Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Kingspan Evidence - Wednesday 24th March 2021 (2/2). Counsel examines evidence about Kingspan's testing practices, marketing of K-15, and the Dubai test designed to demonstrate failure of non-combustible systems.
00:00:17 good afternoon everyone and welcome back we are about to resume hearing evidence from mr richard burnley mr burnley good afternoon can you see me and can you hear me
00:00:28 and can you hear me yes i can good thank you very much are you ready to carry on i am yes very good thank you very much well in that case i'm going to invite mr millet to
00:00:37 millet to continue putting questions to you yes mr millett when you're ready thank you very much mr chairman mr burnley after the letter before action that you or
00:00:48 letter before action that you or kingspan sent to the nhbc it's right isn't it that you met the nhbc i think on two occasions fifth of march 2015 and then the 18th of june 2015. that's
00:01:00 then the 18th of june 2015. that's correct
00:01:01 correct yes and if we go to nhb 50977 we'll see a note of that meeting the first of those meetings
00:01:27 this is a uh an nhbc generated note of the meeting on the 5th of march 2015. and from the nhbc you can see who was present
00:01:37 present ian davis steve evans and graham perrier as well as dave white and john lewis and then from kingspan we can see that you attended
00:01:45 attended together with tony miller chap and diver meredith
00:01:49 meredith let's if we go down to item one action one we can see what the first discussion was
00:02:00 what the first discussion was uh and the rest of the actions under that now
00:02:03 that now it will be striking to those looking at these documents that we finished with the letter before action uh on the 13th of march from your solicitors and the next thing we see is a meeting on the 5th of
00:02:14 see is a meeting on the 5th of march sorry february and then the next thing we see is a meeting on the 5th of march
00:02:18 march what happened between the 13th of february
00:02:22 february when your solicitors wrote their letter before action and this meeting
00:02:28 well i don't remember the exact timing but i know that around the time that obviously that letter was sent we were trying to arrange this meeting so i think all that happened was that we we set up this meeting to go and sit
00:02:40 we set up this meeting to go and sit down and for me to meet them and understand the problems looking at the terms of action one it says uh details of test program wall topologies time scales duration and
00:02:52 topologies time scales duration and sequencing to be provided to nhbc uh who kingston t-m-i-n that's tony miller check
00:03:01 check iva meredith by 13th of march you see that
00:03:05 that do you know whether that's done um i know it was done did we meet the timeline i don't know i mean i know that they were this was where we were talking about
00:03:16 this was where we were talking about what we were going to test to give them their um their evidence so i i know it was done i just don't know i can't confirm it was done by the 13th of march okay and if you look at item
00:03:28 of march okay and if you look at item three that says nhbc to discuss widening stroke amending scope of options for demonstrating compliance stated in bca guidance note what was that in relation to do you know
00:03:41 what was that in relation to do you know i'm not entirely clear i mean i can only read it as it's written so but obviously it's an action for steve evans i think at the nhbc right do you remember any discussion at
00:03:53 right do you remember any discussion at this meeting along the lines of nhbc wishing to widen the routes to compliance with the proof document be
00:04:04 only insofar as what's written there
00:04:09 i see you don't have any independent recollection i see do you have any recollection of this question being discussed internally within kingspan that the widening or amendment of escape
00:04:20 that the widening or amendment of escape of options for demonstrating compliance no not involving me
00:04:27 was there an element of compromise here that you were discussing namely kingspan would do more testing as had been requested and
00:04:39 as had been requested and nhbc for their part would look at how to widen the scope of application um i don't know that it was compromise i mean you could see it that way but it was more about
00:04:50 was more about there was clearly gaps in evidence that they required to make them comfortable in the use of the product and then it was whether from their perspective the evidence which wouldn't be for
00:05:01 the evidence which wouldn't be for exactly the systems being used in a building
00:05:04 building they would then be able to interpret it as systems that could be read from that as being acceptable is i think what that is aimed at but that was with them not with us when
00:05:15 but that was with them not with us when you say that was with them and not with us
00:05:17 us um the nhbc was to discuss the widening stroke amendment scope of options and the who
00:05:24 the who there is nhbc se and steve evans by the end of march do you remember with whom
00:05:31 whom the nhbc was to have those discussions i don't know but i do seem to recall that i think mr evans was involved with the bca
00:05:42 mr evans was involved with the bca document so i don't know whether that was the link i think that's my recollection right do you remember why the nhbc was proposing a discussion of widening or amending the scope of
00:05:54 or amending the scope of options for demonstrating compliance i don't know
00:05:59 did you see this uh as a way of influencing nhbc's national policy
00:06:09 policy no i don't think we were trying to influence that policy at all i think the purpose of the meeting going back to the word that you introduced i think i was wanting to understand their exasperation and come up with a plan of work that iva
00:06:21 and come up with a plan of work that iva and tony could deliver on to to make them happy that we were actually
00:06:26 actually meeting their needs
00:06:30 before this meeting in light of that answer you've just given us had you taken any steps to get to the bottom of why it was that there had been no plan of work yet
00:06:42 that there had been no plan of work yet identified and conceived and why there had as yet been no further testing done as had been asked for by the nhpc since at least the previous
00:06:54 by the nhpc since at least the previous june if not before that no i mean this was when i think around this time was also when it was brought to my knowledge that there were concerns around either meredith's workload and the work he was
00:07:06 meredith's workload and the work he was doing
00:07:07 doing and so we were also i was trying to understand well what extra resource do we need to look into providing to help get through the volume of work
00:07:18 see some months have gone by and we've been over this a bit already but we're now in early march uh 2015 some months have gone by during which you as you told us knew that the nhbc
00:07:30 you as you told us knew that the nhbc were exasperated did you come to this meeting with a plan already in place to conduct the testing that the nhbc had been asking for well my plan which i think i explained
00:07:43 well my plan which i think i explained to ivan turn before he went in i said look
00:07:45 look what i'm hearing is you know i can see what we've got in terms of communication with them i want to understand what it is they need from us and and the conversations were more about the future than the past
00:07:56 than the past so the testing that they wanted done to give them the evidence to be able to sign off on buildings i see what was the relevance of item three then the discussion
00:08:08 three then the discussion by the nhbc of widening or amending scope of options for demonstration of compliance well i think as i've said because of the numbers of combinations of materials that could be used in a system
00:08:20 materials that could be used in a system so different types of materials different thicknesses then then
00:08:25 then then you just couldn't test every single possible
00:08:28 possible construction that could theoretically be used
00:08:31 used so we were trying to perform tests that would give them confidence to use those results on a broader range of buildups as possible but then they would
00:08:42 buildups as possible but then they would need to feel that you know that was something they could do and i think that was the premise of that comment widening and amending scope of options for demonstrating compliance would benefit kingsback wouldn't it
00:08:54 kingsback wouldn't it because it would mean you wouldn't have to have a test for every single build-up well i mean given the number of build-ups that could possibly be you couldn't test every single builder so it helped the industry
00:09:08 builder so it helped the industry well it helped the industry but it also helped kingspan surely because if uh the scope of options for demonstration of compliance was widened kingspan wouldn't have to do a test and produced a test result
00:09:19 produced a test result for every single build up that was going to be applied in the real world well it would help kingspan insofar as they were part of the industry i don't believe that it was the single reason for doing it
00:09:30 for doing it i mean you you just can't possibly test thousands and thousands of makeups build-ups it's just impractical now
00:09:41 impractical now did you know whether the nhpc was discussing widening the scope of compliance with anybody other than you no no i wouldn't have been part that was
00:09:52 wouldn't have been part that was their business uh if you go a little bit further down page one under other points to note you'll see item six test results on trespa panel disputed with bre
00:10:02 with bre time scale for resolution not known now this was in relation to a large-scale fire test undertaken on the 19th of march 2014 the previous year in other words
00:10:13 in other words which the bre had deemed a fail that's right isn't it um i believe so and it says there that the resolution for the time scale of that was not known
00:10:24 that was not known in fact do you accept there wasn't actually a time scale for resolution the bre had said that the test was a fail and that was that wasn't it no i think at this stage tony was still
00:10:35 no i think at this stage tony was still in roles so i believe tony was i mean i can't confess to seeing
00:10:40 seeing communications but my understanding was that tony was still contesting it with the bra
00:10:45 the bra i see can we go to kin402538 please
00:10:52 2538
00:10:58 this is your email of the 6th of march 2015 and in other words the next day after this meeting to tony milichap and iva meredith among others including peter wilson and
00:11:11 including peter wilson and you can you say dear all i believe the actions stated are an accurate representation of what was agreed the meeting lasted two and a half hours and there was a lot of circular conversation around test results
00:11:22 conversation around test results options to get test results options of meeting the guidance note and the fact that this is a cladding system issue not just an insulation matter
00:11:30 matter having said that i had the distinct feeling that nhbc wanted to work with kingspan
00:11:35 kingspan in finding some better way of assessing whether specific systems meet the building regulations and achieve the necessary fire standards do you agree that you were at this point familiar
00:11:47 that you were at this point familiar with the issues of fire testing k-15
00:11:52 i was i was familiar with some issues yes what issues were those
00:11:58 well the issues around the importance of bsa414 and it being a a reliable test to use as evidence for the use of k-15 why did you feel that the nhb wanted to
00:12:11 why did you feel that the nhb wanted to work with kingspan well i think the purpose from memory the the purpose of this first paragraph is to basically stand down the solicitors and say look
00:12:22 solicitors and say look we're going to resolve this um amenably and around the table i think that's why i wrote that in it's in quite a deliberate way i think i've written it yes and is that why you copied it rather
00:12:34 yes and is that why you copied it rather sent it to mr randall t randall at fennick elliott yes
00:12:40 yes although or am i just replying to the people on the i think i'm just replying to the note below actually which is i've replied to everybody
00:12:49 everybody my question again um why did you think that the nhbc wanted to work with kingspan what was in it for them
00:13:02 i don't know there was i didn't computer there was anything in it for them my feeling from the meeting was that they weren't saying that's it we no longer want to talk to kingspan or or discuss things with you
00:13:13 kingspan or or discuss things with you they wanted to find a way forward they were they were looking for some information i believe we could come up with a test program that would give them that was there any discussion or any sense
00:13:24 was there any discussion or any sense that you got during the discussions that the nhbc had a concern that they had approved the use of kingspan k-15 on many buildings in different
00:13:36 many buildings in different configurations and needed their guarantees retrospectively validated in some way um no i would agree with the second part i think of what you said there which was
00:13:47 think of what you said there which was they wanted validation but i wouldn't say that made us aware of concerns about what they've done right
00:13:58 and this wasn't was it just that then hbc we're happy to talk to you because otherwise they were worried about being sued
00:14:05 sued no i didn't that wasn't even the topic of conversation it was far more let's sit down around the table and sort i mean that they were they were frustrated and i i was there ian davis
00:14:16 frustrated and i i was there ian davis was there and we were trying to get the troops as it were to you know sort things out yes absolutely i see that
00:14:25 that and i just want to ask you was there any sense in which you felt that you might be able to take advantage of the fact that uh things might get a
00:14:36 of the fact that uh things might get a bit difficult for the nhbc if it came out that they had approved or insured buildings with k-15 on them which did not correspond to the 2005
