Kingspan Evidence - Thursday 25th March 2021 (1/1)

Full transcript

00:00:06 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:09 hearing uh as usual i'm joined by my fellow panel members mrs istafan and mr ackball good morning good morning now today we are going to continue

00:00:21 now today we are going to continue hearing evidence from mr richard burnley so i'm going to check that mr burnley is in touch with this and that he can hear me and see me clearly good morning mr burnley

00:00:30 burnley yes good morning good um and i think before we go any further i better run through the usual housekeeping details so everyone is clear about the position

00:00:41 clear about the position um can you please confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i am thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you

00:00:51 with you i can confirm that yes and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages

00:01:03 capable of receiving messages no i don't thank you very much indeed well the

00:01:06 well the uh arrangements are the same as they were yesterday the procedure will be the same

00:01:11 same we may need to take a break during the morning if you're still giving evidence when we get to that sort of stage we'll see how we go um is there anything that you would like to

00:01:23 that you would like to raise with me before you carry on no i'm fine to go thanks good thank you very much indeed uh now mr millett before i invite you to put some more questions to mr burnley can i just

00:01:35 mr burnley can i just make it clear to those who are currently in the virtual hearing room that my connection with the virtual hearing was lost

00:01:44 was lost right at the end of the afternoon yesterday but my connection with the rolling transcript was not and so although i was able to get back into the hearing room after about five

00:01:56 into the hearing room after about five minutes

00:01:57 minutes um i have been able to follow the transcript and have not therefore missed any of the evidence that was taken while i was away so uh unless you want to go back to any

00:02:08 so uh unless you want to go back to any of those questions and answers for other reasons i don't think it's necessary for you to do so in order to enable me to capture that part of the evidence so with that

00:02:19 with that introduction i invite you to carry on putting questions to mr burnley mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning good morning mr burnley

00:02:28 burnley uh mr chairman yes i certainly will do that i was just going to suggest that given the number of questions i've got it might be sensible only to take one morning break this morning and to go on a little bit perhaps longer than the

00:02:39 on a little bit perhaps longer than the normal 11 15 break yeah so we're going to take one break for both the transcriber and for cp's questions and other questions

00:02:48 questions well we'll try and do that and we do have to bear in mind that the transcript there's a limit to how long we can expect the transcriber to go on but i suspect if if it's only a matter of 15 or 20 minutes that won't be a

00:02:59 of 15 or 20 minutes that won't be a major problem and i agree if we can combine the normal break with the uh rate for further questions that would be the

00:03:10 further questions that would be the right way to do it i'm grateful mr chairman thank you mr burnley good morning i'd like to take you back first please to some evidence that you gave yesterday in the transcript for day 112 can we

00:03:22 in the transcript for day 112 can we have day 112 up please and in that page 147

00:03:45 and if you go please to line 23 on that page you can see that i'm asking you a question as follows and i'll follow the line of questioning down as far as i need to go so read with me line 23 at that stage did you know just

00:03:56 line 23 at that stage did you know just think about this that the k-15 being sold and which had been sold for a number of years had failed ever to obtain a pass turn page please to a test under bs8414

00:04:10 turn page please to a test under bs8414 answer at that point yes no i'm sure i must have done question you didn't tell the mps that did you answer but testing product is any part of a product development process

00:04:19 process question you were trumpeting the virtues weren't you at this dinner of the bs8414 test

00:04:24 test when you knew by this point that for more than a decade k-15 had been sold without that product having achieved a pass to a test under bsa414 answer i'm not sure at that stage i did know that

00:04:35 know that no question you said you had a moment ago i'd say what sorry i thought you told us earlier that by that stage you must have named the k-15 the k-15 being sold was one that had not passed an 8414

00:04:47 passed an 8414 i don't know i can't remember saying that i want to clarify the questions that i'm asking to you there because um it is possible that some may regard those as not

00:04:58 those as not clear let me ask you this then by way of clarification first did you know

00:05:06 know at january 2008 and 18 when you joined the kevin holland rate dinner that until march or april 2015 the k-15 product being sold

00:05:20 the k-15 product being sold and had been sold since 2006 had not been part

00:05:24 been part of a successful test under bs8414 i don't think i did know that did anybody at that dinner tell the mps present that there were

00:05:35 tell the mps present that there were many buildings in the united kingdom above 18 meters which had cladding systems on them which contained

00:05:42 contained k-15 which had never been part of a successful test under bs8414 no they didn't looking back on it now given what you

00:05:54 looking back on it now given what you now know are you able to explain why they didn't no i'm not

00:06:02 now the other thing i want to revisit with you from yesterday was the fennec elliott letter of the 13th of february 2015. um can we just put that up back on the screen please say that you have it in

00:06:13 screen please say that you have it in mind it's nhb408283

00:06:32 nhb four zero is eight two eight three

00:06:38 but um uh i'm not quite sure why there's a delay in finding it but never mind um let me move on i asked you about that you'll recall yesterday at day 112 page 90 at lines 19-22 and

00:06:52 day 112 page 90 at lines 19-22 and you'll remember the letter it's the letter before action in which the in which fennick elliott threatened now you said yesterday the passage i've just referred to that you don't think you saw it until

00:07:04 to that you don't think you saw it until it had gone and you were then copied in let me show you one or two documents about that um first can we go to [Music]

00:07:14 [Music] kin30227

00:07:19 k i n three zeros two two two two seven

00:07:27 this is a meeting or minutes of a meeting

00:07:30 meeting k-a-h-i-l stroke insulation on thursday the 12th of february 2015 at eight o'clock in the morning again at teal uh and you can see that among those present including gene murta

00:07:41 present including gene murta uh uh spencer merta peter wilson uh was yourself uh uh richard burnley did you see that in the bottom right hand corner of the list uh and then if you go down to the foot of the page please go to item

00:07:53 of the page please go to item nine uh you'll see a heading nhbc and it says k-15 is under threat in applications greater than 50 meters in height which it burnley is to look at classification of k-15 as combustible

00:08:05 classification of k-15 as combustible there are three options to resolving this including testing classification or a desktop testing report while we have been submitting desktop uh reports nhbc seems to no longer find this acceptable we

00:08:17 to no longer find this acceptable we shall engage with them and i'm sorry to interrupt you on my oh it has now come up i think mr burnley would find it very difficult to follow that

00:08:27 that indeed mr chairman i'm sorry i'm reading from

00:08:30 from my own screen uh well we've now got the second part of the paragraph part yes let's look at the sentence we want um we shall engage with them can you see

00:08:41 we shall engage with them can you see third line down to try and solve the issue as this is a system issue relating to a non-combustible cladding rather than i'm sorry to a combustible not non-combustible claim

00:08:54 not non-combustible claim yes let me start again we shall engage with them

00:08:57 with them to try and solve the issue as this is a system issue relating to a combustible cladding rather than an insulin issue with a full back legal position

00:09:08 position if it fails uh do you recall that meeting

00:09:12 meeting um yeah i do yes yes uh do you recall any discussion at that meeting

00:09:19 meeting beyond what we see in the note about a letter before action being sent to the nhbc um well i do recall the conversation

00:09:30 um well i do recall the conversation what i remember was that i was trying to get it resolved on a face-to-face basis and if not then there was this view that they would go to a legal position if they needed to

00:09:43 position if they needed to and was that actually discussed at the meeting to be clear i don't think it was discussed in any great detail now right i see in any great detail but was it discussed at all

00:09:54 discussed at all well i think it must have been discussed as it's noted there that there'd been a discussion that a fallback legal position if the conversations and discussions failed i see um can we then go to kin408298

00:10:16 please this is what appears to be a diary note uh about a meeting subject

00:10:27 uh about a meeting subject nhbc location link meeting start 13th of february 2015 14 30. end 13th of february 2015 at 3 o'clock 1500 hours show time as

00:10:40 3 o'clock 1500 hours show time as tentative

00:10:41 tentative meeting status not yet responded and then the required attendees you'll see the list there peter wilson adrian parker to john garbett uh and you among others you see that i do yes

00:10:52 do yes last attendee there it was t randall fennick elliott um and it's a link meeting what is link was it a platform i think it was part of the it platform

