or perforations in the foil would not react differently in fire from the standard 25 micron perforated foil
02:36:07 micron perforated foil just from um obviously this is my second minute so more more experience but the fact that the phaser is
02:36:19 the fact that the phaser is effectively um just 500 microns thickness you know it's a it's a
02:36:25 it's a it's a 40th of a millimeter thicker than the um than the previous one with aluminium
02:36:33 aluminium at large scale fire will have no effect when the crib is burning in excess of a thousand degrees um if that touches the
02:36:44 um if that touches the face the fact that it's 25 micron or 50 micron will it'll just disappear as we've seen with tests
02:36:52 tests so that was that's based on that on that logic and
02:36:57 logic and the solstice element hasn't proven to show any
02:37:00 show any improvement in fire but these are these are rationalizations that you've come to after the tests aren't there right yes at the time of the test yes thank you now can we go to uh kin21
02:37:13 now can we go to uh kin21 sorry kn three zeros two one eight one zero
02:37:18 zero this is an email chain in november 2014 and if we go to the top of page one you can see that either meredith forwards to you
02:37:26 you on the 14th of november 2014 an email that
02:37:30 that he had received by copy from tony miller chap
02:37:33 chap which tony miller chap and senator richard burnley on the 12th of november 2014.
02:37:38 2014. you see yes and the title is k-15 testing direction and there's an attachment official rs 5000 bs 8414 cost comparison solstice against high
02:37:49 cost comparison solstice against high cost ipc
02:37:51 cost ipc november 14. and in the main email it says in the fifth paragraph down towards the bottom of page one
02:38:05 towards the bottom of page one uh tony milichap says in light of the fact we cannot produce k-15 100 solstice either commercially or from a production perspective i would advocate that we test
02:38:16 that we test the blended product one once lambda and costs are acceptable i've included malcolm's cost assessment to revert to testing standard nt k15 will not support the strategy we are pursuing with arabs
02:38:27 are pursuing with arabs and nhbc but will signal a backward step with significant consequence
02:38:34 the above approach assumes we continue to acknowledge differences between the tested products both blowing agent and facing thickness have significant impact all testing has been referenced back to precise batches with
02:38:46 referenced back to precise batches with control samples as is a requirement of bre however this does not include a description of the physical differences now it's right isn't it the blowing
02:38:57 now it's right isn't it the blowing agent and facing thickness have a significant impact don't they uh not not at large scale but they can have an impact at that smaller scale well so
02:39:09 an impact at that smaller scale well so the face it can have an impact it's smaller scale
02:39:14 well what what was mr milichapp talking about here is he talking about small-scale tests or large-scale tests i don't i don't know why he gets the opinion that there'll be a significant
02:39:25 opinion that there'll be a significant difference i'm not sure what evidence he's got that opinion of
02:39:34 well did you read this email when you got it from either meredith i don't recall it but um i would have thought i probably did did
02:39:45 would have thought i probably did did you go back to mr meredith or indeed contact tony miller chap and correct him and say i don't agree the blowing age into facing thickness don't have a significant impact
02:39:56 don't have a significant impact no i didn't no and i'm assuming you didn't do that because you didn't think it
02:40:01 it is that right at the time um i probably wouldn't have had i've got the experience i've got now so i wouldn't have um i wouldn't have challenged it
02:40:12 i wouldn't have challenged it necessarily now well we find no trace of any response to uh from you uh in relation to this email can we take it that had you disagreed with it you would have said so at the time
02:40:26 um yes i would probably would have done it right yeah at the time and in fact in relation to blowing agent face the thickness and foil preparations far from not affecting the fire performance of k-15 they are actually an
02:40:38 performance of k-15 they are actually an integral part of it aren't they
02:40:42 an integral part of the product higher performance of the product uh i guess like i say yes it's at a small scale they will have they will have an effect well you're
02:40:53 they will have an effect well you're you're narrowing the answer to small scale and making this distinction it's the case isn't it that in a vsa414 test two br 135 criteria the perforations the thickness of the foil and the blowing agent
02:41:05 foil and the blowing agent all have either together or individually a significant impact i i don't think the difference between a 50 micron phasor and a 25 micron phaser at that scale
02:41:16 and a 25 micron phaser at that scale would have any difference and and the perforations i don't think that have any impact at all at that scale
02:41:27 but nonetheless even though you you say that and you say that at paragraph 10.37 of your second witness statement that we've looked at you say that now but you didn't express any disagreement with tony millerchap's
02:41:38 any disagreement with tony millerchap's statement or seek to qualify him by reference to small-scale tests at the time no that's correct and i have to suggest to you that the reality is that this opinion of yours in your second witness statement
02:41:49 your second witness statement is really no more than a defensive position which is but not based in any science
02:41:55 science well it's we've also done 13785 testing on both the standard product and a solstice blown
02:42:06 and a solstice blown product just to try and see if at that scale which is a much lower scale
02:42:14 scale than an eight four one four there's any traceable difference in heat release for example between the two and that testing found that i would say they were the same but
02:42:25 that i would say they were the same but actually
02:42:26 actually the non-solstice blown product was arguably very slightly better so there is some empirical data there to support that view
02:42:36 that view maybe but but but you see it's not about necessarily empirical data at the molecular level what we're talking about is testing in accordance with the building regulations so you may well have done a 13 785 test
02:42:48 so you may well have done a 13 785 test on both the standard product and the solstice blown product but the point is that once you put the perforated version of a 25 micro 50 micron
02:42:58 micron foil faced uh solstice blown product into an eight four one four test it it makes a difference it doesn't perform now i i'd argue against that and the the 13785
02:43:10 argue against that and the the 13785 test almost proved that that you need you you cannot detect the difference at a much lower output of fire so the more fire output you put on it the less
02:43:21 fire output you put on it the less likely there's going to be any type of difference particularly from a face which is you know a 20th of a millimeter thick in aluminium
02:43:37 thick in aluminium mr chairman i'm going to turn to another topic i'm
02:43:43 not terribly confident that i'll finish it before 4 30. would it not be sensible to
02:43:47 to call a haltom it would i'm quite keen to use every minute that counts with this witness but i think this is not a sensible economy at this stage i think for two minutes i think it'd be better to stop there
02:43:58 think it'd be better to stop there very well well um mr foster we'll call it a day
02:44:03 it a day at this point i think only a couple of minutes ahead of what would normally be the finishing time we'll stop there um i'm afraid i have to ask you to come back for some more questions tomorrow but i think that's what you were
02:44:15 but i think that's what you were expecting um the only thing that i need to tell you is please be back to start at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it
02:44:26 relating to it overnight i understand all right thank you thank you very much would you like to give the autism please
02:44:41 right thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:45:00 you