00:14:46 2005 test build-up absolutely not right now as you confirmed a few moments ago in your evidence we think we know that you met the nhvc again on the 18th of june
00:14:58 again on the 18th of june 2015 didn't you and i'll show you the note
00:15:02 note it's nhb four zero is one one three six
00:15:23 uh and it's an email sent by either meredith
00:15:26 meredith to graham perry or at the nhbc copied to dave white ian davis uh and others at the nhbc as well as to you
00:15:36 you and to adrian parchetta uh and noticed that the solicitors have now fallen away he says hi graham further to today's meeting i attach our list of projects that we're currently or have in the past had discussions on
00:15:48 or have in the past had discussions on can i ask that you help us understand which projects are on your radar which ones are nhbc bc services and which are covered by your warranty also most importantly which are pre 2014
00:16:01 also most importantly which are pre 2014 if you could help complete the columns highlighted in red we would be very grateful
00:16:05 grateful as discussed if you can also advise from your list which jobs and cladding types you're shortly looking to make a negative decision on and whether there is any additional information that will allow you to sign
00:16:16 information that will allow you to sign off the systems we we can look to see if it is possible to obtain this information and then you can see underneath it a uh a a
00:16:24 a a matrix uh across the page by way of a number of headings that mr meredith has proposed that the nhbc should fill out you see that number date query received etc and then
00:16:36 date query received etc and then underneath that he says once you produce your summary report if you could make this available to us so that we may concentrate on the more urgent construction types from this matrix headers copied above
00:16:47 from this matrix headers copied above you can also see projects of concern jobs where we have received all the build information and we feel that this construction would fall outside of acceptability based on our learnings
00:16:58 our learnings from the testing of the last 12 to 18 months as we have not received or reviewed all the project information this is not a conclusive list i'm just just pausing there projects of concern
00:17:09 concern when did you yourself first learn that k15 was on many buildings where the building where the buildup was quotes outside of acceptability as mr meredith
00:17:19 meredith said i don't recall this email um
00:17:26 but it would suggest this would be the date where i would have been made aware of
00:17:30 of projects of concern
00:17:33 was this the first time on seeing mr meredith's letter that you became aware that there were such projects projects of concern well this is a description he's using i guess for projects with the nhbc
00:17:49 uh are you saying that it was only on receipt of this email from mr meredith that you learned that there were
00:17:57 were projects where the construction would fall outside this acceptability based on what had been learned in the testing in the previous eight 12 to 18
00:18:08 testing in the previous eight 12 to 18 months
00:18:09 months well i don't recall the email so it feels like it's the first time i'm reading it right do you remember any discussion before this time 18th of june 2015
00:18:20 18th of june 2015 about projects of concern such as those described here no but what does ring true with me is the comment he makes um above in the third paragraph where
00:18:31 um above in the third paragraph where he's talking about we were trying to satisfy them with information on systems so this where he says uh to sign off the systems we can look
00:18:42 systems we can look the cladding types you're surely to make a negative decision on so they had cladding types where they were saying we're not sure about this so we were trying to put those into the test program
00:18:54 test program that does ring true i remember that right
00:18:57 right um but if um if projects of concern hadn't rung the bell with you before you received this email were you not immediately very concerned by what you read when you did get this email
00:19:10 read when you did get this email well again i'm saying i don't recall reading this email i mean you were managing director at the time uh this letter comes this email comes to you from iva meredith
00:19:23 i i've assumed that you would have read it and read it carefully at the time is that a wrong assumption on my card um well i would say it's not to me it's i'm copied in on it which tends to mean it's there for information
00:19:36 tends to mean it's there for information um i would as i say i would since i was cc i would have scanned read it and and what i'm what i'm seeing is things that relate back to the meeting that we've had you're copied in on it because it's not
00:19:47 you're copied in on it because it's not to you but you're copied in on it because the sender uh wanted you to read it is that a fair assumption or is that just is that a mistake
00:19:56 i don't know that he's saying he wants me to read it he's providing it for information right uh but for information to get the information you would have had to read the email
00:20:06 the email yes that's correct so i'm proceeding on the basis
00:20:10 the basis you did read the email say my question again when you did read the email as i'm assuming you would have done were you not concerned to read that there were projects of concern where constructions would fall outside
00:20:22 where constructions would fall outside the scope of acceptability
00:20:25 um on the basis the projects of concern is in speech marks and it's around the meeting that i'd attended then i'm i think i've read into that that i know what it's referring to and i don't think
00:20:36 what it's referring to and i don't think it's project of concern as you're making it out to be when you received this email did you uh as managing director did you take any steps to investigate how uh it could have occurred that there
00:20:48 uh it could have occurred that there were such projects of concern as described
00:20:52 described no because at the time this i think by now
00:20:56 now tony miller chap had left so this would fall under the technical team which was led by
00:21:00 led by adrian partiter and and iver was obviously involved did you have a discussion with adrian pogetta to make sure you knew what he was doing and he knew you were aware and was supervising what he was doing in this respect
00:21:12 he was doing in this respect i'm sure we would have discussed it on an ongoing basis yes along with a number of other matters that were of importance and then a little lower down you can see it says letter written these are for projects where a letter of comfort has
00:21:24 projects where a letter of comfort has been written as we have been advised that the project has already been signed off pre-jan 2014 and all that is all that is required to satisfy yourselves please note we have only written these
00:21:35 please note we have only written these when we are happy with the constructions that have been retrospectively confirmed to us as we were not originally involved in the contract were you not concerned at the time when you read this even if
00:21:47 at the time when you read this even if only for information that kingspan had been
00:21:49 been writing letters of comfort for the use of k15 which were not an independent expert desktop extrapolation but simply kingston's own opinion well i can't remember the exact timing
00:22:01 well i can't remember the exact timing but the these letters of comfort was something that adrian did bring to my attention
00:22:06 attention adrian parketer and and again i can't remember the timing but he said look we've been doing this on occasion
00:22:14 occasion i'm not sure that we are probably qualified to do that and so again i can't remember the timing but i think we stopped doing them some point in that year right
00:22:25 some point in that year right now let's move to nhbc's technical guidance notes
00:22:30 this takes us into the summer of the following year 2016. can we go to kin402297
00:22:46 this is an email chain from the july of 2016.
00:22:50 2016. at the top of the email chain you can see there's one from gwen davis to justin davis and philip heath um if we go to page one and over to page two say bottom
00:23:01 page one and over to page two say bottom of page one you see that the third email in the chain is on the 8th of july 2016 from adam heath to adrian brazier adrian pargeter and others
00:23:14 and in it you can see that adam heath gives an update to numerous members of the team about his attendance at an nhbc facades conference which happened
00:23:26 nhbc facades conference which happened on the previous day if we go um over to page two he says this
00:23:31 this yesterday at the nhbc facades conference at which the nhbc dclg bre and xavier presented
00:23:38 presented and hbc unveiled a new technical note which will be expanded in the future as more test evidence becomes available basically they've taken all the test evidence available in the market featuring combustible insulation
00:23:49 featuring combustible insulation six kin kingspan two extra therm one celotex
00:23:53 celotex to come up with three standard wall buildups that they deem automatically compliant
00:23:56 compliant they all have a number of caveats and any deviation from one of these three wall types will still require supporting evidence in line with bcaa tgn 18 and if we go back to page one and
00:24:09 18 and if we go back to page one and look a little bit higher up we can see that adrian pargeter who receives among other people he receives this email sends this on to gwyn davis roy weghorst and john
00:24:20 on to gwyn davis roy weghorst and john garbert the same day 8th july 2016. and he says this gents interesting development from nhbc they've effectively eased the passage of compliance for a selection of combustible insulation brands k15
00:24:32 combustible insulation brands k15 included
00:24:33 included with three select buildups in high-rise rainspring applications overall i feel this is good news as it shows a shift in thinking and an acceptance of combustible insulation and i'm sure is a direct result of our
00:24:44 and i'm sure is a direct result of our testing and campaigning on this issue however the bad and annoying news that it is it also allows celetex and extratherm after relatively little effort to ride in on our shirttails and we'll put significant pressure on us
00:24:56 and we'll put significant pressure on us in these select applications um what had occurred do you know in the 12 months or so before july 2016 for the nhpc
00:25:07 before july 2016 for the nhpc suddenly to start approving combustible insulation over 18 meters as these two emails i've just shown you demonstrate
00:25:18 well i think from the second page of this
00:25:21 this i mean that they're referring to test data aren't they
00:25:26 and so they've assessed test data i think well they're referring to six kingspan
00:25:31 kingspan and some from celitex and i can't see it but
00:25:35 but i think they're referring to test programs that must have been carried out by
00:25:39 by extratherm celetex and kingspan and they've used that to
00:25:44 um come up with their views yeah yes mr burnley i i've read that to you and i can read that as well as well as you can really i'm asking you from your own knowledge and involvement as managing
00:25:55 knowledge and involvement as managing director of kingspan at the time are you able to add anything to what we can read on the page here no i mean it's the first time i think i've seen this um no i mean i'm i'm reading it with you so that's how i read it
00:26:07 read it so far as kingspan is concerned do you know what testing adrian pogetta was referring to there well i can't remember now and i think i think you confirmed this earlier
00:26:18 think you confirmed this earlier that none of the testing that kingspan had done had involved a test using acm panels that's right are you able to tell us why
00:26:29 are you able to tell us why the nhbca accepted acm as a rain screen material as one of on one of the acceptable systems i'm not known
00:26:40 known right what campaigning is being referred to there
00:26:45 to there what's the kind of pain just to go back to the previous question though i know now it refers to the acm panel at least euro class b and again that's jogging my mind this comes back to the point i made this
00:26:57 comes back to the point i made this morning about not pure pe core but with a mineral content
00:27:02 content um so i'm sorry what was your follow-up question
00:27:05 question right well that's that's noted um my question
00:27:09 question uh was um perhaps i should just show you the the
00:27:12 the the uh email um if you go back to page one adrian partridge's email refers to testing and campaigning you see three lines up from the bottom
00:27:23 you see three lines up from the bottom of the text there what is the campaigning that he's referring to there i don't know i don't know
00:27:33 i will i mean i can try and interpret it i mean the testing is the bs8414 program i assume by campaigning he means the the meetings that we've had with various people including the nhpc to
00:27:46 various people including the nhpc to explain the test results given what you knew by this point
00:27:50 point this is now july 60 about the fire testing of k-15 historically were you concerned that k-15 would be used in build-ups that had not been tested and passed a test under bs 8414
00:28:04 and passed a test under bs 8414 to the criteria under br135 and for which no desktop study had been prepared so i don't think at this stage my understanding of the historical testing
00:28:15 understanding of the historical testing was any better than it had been i was definitely forward facing and was focused on the more recent testing in the program that what at the end of tony's um tenure and then adrian's tenure was
00:28:27 um tenure and then adrian's tenure was focused on you know specifically around things like the meetings that i've had with the nhbc
00:28:35 now i want to turn to the position that pertained
00:28:38 pertained after the grenfell tower fire on the 14th of june 2017.
00:28:46 and the first thing i want to ask you about is kingspan's campaign and the first document i want to show you in that is is it kin for zeros 2379
00:29:15 and this is an email uh from uh adrian parchetta uh to john garber peter wilson you and richard bromwich dated the 11th of september
00:29:26 september 2017.