00:11:03 i think it was part of the it platform that they used in the phone system yes i see uh do you remember what that meeting was about um i don't because i don't think i actually attended i think

00:11:14 attended i think if we check the dates that coincide with the february half term school holidays and i believe i was away on holiday that week i see did you attend it remotely as would have been possible if it was done by

00:11:26 been possible if it was done by it would have been possible

00:11:32 can we be clear that your evidence is that you don't recall being at this meeting therefore you can't tell us whether or not the letter before action was uh was discussed at it

00:11:43 discussed at it i think i wasn't at the meeting because i do think it was the half term holiday i see just then to be clear to put the final piece of the jigsaw together can we have up nhb five zeroes

00:11:55 can we have up nhb five zeroes nine four zero please

00:12:05 this is an email from mark wilkins of fennick elliott to ian davis and graham perrier at nhbc copy to toby randall use of cool firm k15 range screen boards in facades above

00:12:17 k15 range screen boards in facades above 18 meters

00:12:18 18 meters please see attached correspondence in relation to the above matter and this is the email that sent the letter before action to the nhbc that we saw yesterday note the time 1727 in the evening

00:12:31 note the time 1727 in the evening which is obviously later than the meeting

00:12:34 meeting scheduled in the link platform document we've just seen um you weren't copied in on the on this email but you said you were

00:12:45 on this email but you said you were copied in on the letter um anyway you told us that yesterday do you remember when you were copied in on that letter i remember seeing an email

00:12:57 i remember seeing an email which i was copied on and i think it was a copy of the letter that had been sent and i think i would i would have received it around the 14th or 15th of february

00:13:08 february um let's then pick up uh on where i wanted to go yesterday before we broke um can we please go to kin40s 4494

00:13:32 this is an email chain from the 6th of september 2017.

00:13:38 and if we go to page 8 at the bottom we'll see an email from some people called murray consultants and it's we have it blown up it's dated the 8th of august 2017 from amy beale to you among a large

00:13:51 from amy beale to you among a large cast of others um and amy beale is a consultant at murray consultants in dublin um who were murray consultants can you tell us um i i believe there

00:14:02 can you tell us um i i believe there were

00:14:03 were an agency who helped kingspan with external affairs and pr agency who was responsible at kingspen for engaging them do you know i don't know right good morning it says

00:14:16 i don't know right good morning it says pc attached the first in a series of weekly media analysis reports tracking the developments in the grenfell narrative

00:14:22 narrative the attached report looks at key media issues from monday 31st july to tuesday 8th of august going forward we will send the weekly media reports on monday mornings um is it right this kind of document

00:14:33 um is it right this kind of document therefore would have would arrive from this time on in your inbox every monday morning i think it's what would have been the case yes as well as to g murder gilbert mccarthy peter wilson john garber to

00:14:45 mccarthy peter wilson john garber to adrian parchita i would assume so yes if we go to page one please third email down from the top you can see an email there with red writing you can go to that uh and if we just blow that up please

00:14:57 uh and if we just blow that up please say it's more visible john garbett writes to

00:14:59 writes to adrian carr parchetta you and peter wilson see that uh and uh it's dated the 6th of september 2017 and it's from the murray group

00:15:10 and it's from the murray group um or follows on from the murray group sending the wider chain the summary of the dclg's test results and recommendations that took place after the fire at grenville tower mr garvin says all i think we should write

00:15:21 garvin says all i think we should write to the dc-lg in commercial confidence picking them up on the following points they probably less emotively written page one

00:15:29 page one acm with a limited combustibility filler category one in screening tests can be used safely although this is also dependent on how it is fitted and page five acm cladding with a2 filler category one can be safe

00:15:41 with a2 filler category one can be safe on buildings over 18 meters with fame insulation or stone wool insulation and then he says this

00:15:48 says this um or somebody says this uh and i think in fact uh it's but we don't know how the letter came letters in red came to be written perhaps you can help us do you

00:16:00 written perhaps you can help us do you remember no i have no idea uh no because it's not clear from the rest of the email changes why i ask you but

00:16:07 but um it says we should point out that whilst they have been careful to talk about acms with an a2 filler the subtle difference between an a2 filler and a honeycomb or other structural or structured metal core will be lost on

00:16:19 or structured metal core will be lost on people and that they may well get people taking pe and fr acms off buildings and replacing them with a honeycomb panel i've already alerted brian martin to the valcan dubai honeycomb fail there'll be a temptation to switch

00:16:31 fail there'll be a temptation to switch to honeycomb because of weight issues so people could end up replacing on failed system with another one failed system with another failed system we are testing this combination and we'll publish it if it fails

00:16:42 and we'll publish it if it fails do dclg want that problem on their hands they need to be much less subtle about explaining the differences between a2 euro class panels first do you know did you know at the

00:16:53 first do you know did you know at the time what the valkan dubai honeycomb fail referred to

00:17:00 on that date i don't think i do i was going to ask you whether we could take it from this email but by that time or at that time you were aware of a previous test with vitrical g2 in

00:17:11 of a previous test with vitrical g2 in dubai that had failed i may have been but i don't recall it right

00:17:20 uh i've read to you the part of the red text that says we're testing this combination and we'll publish it if it fails um what was that about

00:17:32 um what was that about what was the purpose of publishing failed data

00:17:40 i'm not entirely sure and it's time just to read let me read what he's

00:17:58 i'm not entirely sure all right did you when you received this email did you puzzle over that and ask anybody what was meant

00:18:07 was meant um well i'm sure i would have had a conversation with somebody but i know peter wilson was heavily involved in this with with john so i probably had assumed that peter was

00:18:18 so i probably had assumed that peter was picking that up right uh and at the end you could see that john garbett says under the last passage of red text at the bottom uh if so

00:18:27 so uh we need to agree whether the letter should be from external lawyers internal lawyers a trade association or a friendly tap on the shoulder by email from me or adrian

00:18:39 from me or adrian who's whose shoulder was to be the recipient of this proposed friendly tap mr burnley from my recollection of what i'm reading here

00:18:50 my recollection of what i'm reading here it was somebody in the dclg right somebody in the dclg and indeed the last sentence says i have a feeling that the latter is the best approach is we want to remain quotes

00:19:01 approach is we want to remain quotes friends unquote with the dclg so does that uh enhance your your uh i think i really the same way

00:19:12 your uh i think i really the same way that you do right who were these friends who were who was the friendly shoulder well i think the use of the word friends is misleading i think what he's meaning we weren't trying to be obstructive we

00:19:24 we weren't trying to be obstructive we were trying to provide them with information

00:19:27 who was it can you can you give me the name of an individual within the dclg whose shoulder would receive this friendly tap i can't know what kind of relationship did kingspan

00:19:39 what kind of relationship did kingspan have

00:19:40 have with the dclg that would accommodate this

00:19:43 this friendly attack my understanding is that we didn't have a strong relationship with dclg

00:19:48 with dclg i think people probably new people but i don't think there was any strong relationships

00:19:56 who knew who i can't tell you who knew whom but the people who would have had any relationships would have been between john garbert adrian partita and adrian's team right i don't think i don't think there

00:20:08 right i don't think i don't think there were many people knew many people right without sounding very vague but if you i don't there were many people in kingspan

00:20:14 kingspan who knew many people within dclg right did you yourself meet anybody from the dclg at about this time no not that i could recall did the name brian martin ever come up in these

00:20:25 brian martin ever come up in these conversations about who to talk to uh by way of a friendly tap on the shoulder or other uh other sorts of approach at this time it's it's a name i've heard of but i can't

00:20:36 can't say that i can join it up into that conversation there right do you know when you first heard of his name i can't know as a manager as managing director you supported this kind

00:20:47 director you supported this kind of friendly tap on the shoulder approach did you

00:20:52 um i think if we were providing information in the right way then i didn't see that there was any reason not to why did this tap on the shoulder have to be run past lawyers as suggested i'm not sure it was suggest

00:21:05 as suggested i'm not sure it was suggest could we see it again please i don't think that's how i read it the document back up

00:21:15 i don't think he's that it should be run past lawyers i think he's talking about where it should come from so the weather isn't

