Gareth Mills gives evidence about his 12-year career at Kingspan as Senior Technical Advisor responsible for BBA certificates. Admits training was 'very much on the job', knew K15 was combustible, and concedes 'that's not right' when challenged on claims that 8414 testing allowed K15 to be treated 'as if' limited combustibility.
00:00:14 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from another witness who was employed by kingspan at the times
00:00:22 the times in which we're interested so uh yes mrs craig yes can we have mr gareth mills please
00:00:51 and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth thank you very much mr mills now do sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:07 all right there's some water there if you want it and give you a moment just to get organized
00:01:25 good all right yep yes it's strange yes thank you yes can you give the inquiry your full name please that's gareth john mills yeah and can i thank you first up for attending this public
00:01:36 first up for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of my questions please ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way
00:01:47 a different way if you feel you need a break at any time please let us know and the other thing i'm going to ask you to do is try and keep your voice up because the lady there just to your right
00:01:58 right is transcribing a note of everything that's said and we want to get a nice clear record of it so if you can keep your voice up to the microphones that would be great and you've provided one witness
00:02:10 and you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry um if i can take you to that it's also in a folder on your desk and it will appear on the screen it's at
00:02:20 kin3022329 there's the statement and if we go to page 25
00:02:27 page 25 there we can see it's dated the 13th of june 2020 and is that your signature yes and have you read that witness statement recently uh i did read through it last night yeah
00:02:38 uh i did read through it last night yeah yeah and can you confirm that the contents are true yeah and have you discussed your statement or the evidence you're going to give with anybody before coming here today
00:02:48 today um only with the representatives
00:02:54 now i'm first up going to ask you some questions about your role at kingspan about your your background as well what formal qualifications do you have
00:03:05 what formal qualifications do you have um in terms of i've got with gcse's a levels
00:03:09 levels yeah did you do anything any other form of
00:03:13 of qualifications after a levels um no i did i started a degree but i didn't didn't complete that okay yeah and in terms of your career at
00:03:24 yeah and in terms of your career at kingspan if we can pull up paragraph one of your witness statement on page one of your statement
00:03:30 and you tell us there in the first line there that you first joined kingspan in around 2002 2003 as a technical advisor in their offices in pembridge that's in herefordshire
00:03:42 in pembridge that's in herefordshire that's right yes yes yeah and how old were you when you first started uh it would have been that uh would have been 21 or 22.
00:03:53 would have been 21 or 22. yes and you tell us in your statement that in that role you dealt with inquiries from contractors and architects as to products installation and meeting
00:04:04 as to products installation and meeting the regulatory requirements is that correct
00:04:06 correct yes and did those products include the k15
00:04:11 k15 product yes and were you involved with k15
00:04:14 k15 from 2002 onwards right from the start yes yes and then around four to five years later you tell us in line four of that first paragraph in your
00:04:26 of that first paragraph in your statement that in 2006 or 2007 you were promoted to the role of
00:04:32 role of senior technical advisor is that correct yes yeah and is it right that until 2010 as a senior technical advisor you would have reported to philip heath um or his replacement
00:04:45 to philip heath um or his replacement yeah he wasn't he wasn't the manager for the full time i was there tony miller took over towards the end exactly
00:04:52 exactly that was my next question and and from 2010
00:04:56 2010 until you left the company you reported to tony military oh yes yeah yes that's right yeah yeah and the senior technical advisor you say in your witness statement that you focused on assisting
00:05:07 you focused on assisting less experienced technical advisors is that right uh yes that was part of the role yeah yeah so you had technical advisors underneath you that you were assisting in their job is
00:05:18 that you were assisting in their job is that right um i i'm assisting them yeah they they sort of
00:05:22 sort of they didn't sort of answer directly to me so i wasn't their direct manager but i was assisting them in their role yeah
00:05:33 and as senior technical advisor you say that you were also part of an internal proofreading team within kingspan is that right yes and you would have prefred marketing materials
00:05:43 materials yes and did that also include technical bulletins and product literature for products including k15 yes
00:05:53 yes and you also tell us that paragraph one of your witness statement this is um towards the bottom of where we can see on that page that a year or two years after you were
00:06:05 that a year or two years after you were promoted to senior technical advisor in around 2008 you were tasked with obtaining the uk certification for kingspan products including those from the british board of agrimoon that's correct is it the bba
00:06:18 of agrimoon that's correct is it the bba yes
00:06:21 yes was it philip heath who assigned that particular responsibility to you yes and do you know who had been in that role before you took it on in around 2008 had there been anyone in that room
00:06:34 2008 had there been anyone in that room i don't know on that no i'm not i'm not sure if there was anyone specific who'd been solely dealing with it before yeah yeah yeah so is it possible that it was a a new
00:06:44 a a new post or a new yes it may have been spread between several people beforehand yeah thank you and you also tell us in your statement that in 2010 you were appointed as the competent person within
00:06:56 appointed as the competent person within kingspan
00:06:57 kingspan for monitoring the technical advisers under the british board of agreement calculation competency scheme is that right yes