00:29:29 2017. and if we can pick the chain up on the next page page 2 at the top we can see that this email uh also to you as the primary recipient
00:29:42 uh also to you as the primary recipient says this all it seems nhbc are taking a very hard line over desktop studies leaving virtually no room for maneuver this will cause serious problems in current buildings getting approval
00:29:54 current buildings getting approval and virtually demand a full-scale test on even minor variations making anything insured through them practically impossible to get combustible insulation on we have requested a face-to-face meeting
00:30:05 we have requested a face-to-face meeting they're not interested not heard if any other insurers are taking the same stance regards adrian and then peter wilson
00:30:17 regards adrian and then peter wilson asks a question if you go to the bottom of page
00:30:20 of page one he asks a question adrian have they any position on the grade of cladding and then adrian partiter responds hi
00:30:32 and then adrian partiter responds hi peter they are saying limited combustibility for insulation and cladding or tested solution and then john garbett responds
00:30:39 responds if you scroll up page one a bit uh to adrian parchetta uh and others including you we need to show them
00:30:48 show them that that could also fail and force them to a position of everything must be tested
00:30:53 tested they might compromise then when is the rw
00:30:56 rw stroke honeycomb test scheduled in
00:31:00 and then at the top of the page mr partiter responds hi john that is earmarked for dubai but had nothing concrete from janet yet on dates
00:31:10 dates i called her this morning for an update but no reply as yet now you saw this email at the time
00:31:18 time can i assume that you read it you can yet
00:31:21 yet um what was being planned do you know
00:31:26 i'm sorry what are you referring to when we're talking about something being planned
00:31:30 planned uh well what was it that was planned what was earmarked for dubai for example i think adrian is referring i think that is that is earmarked for dubai
00:31:41 dubai is referring to the when is the rw stroke honeycomb test scheduled in what was that
00:31:49 that appears to be a honeycomb cladding panel i assume rw refers to rockwell
00:31:57 rockwell right is that what you understood at the time you received this email i don't recall but that's what i would understand from it now yeah and by honeycomb
00:32:05 honeycomb test uh you say honeycomb is a cladding panel do you know what or which
00:32:13 which type of or brand of cladding panel that was a reference to no i don't
00:32:20 you saw and i read to you john garbett's suggestion we need to show them that that could also fail and force them into a position of everything must be tested they might compromise
00:32:32 must be tested they might compromise then who is the they there
00:32:39 um is he referring to the nhbc was that who was referred to in the emails below yes it was yes i assume he's referring to the nhpc yes i see
00:32:52 when it refers to we need to show them that that could also fail and force them to a position if everything must be tested what did you understand mr garland was suggesting
00:33:04 suggesting by saying we need to show them that that could also fail well i believe it refers to the point i think i made previously about you can't possibly test everything there are too
00:33:15 possibly test everything there are too many combinations to actually test all thicknesses all combinations of of um frameworks and insulation thicknesses fixing types cladding panel types thicknesses colors
00:33:28 cladding panel types thicknesses colors so it's you've got to try and find a way of
00:33:31 of of being able to bridge test results with
00:33:34 with systems that would fall under those results and being able to be approved by them
00:33:40 them what could fail what what is what did you understand mr garbett to be suggested
00:33:45 suggested by a failure there what is it that could fail
00:33:50 fail to your understanding can we put the email back up again i'm really sorry absolutely it's page one of the email we were on
00:33:57 were on yeah you need to show them that that could also fail and force them to a position of everything must be tested can we can we go to the email below i mean from the top of my head i don't know what he's talking to but it's
00:34:08 know what he's talking to but it's obviously about something referred to in an earlier email well certainly we can scroll back down again we can do that if we we go backwards down the email do that
00:34:19 we go backwards down the email do that for you
00:34:19 for you um the next one the one to which this is the response is below that you can see adrian 11th september 1737 high peter they're saying limited combustibility
00:34:30 they're saying limited combustibility for insulation and cladding or tested solution
00:34:33 solution that's a response to having any position on grade of cladding that's a response to the one we started with and hbc taking a hard line on desktop studies
00:34:44 so my question again going back please if we can to page one and the second email done on that page we need to show them that that could also fail and force them to a position and everything must be tested what did you understand that that was in
00:34:57 what did you understand that that was in that that
00:34:58 that that could also fail i don't think i can tell you what that refers to um let's move on then to
00:35:07 kin30s22252
00:35:11 this takes us slightly later in 2017.
00:35:18 september 2017. these are the minutes of a khil
00:35:22 a khil stroke insulation meeting uh on wednesday 27th of september 2017 and you can see that it was a teal that teal's in the netherlands isn't it it is yes
00:35:35 netherlands isn't it it is yes uh uh and uh what does kh-il stand for um i believe it's kingspan holdings international could be limited
00:35:46 international could be limited all right it doesn't matter um and you can see who was there peter wilson gene mercer
00:35:50 mercer you spencer murder john garbert phil heath
00:35:54 heath uh and some others and gwyn davis apologizes for being absent and if you uh scroll down a little bit down you can come to page two please under fire
00:36:08 to page two please under fire put seven on page two it was agreed that in the event of fires in buildings with fiber
00:36:14 fiber we need to point out that there is fiber in those buildings where we can prove it furthermore we need to do all we can to dispel the myth of non-combustible regarding the likely uk tightening it's imperative that we
00:36:26 uk tightening it's imperative that we obtain a regime which allows pre-certification or a past test
00:36:32 test now the person there with responsibility to action what is discussed in the text i've just read to you is jg is that john garbert yes it is yeah i think so
00:36:43 think so can you explain the motivation behind the first
00:36:46 the first sentence there you that you need to point out that there is fiber in buildings where we can prove it what was that about what was the motivation behind having to do that
00:36:59 well i can i can't recall exactly but i would suggest it's meaning that you know that there are fires in buildings that have fiber insulation this designed to undermine public
00:37:12 this designed to undermine public confidence uh even in man-made mineral fiber as the insulation product i don't believe so now what was the point of pointing out that there was fiber in those buildings
00:37:24 well for that point i think i just said which is that you know that you you can have
00:37:28 have if a system is designed badly then you can still have fires what was the myth of non-combustible not entirely sure i know what he means
00:37:39 not entirely sure i know what he means by that right i mean did you understand at the time that non-combustible materials are just that non-combustible
00:37:51 materials are just that non-combustible don't burn yeah it's it's a measure from from memory i did some prep on this for the um
00:37:59 the um select committee i mean it's a reference to the organic content in the in the product right you did some prep on this for the select committee we may have to come to that later on i
00:38:10 we may have to come to that later on i think in your evidence but uh did somebody give you a technical teaching or a bit of training on what non-combustible
00:38:21 non-combustible limited combustibility combustible meant you know i mean i understand what combustible and non-combustible means and i understand how people interpret it at the time of this meeting 27th of
00:38:32 at the time of this meeting 27th of september 2017 say nine months or so before you gave evidence to the select committee what did you understand was meant by the myth of non-combustible that had to be dispelled
00:38:44 be dispelled i think as i've just said i don't quite understand what he means by the myth right when you were at this meeting is does it did this just pass you by and and you left it on the miss you met you left it
00:38:55 miss you met you left it without understanding it or did you actually ask at the meeting what do you mean by myth of non-combustible what's this about well i don't know whether the word myth was used in the meeting or whether it's been written by the person
00:39:07 been written by the person writing the minutes
00:39:10 do you recall a discussion at this meeting about distilling the myth of non-combustible or worse to that effect or the juice i think what it's referring to is the is the the linear root of
00:39:22 the the linear root of non-combustibility versus using systems that have materials that aren't non-combustible um in the last sentence where it says regarding the
00:39:33 regarding the likely uk tightening it's imperative we obtain a regime which allows pre-certification what was meant by pre-certification i don't recall you
00:39:46 i don't recall you or a past test it says was that a success under bsa bsa414 test i would assume so yes you say you were assumed so
00:39:57 assumed so you don't do you have no recollection of this meeting whatsoever
00:40:02 well not this specific meeting when was it can you remind me when it was can we go back to the talk yes the 27th of september 2017. it was in the wake of the fire and you're discussing
00:40:14 you're discussing uh moving forwards
00:40:18 non-combustible uh and a potential uk tightening i'm putting to you the note because you were in the meeting and i'm seeking to explore what else you can
00:40:29 seeking to explore what else you can tell us about what happened at the meeting
00:40:33 well yes when i can i remember this specific meeting i i can't remember this specific meeting i'm afraid you remember anything about somebody saying at the meeting that it was
00:40:44 saying at the meeting that it was imperative that kingston obtain this regime
00:40:55 well i remember i remember the conversation about the fact that we were pushing
00:40:59 pushing for testing to bs8414 i really can't recall what it means by pre-certification what was john garbett tasked with doing as a result of these
00:41:11 tasked with doing as a result of these discussions
00:41:16 well i can only go on what's written there right let's see i didn't i mean john garbett reported to peter wilson as i did so people didn't report to me well
00:41:28 people didn't report to me well maybe but uh as you can see from the minute
00:41:31 minute uh jg was given given the action as a result of what the text says uh and my question was what was he asked to do do you know
00:41:44 only in so far is what it says in that action point do you mean by that you you can read off the page as i can or can you can you help me be on that
00:41:56 i can't i mean we're talking about a meeting that was three and a half years ago and i remember the time of that i mean
00:42:02 mean of course i remember this time because it was incredibly sensitive but i don't remember other than what it says on that paper there i i can't go into any more detail about what john was requested to go and do
00:42:13 what john was requested to go and do standing back from the detail forgetting the note of the minute cast your mind back
00:42:18 back it's late september the fire at grenfell tower
00:42:21 tower had happened only a few a handful of months before that you have a meeting with all this these top brass
00:42:29 top brass in holland right uh what was the big thing that kingspan needed to do in relation to k-15
00:42:47 well stepping back from the detail this was a a regular monthly business review meeting
00:42:52 meeting so where all the divisional i'm sorry all of the regional managing directors would be going through their business results for the previous month and then the departmental heads would then go
00:43:03 then go through on a divisional basis things that they were working on and that's clearly when he's had a discussion about fire
00:43:14 fire that is the action that was taken down for john garbert so this is i mean there were other things going on around a15 not necessarily discussed in this meeting right you see it doesn't sound
00:43:26 meeting right you see it doesn't sound as if
00:43:27 as if what's discussed under paragraph seven five here left much of an impression on you
00:43:32 you is that really right well that's not right i mean what i'm
00:43:43 well that's not right i mean what i'm we're referring to a meeting that was three and a half years ago at that time i was specifically focused on k-15 and i was working on a great deal of things or certainly helping
00:43:54 or certainly helping adrian and there was lots going on this is
00:43:58 is something specific here that was falling onto don garber yes but you were managing director at the time we could see that the text
00:44:09 at the time we could see that the text of this is written in pretty um uh urgent and strident terms we need to do all we can to dispel the myth
00:44:18 myth non-combustible it's imperative that we obtain a regime which allows pre-certification which is why i ask the question do you not have any recollection at all about what it really was that kingspan had to do in relation to
00:44:31 that kingspan had to do in relation to k-15
00:44:32 k-15 at this point a month or so two months or so after the grenfell tower fire
00:44:39 but this is specifically i mean you're referring to k-15 but this is talking about
00:44:44 about fiber and non-combustible whereas and this was not my meeting i was attending a meeting i think this meeting is chaired by the khl meetings were chaired by peter wilson
00:44:56 wilson so i'm there as an attendee not as the person chairing the meeting
00:45:02 well you're there because you're the managing director are you seriously telling us that you can remember nothing about this meeting in respect of k-15 and fire beyond
00:45:11 beyond what is written in this minute
00:45:17 i can i can tell you that i in that meeting there i can't tell you what was discussed about k-15 i can imagine
00:45:24 imagine but i'm not you know it's not documented you're trying to link k-15 with an action
00:45:29 action for john garba and i'm saying i can't do that