00:21:24 isn't you're quite right you're quite right um either way isn't it isn't it clear from this at the time that the strategy here was that kingspan would try to influence uh the government's advice to the public

00:21:37 uh the government's advice to the public um i would see that a different way i think what that penultimate sentence is showing is that we would be trying to provide the information in the right way in the right format

00:21:52 do you know whether anybody at this time had told the dclg or anybody within the dclg that vitrical g2 panels were known to go up like pe panels

00:22:02 panels i don't know that no

00:22:07 i just want to look at two emails with you that were disclosed by kingston to the inquiry at the end of last week so 19th of march can we go first please to kn3025856

00:22:27 to kn3025856 this is an email from the 31st of of the 31st of

00:22:31 31st of may 2018. second email down on that page uh now we can't see to whom it's sent but mark harris replies to it copying in siobhan edward and john garbett we just

00:22:42 siobhan edward and john garbett we just scrolled to the top which might help you in your recollection um and i'll show you the email

00:22:47 email thank you nothing to scroll to the email itself

00:22:51 itself scroll down thank you 31st may gilbert mccarthy

00:22:54 mccarthy wrote spoke to gene and explained the latest view that government has made up his mind already and he was very clear that we need to pull out all the stops to convince government and anyone who wants to listen as many independent experts and

00:23:05 listen as many independent experts and trade associations as possible that large-scale testing for everything above 80 meters is the right and only solution

00:23:12 solution to ensuring maximum future public safety he is adamant that our video footage of dts non-c

00:23:18 dts non-c is on the minister's desk asap and it needs to be at the appropriate time and is also on jeremy corbyn's desk we also need to do everything possible to bring forward that vitribon g2 test in parallel we

00:23:31 that vitribon g2 test in parallel we will ensure we have full product offer available

00:23:33 available in the event we fail to get our message across but prioritize the above with everything we've got to ensure we succeed in convincing government that taking their consultation a step further by ensuring all in capital systems above

00:23:45 by ensuring all in capital systems above 18 meters is large-scale performance tested

00:23:48 tested and the first question about this is did you see this email take part in any of the discussion of its contents at the time no i don't remember seeing the email i don't believe that part in any

00:23:59 don't believe that part in any conversations no do you know what footage video footage is that is being referred to there

00:24:11 did you know even more generally that the plan here as expressed by mr mccarthy was publicly to undermine the government's proposed ban on combustible materials

00:24:22 combustible materials over 18 meters no i believe that the methods was um that we were pushing that all systems that were to be used above 18 meters should go through large-scale testing exactly

00:24:35 large-scale testing exactly as opposed to going through the linear route

00:24:39 route yes yes yes and that has been the plan since august 2017 in fact haven't you i i'm not sure the date but that's yeah absolutely all all systems to be usable 18 meters

00:24:50 all all systems to be usable 18 meters should be large scale tested yes and i mean the priority above everything as we can see from this message

00:24:56 message tell me from your own knowledge was to have g2 fail the vitra call g2 fail in a an a414 test in order to convince the government to keep bs 8414 as the standard and sole

00:25:08 to keep bs 8414 as the standard and sole test for use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings yes i think yesterday the plan was to try and my understanding build a typical system that could be

00:25:20 build a typical system that could be used that followed the linear route in the way that it would be installed and see if it passed or failed yes and to your knowledge at the time that strategy or instruction was coming from the very top of kingstown

00:25:32 from the very top of kingstown gene murtagh himself yes i can't confirm it came from gene okay we can see from this email that uh what is what mr mccarthy is saying comes it appears from gene mercer

00:25:43 it appears from gene mercer i just wondered whether that tallied with your own recollection at the time i i didn't have a conversation with gene where he told me that but yeah of course i can read what it says in the email right now the second email i want to show you please is it kin300

00:25:56 to show you please is it kin300 25854

00:26:03 uh this is page one if we go to the foot of that page you'll see an email the day before the one i've just been showing in 30th of may 2018 from john garbett to gilbert mccarthy uh and also to

00:26:14 to gilbert mccarthy uh and also to gene murtagh peter wilson uh siobhan dwyer and mark harris not to you and uh it seems that gilbert mccarthy has made a suggestion

00:26:25 has made a suggestion that the government should be aware that some a1 and a2 materials are dangerous and i'm summarizing what's below

00:26:32 below and mr garbett says that could end up being counterproductive pointing out to mhclg that g2 is being used to reclaim buildings and that it is dangerous we'll probably lead to it coming out the g2 has failed an 8414 with extra

00:26:45 the g2 has failed an 8414 with extra firm because that is the only available evidence out there at the moment that we know of

00:26:49 know of that in turn has the potential to dent any confidence we try to give mhclg about using k15 with a2 stroke one rain screens to get out of this we will need to pin the issue on g2

00:27:00 issue on g2 and to do that we need to have the rw stroke g2 fail in the bag from next month's test so we can't move on g2

00:27:09 on g2 until we have that test failed to support our case nb g2 is probably being installed on as much k50

00:27:16 much k50 on as much k15 on failed buildings as any other insulation failed there in quotation marks did you see this email or take part in any discussion of its contents

00:27:27 any discussion of its contents at the time no i don't believe i did

00:27:32 did you know at the time that the proposed test with g2 vitracore g2 proposed for the second of july to 2018

00:27:44 proposed for the second of july to 2018 in dubai

00:27:45 in dubai was something that that had to fail no i mean the way that is written i understand was that we didn't

00:27:56 i understand was that we didn't fail because of the way it was being designed no you didn't know whether it would pass or fail but uh the intention was the aim the goal the need was for it to fail in order for

00:28:08 the need was for it to fail in order for kingston to be able to advance its case to the mhclg the way john here refers to it in that email is that he's expecting it to fail that wasn't the view that i had in my mind at

00:28:20 wasn't the view that i had in my mind at the time i was under the understanding that

00:28:22 that we didn't know if it would pass or fail i'm going to repeat my question i accept that you didn't know whether it would pass or fail because there are no guarantees in these sorts of things my question is different my question is

00:28:33 my question is different my question is do you accept at the time did you know independently yourself at the time that as suggested by this email it was essential to kingspan's plan that the g2 test would fail

00:28:47 that the g2 test would fail i didn't know that and that it was intended to fail no i didn't know that

00:28:59 no i didn't know that and that it was vital that kingspan didn't tell the mhclg what he knew about the risks of failure of vitrical g2 in a

00:29:10 the risks of failure of vitrical g2 in a in an 8414 test because if the bmhclg got hold of that fact or that intelligence it would show that your proposed test your plan b as it were would be worthless as

00:29:22 as it were would be worthless as evidence to support your case that was not my understanding right now after the july test you remember you remember that there was a test in july and that it failed yes yes do

00:29:35 and that it failed yes yes do do you recall that kingspan were very quick to mobilize and send the test report far and wide it was sent to government the select committee as we're going to come to bbc and other media outlets do you

00:29:47 bbc and other media outlets do you remember i don't recall them being quick

00:29:53 right

00:29:58 you do you recall that the failed july test was the key piece of evidence that you were now going to use to support your campaign to get the government to retain the use of

00:30:10 government to retain the use of combustible insulation on buildings above 18 meters my understanding was it wasn't the key piece but it was one of the pieces of

00:30:20 evidence uh and as part of the plan to make it a key piece of evidence i think you accept do you that the test was disseminated far and

00:30:33 that the test was disseminated far and wide whether immediately or not perhaps doesn't matter well it was definitely definitely i can't i i don't actually know how far and why it was distributed but it was definitely sent out

00:30:44 definitely sent out to people that i think kingsman wanted to see it

00:30:47 to see it right now we saw yesterday from the 22nd of may email that the plan a test so to speak the one that had happened in dubai but had passed um

00:30:58 passed um we saw yesterday you were in on the email telling you that did you ever ask to see a test report for that

00:31:06 for that no i didn't um did you ever see that test that uh the results of that test known to you disseminated at all outside kingspan

00:31:18 disseminated at all outside kingspan the the first one yes i don't know you don't know can you explain why it was that although the results of the failed july test were disseminated far and wide