00:07:05 right yes yeah and you tell us that this involved monitoring about 16 employees at technical advisor level at the pembridge kingspan office and the
00:07:16 at the pembridge kingspan office and the ecotherm office in basildon is that right
00:07:19 right yes and during that time so from 2010 onwards
00:07:24 onwards is it right that the bba would audit your supervision of the technical advisors uh yes yeah and how was that done how would the bba
00:07:34 bba audit your supervision of the technical advisors
00:07:38 advisors um so this sort of this did relate purely to
00:07:42 purely to the sort of calculation side but so as part of the sort of to do with thermal calculations and that but they did uh annual sort of checks on my internal auditing method so they'd
00:07:55 internal auditing method so they'd approved the quality plan that i had internally and then they would also ask for random samples of material that was produced by all of the different
00:08:06 was produced by all of the different advisors and check those to see that those sort of met the requirements yeah and you say that was primarily on the calculation side in terms of
00:08:17 on the calculation side in terms of thermal calculations to what extent was the bba also looking at fire safety no that wasn't that wasn't covered under that scheme i see yeah and how frequently would the bba
00:08:29 yeah and how frequently would the bba audit uh you as part of that process um i
00:08:34 i from memory i think it would have been annually yeah
00:08:39 now you were in the role of senior technical advisor for about eight years until you left uh the employment of kingspan on the 22nd of january 2014 that's right isn't it yeah
00:08:51 it yeah and so you were at kingspan for around 12 years
00:08:54 12 years yeah and is it fair to say when you left kingspan it was not on good terms yeah but it's right isn't it that your dismissal had nothing to do
00:09:06 dismissal had nothing to do with your role in terms of k-15 or any part of your work in relation to that product no no not i'm aware of it
00:09:19 now when you first joined kingspan in 2002 2003 as a technical advisor in pembridge
00:09:25 pembridge were you supported in that role by a senior technical advisor or advisors um yeah yeah there were other
00:09:33 other other members there that yeah that would help me with inquiries while i was learning
00:09:37 learning yeah learning what to do yeah and can you remember who they were was anyone particularly um helping the main ones would have been either andrew pack justin davis and ivan meredith
00:09:53 and in your witness statement if we go on to page two and look at your statement um i'm going to four or five lines down in that top paragraph which is paragraph
00:10:05 in that top paragraph which is paragraph one on the top of the page you say four lines down where training at kingspan was concerned the training relating to insulation products was very much on the job
00:10:16 much on the job rather than through any specific courses do you see that there yeah and if we also look at paragraph 26 of your statement on page
00:10:33 of your statement on page if we look at the last few lines um on on page eight you say there um
00:10:42 well let's start at the beginning of 26 you say i did not receive and i'm not aware of any specific training provided by kingspan in relation to the marketing
00:10:51 marketing testing and certification of k-15 yeah do you see that there yeah and then you say well that was so i was able to gain an understanding about the testing requirements and certification for k-15
00:11:03 certification for k-15 product as a result of discussions with other senior technical advisors and the technical manager and any follow-up reading you see that there
00:11:11 there so you've helped us in your statement about
00:11:14 about effectively on-the-job training that's right isn't it that you received
00:11:23 how did you learn when you first started at kingspan what the particular properties were of each different product and what they were intended to be used for by sort of reading through the product brochures
00:11:35 reading through the product brochures for each product yeah were you given those and asked to read them to familiarize them yeah so you were given a folder of all the different brochures and that though so you had that as a reference yeah
00:11:47 reference yeah and can you remember i know it is a long time ago but thinking back what you learned about the properties of k-15 when you first started at kingspan um well we would have learned the
00:11:59 um well we would have learned the applications it's commonly used in the sort of thermal performance yeah um those would have been the first sort of things you would look at and that yeah did you know it was a phenolic
00:12:10 phenolic insulation product and did you know it was a combustible insulation uh yeah i knew that it wasn't sort of yeah it wasn't classed as non-combustible yeah
00:12:23 and and again that knowledge that you obtained
00:12:26 obtained about the properties of the products that you were dealing with including k-15
00:12:31 k-15 was that from reading company literature or
00:12:34 or was there any other formal process for informing you about that um no so it would have been from reading sort of
00:12:41 sort of yeah the actual sort of product brochures and um and also i suppose some of the approved documents and things to see how those
00:12:50 those sort of related to each other yeah and also
00:12:54 also as you went through and answered particular inquiries just from sort of experience of previous inquiries you then know how to deal with sort of future ones then so you perhaps get help with an advisor initially and then no
00:13:05 initially and then no for any similar ones in the future you'd know sort of what to do then yeah i see yeah from what you described would you say that there was a limited amount of training given it was a technical role
00:13:16 training given it was a technical role at kingspan uh yeah yeah did you ever question that did anyone ever discuss that or say maybe we need a bit more training in the technical team and technical advisors
00:13:28 technical team and technical advisors um it wasn't more than anything i remember being discussed no yeah now just a few short questions now about your understanding of the building regulations the functional requirements and the
00:13:39 the functional requirements and the associated guidance um approved document b you've already referred to that in your evidence what was your understanding of the purpose of that approved document when you were working for kingspan um is