00:45:34 he agreed with the grenfell tower fire kingsplan launched a campaign to lobby the government in relation to the use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings
00:45:46 buildings i'm sorry you broke up at the start of that sentence could you just repeat it again for me please yes of course do you agree that after the grenfell tower fire kingspan launched a campaign to lobby
00:45:57 kingspan launched a campaign to lobby government in relation to the use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings yeah i've seen evidence to that um effect
00:46:08 effect do you remember that kingspan retained the services of the murray group who are a p
00:46:13 a p arthur i believe
00:46:17 i know they use murray did they use it for that as well yes probably they were their
00:46:21 their external affairs agency what about portland communications does that ring a bell with you i believe that i believe they were involved as well yes what about grayling another pr firm does
00:46:32 what about grayling another pr firm does that ring a bell railing were involved yes
00:46:35 yes did you yourself play any part in the decision to mount a political engagement strategy
00:46:39 strategy after the grenfell tower fire
00:46:45 i wouldn't have said i played a part in it no i was aware that it was going on right what was kingspan's goal in mounting such a political engagement plan
00:46:57 plan my understanding is that the belief was that we wanted to get systems used in facades tested to bs8414 as a way of proving that people could be confident in the use of that system
00:47:10 confident in the use of that system whose decision whose ultimate decision was it to launch the political engagement plan not entirely sure
00:47:23 uh let's look at some documents k i n four zeros eight one two zero
00:47:41 now this is a document which
00:47:46 seems to be dated august 2017 from the file data although we don't we can't see that it actually bears an express date
00:47:57 express date um and it's called kingspan political engagement plan have you seen this document before
00:48:08 i don't think so
00:48:11 so do i to take it that this right now is the first time you've ever seen this document i don't know i can't recall right i i i remember there was a plan produced i didn't know
00:48:23 there was a plan produced i didn't know it was a
00:48:23 it was a necessarily a document right uh well political engagement plan appears to be the name of the campaign that was waged by kingspan to lobby government do you do you accept that
00:48:35 government do you do you accept that um no and i think this well i think this was a proposal by
00:48:43 by an external company i don't think this was our plan i think this was proposed
00:48:48 proposed uh indeed and you are right that it was an external company it it it seems to have been drafted by a company called portland okay uh and then they are
00:48:59 okay uh and then they are a pr well you tell me what was portland's relationship with kingspan in late summer 2017 mr burnley well i'm not sure that we had
00:49:10 mr burnley well i'm not sure that we had a relationship with them i certainly didn't i wasn't familiar with them i think they were um i think there was a brief pull together of some engagement that we wanted to try to do and they were one of the companies that
00:49:21 that um engaged to see if they could do that work
00:49:24 work right now
00:49:28 right now let's look a little further into the document and see if you're familiar either with it or with what it's saying um if we go to the second page please page two we can see in red letters
00:49:39 page two we can see in red letters overview and then it says this and i'll read it to you it's time to get our message out to the people that matter in the first instance initial outreach should be made by kingston and not by portland
00:49:50 portland it looks better we will draft letters and emails on your behalf we will ensure each one is tailored to the recipient and we will prepare you adequately for each and every meeting that you are granted portland will be the engine room we must
00:50:03 portland will be the engine room we must be realistic though some people will not want to meet you and they will not want to be lobbied but there is still immeasurable value in getting kingsman's manifesto in front of these decision makers we want them to
00:50:14 of these decision makers we want them to read it
00:50:15 read it we need them to read it and that's why it's vital that our messages are punchy memorable and easy to understand following initial contact there'll be a program of follow-ups and that's where we hope to use our
00:50:26 and that's where we hope to use our network of contacts to nudge where appropriate and while we cannot promise you access we will pull every string to ensure that your messages reach the key people finally there is still a discussion to
00:50:37 finally there is still a discussion to be had about approaching the public inquiry
00:50:40 inquiry we don't know the inquiry's sense of reference and we don't know if kingspan will be asked to give evidence
00:50:47 now
00:50:51 first of all is the text that i've just read to you something that you've only just seen today now for the very first time i can't recall but it's clearly not written by kingspan
00:51:02 written by kingspan well uh that may be a matter of of debate but but it appears to be written by portland i'll grant you that do you know can you
00:51:13 i'll grant you that do you know can you tell us
00:51:14 tell us how this document came to be generated
00:51:19 my vague recollection is that this was probably the document used by portland in a pitch around the brief for some work that kingspan wanted doing were you involved in going out into the
00:51:31 were you involved in going out into the pr market
00:51:32 pr market and identifying pr firms comms firms to be able to assist king span with its manifesto for one of the better no i wasn't that's definitely not one of my areas of expertise
00:51:43 areas of expertise who was it um i think it was done by people from both the insulation business
00:51:51 business and the panels business from the [Music]
00:51:54 [Music] insulation business i think it would have been john garvers right did you yourself have any discussions with john garbett or anybody else within kingspan about retaining the uh services of
00:52:06 about retaining the uh services of external pr and communications consultants no i'm pretty sure i didn't right i see
00:52:15 well let me see how far we go with this document
00:52:19 document in the first sentence you see that portland say it's time to get the message out to the people that matter and then you see references later to the decision makers and key people can you help me who were they who are
00:52:31 can you help me who were they who are these people that matter
00:52:36 i can only assume they're referring to members of parliament um and anybody else that they were going to identify as key stakeholders
00:52:47 to identify as key stakeholders as a document do you agree just on the basis of the overview that this was a plan being proposed to kingspan
00:52:55 kingspan to obtain access to and to exert influence over individuals in a position to
00:52:59 to exercise decision-making powers which have been entrusted to them in the public interest no i think the purpose of the work that we were wanting done was to get us in
00:53:10 we were wanting done was to get us in front of people to try to put our point of view forward all right let's go to page three
00:53:20 here is a list of names which have mp after them [Music]
00:53:29 [Music] do you know how this list came to be compiled
00:53:34 compiled starts with nigel adams the conservative member for selby and ainsti uh and goes down through a list of names and includes in the middle as you can see
00:53:42 see kevin holland rake the conservative member for thirsk and malton as well as others i can't but what i'm seeing is there's a number of mps who
00:53:53 seeing is there's a number of mps who have
00:53:54 have where there are kingspan plants within their constituency and then it it looks like some of the others are referred to at the bottom with other sort of roles in other committees and
00:54:06 sort of roles in other committees and um groups of people indeed it's it's pretty targeted actually as you as you identify the mps selected are cross party and uh and identified precisely because
00:54:18 and uh and identified precisely because there's a king spam site within the constituency yes yeah that would appear to be the case yes
00:54:25 case yes yes uh and kevin hinrich has a double asterisk because as you can see at the foot of the screen he was a member of the dclg select committee yeah yeah now if you go to page four
00:54:39 yeah yeah now if you go to page four uh you can see group two key decision makers and here are some very familiar names i didn't need to read them out but they include the secretary of state for communities local government home secretary
00:54:48 secretary dame judith hackett herself the action notes if you look at the bottom portland to draft letter requesting a meeting kingspan to approve and send
00:54:58 and send portland to provide follow-ups to secure meetings portland provide briefing notes ahead of meetings and the document goes on in this sort of vein but i just want to show you an email from uh grayling to kingspan at kin408117
00:55:23 and if you look at the second email down it's an email a date of the fifth of february 2018 at to siobhan dwyer john garbett mark
00:55:36 at to siobhan dwyer john garbett mark harris and tony ryan from a gentleman of br grayling called thomas annaly he says how i think you pronounce it and if you go to the text he says please
00:55:47 and if you go to the text he says please find attached an updated letter to clive betts
00:55:49 betts key messaging document stakeholder list with details next actions regarding the key messaging document it would be very helpful if you could let us know of any feedback technical mistakes we might have made
00:56:01 mistakes we might have made but if you could provide any proof points to support the argumentation one of the key arguments that we need to win with political stakeholders is that is that combustible materials are no more dangerous than non-combustible
00:56:12 more dangerous than non-combustible materials when improperly installed we've attempted to provide some lines on this but feel the argument needs to be stronger
00:56:19 stronger regarding the stakeholder list we've used the portland one as the basis but added some more mps tiered them and added some next steps the next steps are also tiered by urgency
00:56:29 urgency if you could have a look at the kingston actions column and in particular send us any further feedback on the meetings you've already held that would be most appreciated we will then collate everything together you will see that there is an officials tab and a third party tab for compiling
00:56:41 tab and a third party tab for compiling names
00:56:41 names to add to these now and just pausing there do you remember whether
00:56:49 whether grayling replaced portland uh or maybe portland didn't get the job but grayling did how did it work do you remember
00:56:59 remember i don't know right if we go to kin408118 in native form please we can see the spreadsheet uh that grayling had prepared
00:57:24 kin408
00:57:37 yes there it is and you can see at the very top uh there are tier number very top there's a list across the page the name
00:57:48 the name party position kingspan site emails follow-ups grailing action kingspan action etc and then you can see the list of names in the second column from the left and they're tearing in the column on the left uh and their
00:58:01 in the column on the left uh and their position
00:58:02 position uh respectively and have you never seen this document before i don't believe so now right if we look at it just at a glance you could see the efforts that have been
00:58:13 you could see the efforts that have been made to contact mps and stakeholders by telephone by email and by letter to follow up with them to get meetings with them
00:58:21 with them basically a lobbying exercise um do you remember yourself that this exercise had taken place or was taking place
00:58:32 i mean i was aware of something going on but i don't i mean just looking at
00:58:41 i mean as i as i heard yesterday there appears to have been quite a sniffing about things going on without me and my knowledge yes you say i was aware of something going
00:58:53 you say i was aware of something going on let's just look a little bit more closely at that can i ask you to go to kin3022667 please
00:59:11 this is an email dated the 23rd of january 2018 from mark harris to a number of people at kingspan including adrian pogita and you subject is
00:59:24 and you subject is kevin holland rake dinner attachments westminster january 2018
00:59:34 now kevin hollinger as we saw from that list in the portland communications list was a a an mp yes yes correct and uh
00:59:46 yes yes correct and uh mark harris writes as follows hi jim uh uh now
00:59:52 uh uh now we we think we know who we went to but that doesn't matter as requested please find attached a copy of the slides that you missed last week it was a great pleasure to have dinner with you and the other mps
01:00:05 with you and the other mps we found the debate very informative and in particular it helped to refocus our effort away from the from concentrating purely on
01:00:11 purely on the technical arguments for high performance combustible containing facades to focusing on getting the public to understand the full range of benefits of our large-scale tested systems
01:00:21 systems hopefully our passion and genuine belief in the acceptability and equivalence in performance of our facade systems to systems to those containing so-called non-combustible materials came
01:00:32 so-called non-combustible materials came through
01:00:33 through loud and clear our argument in a nutshell
01:00:37 nutshell boils down to the necessity to test all facades systems to the large-scale test ps8414
01:00:42 ps8414 a very robust test methodology that has stood the test of time and clearly demonstrated the failure of the system used on grenfell tower in the bre tests done on behalf of dclg
01:00:54 in the bre tests done on behalf of dclg systems that passed the test are safe systems that don't are not irrespective of whether the system contains combustible material or not please let me know if you have any further questions kind of regards mark
01:01:08 questions kind of regards mark now that dinner were you there yes i was well where did it take place it was at the house of parliament how
01:01:19 it was at the house of parliament how many mps were present
01:01:22 um oh yeah i think there were two or possibly three
01:01:29 i did i think it's in one of my witness statements i think i recalled the dinner and
01:01:33 and made comment to who i thought was there who were they um the two that i can recall being there were kevin holden and i believe who this is