00:31:28 and wide uh the may test was kept uh confidential within kingspan um i didn't know that it had been kept confidential so i can't confirm

00:31:39 so i can't confirm i see did you did you ever ask yourself why it was that the july test was being disseminated far and wide but the may test which had succeeded had not well my previous answer i wasn't sure

00:31:52 well my previous answer i wasn't sure that the first test had been kept confidential so i made that link let's go to your letter of the 6th of july 2018 to the select committee this is at inq3014076

00:32:14 is at inq3014076 now this is uh kingspan's letter uh under your hand as you can see at the bottom of the page there and i'll just take you through this

00:32:24 this um it's sent to clive betts as the chair of the housing committee and local government select committee uh dated 6th july and the heading is inquiry into james judith hackett's independent review

00:32:36 judith hackett's independent review of building regulations and fire safety and you start by thanking him for inviting kingstown to give evidence to the housing communities and local government select committee in relation to the uh hacking review

00:32:49 in relation to the uh hacking review just pausing there it's right isn't it that the previous week 27th june as a matter of public record you had actually given evidence to the select committee i did yes and uh in fact were asked

00:33:01 i did yes and uh in fact were asked questions by among other people kevin hollingwright weren't you i was yes yes uh and there was also i think another uh another party present somebody from

00:33:12 another party present somebody from rockwool

00:33:13 rockwool wasn't there yes i was on a panel of four people yes uh now we can see that this letter is is uh

00:33:21 is is uh is dated the sixth of july in in fact although you can't see it from this page um it it runs to some 94 pages because there's a long attachment to it

00:33:32 because there's a long attachment to it isn't there yeah i think there was a detachment yes did you draft this letter yourself i didn't

00:33:39 didn't uh who did um i believe there was one person involved i think john garbert was involved from the insulation business and i think people from panels kingspan

00:33:51 and i think people from panels kingspan panels were also involved but i wouldn't be able to say who right um when you signed it were you just given it to sign or did you have did you play any part in reviewing a draft before you signed it

00:34:02 draft before you signed it could we just scroll down so i can see my signature because i have a funny feeling it may have been added automatically as a do you think well i i think that's actually an e signature

00:34:15 i i think that's actually an e signature so i think i don't think i actually signed the letter right myself i think it was added electronically i think um did you add it electronically no i didn't

00:34:25 didn't right do you know who did

00:34:28 i would i don't know exactly i mean i could imagine it was probably one of the secretaries that worked for the divisional management team in the insulation business did you authorize the person who added

00:34:39 did you authorize the person who added your electronic signature to do so i don't believe i gave authorization though when did you first see this letter

00:34:49 letter i'm not entirely sure um

00:34:57 i i can't

00:35:00 did you see it on the day it was sent or afterwards that's a good question

00:35:09 i have a feeling but i i i i can't comfort

00:35:13 comfort i'd be speculating i don't think that's right i i'm not entirely sure i saw it before it went

00:35:20 right

00:35:25 if you'd seen it after it had gone would that have caused you any concern

00:35:35 i mean first of all it was not unusual for my name to be added given my position

00:35:40 position and i think particularly in this case since i was the one that gave evidence um for my name to be on this letter um i'd need to read it through again and get familiar with what it says and and clearly now or even go through all

00:35:52 and clearly now or even go through all of the attachments but normally what would happen is i would read the letter and if it was if i had any concerns about the content of the letter then i would make comment but the technical

00:36:03 technical stuff inside you know it wasn't my responsibility to to know whether that was accurate or not now never mind the technical content for the moment i'm just trying to get to the bottom of whether you actually saw this letter

00:36:13 letter uh before it was signed uh by somebody else and i can't confirm that right

00:36:21 you're not i'm assuming you're not in the business uh of frequently at least writing letters to chairs of

00:36:27 chairs of parliamentary select committees no i don't think i don't know no and can we take it that that this was an immensely important letter from

00:36:38 an immensely important letter from kingspan

00:36:39 kingspan because it set out formally kingspan's position in relation to the inquiry into james judith hackett's independent review

00:36:51 judith hackett's independent review yes and at the time i knew that we were wanting to provide further evidence to the select committee and the chairman of the select committee i had no reason to doubt the integrity of either my colleagues that were

00:37:03 of either my colleagues that were involved in drafting the letter or all the contents they're in would you not have been absolutely uh keen to make sure that whatever was being said to mr betts

00:37:16 that whatever was being said to mr betts carried not just your signature but your your consent

00:37:24 um well yeah but i have no reason to doubt my colleagues it was as i've said i think it wasn't unusual for that not to somebody the select media but it would not be unusual for letters to go out

00:37:34 out in my name no but it might be unusual for a letter of this importance to go out to a committee of this importance in your name if you hadn't first read it

00:37:45 name if you hadn't first read it that would be strange yes did it strike you strange when you first saw this that that had happened if that is what happened and that's what i can't confirm certainly if i did see if it was the day

00:37:56 certainly if i did see if it was the day it went out but i can't recall whether i saw it before it went or after it went right okay um do you know yourself who was responsible for putting a detailed

00:38:07 responsible for putting a detailed submission which accompanies this document

00:38:09 document together again i would assume it was done by the same people that drafted the leicester

00:38:16 right

00:38:24 let me just put one or two paragraphs to you so that you i can get your comment uh

00:38:38 the second paragraph down in the last part uh says that we believe that kingspan has carried out more product and full system fire safety tests

00:38:49 tests than any other construction material company and are committed to doing so whatever is necessary to address the issues of transparency labeling traceability and technical installation support identified by dame judith hackett and

00:39:02 by dame judith hackett and now we don't know whether we you saw that statement under your name before it was made

00:39:07 was made so i have to caveat all of my questions with that

00:39:11 with that so bear that in mind but as a statement it's completely inconsistent with the idea isn't it um that you wouldn't be telling the select committee absolutely everything

00:39:23 select committee absolutely everything you knew about the testing you've done in may and july

00:39:30 i i would have said that that was the view that i held at that time yes all right let's look at the next paragraph

00:39:37 paragraph last sentence our position is not about commercial benefit but about ensuring that building regulations are always rooted in science engineering are you able to sit there today and

00:39:50 are you able to sit there today and say that kingspan's case to the mhclg that had been up and running since the september of the previous year

00:40:01 the previous year was solely about ensuring that building regulations had a scientific and engineering basis and nothing to do with kingspan making money

00:40:12 i believe that was the case yes you really do mr burnley you really think that the case being put together by mr garber mr karjita and everybody else at kingspan in the documents i've shown you

00:40:24 kingspan in the documents i've shown you was only about public benefit and had no element of self-interest at all i think given the previous sentence that shows that actually the product that we were talking about was very a very small part it was more

00:40:36 was very a very small part it was more about the belief that full-scale testing was the right way ahead to give people confidence in in public safety

00:40:46 mr burnley sure you you would meet me halfway here and accept that at least to some extent at least to some extent

00:40:53 extent kingspan was interested in making sure that the testing only went under 8414 for its own commercial benefit in other words in order to make sure it could continue to sell combustible materials

00:41:04 continue to sell combustible materials on high-rise buildings i can't meet you halfway i'm afraid i mean my my personal view is that would not be the case it certainly is not my view either so you would take the position would you uh that kingspan throughout was acting

00:41:16 uh that kingspan throughout was acting entirely altruistically and not for its own advantage whatsoever kingsplan was in no way trying to put commercial benefit ahead of public safety

00:41:27 safety that was you and i maintained that wasn't quite my question my question was whether there was any element at all of self-interest you were i think saying there was no element of self-interest at all

00:41:39 element of self-interest at all in kingspan putting forward its case to the mhclg

00:41:43 the mhclg are you really going to sit there and say that

00:41:49 say that that was my belief

00:41:52 i have to suggest you that that is quite an incredible answer do you not agree it's a truth

00:42:03 do you not agree it's a truth uh now

00:42:06 it's right isn't it perhaps help me from your recollection the kingspan group 2018 turnover according to its 2018 consolidated income statement contained in its published financial

00:42:17 contained in its published financial statements for 2018 was 4.3 billion euros wasn't it