00:13:50 when you were working for kingspan um is to do the just the sort of fire safety requirements for for sort of buildings yeah so yeah did you see that as a key document relevant to your role
00:14:02 relevant to your role um yeah it was one of one of the sort of one more common ones you'd get queries on yeah i would say sort of a proof document l and proof document b and c were the ones that we
00:14:11 that we mainly dealt with queries on yeah and would you have read those documents um probably not sort of cover to cover in one go or anything but you would have
00:14:22 in one go or anything but you would have read sections at lots of different times and that so you were quite familiar with the sort of bits that were commonly brought up yeah yeah did you have your own copy of those or um we had them in sort of either a
00:14:34 or um we had them in sort of either a sort of a group hard copy or we also had electronic ones you could just bring up on your computer and that yeah yeah and did you ever receive any kind of training whether formal or informal
00:14:44 informal um about the building regulations or the guidance in approved document b or l um not any sort of you know like where you sort of maybe go on a sort of course or have
00:14:55 of maybe go on a sort of course or have an afternoon sort of training session or anything like that but it would have been sort of i suppose more experienced staff who would have you know pointed you to relevant sections and
00:15:06 relevant sections and things like that and bits to sort of read before sort of putting together responses to clients yeah
00:15:13 yeah and would it be fair to say that you were familiar with the guidance uh in part b four of approved document b whilst you were a senior technical advisor sorry which
00:15:24 advisor sorry which sorry part b4 dealing with external file spread
00:15:28 spread were you familiar with that part of the approved document while you were a senior technical advisor um yes i would have been at that time yeah yeah
00:15:39 yeah now in terms of the phrase limited combustibility if we can just look at your witness statement page 8 paragraph 21
00:15:50 you you tell us this in your statement limited combustibility is an expression that's referred to an approved document b
00:15:55 b of the building regulations and the scottish technical handbook to be regarded as a product of limited combustibility means that specific standards have to be met under various parts of bs-476
00:16:06 parts of bs-476 or en13501 which relate to a wide range of fire testing in limited circumstances specific products could also be regarded as meeting the limited combustibility
00:16:17 as meeting the limited combustibility requirements without having to be tested and you also tell us those products are set out
00:16:21 set out in approved document b and the scottish technical handbook um and can you help us was that um always your understanding when you were working as a technical advisor at king's
00:16:32 working as a technical advisor at king's fans
00:16:33 fans or was that an understanding that you came by at some later stage um no that would have been so through the vast majority of the time as a kingspan so from the first time i would have dealt with
00:16:44 have dealt with information relating to that subject up until
00:16:48 until sort of i finished there that would have yeah
00:16:51 yeah and is it right that you knew throughout your time at kingspan that k-15 was not a material of limited combustibility uh yes that's right yeah yeah and that
00:17:02 uh yes that's right yeah yeah and that it's a combustible insulation product you're aware of that yeah now
00:17:09 yeah now in terms of your understanding about the routes to compliance with the building regulations for the use of combustible insulation materials
00:17:18 materials if we look now at paragraph 16 of your statement on page seven
00:17:28 if we could blow that up so there you tell us my understanding of the requirements for external cladding systems under the building regulations of england and wales in relation to fire safety
00:17:38 safety for buildings over 18 meters in height were that for materials not encased in two skins of masonry of 75 millimeter or greater in thickness they should either be of limited
00:17:49 they should either be of limited combustibility or be tested to bs 8414 and have met the criteria in br135 do you see that there yeah and again was that your understanding throughout your time at
00:18:01 understanding throughout your time at kingspan that there existed these two routes to compliance either of limited combustibility or the eight four one four br one three five route
00:18:11 route uh yes those are the two sort of simplified methods there are other routes you can follow to do with sort of engineered solutions but those are the two main ones
00:18:24 and they're separate routes to compliance aren't they yeah they're entirely separate either you follow certain tests and you meet the limited combustibility requirements or you go down the full-scale large
00:18:37 or you go down the full-scale large testing
00:18:38 testing route under 8414. yes and you understood those at the time to be separate requirements is that right yeah yeah
00:18:48 now given that k15 is not a material of limited combustibility was your understanding when you worked for kingspan that it had to seek to rely on that alternative route to compliance offered by
00:18:59 offered by a system meeting uh br135 criteria after 8414 testing um yes that would be the main
00:19:08 the main main one yeah yeah actually you couldn't meet the limited combustibility requirements so it would be some alternative routes yeah that you'd have to follow yeah yeah um at any time did you read the test
00:19:20 um at any time did you read the test standards bs 8414 part one or eight four one four part two did you ever read those um i would have certainly read sections of them i don't know if i would have read the whole sort of standard but i would have sort
00:19:33 sort of standard but i would have sort of looked through sort of bits of it yeah
00:19:35 yeah yeah and did you understand the difference between those two part one and part two of eight four one four yes and can you help us what was the key difference yeah it's just the substrate that the
00:19:45 that the insulation and cladding is applied onto so it's either a masonry component or a framed
00:19:51 framed system yeah thank you
00:19:56 now if we could look at paragraph 72 of your witness statement on page 20.