01:01:44 kevin holden and i believe who this is addressed to uh jim shannon
01:01:48 and who identified those particular mps as the mps with whom dinner should be had i don't know
01:01:56 know how do you get access to that group of mps
01:01:59 mps i don't know who arranged access to those mps again i don't know i was just invited along for the dinner who invited you along to the dinner
01:02:11 who invited you along to the dinner um i think it was mark harris and tony ryan did it come as a surprise to you that you were being invited to a dinner with mps at the house of commons yes it was it
01:02:24 at the house of commons yes it was it wasn't something i was familiar with doing
01:02:28 when you were invited by mark harris to go to this dinner did you ask him what it was for i think he probably told me and just explained it was to talk about full-scale testing why would you want to
01:02:40 full-scale testing why would you want to be talking to mps about full-scale testing mr burnley
01:02:47 well to discuss our point of view and explain what we thought was the validity of full-scale testing who paid for the dinner well i don't know
01:02:56 know we did yeah i don't mean i don't know is the truth actually who from king's fan other than you were present uh there was myself
01:03:08 were present uh there was myself adrian parjita mark harris and i can't remember whether tony ryan was there or not i think he may have been
01:03:19 did anyone from kingston uh speak uh address these mps i think mark harris did i remember he showed a video
01:03:30 showed a video and spoke briefly you should show them a video did he show them anything else
01:03:37 what did i recall what was the video of i think it was just to show them what a bs8414 test looked like was it a psa for one full test done by kingspan
01:03:48 kingspan or was it any any uh a41 well i'm i'm pretty sure it would have been one of ours because we would have been able to show one that we've done but i think it was more about showing the robustness of the test
01:04:01 you know it was to show that it wasn't a lab-scale test it was a full you know it's a it's a built wall being tested
01:04:12 being tested at that stage did you know just think about this did you know by that stage uh that the k-15 being sold and which had been sold for a number of years
01:04:25 been sold for a number of years uh had failed ever to obtain a pass to a test under bs8414
01:04:32 that point
01:04:37 yes no i'm sure i must have done you didn't tell the mps that did you
01:04:45 the testing product is any part of a product development process
01:04:51 you were trumpeting the virtues weren't you at this dinner of the bsa414 test when
01:04:56 when you knew by this point that for more than a decade k15 had been sold without that product having achieved a pass to a test under bs8414
01:05:08 under bs8414 i'm not sure at that stage i didn't know that no you said you had a moment ago
01:05:17 i said i had what sorry i i thought you told us earlier that by that stage you must have known that k-15 the k-15 being sold
01:05:29 that k-15 the k-15 being sold was one that had not passed an 8414 i don't know show me what i can't remember saying that
01:05:46 are you able to explain why even if you didn't know by that point are you able to explain why others at that meeting who had the means at the very least to that knowledge i would suggest
01:05:58 that knowledge i would suggest did not tell those mps uh that for more than a decade k-15 had been sold without k-15 being sold having ever achieved the pass under bsa414
01:06:09 bsa414 no i can't answer
01:06:13 can you tell us when this damascene moment of yours came when you realized that bs8414 was the only safe test
01:06:26 well i don't think it was a moment for me it was it was i mean i think when we were talking to the nhbc the conversations i'd had with tony miller chap and then with adrian partiter it became
01:06:38 and then with adrian partiter it became clear that 8414 was a clear way of providing evidence that a system could pass the the building regulations
01:06:49 it was a specific moment it was clearly the way of providing evidence to people that it you know um it could meet the building regulations when did that when did you have that
01:07:01 when did that when did you have that realization when did it become clear in your words that 8414
01:07:06 that 8414 was a clear way of providing evidence that a system could pass the building regulations i mean i can't give you an exact date this dinner
01:07:20 it was a private dinner wasn't it i imagine
01:07:25 yes in so far as it was in a room and there weren't other people passing around this was there was anybody there to take a record of what was said what passed between you and these mps
01:07:38 what passed between you and these mps i don't believe the woman it's taken no you know why that is no i can't enter
01:07:51 we'd be fair to describe this dinner a a or part of a plan by kingspan to seek political support
01:08:03 by kingspan to seek political support for your attack on the linear route to compliance no i don't believe so i think we were trying to demonstrate the robustness of bs 8414
01:08:16 to mps
01:08:21 to the people present i don't know just mp's present i can't remember there was i i honestly can't remember who else was there well this is a dinner and you told us that there were three mps present
01:08:33 there were three mps present let's just be clear who else was present was anybody else present
01:08:40 the people from kingspan three mps was anybody else present i don't think i don't think so
01:08:50 so i put the question again would it be fair to describe this dinner as or part of a plan by kingspan to seek political support for your attack on the
01:09:01 political support for your attack on the linear route to compliance no i don't believe it would be fair to say that no so what was the purpose of this dinner to explain the robustness of bs8414 and that full-scale testing
01:09:12 that full-scale testing was a route that we believed could show that systems could be used to meet the building regulations hey that was the case message you wanted to get across
01:09:21 across my question was what was the purpose of this dinner this dinner with these mps
01:09:28 exactly what i've said that's why that's what i went along with is the understanding why with mps what was the purpose of having a dinner with mps mr burnley
01:09:41 for the exact reason i've just said
01:09:44 to seek political support not scientific support
01:09:49 support not popular support political support that's right isn't it
01:09:56 well it's not the reason that i was given
01:10:01 what reason were you
01:10:04 because we were trying to push the robustness of the british standard test and that all systems that were going to be used should be tested on a full-scale test
01:10:18 the truth isn't it is that this is kingspan accessing political power in order to seek to improve its own commercial position in the aftermath of the grenfell tower fire that's the reality isn't it
01:10:29 fire that's the reality isn't it no i don't agree with that
01:10:33 shaman is that a convenient moment for the break yes i think it is well we'll have a short break now mr burnley we'll come back at half past three please and uh
01:10:43 uh as i said to you on many occasions now please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right what's happening thank you very much
01:24:59 welcome back everyone we're going to continue now with mr burnley's evidence mr burnley i hope you can see me and hear me can you yes i can thank you very much uh
01:25:10 yes i can thank you very much uh anything you need to raise before we carry on
01:25:12 carry on no no i'm fine to keep going right thank you very much well then when you're ready mr millet mr chairman thank you very much i'm just going back to the kevin holland rape dinner in january 2018 mr burnley
01:25:24 2018 mr burnley uh you've established who was there from kingspan and who the mps were more or less
01:25:29 less was there anybody else there at all
01:25:34 well i i think there was but i can't remember who they were that's why i think i was a little bit vague when i answered before i there wasn't just mr shannon and mr
01:25:45 i there wasn't just mr shannon and mr holland right there was definitely at least one other person that wasn't a kingspan employee and was that other person an mp do you remember
01:25:55 remember i wish i could remember let me see if i can
01:25:58 can i don't want to suggest things no let me see if i can help was that person from a government department i think it was a lady a lady
01:26:14 in fact i'm sure it was a lady
01:26:18 right i just i haven't i know when i when i prepared before christmas i i tried to look at stuff that i'd been provided with by kingspun but there was no record of it any of it so
01:26:30 there was no record of it any of it so i'm growing up memory right it was a gentleman called brian martin there i don't recall oh no what about a gentleman called bob ledson
01:26:42 gentleman called bob ledson is that name ring a bell no what about a gentleman called neil o'connor no definitely that's not running any bells lady all right um i'd like them to move
01:26:54 lady all right um i'd like them to move to a different topic um a little bit later
01:26:58 later in march 2018 six kin40s seven
01:27:07 uh this is an email chain from march 2018
01:27:12 2018 early march 2018. i'll just wait for it to be
01:27:16 to be displayed
01:27:19 displayed and you can see from the top of the email
01:27:22 email chain on the screen in front of you that it ends with an email from john garber to mark harris and adrian pargeter on the 5th of march 2018.
01:27:32 2018. can we go please to page 3
01:27:37 the email at the foot of the page we're halfway down the page is the 2nd of march 2018 from mark harris uh to adrian parchetta john garbert and gilbert mccarthy and others it's dated the second of
01:27:50 and others it's dated the second of march
01:27:51 march 2018 and the subject is ulster test stroke
01:27:54 stroke mhclg select committee lobbying now i must be very clear with you mr burnley you are not copied in on any of the emails in this chain
01:28:06 on any of the emails in this chain uh have you seen it before i don't believe so now right did you not see this when you were preparing your witness statements i really don't think so right let's
01:28:17 i really don't think so right let's let's see how we go um it's right isn't it that gilbert mccarthy is the current managing director of kingspan group's insulated panels business in the uk yes
01:28:28 uk yes well yeah broader geography i think i think he has certainly is part of his role yes uk ireland western europe and australia in fact i think okay yeah that's correct um and mark
01:28:40 okay yeah that's correct um and mark harris
01:28:41 harris at that time was he still the divisional building
01:28:45 building technology director at kingspan kingspan panels i believe he was in the panel's business yes uh and uh he starts the email by saying
01:28:57 uh and uh he starts the email by saying it's clear that kevin holland rake is still pretty lukewarm about our draft letter stroke arguments to address mhclg select committee and mp concerns now just pausing there mr burnley
01:29:09 now just pausing there mr burnley um can you help us about what the draft letter
01:29:12 letter is uh to which mr harris is referring there
01:29:15 there no i can't right do you remember whether kevin holland rake was asked to assist in the preparation of giving comments on a draft letter or
01:29:26 giving comments on a draft letter or draft set of arguments to be directed no i would doubt it right uh the major evidence gap going on with the text of this
01:29:37 with the text of this the major evidence gap is his concern about fire spread with combustibles quakes on quotes in relation to poor installation he seems to believe that poor installation is a major problem with combustible systems
01:29:48 combustible systems still in quotes but not with non-combustible in quotes in other words he and members of the select committee need to see evidence to persuade them that poor installation is an issue with both systems
01:29:59 an issue with both systems following discussion with roy tony and adam i have a simple proposal that could address this issue and give us the evidence we need to demonstrate that non-combustible systems are not as fail-safe as many presume
01:30:11 are not as fail-safe as many presume and just pausing there the case to demonstrate non-combustible systems are not as fail-safe as many presume that was wasn't it the argument
01:30:23 presume that was wasn't it the argument the case that you wanted to get across to kevin holland rake and the others at the dinner in january
01:30:30 is that right no no we were trying to get over the point that we should test all systems irrespective of the linear route to bs8414 yes but isn't demonstrating
01:30:41 to bs8414 yes but isn't demonstrating that non-combustible systems are not as fail-safe as many presume uh the the other side of the same coin i don't think it is no i think it's well
01:30:53 i don't think it is no i think it's well you could say it's half full half empty but i i think it's more about anything that passes bsa414 is a system that can be used
01:31:05 going on uh one gather evidence to demonstrate that fire spread in cavities is potentially dangerous irrespective of cladding type a good example is the statement in br135
01:31:16 a good example is the statement in br135 and then it's set out there further iso 13785 part one tests at ulster university to demonstrate similar performance of k-15 versus rw rock wool when tested without
01:31:28 versus rw rock wool when tested without cavity barriers this would involve a repeat of the original tests a 100 millimeters k-15 with a2 acm without cavity barriers and flashing at top of rig and two duo rock with a2 acm as above
01:31:43 two duo rock with a2 acm as above there's little doubt that flames will appear at the top of the rig during the test and the time differential uh between k-15 if we can turn the page between k-15 and d-rock may not be significant
01:31:55 significant i think this evidence will be critically important
01:31:59 important in persuading kevin holland right to become an advocate of our view and very useful in lobbying activities elsewhere
01:32:05 elsewhere to demonstrate that first bullet point so-called
01:32:09 so-called deemed to satisfy systems can have rapid fire spread if cavities are not protected
01:32:14 protected for example as a result of poor installation second bullet point fire spreading cavities is similar with mmmf that's man-made mineral fiber and
01:32:25 that's man-made mineral fiber and ie lack of cavity barriers in high performance rigid insulation systems that pass br 135 requirements is not an enhanced risk versus non-combustible the critical issue is the correct design
01:32:36 the critical issue is the correct design and installation of all systems i understand you have testing planned announced a week commencing 12 march i strongly recommend that this additional testing is squeezed into the program if at all possible
01:32:48 so