00:42:23 yeah i'm sure it was yes if you'd like to look at it you could find it online at page 95 of the annual financial statements for that yeah i take your word for mr miller uh what one percent of that is

00:42:36 what one percent of that is uh is for 43 million euros isn't it

00:42:42 correct yes now that's not mere pocket changes no one would give up revenue worth 43 million

00:42:50 million euros

00:42:54 i think the comment does say that it's less than one percent just to be completely you're quite right significantly less than one percent still what was it all right then what what exactly was the

00:43:05 all right then what what exactly was the above 18

00:43:06 above 18 meter market in financial terms to kingspan

00:43:09 kingspan i mean i don't i no longer work at king's but i'm not sure i'm entitled to reveal that information all right

00:43:17 i was just interested to know because if the money was so inconsequential to kingspan why it was that as far back as 2000 and september 2017 king spam were of the

00:43:28 september 2017 king spam were of the view that it was imperative that we obtain or they obtain a regime of bs8414 testing and why mr murtagh was able to express himself in the terms

00:43:39 able to express himself in the terms that he did as seen in the gilbert mccarthy email we saw them this morning

00:43:45 i mean i can't answer that specific question

00:43:48 question from a personal perspective given the relatively small nature of the revenue that you've just talked about in relation to the rest of the business that i was responsible for that's why i

00:43:59 that i was responsible for that's why i can confidently sit here and say that from my personal view it was

00:44:04 was of no significant commercial benefit it was about

00:44:07 was about public safety it was about full-scale testing

00:44:11 testing to show that products and systems could be used in that application now let's go to page five of this document please we get back to

00:44:22 of this document please we get back to it

00:44:34 now let's get back to page four actually probably a better place to start to give you a bit more familiarity with what i'm going to show you given what you've told us just now about how this document came into being um

00:44:46 how this document came into being um this is

00:44:47 this is uh part of the 94-page uh attachment to this document it's a long

00:44:54 long technical piece and it sits under the heading failed a1 stroke a2 large-scale fire tests and it says kingspan has evidence of three failed large-scale fire tests where the

00:45:05 failed large-scale fire tests where the cladding system is made up of a1 and a2 products

00:45:08 products the tests are detailed below and supporting documentation is enclosed and then there are three tests test one test two

00:45:16 test two test one was one done with a2 acm with fujairah rockwool a foil face mineral fiber and in the last paragraph it said um that it wouldn't be typical

00:45:28 it said um that it wouldn't be typical in uk construction and wouldn't be allowed under uh but but would be allowed under government's proposals test two was one done in australia in march 2018

00:45:40 march 2018 our pollock solid core a2 panel with rockwool mineral fiber and if you turn the page

00:45:46 the page to page five uh you can see at the very foot of the screen in front of you underneath the graph

00:45:54 graph but the the report says letter says the australian test is also not typical of construction in the uk because the insulation is within the steel wool framework and sheath in a

00:46:05 steel wool framework and sheath in a sealed sheet to protect it from the fire so first test and second test not uh representative and then we get the third test test three which you can just see poking out at the bottom of the screen there

00:46:15 there and can we turn the turn that up uh this is a test which was carried out at dex over in dubai on july 2nd 2018. now just pausing there do you remember

00:46:25 remember that when you gave evidence to the select committee on the 27th of june 2018 that test of course hadn't yet happened but was planned

00:46:36 happened but was planned that would be correct given the chronology yes yes and then it goes on the test was commissioned by kingspan the system was comprised of rockworld ua slab rated a1

00:46:47 comprised of rockworld ua slab rated a1 and vitricord g2 which is rated a2 the construction of the test rig was a replica of the ministry of housing communities local government tests conducted immediately after the tragedy at grenfell tower the test failed on the

00:46:58 at grenfell tower the test failed on the basis of thermocouple data which is detailed

00:47:01 detailed in the enclosed preliminary report from x over enclosed brochures detailing rockhold ua slab and vitracore g2 as well as pdfs of the sectional drawings the test rig etc and if we just uh turn the page

00:47:13 rig etc and if we just uh turn the page to page six to make sure we're not missing anything on that page uh you see what set out classification test reports video footage will be forwarded

00:47:22 forwarded as soon as they're received and then it says this despite failing this the bs8414 test sorry i'll be over again despite failing this bsa414 test the products used in this

00:47:33 bsa414 test the products used in this system are a1 and a2 and would therefore be automatically permitted under current building regulations and the government's proposals on banning the use of combustible clatty

00:47:44 use of combustible clatty the this evidence supports kingsfan's view

00:47:47 view that cladding systems should be subject to large-scale tests as complete systems in their

00:47:51 in their intended configuration in order to meet the objective of fire safety

00:47:58 um my first question on this is when whenever it was you saw this letter did you read

00:48:06 you read the detail about test three yes i'm sure

00:48:19 can you explain why um there is no reference in this part of this le

00:48:26 this le this part of the letter uh to the fact that although the vetrical g2 had an a2 rating it was known by kingspan to perform like

00:48:37 it was known by kingspan to perform like a pe

00:48:38 a pe panel or to use the words go up like a pe panel

00:48:44 but the point that they're trying to make is that it is classified as a2 and therefore would be used in the market as a2

00:48:50 a2 yes can you explain why there was no reference

00:48:53 reference however to the fact that it was known to behave

00:48:56 behave like a pe panel

00:49:01 we can see that there's uh no reference here to the fact that kingston had deliberately selected vitricore g2 so that it could have a fail in the bag as it were because it

00:49:13 fail in the bag as it were because it had already failed an 8414 test i'm sorry could you repeat the question please yes uh we can it wasn't really a question so you're quite right

00:49:24 you're quite right we you will accept i think looking at this that there isn't a reference here to the fact that kingspan had deliberately selected viktracore g2 because it had a track record of failing

00:49:35 because it had a track record of failing an 8414 test well my understanding at the time was that they were trying to represent a system that could be selected by designers that would follow the linear

00:49:46 designers that would follow the linear route

00:49:47 route and that had been installed as it would be installed on a site yeah when you saw this letter did you realize

00:49:56 that it was not revealing the fact that kingspan knew that vetrical g2 had a track record of being part of a failed 8414 test

00:50:08 failed 8414 test no i didn't make that connection right you didn't make that connection

00:50:17 do you accept that the letter should have said that should have referred to the fact that the picture called g2 being selected

00:50:27 selected have been selected precisely because it was known to have a track record of failure in an 8414 test i don't know that i do i think what they were trying to i think another answer was that they were trying

00:50:38 another answer was that they were trying to pick products that were classified that under the linear route could be used in a design there are plenty of

00:50:46 plenty of a2 products which could would comply but there aren't plenty of products which although they would comply would be known

00:50:55 be known to be at risk of failure in an 8414 test that's right isn't it i think i agree yes and so why didn't kingspan under your hand revealed to the select

00:51:08 under your hand revealed to the select committee

00:51:09 committee that although it had selected an a2 classified product g2 vehicle it had selected g2 vitracore itself because it had a known track record of failure within an 8414 test

00:51:22 record of failure within an 8414 test i i don't know other than my previous comment right and i would suggest to you that by not telling the select committee that kingspan had deliberately selected which are called g2 as the panel for

00:51:34 which are called g2 as the panel for that reason king's van was only giving the select committee half the picture

00:51:43 i'm not sure i do agree i i still maintain that the point of that test was that it was products that were classified and

00:51:54 products that were classified and marketed as a1 or a2 and therefore followed the linear route the point was not to single out

00:52:01 out in that document a product that we felt didn't meet the classification given i i don't know what correspondence took place between kingspan and the manufacturer of that panel

00:52:12 manufacturer of that panel to represent their concerns if you had wanted to give the select committee the full picture i would suggest to you that you should would and should have said to them we've deliberately selected

00:52:23 deliberately selected v2 vitricore g2 because although it is classified as a2 look see how badly it performs in an 8414 test

00:52:33 8414 test why did you do that

00:52:36 i would suggest through a different route that's what they're trying to do with

00:52:41 with issuing that information now you see the the one thing that's missing i have to suggest

00:52:45 suggest you which is crucial material to the select committee's knowledge is knowing that it was possible to have an a2 panel deliberately selected for