00:20:08 i want to pick it up um you're dealing there with the labc registered detail certificate which we're going to come back to
00:20:14 back to later today and what i want to do is pick this up uh in the fourth line
00:20:24 so you begin in the middle of that line you say it was only in circumstances where the construction mirrored that which had been tested to bs 8414
00:20:35 bs 8414 that it could be treated as though it was a product of limited combustibility when assessing compliance against specific sections of the building regulations do you see that there yeah and and just breaking that down
00:20:50 yeah and and just breaking that down um it's right isn't it that in order to rely on a particular set of test results to bs
00:20:56 to bs 8414 you need to use the exact same materials tested and that's why you've used the word mirrored in that paragraph is that correct um yeah yeah
00:21:08 paragraph is that correct um yeah yeah so
00:21:08 so yeah you either yeah you'd either be using the sort of the exact same construction or yeah or if you know i suppose or you're going to have to go down some sort of engineered solution which has
00:21:19 sort of engineered solution which has been created by someone with the appropriate sort of you know knowledge and qualifications to do yeah to sort of extrapolate sort of with information from different tests
00:21:31 information from different tests yeah and again did you understand that throughout your time working for kingsville as a technical advisor that um it needed to be the exact same
00:21:42 um it needed to be the exact same configuration um but i knew that yeah that we didn't have the facility to sort of you know internally do any sort of you know engineered solutions ourselves yeah so we knew that we could only
00:21:54 yeah so we knew that we could only sort of quote results or for the particular test report we had yeah yeah yeah and in that sentence that i i read to you there you then say so you've said
00:22:05 you've said it's in circumstances where the construction mirrored that which had been tested to bs8414 you say in those circumstances that it could be treated as though it was a product of limited
00:22:17 as though it was a product of limited combustibility when assessing compliance yeah now can you help us what do you mean by that well it's just when when you're sort of assessing it against certain bits of the regulations it could be treated
00:22:28 regulations it could be treated like it was limited combustibility although it's not so it's yeah so there were these particular sections where it would say effectively it says you've either got to be limited combustibility or have this
00:22:40 be limited combustibility or have this test and because you've got the test it's effectively when you're assessing against those paragraphs it's the same as if you were limited combustibility effectively i see where did you get that from
00:22:53 i see where did you get that from where did that come from that understanding that if you've done an 8.14 test and you passed that test you can treat the material as if it's a material of limited combustibility where
00:23:04 material of limited combustibility where does that come from well it's just no it's it's it's something that was well it's just something that some of the wording was in the labc certificate how they
00:23:14 how they read it but yeah and it's also in approved document b that there are sections where having the test all being limited combustibility are
00:23:22 are deemed as sort of equivalent roots
00:23:27 yes i mean you're right that in 12.5 of approved document b it talks about you either follow the guidance in a preview documentary which includes
00:23:36 includes limited combustibility for insulation or you go down the route but it's right isn't it that nowhere does it say if you've passed an 8414 test you can treat the products that you've tested
00:23:48 treat the products that you've tested as if they are materials of limited combustibility well yeah no i'm not saying that you know the product is limiting combustibility it's just saying it's treated in a similar manner just in terms of when you're assessing
00:23:59 just in terms of when you're assessing compliance it's yeah i think you're possibly getting that slightly cross purposes um i don't understand you to be saying
00:24:10 um i don't understand you to be saying that it can be treated as of limited combustibility for other purposes no it's only within it's only within certain sort of power against certain paragraphs where yeah so it's it
00:24:21 yeah so it's it so it's only in specific circumstances where they're listing the two as effectively the two equivalent routes to compliance yeah should we understand that what you're saying here is that
00:24:32 you're saying here is that where the material has been used in a successful bs8414 test that is as if it were of limited combustibility but doesn't
00:24:44 of limited combustibility but doesn't tell you anything about how it will it's its um characteristics in other circumstances no that's right yeah but but with respect that's not right is it because an 8414 test only tells you how
00:24:57 because an 8414 test only tells you how the system the overall system performs it doesn't tell you how any individual product component within that system performs
00:25:08 performs yes i know yeah yeah yeah because it's not i'm not it doesn't say there or in any of my bits that the product is limiting combustibility it's just saying you could treat it as if it were when assessing compliance against a
00:25:20 when assessing compliance against a specific paragraph we're not saying it's limited combustibility anywhere yes but what i'm putting to you is that actually that's not right that when you've gone down the 8414 route what you
00:25:32 you've gone down the 8414 route what you get is a
00:25:33 get is a system that is deemed to meet the requirements of approved document b and then the building regulations that's a system what you don't get at the end of an 8414
00:25:45 what you don't get at the end of an 8414 test
00:25:46 test is a product that was in that test that can be seen as of limited combustibility that's quite an important point do you understand i i i i i know exactly what you're saying
00:25:58 i i i i know exactly what you're saying yes
00:25:59 yes but i don't think you're getting what i'm saying either no i i do i do understand what you're saying i'm i'm challenging you on whether