01:32:51 it looks as if i'm taking it that you haven't seen this email before um there is a plan to compare rockwool and k-15 when tested without cavity
01:33:02 and k-15 when tested without cavity barriers to demonstrate that fast break can be similar that's what it appears from this email among other things would you agree with that
01:33:09 that yeah that's that second bullet point i think isn't it yes um were you aware at the time uh not not having seen this email specifically but were you aware at the time
01:33:20 time of the proposals set out in this email
01:33:25 no is it right that adrian parchetta still reported to you at this time early march 2018 yes he did yeah did adrian polish to
01:33:37 yes he did yeah did adrian polish to discuss
01:33:38 discuss the proposal set out in this email with you at all he didn't discuss these proposals i mean we certainly in in separate conversations would have talked about the
01:33:49 talked about the the medium scale tests that were on the other page at ulster university were doing because we did a a a large amount of work to try to see if they could be used so the 13785 i
01:34:00 if they could be used so the 13785 i think it's at the bottom of the previous page
01:34:02 page to see if they could be used as a an indicator of other systems would pass bs8414 i see so you had conversations with
01:34:11 with adrian parchester about the the ulster university test but nothing else in this email
01:34:17 email is that right i mean that's the first time i've seen it so good
01:34:22 definitely didn't talk about point one i was aware of the work so adrian i would have talked about work that was going on at ulster university but not specifically those repeats of
01:34:33 but not specifically those repeats of original tests can you explain why adrian poster only discussed part of and not all of the matters set out in this email with you no one told him right was that a failure of on his part
01:34:46 right was that a failure of on his part to report to you fully
01:34:50 i don't think so i think he'd have we would have been talking about things that he felt would have been important and that i needed to know about why did you not need to know about everything in this email
01:35:01 everything in this email particularly uh the um uh the effort to demonstrate that non-combustible systems are not as fail safe as many presume
01:35:14 safe as many presume i can't exactly um now if we could scroll
01:35:18 scroll up please to page two in this email run if we i think probably started at the bottom of page one we can see an email on the 4th of march 2018 from john
01:35:31 on the 4th of march 2018 from john garbert
01:35:35 uh and at 802 2210 and he says and this is to adrian parker again as well as others mark harris roy wakehorst and teddy ryan looking at the
01:35:47 wakehorst and teddy ryan looking at the videos of the original test the flames only got as high as the cavity barrier in the a2 straight pf tests so i think you're going to need to create some draw to get the flames to get above the barrier or rig so we will get a greater draw with
01:35:59 so we will get a greater draw with narrower gaps or wider gaps between panels
01:36:02 panels question clearly the flashing will have to be absent would we be better using fr or a2 for this test
01:36:09 this test roy which would give the most fuel to get the flames up there and we can see mark harris responds to this if we scroll up further into page one fifth of march
01:36:21 into page one fifth of march next day hi john i think we definitely have to use the a2 acm the important message of this test could be that you can get excessive fire spreading cavities in range screens that are compliant with the linear route
01:36:32 are compliant with the linear route thereby demonstrating the importance of installing cavity barriers and testing the full system to demonstrate they work in the actual rain screen build up in addition it demonstrates that getting the installation right is just as important
01:36:43 installation right is just as important with so-called non-combustible straight limited combustible systems as it is with combustible systems that pass bs8414 again my question is did you know
01:36:54 again my question is did you know that this discussion along the line set out in
01:36:57 out in the garbett harris exchange i've just read to you was going on at the time
01:37:03 no i don't believe so was that not a topic that you should have been involved in
01:37:12 i don't know having seen it i don't know i don't think so well was this not part of planning testing to demonstrate
01:37:23 planning testing to demonstrate that you can get excessive fast bedding cavities even where the structure is compliant with the linear route or even where the products used are compliant with the linear route
01:37:35 compliant with the linear route i should say well there was concern within kingspan that products that could be used through the compliant linear route could actually fail an 8414 test
01:37:47 could actually fail an 8414 test yes and that's what this is talking about uh
01:37:50 about uh and and obtaining evidence to be able to demonstrate that fact to the mhclg no um it looks that way but i mean i'm not sure i would have added much credence to
01:38:01 sure i would have added much credence to the conversation maybe not mr burnley but was this not within your sphere of responsibility as managing director with mr partiter reporting to you
01:38:15 um
01:38:19 well that's a difficult question to answer
01:38:23 answer is it of interest to me yes why were you left out of the loop do you know no
01:38:31 know no do you agree with me that you should not have been left out of the loop but should at least have been uh copied in on this for information if only for information
01:38:44 if only for information possibly yeah possibly well you see you were at the dinner with kevin holland rake
01:38:49 rake um and the topic of this email run is mhclg
01:38:55 mhclg select committee lobbying can you explain why you were not kept in the loop given the topic
01:39:06 kept in the loop given the topic well i don't see the connection between this and the dinner that we had with the mps the connection is that the case message is the same because so-called non-combustibles
01:39:20 because so-called non-combustibles where may when used in a 8414 test uh but when used in the 8414 test that test may fail your case is that everything should be
01:39:32 your case is that everything should be tested that's the case you wanted to get across to mr holland rake and that's the same case i'm suggesting to you that mr garvin and mr harris are discussing to be put across to the mhclg no that's a fluke sorry
01:39:46 no that's a fluke sorry that is a fair point yes and as a fair point can you explain why it was that you were kept out of this loop
01:39:52 this loop no i can't now i want to ask you about a second email chain uh this time in april 2018
01:40:06 kin404658
01:40:13 what comes up on the screen is the last email in that chain as as always the case and it ends as you can see with an email from adrian partridge
01:40:22 partridge to adrian brazier and adam heath on the 13th of april 2018 and the title the subject is linear route action plan
01:40:33 route action plan and if you go to page four
01:40:40 we can see at the bottom of that page an email from mark harris to john garbett adrian poggita nick jenkins of booth murie and others copied to jean murtagh and
01:40:51 others copied to jean murtagh and gilbert mccarthy and i'll show you some of this but again i should make it very clear to you you are not copied in on these emails at
01:41:02 you are not copied in on these emails at all
01:41:02 all uh and indeed are not um not cited on them not
01:41:06 them not that you're not sent them um
01:41:11 in this email mark harris refers to a meeting which has taken taking which has taken place to look at issues relating to the linear route but he says this the object of the discussion was to look closely at potential issues related to the use of
01:41:23 potential issues related to the use of the linear route to compliance in other words provide evidence to demonstrate that the linear route approach has weaknesses and full-scale testing is essential for all systems we reviewed the evidence
01:41:34 all systems we reviewed the evidence we reviewed evidence currently available and discussed how we can generate evidence for use in both the political arena and with the hackett review team now again do you accept that was the
01:41:45 now again do you accept that was the basic
01:41:46 basic case message that we saw you wanted to impart to the mps at the kevin holland rake dinner back in january
01:41:56 it's linked to the message i mean the message i have to maintain my my vivid memory recollection of that dinner was around the robustness of 8414 testing
01:42:08 the robustness of 8414 testing right but you can see that they're linked
01:42:12 linked they are linked without a doubt yeah yes and then if we in fact we can see that if we look on in the email um if you go to the over the page
01:42:20 page notes and actions as follows and over the page to page five one data from failed bsa414 tests we are aware of at least two bsa414
01:42:31 we are aware of at least two bsa414 tests comprising only non limited combustible materials that have failed to meet br 135 criteria key reasons for the failures are believed to be associated with the a2 cassette
01:42:42 cassette type stroke robustness straight geometry and or the combustibility of the mineral fiber insulation system binder content straight presence of polyethylene adhered
01:42:50 adhered amid aluminium foil however we do not have access to the reports or any rights to make this information public actions test a leukopanel a2 material in bomb calorimeter to determine heat release nj has sample
01:43:02 to determine heat release nj has sample also test vertricle a2 honeycomb in bomb calorimeter his testing is for information only at this stage and then underneath that item two
01:43:14 and then underneath that item two bs8414 test proposal dubai and this is very important and i want you to focus on this very closely kil has three upcoming slots attics over in dubai
01:43:25 in dubai and has agreed to make a slot on 10th may available for a test on a system comprised of minerals quotes deemed to satisfy on quotes br 135
01:43:35 135 discussion during the meeting identified the following test proposal for a configuration that has the potential to fail br 135 criteria
01:43:43 criteria a bsa414.2 bmmf that's man-made mineral fiber dua slab insulation three thirty eight millimeters ventilated cavity
01:43:54 millimeters ventilated cavity d aluco bond a2 acm cassettes with weak structural specification e cavity barriers included actions nj to create drawing of a2 cassette assembly
01:44:05 create drawing of a2 cassette assembly that could perform poorly also arrange fabrication detailed test specifications to be developed and agreed by all and then there's something about arrangement of tests and budgets now just looking at that
01:44:20 and budgets now just looking at that the plan there was that the build-up that the kingstown were going to test in dubai at that point was to show uh problems with deemed to
01:44:31 was to show uh problems with deemed to satisfy systems in other words the linear route and to do that they would use rock wool duo slab and a leuco bond a2 acm cassettes
01:44:40 cassettes that that i'm putting to you as that as a fair summary of what the proposal is now my question is although you weren't copied into this email chain were you aware
01:44:50 aware at this point early to mid april 2018 of this linear route testing being proposed
01:44:57 proposed no yeah i was i was aware that we were doing a test um literally it says they're on a system comprised of materials that were deemed to satisfy i.e let's do a test on a a builder
01:45:10 let's do a test on a a builder of materials that could be picked by a designer and then installed on a building
01:45:15 building that was my understanding right now let's just examine that now when did you first
01:45:19 first come by that understanding that that was what was proposed i mean i can't tell you exactly it was around this time i mean it was you know around the time of this test being done the test was due in
01:45:31 being done the test was due in may so it would have been april may time right that's a bit more specific um before
01:45:37 before this email chain was generated so between the 9th and the 13th of april 2018. did anybody have a conversation with you about a proposed test
01:45:48 proposed test to take place in dubai along the lines of that described in paragraph two of the email
01:45:53 the email in front of you on the screen it was discussed
01:45:57 discussed with me in a meeting i'm sure but it wasn't specifically oh i need to tell you about this test it would have been as part of the this is the upcoming test program these are what we've got um set up to be
01:46:10 these are what we've got um set up to be tested and this would have been one of those one of those tests
01:46:14 tests right uh
01:46:18 who would have who told you uh about the test program and this test as part of that test program well i i don't recall but it would have been either adrian pargeter or john
01:46:30 been either adrian pargeter or john garvers
01:46:33 and did they show you any documents relating to the proposals no no they wouldn't have done that what was the context in which they told you about the proposed dubai test
01:46:46 well in so far as we you know i would have known that there would have been slots
01:46:50 slots booked to carry out tests in our testing program
01:46:54 program and it would have been talked about this as being one of those slots were they telling you this to keep you in the loop in other words for information or were they telling you this to get your approval
01:47:05 this to get your approval no they were they were telling me to keep me in the loop because it was coming out of the insulation uk budget i think from memory and was that something over which you had ultimate control
01:47:18 had ultimate control um i wouldn't have said so particularly are you
01:47:21 are you well it's not a question but particularly i mean either you did or you didn't did you i wasn't i wasn't making the decisions on what the test uh i was discussing with peter wilson the number of slots that we had
01:47:33 number of slots that we had peter was signing off the cost but i wasn't responsible for picking the makeup of the of the systems that were being tested did anybody tell you when they did tell
01:47:44 did anybody tell you when they did tell you about this what the what the makeup of the test in dubai was proposed to be
01:47:52 i can't recall if they did they wouldn't have gone into great detail did anybody tell you regardless of the detail that the test being proposed
01:48:03 test being proposed for the linear route testing as as we see as the subject matter of this email uh was to contain certain deliberate design imperfections no i don't believe