00:52:57 an a2 panel deliberately selected for inclusion

00:52:58 inclusion in an a414 test which would cause the 8414 test to fail i think we agree that that is the point why not say so well because there are products that you

00:53:09 well because there are products that you could select that are that can be classified to meet the linear route that will fail in an 841 core test of that system then why not tell the select committee that that what you had done was

00:53:20 that that what you had done was deliberately select picture call g2 in order to obtain a fail

00:53:25 fail which you had now successfully done and thereby demonstrated your case

00:53:29 i must apologize that we're at odds up i think what we're doing at the time was selecting a system made up of a number of components that failed the test now do you accept

00:53:41 that failed the test now do you accept looking at what i've read to you that this letter did not tell the select committee that there had been an earlier test

00:53:46 test namely the one on the 22nd of may which had been designed with deliberate imperfections intended to achieve poor performance but which had in fact passed

00:53:57 performance but which had in fact passed i know they didn't raise that but it's an important point clearly by designing systems it was you know you couldn't guarantee whether it would pass or fail mr burley why did this letter under your hand

00:54:08 this letter under your hand not refer to the successful may test

00:54:14 because i'm not sure it's relevant to that third test that they're highlighting the third test was to show that products that are available on the market that are classified as being a1 or a2

00:54:26 that are classified as being a1 or a2 and satisfy the linear route can can fail a test when tested as a system why not

00:54:32 not about the system test not the individual components why not tell the select committee that the dubai test was a fallback test a plan b

00:54:43 plan b that had only become necessary because the first test the may test with all its intended design imperfections uh had succeeded i can't answer that question

00:54:57 you said a moment ago that the may test was irrelevant did you yourself decide or take any part in deciding not to refer to the may test in this letter to the

00:55:08 to the may test in this letter to the select committee no i didn't you didn't

00:55:15 when this letter was written uh and again with the caveats that i uh referred to earlier um was it

00:55:28 um was it an oversight not to refer to the may test or was there a deliberate decision do you know i don't know

00:55:38 by referring to the july failure but by making no mention of the may success were you not giving an unfairly incomplete picture to the select committee

00:55:49 select committee about the behavior of linear root systems

00:55:53 systems or the linear route to compliance

00:55:57 no i think we will be pointing out an inconsistency that it was wrong to assume that all systems made up with products that met the linear route could be assumed that they would pass a

00:56:09 could be assumed that they would pass a large scale test yes now you said earlier that if the may test was irrelevant was it not relevant for the select committee

00:56:20 committee to know that even a system container containing linear route compliant products but with inbuilt intended design flaws could pass a

00:56:32 intended design flaws could pass a bs8414 test i'm sorry can you repeat that again was it not relevant for the select committee to know

00:56:39 to know uh that a system can containing linear route compliant products but with inbuilt design flaws could could pass

00:56:51 i don't know i'm technically qualified to pass comment well i'm not sure why anybody would deliberately design it with inbuilt flaws in a system going on a public building

00:57:03 building or any other i'm sorry do you want to continue your also

00:57:09 no i think i'm finished if you were making a fair and balanced presentation to the select committee you would have told them about both the may test

00:57:18 may test and the july test wouldn't you

00:57:22 i don't believe so because i think the third test we were trying to show that a system made with products that followed the linear route could fail

00:57:31 fail but it was wrong to assume that products automatically following the linear route would pass we believe that all uh systems that would

00:57:40 would be used at that height should follow a large scale test so far as you are aware

00:57:49 the non-disclosure of the fact of and results of the may test is this right was not a

00:57:55 was not a an accident not an oversight but the result of a deliberate decision by kingspan not to reveal it

00:58:03 reveal it i don't believe that i know let's um let's look at a more recent letter can we look please at kin30s 24978

00:58:21 now this is a a letter written in january of this year so uh

00:58:29 quite some time after you left kingspan uh and it's sent to mr clive betts mp still as chair of the uh select committee

00:58:37 committee and it's signed by rafe mannion if you look at

00:58:41 look at um the next uh you need to go down to page

00:58:45 page four sorry page three page three ralph mannion

00:58:50 mannion i don't know whether it's rayford ralph it's believable it's ralph he's the managing director of kingspan insulation uk and ireland now i i don't expect that you've seen this letter before but if you have please tell me

00:59:02 please tell me i don't believe i have can we go please uh to paragraph 2.3 on page two

00:59:14 2.3 on page two and it says uh in that paragraph halfway down just read with me the may 2018 test was not shared with the select committee

00:59:25 the select committee because it was not relevant as it did not illustrate the public safety point that kingspan was seeking to explain that goes on i'll just read the rest to you for completeness

00:59:37 you for completeness it is not in doubt that some systems comprising only a1 straight a2 materials will meet the r135 requirements when tested to bs 8414 the point of public safety is that not all such systems will meet those

00:59:48 all such systems will meet those requirements now i want to focus with you on the part of that sentence where it says uh wasn't shared with the select committee because it was not relevant as

01:00:00 committee because it was not relevant as it did not illustrate the public safety point that kingspan was seeking to explain

01:00:05 explain were you part of the decision-making uh that led to the decision not to share with the select committee

01:00:16 not to share with the select committee the may 2018 test for the reason this letter says no it wasn't right can you tell us about that decision

01:00:27 can you tell us about that decision you know when it was made by whom it was made no i mean i wasn't involved in it so i

01:00:31 so i can't pass comment right

01:00:41 do you accept that it was relevant for the select committee when considering the linear route to compliance and whether or not to continue

01:00:53 whether or not to continue uh to allow that as the primary route to compliance as opposed to requiring bs 8414 testings for all systems for use above 18 meters

01:01:05 systems for use above 18 meters to know about the may test and the fact that it has succeeded notwithstanding introduced design imperfections

01:01:14 no i believe i'm repeating an answer i've given before so forgive me but i i believe i mean there are plenty of systems

01:01:22 systems that do follow the linear route that would pass the test i think as actually says it quite succinctly in that last

01:01:29 that last part of that paragraph um that not all such systems will meet those requirements i think that was the point it wasn't the point that there are plenty that will it's the point it was the point that some won't

01:01:41 the point that some won't that you can't therefore link the following the linear route would therefore deem that it would pass a large scale test i think we're slightly across purposes let me try it once more

01:01:52 me try it once more was it not relevant for the select committee to know about the may test precisely because it undermined the public safety point that kingspan was seeking to explain no i don't agree with that right

01:02:06 no i don't agree with that right it isn't the truth here that you lent your name or at least your name somehow appeared on a letter to the select committee which concealed the existence of the may test

01:02:17 concealed the existence of the may test and its successful result because the may test and its successful result seriously undermine kingspan's case that combustible materials should not be banned no i don't believe that to be the case

01:02:31 and by giving them the result test button but not revealing the may test you were only giving the select committee half the picture no i don't believe that and the kingsman in doing so was setting out to mislead

01:02:42 in doing so was setting out to mislead the select committee no that's not okay now do you know who it was at kingsfan who decided that it was you who should give evidence to the select

01:02:53 who should give evidence to the select committee

01:02:55 committee both orally and by pending your name to this letter um i'm not completely sure no i think it was it was peter that told me

01:03:08 was it was peter that told me right given that you'd only worked for kingspan for some four years at this point and there were a number of other um very highly in fact more highly qualified

01:03:17 qualified people at kingspan uh who could speak with much greater detail of the knowledge of fire testing than you were you surprised to have been selected to give evidence in front of the select

01:03:28 to give evidence in front of the select committee

01:03:31 committee i was a little yes yes i want to show you an email chain which was disclosed to the inquiry on the 10th of march this year so within this month kin30s 25512

01:03:53 it's an email chain from the 30th of june 2018

01:03:57 june 2018 and it's about the uh imminent select committee hearing and if we look at the first email in the chain it's from uh you can see that uh it's from john garbett in response to

01:04:09 it's from john garbett in response to tony ryan

01:04:09 tony ryan on that day um if we go below that we can see that the second email down is an email from tony ryan

01:04:20 is an email from tony ryan to john garbett and siobhan dwyer and he says