00:26:07 whether it's uh correct or not to to extrapolate that way from an eight four one four test
00:26:14 test and we'll cut we'll come back to this because it comes up in the context of the
00:26:17 the respect but i i don't think that mr mills is trying to tell us that this has some sort of um status for the product no i think he's simply seeking to paraphrase
00:26:28 paraphrase the effect of passing an eight four one four test
00:26:32 four test um maybe i'm misunderstanding yes no that would be it the is you could say effectively it's sort of as if similar to if it had were that although
00:26:43 similar to if it had were that although it's not it's just uh you know in terms of when you're assessing if it meets the requirements overall
00:26:48 overall yeah yes but one more are we agreed that following a successful eight four one four test you can't then take one product that you've used in that test
00:27:00 you've used in that test out of that test and then say separately here's a material of limited combustibility you can't do that can you no
00:27:08 no no thank you yeah i'm sorry to labour that point but it's actually very important yeah no but we haven't hadn't stated that in my statement i understand yeah i'm just trying to understand you don't worry exactly what you're saying
00:27:19 don't worry exactly what you're saying it is very important when we get to the wording of the labc certificate which we will come to and then going back to page 10 of your witness statement um now and if we look at paragraph
00:27:32 um now and if we look at paragraph 33 from the end of the third line
00:27:38 you say this so picking up at the word depending
00:27:42 depending you say depending on the type of construction that the customer was proposing to use we would either explain to customers that we had carried out a test in accordance with bs 8414 that
00:27:54 in accordance with bs 8414 that indicated compliance with br135 for that same type of construction or if the type of construction was different
00:28:02 different we would explain to customers that we only had a test result for an alternative type of construction do you see that there yeah now are you absolutely sure about that
00:28:13 that are you sure that way the type of construction was different you would explain to customers that you only had a test result for an alternative type of construction
00:28:24 for an alternative type of construction well yes because we only had one test result
00:28:26 result that was the only one we could supply yes and you're clear that that's the advice you gave as a senior technical advisor at kingspan yes yeah
00:28:39 now turning to br135 we know there was a second edition of that document in 2003 and a third edition in 2013.
00:28:50 and a third edition in 2013. um is that a document that you read during your time at kingspan either the second edition or the third edition yes and
00:29:00 yes and did you understand during your time at kingspan that the 8414 test itself doesn't contain any pass fail criteria and that the test results have to be interpreted against the criteria
00:29:12 interpreted against the criteria in br135 if you're then going to rely on that those tests yes
00:29:24 and did you understand at all times that a classification to br 135 is applicable only to the particular tested system
00:29:35 only to the particular tested system test yeah and does it follow that you therefore understood that it's not intended
00:29:41 intended as a guarantee of the far performance of any individual component part of a tested system yes yeah
00:29:54 yes yeah now i want to take you at this point to something in mr tony millitap's witness statement if we can go to that
00:30:04 kin3020821 at page 10
00:30:12 [Music] and i want to look at paragraph 4.11 of his statement on page 10. so if i just read this to you he says
00:30:23 you he says during my time as head of technical the technical team at kingspan had a very good understanding of these routes to compliance however it was not uncommon for kingspan to get questions from other
00:30:35 to get questions from other professionals within the industry who clearly did not understand the requirements within the building regulations and associated guidance documents to achieve compliance to the same extent
00:30:46 achieve compliance to the same extent we hoped that our route to compliance document
00:30:50 document would assist in the industry's understanding of this do you see that there
00:30:53 there yeah now do you agree uh with what mr militare says there in the first few lines that during his time as head of technical the technical team at kingspan had a
00:31:05 the technical team at kingspan had a very good understanding of the routes to compliance um yeah the majority of people in the technical team would have been quite familiar with the documents yeah yeah was there anyone in the
00:31:16 yeah yeah was there anyone in the technical team that wasn't would you say oh so maybe some of the you know more recent advisors and things like that wouldn't have been unfamiliar but then they would tend to deal with the less complicated inquiries while they were
00:31:27 complicated inquiries while they were gaining experience
00:31:32 do you agree that it was um with him that it was not uncommon for kingspan to receive queries on the regulatory requirements and guidance
00:31:41 guidance uh yeah no that was a big chunk of what we did
00:31:44 we did yeah yeah
00:31:47 yeah yeah would you say that a lack of understanding about the requirements within the building regulations in approved document b was widespread among professionals in the industry at the time you were advising um i would
00:31:59 at the time you were advising um i would say that you know depending on exactly who you were dealing with then people would tend to be more specialized in particular areas and maybe not familiar with all of the documents and things like that so there would be yeah you would deal with some people who maybe
00:32:11 deal with some people who maybe knew about the energy requirements but weren't as familiar with the fire side or the other way around so there would yeah there would be some people where they wouldn't know you know all of it yeah was there any pattern to
00:32:22 all of it yeah was there any pattern to that
00:32:23 that in terms of which type of professionals appeared to understand it and which didn't