01:48:15 design imperfections no i don't believe that's the case now although you were told you say about this proposed test we could see that you're not copied in on this email and indeed none of the emails
01:48:25 emails that are generated in april on this subject
01:48:28 subject why was that i can't explain that should you have been copied in on it even if only for information
01:48:37 um i think some of the detail there having read that for the first time it poses i mean i'd like to read it again in more detail but it does pose some questions doesn't it
01:48:48 it certainly does whether you're the right person to answer them or not is another matter my question is a broader one given the questions that this email poses can you explain why somebody made
01:49:00 poses can you explain why somebody made a decision not to copy you in on it no it could that's some uh
01:49:10 let's look at the last paragraph please
01:49:18 uh on page six
01:49:26 let's get forward to that i thought we had an extremely useful session this morning with actions that could deliver some very
01:49:32 some very valuable evidence to support the need for full-scale testing of all systems and demonstrate the materials that are deemed to satisfy the linear route do not automatically beat br135 criteria were tested full scale to bs8414
01:49:44 were tested full scale to bs8414 that's precisely the point isn't it in which you have been involved uh with which you have been involved uh in seeking uh to have the dinner with kevin holland right
01:49:55 right i still don't believe that's the case i believe the reason for the dinner was to talk about the robustness of 841 for because at that stage i don't think we felt they understood what the test looked like or how significant a test it was right now
01:50:10 how significant a test it was right now uh again we've got an overall ground a little bit already on establishing the link between the subject matter of the dinner and the subject matter of these emails
01:50:22 these emails looking at the topic there do you accept that this is something that you should have been kept in the loop on i think i should have been provided with more information than i clearly had right okay let's go up the email chain
01:50:35 right okay let's go up the email chain the next day look at it look a little a little bit more 10th of april 2018 if we go to page
01:50:49 we can see that there's an email from nick jenkins 10th of april 2018 to mark harris and he starts by saying okay this represents a real challenge however
01:51:01 represents a real challenge however we've made some good progress today
01:51:05 and just above the foot of the page bs8414 test proposal dubai to utilize the test slot booked by kl on 10th may available for a test on a system comprised of materials deemed to
01:51:17 system comprised of materials deemed to satisfy br135 ap is advised we need to get the full set of panels and components to pen bridge to be packed for air freight to dubai by the end of the day on friday 30th of april this week this represents a challenge but it's
01:51:28 this represents a challenge but it's only possible and then a drawings preparation started today and then if you continue over the page um b uh have some molecular bond a two
01:51:40 um b uh have some molecular bond a two in stock
01:51:41 in stock c is about uh rockwool in stock of pembridge
01:51:44 pembridge uh d is about siderise and it says this sidewise have recommended we use the envirograph cavity barrier products these meet regs requirements but
01:51:56 these meet regs requirements but their performance is expected to be poor we will not utilize panel inserts but attempt to cut the cavity barriers to suit the geometry of the panels this will further weaken their performance
01:52:07 performance the panel system as drawn is expected to perform badly in spite of being a2 as it relies on bonded stiffness of extrusions for its structural stability the panel is not fixed on its vertical
01:52:18 the panel is not fixed on its vertical edges and the bonded connection are expected to deteriorate and fail quickly in the bs8414 test the way the internal corner is detailed will allow flames to bypass the vertical cavity
01:52:29 flames to bypass the vertical cavity barriers that attack the cavity of the wing wall the vertical joint is ventilated and the fire will enter the assembly through this baffled joint
01:52:36 joint the horizontal joint is ventilated and the fire will enter the assembly through this baffled joint now on the face of it
01:52:49 now on the face of it just looking at that do you agree that it appears that kingspan were planning to construct the dubai test rig to maximize the chances of it not passing the 8414 test
01:53:01 of it not passing the 8414 test i mean i think you can read it that way however i would say that what they're trying to do and it comes back to the point i think that was referred to as a view of mr holland rake which is that systems
01:53:12 that systems can be installed badly on site and therefore i think what they're trying to demonstrate is that products that existed on the marketplace that would be deemed to satisfy the linear route
01:53:23 linear route could be used in a design and installed badly
01:53:28 badly and perhaps not past bs8414 indeed and uh that by um rigging the test up in this way constructing it in this way it may be a bit more neutral um to maximize the
01:53:41 a bit more neutral um to maximize the chances of failure of the test in order to prove the point yeah and i think well the the the million dollar question is how realistic of a system that would be designed and used is this
01:53:52 designed and used is this well never mind the million-dollar question even if that is the right figure
01:53:57 figure it's a simpler question than that do you accept that on the face of this email kingspan were planning to construct the dubai test system so as to enhance as far as possible the chances that
01:54:08 possible the chances that that test would fail that wasn't my understanding and the the under failed test would then be used to persuade mps of the dangers of mineral rule when tested in a full
01:54:19 of mineral rule when tested in a full system test under bs84 wonderful so has to prove your case that rock wall or other mineral wool is no more safe than k15 even though it's deemed to be non-combustible that wasn't my understanding what was
01:54:31 that wasn't my understanding what was your understanding that they were trying to design a system made from materials that could be deemed to meet the linear route that could be chosen by a designer and installed on a
01:54:42 chosen by a designer and installed on a building
01:54:43 building and that that wouldn't necessarily pass the bs8414 as they were installed who led you to believe that
01:54:52 um well i would imagine it's come from my understanding from conversations with adrian pardita and john garvers did anybody tell you that the system that they were building was deliberately
01:55:03 was deliberately set up so as to introduce weaknesses in it
01:55:07 it no definitely not passing its failure definitely not right again is this an email that you should have been cited on uh well this
01:55:18 should have been cited on uh well this one more than the one i think you showed me earlier because i'd like to understand why it's written how it's written well exactly thank you do i take it from that at the time you did not know that kingspan's testing strategy for the
01:55:31 that kingspan's testing strategy for the purposes of the linear test for the mhclg involved designing a system that contained deliberate design imperfections i don't believe that
01:55:42 so you don't believe that that is the case you don't believe that it did contain
01:55:45 contain design imperfections deliberate design protection can you ask me the question again maybe in a different way please well okay uh adrian parter has told
01:55:56 well okay uh adrian parter has told this inquiry that the test which was carried out in may 2018 uh which was the sub with the subject of these emails contained uh deliberate
01:56:09 contained uh deliberate design imperfections you've got no reason to just dispute that and i assume no no i think it was designed well my understanding was it was designed to mimic products in a system that could be
01:56:21 mimic products in a system that could be used in the real world i'm sorry i think you need to answer my question i'll try it one more time um you don't disagree with what mr poggiter has told us i assumed namely that
01:56:33 has told us i assumed namely that the the design of the test that was eventually undertaken in may 2018 in dubai contained a limited number
01:56:44 in dubai contained a limited number of deliberate design imperfections and that's what he said and we've been through that in a number of different ways with him i'm assuming that you don't disagree with him on that
01:56:56 with him on that well i think i do that's not the understanding that i had no what was the understanding you had did you did you understand at the time that there would be no deliberately introduced
01:57:07 introduced design imperfections well the thing is we didn't know whether it would pass or fail
01:57:11 fail is the first thing and the the way the system was designed was to my understanding was that the way the system had been designed was to mimic the way that materials
01:57:22 the way that materials could and were used on site and to that end contained a number of intentional design imperfections
01:57:34 did you know well actually that's a yeah that's a more neutral way of saying it i think yes did you know that mr burnley did i know that did you know i didn't
01:57:47 i didn't no my understanding was that we would we were designing a system with material that would follow the linear route to compliance and that we were going to build a system
01:57:59 and that we were going to build a system as it would be built in in a normal building i'm going to try one more time did you know that the system as being designed
01:58:08 designed contained a number of deliberate design imperfections enhance its job thank you can we go on with the email
01:58:21 thank you can we go on with the email uh if we go down a bit further
01:58:27 uh we can see i'm so sorry if we go down a bit further yes we can see uh
01:58:38 yes we can see uh underneath g assuming sign off of drawings tomorrow uh various things are to happen and then it says underneath that also looking to source some vitrocore g2 via a contact in dubai
01:58:50 via a contact in dubai this would be another deemed to satisfy product
01:58:53 product that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system and then at the end at the very foot of
01:59:04 and then at the end at the very foot of the page do you see he says everything is going to have to go like clockwork for all this to work but it is all possible
01:59:14 now this is april 2018 and i think we know that adrian parter still reported to you at this time didn't he he did yes did he discuss any of these plans
01:59:25 plans with you specifically the plan uh to test uh with possibly with vitrocore g2 another deemed to satisfy product that
01:59:38 another deemed to satisfy product that he felt or it was felt would perform poorly as part of the system i don't think i recall that now
02:00:01 if we go up to the next email up page two we can see nick jenkins's email
02:00:14 on the 11th
02:00:17 of uh of april 2018.
02:00:23 uh and you need to go to page two for this i'm afraid that's uh that's it uh this is nick jenkins in response to an email from adrian partner that i
02:00:34 an email from adrian partner that i haven't shown you but i don't think i need to
02:00:36 need to and uh in the third paragraph he says regarding the dubai tests please find attach the drawings to review and sign off
02:00:43 off the assembly is currently detailed with a block work wall will in fact be an sfs wall then he says this i have introduced as many uh weak to go turn the page
02:00:54 as many uh weak to go turn the page features straight details as possible to ensure it has the best chance of performing poorly whilst at the same time retaining the panel modules and cavity barrier arrangement associated with all tests
02:01:05 arrangement associated with all tests to date
02:01:10 did you know that the plan here was to have a system designed quotes as as to ensure that it has the best chance of
02:01:22 to ensure that it has the best chance of performing poorly no i do
02:01:29 are you able to explain why it was on your watch as managing director of uh kingstown insulation that your team was planning to provide a test or set of test results
02:01:43 a test or set of test results to mps which had been undertaken with the best chance of performing poorly no i can't answer that question
02:01:56 i want to ask you some questions about your own knowledge clearly you weren't cited on these emails and knew nothing if new little if nothing as you've told us of the input design imperfections
02:02:09 of the input design imperfections are you able to tell us from your own independent recollection when the test the subject of this run of emails
02:02:16 emails in april 2018 took place no i'm not are you able to tell us from your own recollection what the outcome of that test was
02:02:28 no i'm not do you know whether this was the only test that kingston carried out in furtherance of their linear route testing plan i don't know
02:02:41 now let me give you a little bit of background then to help you um when mr pargeter gave evidence to the public inquiry in december last year
02:02:52 public inquiry in december last year before you started to give your evidence uh mr parcher told the inquiry that the system test referred to in this email the others in this run still on the screen
02:03:01 screen was carried out in dubai on the 2nd of july 2018
02:03:05 july 2018 and referred to by you when you signed your letter of the 6th of july 2018 to the select committee as test three and then what happened
02:03:18 as test three and then what happened uh is that in uh december uh to 2020 uh we had a number of letters from kingspan solicitors and then on the 14th of january 2021 this year mr pardita volunteered a fifth
02:03:31 this year mr pardita volunteered a fifth witness statement saying that in fact there were two linear tests and that the test the subject of this email run was actually carried out on the 22nd of may 2018.
02:03:42 may 2018. which in the event passed now i've given you a bit of a bit of background there my first question against that background is do you recall a system test being
02:03:53 do you recall a system test being carried out on the 22nd of may 2018 which passed no i don't do you remember being involved in any discussions about setting up that test
02:04:05 about setting up that test no do you recall being involved in any discussion about the result of that test no don't
02:04:16 about the result of that test no don't do you remember being involved in any discussions about whether or not to obtain
02:04:19 obtain a report for that test
02:04:29 can we go please to
02:04:36 kin30s25503
02:04:49 if we go to page two in this email run please this is an email of the 8th of june 2018.