01:04:25 john i think we need to show up these mps and show them that without technical competency they'll end up making the wrong decision uh and then if we go a little bit lower down than that uh we can see uh at uh page

01:04:40 we can see uh at uh page 2 if we go to that

01:04:52 there is uh an email uh which starts on the 12th of june an email chain starting on the 12th of june from tony run to john garbett which ends with the email i've just shown you

01:05:04 with the email i've just shown you and it says john i know richard was subjected to media training today and is preparing for the select committee hearing

01:05:09 hearing richard's name was bounced around a number of times as we anticipated that an

01:05:13 an md or ceo would be called but as we now know it's a kingston representative that is required to attend personally i think this is so important that we need someone who's been very close to the various issues over the last few months and who's on point

01:05:25 last few months and who's on point with all the evidence we have this person needs to be technically excellent and demonstrate their knowledge of testing in a way that portrays kingspan as absolute leaders in fire testing etc therefore i think you'd be more suited

01:05:36 therefore i think you'd be more suited to represent kingspan this is the chance we cannot risk i'm sure richard could deliver but i think you are better positioned to do this kind of regards technique right and then we have john garbett's response

01:05:51 and then we have john garbett's response 13th of june hi tony richard is going to be very good he knows enough but not too much which is helpful the worst thing he could do is a deep dive on detail he needs to talk to the

01:06:02 dive on detail he needs to talk to the mps at their level of understanding

01:06:07 and then we can see how uh this then unfolds uh if you go above that please on the screen siobhan dwyer comes back john you can be

01:06:18 siobhan dwyer comes back john you can be there by his side too though right and then scrolling up to the top john garber dwyer behind rather than beside

01:06:27 beside but we're told that richard referring to me will be frowned upon and not look good and then at the very top or rather the second email is the email i showed you i think we need to show up these mps and show them that without

01:06:38 these mps and show them that without technical competency that they're not making the wrong decision you could brand yourself as a kingspan director which is true and accurate i'm not doubting richard but it just made sense in my mind that you'd do it and i thought i'd voice my opinion

01:06:50 and i thought i'd voice my opinion now we can see what others were saying behind the scenes first of all can i assume that you knew nothing of these discussions

01:07:01 discussions no not at all the first time i saw it was two evenings ago yes two evenings ago yeah yeah two evenings ago so before you resume that's awesome well i don't know seen these top emails but i

01:07:13 i don't know seen these top emails but i saw

01:07:14 saw i think the bottom emails uh when mr barger gave evidence i see i see uh now in light of your uh answers that you've

01:07:26 in light of your uh answers that you've given us this morning about the 6th of july

01:07:27 july letter that would it be fair and i'm sorry

01:07:32 sorry to be blunt about this mr burnley but but let's let's look at it fairly and squarely would it be fairly to say that you were set up by others at kingspan as kingspan's

01:07:43 kingspan as kingspan's useful idiot who knew the case message could speak very articulately to it but not the fact that it rested on flimsy evidence i don't believe that's the case

01:07:56 i don't believe that's the case if that had been then i wouldn't have accepted the invitation to go

01:08:09 when you were preparing to give your evidence

01:08:12 evidence uh before the select committee and had the training that's been referred to here

01:08:18 here was there any discussion of how you should present matters so as not to compromise your position in the public inquiry

01:08:27 inquiry no there was it was more about training about how to clearly and succinctly answer questions the mechanics of it not the content was there any discussion

01:08:38 there any discussion at all during this training exercise or indeed any of your preparation up to giving the evidence before the select committee about making sure that the message you were putting across didn't undermine

01:08:50 putting across didn't undermine kingston's position in the public inquiry

01:08:54 inquiry no it was not nothing to do with undermining kingston's position there was discussion about the messaging and that was around full-scale testing right

01:09:03 can i show you kin402540 please

01:09:20 can i show you kin402540 please this is uh a letter from the mhclg rachel mclean on the date and it's dated the 31st of july 2018 as you can see

01:09:31 july 2018 as you can see and it's addressed to jean merta chief executive at kingspan in ireland and it looks to be a response to the sixth of july letter it says in your letter of sixth july to the chair

01:09:43 your letter of sixth july to the chair of the housing community's local government select committee you refer to evidence of cladding systems constructed in products rated a1 and a2 failing to achieve the standards required by british standard 8414 large

01:09:54 required by british standard 8414 large scale system test and then in the next paragraph you can see that there's a bit more detail and there's a reference there to tech what was test three done in july 2018 can you see that i can't use

01:10:06 can't use now first do you know whether well have you ever seen this letter before i don't recall that i have no right do you know whether you yourself ever received

01:10:17 ever received a response from clive betts or anybody else on the select committee to your sixth of july letter no i don't i don't think i did right did you ever seek to pursue

01:10:29 right did you ever seek to pursue a response no i didn't right um can we take it that this letter i'm showing you now um

01:10:40 that this letter i'm showing you now um was the response or perhaps a response to that letter um well given it refers to the same name that was in my name i i'm assuming this is the response to that letter

01:10:52 is the response to that letter yes we would rather assume the same thing but thank you for confirming that to the best of your knowledge do you know why

01:10:59 know why um the department wrote to gene murder rather than to you no i can't answer that

01:11:09 and if you look down at the third paragraph in the letter

01:11:17 after having referred to the july test it says the ministry of housing communities and local government is taking forward work as quickly as possible to establish whether there is a public safety risk in

01:11:28 there is a public safety risk in relation to this cladding and to determine any action that should be taken to ensure public safety it is the highest priority for ministers that we establish whether there is a risk to public safety based on your colleagues contact with the department to date i know that

01:11:40 the department to date i know that you're committed to ensuring maximum public safety and to assisting us with our investigation

01:11:49 do you know whether gene murder responded to this letter no i don't know now we've seen as i've shown you

01:11:58 shown you that gene murder among others was uh licked in on copied in on in fact as a direct recipient of the april 2018 emails

01:12:09 the april 2018 emails referring to the proposed tests

01:12:15 to your knowledge did mr marta ever respond to the department or to clive betts telling them to ignore the july 2018 dubai test or telling them

01:12:26 the july 2018 dubai test or telling them that there was a test done in may 2018 i don't know

01:12:43 do you know from your own knowledge

01:12:47 that gene murder knew about the tests about the

01:12:51 about the plan to introduce deliberate design imperfections into the may test not to tell the select committee about the may test when it succeeded the plan to use g2 vitracore

01:13:04 the plan to use g2 vitracore as the selected material in the july test

01:13:07 test uh and the concealment of that fact from the select committee i don't know

01:13:16 i'm going to put to you two things about your comment is it true the kingspan's position even in 2018 in the face of a government

01:13:27 even in 2018 in the face of a government investigation into fire safety following the grenfell tower of fire was to do its best to ensure that science was secretly perverted for financial gain

01:13:39 perverted for financial gain i don't know and that that had been kingspan's approach for many years before that point

01:13:47 point to your own knowledge now no i don't believe that to be the case

01:13:53 finally can i just ask you about what actually happened do you recall that in september 2018 uh vitracore g2

01:14:04 2018 uh vitracore g2 was withdrawn from the market suspended at least

01:14:13 i can't remember that now

01:14:17 do you remember that the government was keen to test the vitracore g2 panels for themselves i can't recall that i don't recall can we go to kin3025

01:14:29 can we go to kin3025 please

01:14:40 ah

01:14:45 kin30s two five seven two one

01:15:00 yes here comes this is a letter from the mhclg dated 13th september 2018. heading and it's clive betts mp heading vitricore g2

01:15:11 clive betts mp heading vitricore g2 planning dear clive the government has today concluded fire safety tests of the vitricor g2 clouding product

01:15:18 product our testing has demonstrated that the product being sold on the market differs from the one tested for classification the results show the samples tested contained more combustible adhesive than is specified in the original

01:15:29 than is specified in the original classification report although this on its own does not confirm that the product would not meet the a2 classification it is clear that the samples do not match the specification and set out in the original a2 classification report

01:15:41 the original a2 classification report therefore it may not achieve the fire safety standard that has been classified too