00:32:28 didn't um i suppose yeah i can't remember exactly now because it's quite a long time ago but i suppose generally perhaps some of the things say with like architects they
00:32:39 things say with like architects they would maybe have a brief overview of sort of all of it but not be experts in a particular one but some other sort of maybe like cladding consultants and things like that would maybe you know have a more detailed knowledge
00:32:51 you know have a more detailed knowledge on more specific sections and things yeah thank you um where individuals didn't have a good
00:33:02 where individuals didn't have a good knowledge
00:33:02 knowledge of the regulatory requirements in this area
00:33:05 area was it your experience that reliance tended to be placed by professionals on the advice given to them by kingspan about those matters uh it wouldn't solely be us but they
00:33:17 uh it wouldn't solely be us but they would turn to product manufacturers yeah yeah and were you aware that from time to time people were placing reliance on what king's man was saying to them did they make that clear to you that they were looking to
00:33:28 clear to you that they were looking to you for
00:33:29 you for and they were looking sometimes for us to advise and steer them yes but you know we weren't the people taking responsibility for the specifications or the buildings so that you know they had their own due diligence but
00:33:42 own due diligence but yeah they did ask us for you know to give it you know advise and give our opinions
00:33:47 opinions yeah yeah in your experience did kings fan ever take advantage of that take advantage of that lack of knowledge
00:33:55 knowledge to persuade them about the product in a way that
00:33:59 way that wasn't entirely truthful um i would say that they
00:34:03 that they you know they promoted their products obviously but yeah i wasn't aware of them sort of lying or anything like that about the information that they held no so you don't think kingsman did take
00:34:15 no so you don't think kingsman did take advantage of that lack of knowledge in the industry at the time not that i know of no i can't think of specific examples no yeah okay now i want to move on um to
00:34:28 yeah okay now i want to move on um to quite a big topic that i want to deal with with you which is about the bba certificates for k-15 yeah and that was a key part of your role wasn't it you were tasked with obtaining the bba
00:34:39 you were tasked with obtaining the bba certificates and then you were involved with each uh new draft and
00:34:44 and issue of the bba certificate yeah yeah um and if we go um on page nine of your witness statement and look at paragraph 26
00:34:57 and look at paragraph 26 in the final five lines of paragraph 26 there on that page
00:35:08 what we see there if we go five lines up is you say
00:35:14 i was tasked by the technical manager philip heath to obtain a certificate from the bba for k15
00:35:21 k15 to cover the use of the product in external range screen systems and as part of this role i assisted by responding to requests from the bba and providing the information and
00:35:32 and providing the information and documents they required such as quality control data and test reports for the product do you see that there yes and can you remember when you were first tasked with that um role uh
00:35:46 tasked with that um role uh specifically for the k-15 one yes uh i can't remember the sort of the date off hand no
00:35:53 hand no yeah is it likely to have been sometime around in 2008 yes it probably would have been around around about there yeah there probably would be a sort of a signed contract for it somewhere which would have the date on it
00:36:04 it yeah and were you given any guidance or instruction on how to approach that task um well uh the contract which or the quote which we
00:36:16 the contract which or the quote which we got back from the so it was effectively just to sort of run you know it explained to the bba what we wanted and then they sent us a quote outlining what
00:36:26 what would be needed to do to basically get that and then just sort of follow their sort of contract in terms of the list of information they needed yeah
00:36:36 were you ever told to ensure that the certificate covered the use of k-15 on all building heights including those over 18 meters yes i was told to send the bsa for one
00:36:47 yes i was told to send the bsa for one full report yes to show that as an example of a situation where it had met the requirements yeah right were you ever given a a broader
00:36:58 were you ever given a a broader instruction than that to make sure that the certificate covered the use of k15 on all building heights regardless of the system tested was that ever an instruction you were given
00:37:09 were given um it wasn't specifically say at all construction types no you mentioned the contract with the bbm um
00:37:18 um recently in your answers did you ever read that bba contract um i i would have done at the time yeah yeah
00:37:27 yeah did you take a close note of what you were required to tell the bba in terms of the k-15 product um i i don't remember exactly what was in it offhand and now so behind them
00:37:41 offhand and now so behind them was there any pressure on you at any time to ensure that the certificate covered all heights including over 18 meters
00:37:50 meters well yes we would i was told to sort of include that yes so they wanted yeah did you feel under pressure to achieve that well they asked me specifically to do it
00:38:02 well they asked me specifically to do it yes yeah
00:38:03 yes yeah and you took that as a direct instruction to do that yes yes [Music]
00:38:08 [Music] and would you agree that by 2008 king's k-15 was being actively marketed to the over 18 meter market
00:38:19 to the over 18 meter market um i would primarily most of the marketing didn't list a specific building height it was just generally listed as for use in range screens like the title of the brochure doesn't
00:38:30 like the title of the brochure doesn't make any mention of the building height it was just generally marketed for use in rain screens and then they would deal with issues to do with the building heights
00:38:39 heights on a project specific basis yeah but were you aware prior to starting this work that kingspan
00:38:47 kingspan was actively promoting k-15 for use on high-rise buildings i knew that they were dealing with projects which were over 80 meters yeah