02:04:59 so this is after the 22nd of may test but it's the it's the subject matter is a budget
02:05:07 a budget for two tests at x over in dubai 78 813 pounds as you can see from the foot of the screen there do you remember being involved in
02:05:18 do you remember being involved in authorizing a budget for the test the subject of those reports of that that email well the budget would have been set up annually um and the we we used an average cost for a
02:05:30 and the we we used an average cost for a test of about 40 000 pounds so that's not abnormal so that this would be part of a budget that would have been set aside for this i see so did you have any involvement yourself
02:05:41 involvement yourself in sanctioning budget spends on either the test in may which you can't recall or don't know about perhaps all the tests in july no i mean i would have been involved in the budget planning process to agree
02:05:53 the budget planning process to agree with peter wilson and the divisional finance director what amount of money we were setting aside for fire testing but then it would be up to uh adrian and his team to
02:06:04 his team to coordinate using that money so can we take it that your involvement was to set an overall budget one at the beginning of the financial year and then for the teams themselves to draw down on it yes it was normally set
02:06:16 draw down on it yes it was normally set up
02:06:16 up before the end of a calendar year for the following calendar year i understand can we go to kin30s 24929
02:06:28 please
02:06:33 this is an email sent by i'm so sorry i'll just wait for you to get there yes this is an email sent by adrian parjita on the 22nd of may 2018 and the subject is non-com test if you
02:06:45 and the subject is non-com test if you look at that and you can see that the recipients of that email uh include you you see that i do yep as well as john garbert and others peter wilson mark harris etc
02:06:56 peter wilson mark harris etc and i'll just read it to you he says guys i've had confirmation from the guys in dubai that the a2 stroke rw test was a pass
02:07:03 a pass peak temps around 400 and no flaming from the acm a new plan b is to get the g2 out to dubai where we can convert from cassette to flat panel similar sizes to dclg's
02:07:15 similar sizes to dclg's testing nic has confirmed that there is enough material to do this the next test slot we can use is 24th june for a start of build and burn second of july this is the fastest way we can get another test if all in agreement i
02:07:26 another test if all in agreement i recommend we proceed asap now the recipient list there is different
02:07:32 different from the list of recipients of the april emails that we looked at which discussed deliberately weakening the the test can you explain why you are included in
02:07:43 can you explain why you are included in this email run but were not included in the march or april emails that we saw earlier no i can't but importantly peter wilson's involved in this one and i know that for this series of tests in 2018
02:07:55 that for this series of tests in 2018 peter was more closely involved yes but can you explain why you were involved or included uh on this email chain but not included in the ones in april
02:08:06 in the ones in april no i can't right now um it looks from this email that adrian pogita would it be fair to say expected that
02:08:13 that you as one of the recipients knew what this was about
02:08:19 yes yes i mean did you know what this was about when you received this email or did it come as something of a bolt from the blue well i knew we were doing this uh test on materials complied with that
02:08:32 uh test on materials complied with that right so you knew that there was a test but didn't know more than that is that is that the effect of your evidence or or did you know more well no i think we've covered this fight i knew there was a test designed as
02:08:44 i knew there was a test designed as we've discussed previously can are you able to tell us why gene murder and gilbert mccarthy who were included in the march and april emails
02:08:54 emails are not included on this email
02:08:58 um well i would say because adrian parker was from the insulation business um and actually what is a bit of a cultural thing is in the panels business i did
02:09:08 i did note that people generally copied gilbert and jean into everything what adrian is doing is copying peter wilson in
02:09:16 wilson in um who was closely involved in these tests
02:09:21 tests as the head of the the global head of the insulation business
02:09:26 did you yourself have a conversation with either gene merta or gilman mccarthy about the may test passing
02:09:35 do you know for your from your own knowledge whether in some other way they were made aware that this test passed i don't know
02:09:46 passed i don't know uh when adrian pogetta said that the test was a past peak temps around 400 and no flaming from the acm did you understand how well it had
02:09:59 did you understand how well it had passed
02:10:00 passed did you get any feeling for how far uh it cleared the hurdle no i mean only from what's written in that email you can see
02:10:11 do you recall well let me ask you what was
02:10:15 was the reaction within kingspan on learning that this test had passed
02:10:24 well i don't think there was any huge reaction
02:10:27 reaction it was one of the number of tests that we were doing
02:10:33 was there any degree of surprise or perhaps frustration within kingston that after having gone to so much trouble to set this test up and spending money on it it had passed well no because that was all possibility
02:10:45 well no because that was all possibility it could have passed it could have failed
02:10:47 failed right are you aware of whether there was any investigation of why the test had passed no i'm not aware
02:10:57 aware now if we go back to the email you can see let's go back to it
02:11:05 you can see in the third line a new plan b is to get the g2 out to dubai where we can convert from cassette to flat panel uh did you understand what mr part
02:11:16 uh did you understand what mr part meant by the g2 there
02:11:21 well i don't know that i would have done but from the previous email you've shown me it's referring to that other product the vitra core indeed but did you know that when you saw this email i wouldn't have done that i don't think
02:11:32 i wouldn't have done that i don't think so
02:11:36 can we take it that when you did see this email you would have you knew that not only that there had been a test and that it had passed but that a plan b was now required
02:11:49 but that a plan b was now required involving g2 yeah well that's absolutely what you can read into that email isn't it yes
02:11:56 it yes and from that did you understand that because the may test had succeeded uh you now needed a second test which did not succeed yeah that's what
02:12:09 which did not succeed yeah that's what it looks like yes
02:12:12 yes sorry what you said was both inaudible to me and inaudible to the transcriber could you repeat sorry yeah i'm sorry i would say yes that is what you can read into that yes correct is it what you understood at the time
02:12:23 is it what you understood at the time just to be clear i think probably it was yes i think yeah that which is not in agreement what i said earlier but reading that it does look like we're going to do another test
02:12:34 going to do another test so from the email i would have read into that yes yes and the purpose of the test was to use the results in order to lobby government uh in order to present kingspan's case on the ban on
02:12:47 present kingspan's case on the ban on combustible material yes well we were trying to provide evidence that using the linear route didn't necessarily give you a system
02:12:54 system that would pass bs84 yes now i just want to ask you a little bit more about the plan b mentioned here the g2 referred to as the vitricor g2 honeycomb material
02:13:05 honeycomb material that in fact was used wasn't it in the july test
02:13:12 oh yeah i don't know and the plan a test was the test that had taken place that very morning the second of may with the aluko bond a two panels right right i'm telling you that but i
02:13:24 right right i'm telling you that but i mean do you accept that i accept that yes absolutely okay now um
02:13:32 do you know whether the test under plan b which eventually was carried out on the 2nd of july as this email indicates it might be it was also intentionally weakened
02:13:45 it was also intentionally weakened i don't know do you know why vitricord g2 was selected for use in the plan b
02:13:56 plan b test i think it may comment to it in an email that you showed me before but i wouldn't have known no
02:14:09 i said earlier that i i think it would come back to the g2 or vitra core um i showed you the email of the 10th of april 2018 at kin404658 not very long ago
02:14:21 kin404658 not very long ago and we saw that he had described the vitra core as another deemed to satisfy products that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system you recall that i do yes that's what i
02:14:32 you recall that i do yes that's what i was just referring to yes did you have any understanding yourself
02:14:37 yourself uh well were you aware at the time i'm sorry let me ask this question a different way when you got the 22nd of may email
02:14:44 may email you just looked at were you aware that there was a view within kingspan that the vitracore g2 panels would perform poorly in a bs eight four one four large
02:14:55 poorly in a bs eight four one four large scale
02:14:56 scale test no i wouldn't just i did right
02:15:01 now i want to show you an extract from adrian adrian partridge's fifth witness statement
02:15:08 statement which is that kin3024975
02:15:21 and now to be fair to you this is an uh a statement that mr positive volunteered to the inquiry in january it's signed uh on the 14th of
02:15:32 in january it's signed uh on the 14th of january this year um and that means that it was produced by him
02:15:37 by him and provided to the inquiry after you had started giving your evidence and so you will not have seen it so if there's anything else in this witness statement that you think you want to see when answering my question then please
02:15:49 question then please do so we can look at it um if we go specifically to paragraph 2.8 on page four
02:16:00 i just want to show you what he says there about the july test and and because you haven't seen this statement before at least i you may not have done well i should ask you
02:16:07 you it went into the public domain yesterday were you following mr partners evidence when he was getting only in at lunchtime and
02:16:15 and late yesterday because i was actually at work yesterday so no i didn't see much of it
02:16:19 of it i understand did you um go on the website and look at his witness statement
02:16:24 statement i haven't no not this one i've seen his previous ones okay well let's just look at the whole paragraph then he says this the july test that's july 2018 was carried out on a system incorporating a2 rated limited
02:16:35 incorporating a2 rated limited combustibility vitricor g2 flat clamping panels
02:16:39 panels a1 rated non-combustible rock or dual slab synthetic fiber insulation and siderise rx25 9030 horizontal and cytorise rv 1930 vertical cavity
02:16:50 and cytorise rv 1930 vertical cavity barriers
02:16:50 barriers the system tested in the july test closely replicated the dc lg tests number two four and six with extra panel joints and therefore gaps in the wing wall if anything the system was more robust
02:17:01 system was more robust than that tested by the dclg because the vectrical panel edges were folded over thus protecting the core of the panels from the fire we decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the
02:17:13 no more that a system utilizing the vitracore g2 panels might not be able to pass
02:17:15 pass a large scale test even when part of a robust design now i've shown you all of that i just want to focus on the last sentence there we decided to carry out this test because we suspected
02:17:27 this test because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the vitra core g2 panels uh might not be able to pass were you aware that mr pogita
02:17:38 were you aware that mr pogita suspected and possibly others at kingston
02:17:41 kingston suspected that a system using vitrocore g2 panels
02:17:45 g2 panels uh might not be able to pass a large scale test
02:17:51 i wouldn't necessarily say specifically about the vitrocore panels but what i would say is that i was aware that we were trying to design the the test with products that would meet the linear route to compliance
02:18:03 meet the linear route to compliance yes that's not um what he's saying here i
02:18:06 i i understand what you're saying about that i'm specifically putting to you this question he says we decided to carry out this test because we suspected no more
02:18:18 because we suspected no more that a system utilizing the vitracore g2 panels might not be able to pass a large scale test did you know that i don't recall doing that
02:18:28 that do you know why adrian parjita and others
02:18:31 others sanctioned a second test in dubai when they suspected that the g2 panels might cause that test to fail
02:18:42 no i can't after that
02:18:50 were you yourself aware of the performance of vetrical g2 in previous fire tests no i wasn't
02:19:04 did you know i could take this i think quite shortly did you know that uh adrian brazier of kingspan had been looking for or
02:19:16 of kingspan had been looking for or chasing down vitricore g2 since about august 2017 no although i did see a comment in one of the emails that you've shown me saying that they were trying to track
02:19:27 saying that they were trying to track them down
02:19:28 them down yes did you know that it had come from australia
02:19:35 australia um i think that does ring a bell actually that the but that again may have come from the email you've just shown me
02:19:41 shown me um i'm going to have to stop because i've been a bit slow on the uptake but i think our chairman has disappeared from the screen and that's happened about five minutes
02:19:52 and that's happened about five minutes ago perhaps uh i think i'm going to have to ask the remaining panel um if we can break um and recover connection so that the chairman can come back i know the time
02:20:04 back i know the time but it's important that chairman is here mr burleigh um but i think i'll take madison to my own hand other members of the panel um strike ball um sister fan
02:20:15 ball um sister fan um if we can call a break now yes that's right and find the chairman then we can get him back mr burnley i'm sorry about this we're going to have to take a pause for the moment
02:20:26 moment i'm sorry that the paws may go on longer than 4 30 which is when we were going to break anyway but if we can stop now and find the chairman we'll come straight back as soon as we can i understand thank you very much
02:33:16 well hello again everyone i managed to get back into the virtual hearing i don't know what happened exactly except that my computer turned itself off entirely unexpectedly but
02:33:29 off entirely unexpectedly but never mind our technicians have managed to re-establish the connection and uh i think perhaps the first thing i should do is to apologize to uh mr burnley for having interrupted his
02:33:41 uh mr burnley for having interrupted his evidence in such a peremptory way mr burnley
02:33:44 burnley you can see me and hear me can you yes i can well
02:33:48 can well they were i was the victim of a technological glitch i don't quite know exactly what happened or why but these things do sometimes happen
02:33:58 happen um as a result is now already 20 to 5 and we aren't going to manage we weren't going to manage to finish your evidence this evening i'm afraid in any event
02:34:10 this evening i'm afraid in any event so i think the sensible thing is for us to
02:34:14 to take a break at that point and ask you to come back tomorrow i'm sorry about that because i'm sure you would like to got away today but as some slight consolation i think i can tell you that there's very very good
02:34:26 tell you that there's very very good chance that you'll be out sometime before lunch tomorrow if that helps you in making any arrangements you need to make no it does thank you that's very helpful all right good um so there it is uh
02:34:39 all right good um so there it is uh usual
02:34:40 usual instruction please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it
02:34:45 to it overnight and we will look forward to seeing you at 10 o'clock tomorrow yes absolutely i understand and as far as everyone else in involved in the hearings concerned again i apologize to you for the uh the
02:34:58 i apologize to you for the uh the breakdown
02:34:58 breakdown uh my connection has not has been restored as you can see but we've reached a point at which as i explained to mr burnley the sensible thing is to
02:35:09 to mr burnley the sensible thing is to stop for the day so we will break there and resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock
02:35:15 o'clock see you all then thank you very much
02:35:29 you