01:15:45 too we've taken immediate action and referred this matter to trading standards and asked the supplier to withdraw the product from the market until it can demonstrate it meets the required standard we have also contacted the two high-rise

01:15:56 we have also contacted the two high-rise residential building owners that have purchased the vitricore g2 for use on their buildings to inform them of our finding this product is not widely used in the uk but we have asked the government's independent expert panel what additional action if any may be

01:16:08 what additional action if any may be necessary there's nothing more important than ensuring people are safe in their homes

01:16:12 homes and it signs the right honourable james brokenshire mp do you remember how the suspension of vitricol left kingspan's case

01:16:23 kingspan's case no did it result in the july test that kingspan had previously been relying on as the linchpin of its argument uh as virtually worthless

01:16:35 virtually worthless um well no i don't think so i think it was it's a consequence isn't it indeed uh and is it not also right that the second paragraph in mr brokenshire's letter actually was

01:16:48 in mr brokenshire's letter actually was telling

01:16:50 telling clive betts uh something that kingspan had known all along or at least strongly suspected namely that although vitricord g2 was

01:17:02 vitricord g2 was an a2 rated panel nonetheless uh it was more combustible than that rating would indicate and as i say had a track record of

01:17:14 and as i say had a track record of failure

01:17:15 failure when included in a bs-8414 test and i think that's the point but in a different way it was a point that systems made up of products that followed the linear route

01:17:27 products that followed the linear route couldn't necessarily be guarantee a large-scale test the the consequence of that is that clearly one or more of the components or the way that it's constructed mean that it's

01:17:38 that it's it's not capable of passing the large-scale test what happened in the end to kingspan's lobbying attempts or argument or case based on the july 2018 test i don't know i mean i

01:17:52 july 2018 test i don't know i mean i i've moved from that business into a different kingspan business at the end of that year so i don't know what they've continued the end of 2018 correct yes

01:18:09 yes thank you very much um mr burnley i've come to the end of my prepared questions

01:18:14 questions um but uh there may be further questions that i need to go back over and ask you and there may be questions that others may also want me to ask you which i will have to consider so i'm

01:18:25 which i will have to consider so i'm going to ask the chairman now for what we have as a usual break at the end of the witness mr chairman is now a convenient moment yes well it obviously would be mr militz thank you um mr burnley as mr militz explained we

01:18:37 mr burnley as mr militz explained we need to have a short break at this point just to sweep up any possible additional questions so we'll stop now we'll resume at 25 to 12 please

01:18:49 at 25 to 12 please and at that point we'll see whether there are any more questions we need to ask you

01:18:55 ask you um and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're on the break and we'll see you at 25 to 12 please

01:19:05 please okay i understand thank you very much

01:35:01 welcome back everyone we'll see now whether there are any more questions from mr burnley let me just check mr burnley

01:35:08 burnley can you see me and hear me well i can't give you

01:35:11 give you very much well we'll find out whether mr millet has any more questions to put you mr millet

01:35:18 mr millet yes i do one or two um first mr burnley um it's not so much a question but i just want to um say something to you so that it's clear on the transcript and then see if you had to have anything to add

01:35:31 you had to have anything to add if you go back to january 2018 and your dinner with kevin hollinger at the house of parliament january 2018 um did you know at that time

01:35:44 um did you know at that time that there had been some 11 tests uh on k15 under bs8414 uh which kingspan

01:35:55 under bs8414 uh which kingspan wish to say to the inquiry had been successful

01:36:01 i don't believe i did know right and i could just add for the record for your benefit that those 11 tests have not yet been investigated

01:36:12 investigated by the public inquiry uh but surely will be

01:36:16 be um now the second thing i want to ask you is about a document uh which follows uh in time from the second of july test at kin

01:36:27 from the second of july test at kin three

01:36:27 three four zero seven i'm sorry kin full zero is four

01:36:32 is four seven two nine please

01:36:51 now this is an email uh sent by john garvert on uh the 4th of july

01:36:59 july 2018 uh and it doesn't seem to come at the top of any particular chain and it's sent to neil o'connor at communities gsi dove uk

01:37:11 at communities gsi dove uk and brian martin and

01:37:17 you can see that it uh spent on the fourth of july for those gentlemen at um the dclg as it was then called

01:37:28 was then called hi neil hi brian i need a conversation with you

01:37:31 with you it will be quick but it is important and i think you will value having the information i wish to share because it has pr consequences for the department can we talk in the morning

01:37:43 talk in the morning now first of all did you see this email at the time no i didn't did you know that john garvert was seeking a conversation with neil o'connor and brian martin at the dc

01:37:54 the dc lg or mhclg as i think no i don't recall that no

01:38:01 do you know what the information was that mr garbett wanted to share with those two gentlemen no do you know

01:38:14 no do you know uh what sort of relationship mr garbett had

01:38:17 had with neil o'connor or brian martin no i don't you know what sort of ease of access he had with the department and in particular with those two

01:38:28 and in particular with those two officials

01:38:29 officials no no

01:38:34 do you know what he means can you help us when he says it has pr consequences for the department

01:38:42 no i can't no and i don't want you to speculate if you don't know you don't know but might it just be that the results of the second of july test being a fail for something that kingspan would regard

01:38:54 for something that kingspan would regard as important uh in order to be able to lean on the mhclg because the failure might have pr consequences for

01:39:04 for the department

01:39:08 it's the first time i've seen the email and i think not having seen it before any answer i give would just be speculation

01:39:18 finally um mr burnley this is a question that the inquiry sometimes asks of people in particular positions looking back on all the evidence that we've been through both in december and

01:39:29 we've been through both in december and again

01:39:29 again over the last few days or so is there anything

01:39:34 anything that you would have done differently

01:39:39 i think i'd like to start first of all by extending my sincerest condolences to anybody who's been affected by the tragedy at grenfell tower i think having followed as much as i can

01:39:52 i think having followed as much as i can the first two modules i've reflected on a lot of what's been discussed um and i'll clearly do more of that now this part of the process is is finishing for me um i think what

01:40:03 is is finishing for me um i think what it's

01:40:03 it's it's it's made me do already is question the integrity and robustness of information that i read and receive and in particular in the areas where i

01:40:14 and in particular in the areas where i it's not my specific expertise and i'll continue to do that and reflect on this this process yes thank you very much uh well mr

01:40:25 yes thank you very much uh well mr burnley um it only remains for me to thank you very much for

01:40:30 much for the inquiry and assisting us with our with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you so thank you very much thank you thank you thank you mr millet and mr burnley i'd like to add my thanks

01:40:41 and mr burnley i'd like to add my thanks on behalf not only of myself but my fellow panel members to you for uh coming to give your evidence not once but in the sense twice and i'm sorry that the process was interrupted as badly as it was by

01:40:54 interrupted as badly as it was by matters outside our control but we're very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence it's been very helpful to us to hear what you have to tell us and i can at least say now that it's over

01:41:06 i can at least say now that it's over and you're now free to go and get on with your life so thank you very much indeed thank you right well i think mr millet that brings us to

01:41:17 well i think mr millet that brings us to a close does it not of the proceedings for today and indeed uh for module two as a whole other than the closing statements which we're going to hear

01:41:26 to hear at a later stage mr chairman it does subject to one uh thing i should just do which is record

01:41:34 record uh other witness statements further witness statements relevant to module two

01:41:39 two and i can do that by referring to a single document which is a schedule with the witness statements company and organization uh and the urn on them so that those

01:41:50 uh and the urn on them so that those um those who want to can examine precisely what it is that these witnesses say in writing and the reference to that schedule is i d

01:42:00 d x 0 6 5

01:42:04 x 0 6 5 4 and it has two pages idx0654 so that is a way of reading all of those formally into the record and they will now be available on the

01:42:15 and they will now be available on the inquiries website the subject of that mr chairman that brings to an end subject to anything further outstanding possibly

01:42:23 possibly uh the module two oral evidence good well thank you very much and so uh the proceedings will terminate at that point for today but we are resuming on monday morning

01:42:35 but we are resuming on monday morning at 10 o'clock when we will begin hearing opening statements for module three and so until then thank you all very much ten o'clock monday morning

01:43:22 you