00:38:58 projects which were over 80 meters yeah yeah
00:38:58 yeah in which it was being suggested that k15 was suitable yes um yeah they would i can't remember the exact constructions and projects but yeah there were certainly
00:39:09 projects but yeah there were certainly high-rise buildings which they were looking at using k-15 yes yeah now if we go um and look at page 11 of your witness
00:39:20 um and look at page 11 of your witness statement now paragraph 39
00:39:26 [Music] you're talking in this paragraph about the purpose of obtaining a bba certificate and you say this the purpose of obtaining a bba certificate was an additional marketing tool which
00:39:37 was an additional marketing tool which would give customers greater confidence in the products which kingspan was selling
00:39:41 selling including k-15 and they say this is because
00:39:45 because these certificates verified the properties within the product from the more basic initial type testing which were carried out in external laboratories and factory production control testing in kingspan's own
00:39:57 control testing in kingspan's own factory
00:39:58 factory see that there
00:40:01 and you also say if we look at the next paragraph
00:40:06 paragraph that customers would have a greater confidence in the product knowing that its properties had been independently verified
00:40:14 verified by the bpa that's right isn't it yeah
00:40:21 and is it right that you also knew that some house building companies would only use insulation which had been approved by a certification body so that it was in case in kingspan's
00:40:32 so that it was in case in kingspan's interest to have k-15 certified by the bba yes yes at the last line of the section that says yeah about the nhbc yeah and were you aware that the intention was that this would help
00:40:44 intention was that this would help increase sales substantially by having the product certified um i didn't know exactly in terms of volumes by how much it would increase sales but i knew it would help
00:40:55 sales but i knew it would help yes and given those considerations do you agree it was important that the technical content of the bba certificates was accurate um well it needed to reflect the product
00:41:06 um well it needed to reflect the product yes yeah
00:41:07 yes yeah and it needed to be accurate about its fire safety properties yes yeah yeah it wouldn't be yeah yeah
00:41:15 now turning first then to your role in obtaining the first bba certificate which was zero eight four five two issue one and it was issued on the 27th of
00:41:26 one and it was issued on the 27th of october 2008 and if we look um at your witness statement on page 9 paragraph 26
00:41:37 9 paragraph 26 i want to look at the last three lines of paragraph 26
00:41:42 we looked at this a little bit earlier you say there that you assisted by responding to requests from the bba and providing the information and documents they required
00:41:52 required such as quality control data and test reports for the product do you see that there
00:41:56 there yeah and did you give that assistance at all stages including prior to the issue of that first certificate for k-15 in october 2008.
00:42:06 2008. uh yes yes so i was dealing with that from the initial sort of signing of the contract through to the issue of the certificate yeah yeah and then if we go on page 12 of your witness statement and look at
00:42:17 your witness statement and look at paragraph 43 a you say this as i haven't seen the contract for original assessment of k15 which would list the majority of the
00:42:28 which would list the majority of the items requested by the bba i can't be certain on what documents test data and records were specifically requested by the bba of kingspan during the period 2008 to
00:42:40 of kingspan during the period 2008 to 2015.
00:42:41 2015. yeah and you say from memory i suspect that these were test reports and quality control data relating to water vapor transmission reaction to fire thermal conductivity dimensional
00:42:52 fire thermal conductivity dimensional stability
00:42:54 stability and then you give you go on including tolerances and bending strength yeah do you see that there yeah
00:43:03 so you say as i haven't seen the contract for original assessment of k15 just to be clear does that mean you you never saw the contract i know i would have seen it at the time
00:43:14 i know i would have seen it at the time that's referring to the documents that were released to me at the time of writing my statement i understand thank you yeah
00:43:26 i understand thank you yeah can you recall whether you ever provided to the bba any test reports to bs four seven six part
00:43:33 part six and part seven uh i i believe it did yes i think i think those were sent for k15 as far as i remember yeah can you remember the bba specifically asking for those
00:43:45 specifically asking for those um i can't remember specifically if they were asked for or not um because it i suppose it may not have been compulsory because they're not listed in the european standards so they
00:43:56 listed in the european standards so they may have been optional ones i see yeah and what was your understanding at the time about the significance of testing to 476 part six and part seven um it well it wasn't a requirement
00:44:09 um it well it wasn't a requirement because there's all the sort of it it relates to i suppose where the surface of the product may be exposed to fire um so things like the spacing of cavity barriers and things like that it has an
00:44:21 barriers and things like that it has an effect
00:44:21 effect of an approved document b um you can quote a result to the european method the euro class or you can do it to the old british standard method so the
00:44:32 old british standard method so the approved document b listed both routes so
00:44:35 so yeah it was a sort of an optional sort of option you know yeah sort of one yeah part seven is about surface spread of flame did you understand what part six of bs forces
00:44:46 understand what part six of bs forces that's the fire propagation test yeah yeah and you understood that at the time yeah
00:44:54 now if we look back at your witness statement this time page 13 paragraph 43 h
00:45:03 you you say this um you say the bva was not informed by kingspan of tests to bs 8414
00:45:10 8414 on systems incorporating k-15 which did not meet the criteria in br135 yeah this is because it didn't affect the scope of the certification that we were seeking
00:45:21 were seeking from the bba yeah see that there so this is about eight four one for testing yeah and you're saying there that a
00:45:29 that a a negative result failed tests were not relevant to the bba certification and therefore did not need to be reported is that what you're saying yeah
00:45:41 but a positive result was relevant yes because it affected the scope of approval then yeah can you explain why you believed that to be the case that you could tell them about positive results
00:45:53 could tell them about positive results but you didn't need to tell them about negativity because effectively if you had a failed test or an absence of a test
00:46:00 test it was assessed the same under the regulations so it didn't affect what you were approved to do whereas if you had a positive test that affected what you what approval you had so if you had a
00:46:13 what approval you had so if you had a different construction type to the one that was successfully tested which had a failed test it was still the same under the regulations as if you hadn't done a test at all
00:46:23 at all i see but if you change your product and you change what you're selling and then you test and you fail those tests
00:46:32 tests would you agree that the bba ought to be made aware of those failed tests uh if well if they need to be aware of a change in the product yes yes
00:46:44 and were you aware that there was a change in the k-15 product that from 2006
00:46:50 2006 it became a new technology kester n technology product which was different to the k-15 sold before 2006. i knew there was a changeover i didn't know the exact dates of when
00:47:02 i didn't know the exact dates of when manufacture changed but yes i did know at some time it changed yes and did you ever tell the bba about that change in what
00:47:13 bba about that change in what the theme that was being sold well specifically i passed on information relating to production so when we had a bba quality plan and which would list
00:47:24 which would list all of the components which he used to manufacture the product and the manufacturing process so we would get i would get the production managers to fill out and update any changes on that and
00:47:35 and update any changes on that and forward that onto the bba but you did send fire test information didn't you to the bba from time to time yes so
00:47:45 yes so when there were failures to eight four one four tests in 2007 and 2008 on the new technology k15 why weren't those communicated to the
00:47:56 why weren't those communicated to the bba
00:47:59 well i to be honest i you know it wasn't something that the test reports listed what technology they were so that wasn't something that you know generally people in the
00:48:11 you know generally people in the technical department would have been aware of
00:48:14 aware of so we were just past test reports that were relevant when when we had them and asked to pass them on
00:48:22 them on but you knew didn't you that the k-15 you were selling from 2006 onwards was all
00:48:27 all new technology k-15 i wouldn't have known exactly when the data change was no
00:48:32 no by 2008 you would have known that wouldn't i would have yeah yeah
00:48:39 but at no point was the bba told was it that there'd been this change to the composition of k-15 including not just the chemical composition but perforations to the foil facing were you
00:48:51 perforations to the foil facing were you aware of that um that would have been in the yeah so we would have known there was an updated facing which quinn had listed in the quality plan yeah yeah and was the bba ever made aware of
00:49:03 yeah and was the bba ever made aware of that change to the face yes yeah it was in the quality plan yeah it was made aware yeah
00:49:11 and did you ever bring to the bba's attention the difference in fire performance that was witnessed by kingspan by kingspan offsite and by the bre
00:49:22 the bre in 2007 and 2008 when that new technology k15 was tested to 8414 no
00:49:33 and can you help us as to why not um well i
00:49:36 well i i wasn't at the test and didn't witness it and wasn't given any information about
00:49:40 about it so are you saying you you weren't aware that it had performed very badly in those tests uh no it didn't i didn't have any information about the test to be honest you
00:49:50 you was only i only knew that the test had happened because of just general little bits of
00:49:54 bits of discussion and gossip at the office and that so i had nothing to do with it yeah
00:50:00 so yeah let's take a look then at that first bba certificate from 2008 it's a bba six zeros 38.
00:50:16 we can see the date on it in the bottom left-hand corner 27th of october 2008 and then if we look uh
00:50:27 and then if we look uh at the top of page one there as it is in the screen it's fine just as it is under key factors assessed we get some different headings and the third one down is behavior in
00:50:38 and the third one down is behavior in relation to fire do you see that there yeah and that section reads the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic
00:50:49 a smoke or toxic hazard c-section seven do you see that there
00:50:53 there yeah now that phrase there the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire yeah can you help us what does that mean i don't know to be honest you don't know
00:51:08 i don't know to be honest you don't know did you understand at the time that that assertion was based on some actual test data or test standard i i don't know what the bba based that one
00:51:19 did you believe that that assertion was correct
00:51:22 correct that k-15 wouldn't contribute to the development stages of a fire um yeah i wasn't something i'm an expert in so
00:51:31 in so yeah i yeah i didn't have any information to disagree with it no can you help us as to where that wording came from who who was it suggested by the bba or
00:51:42 who who was it suggested by the bba or kingspan or the bba the bba and did you ever go back to them and say
00:51:49 and say it's not very clear that um no it's not something i remember querying with them no or asked them what it meant no were you happy with the wording were you
00:52:01 were you happy with the wording were you content with it um yeah it did something which yeah it didn't we didn't have any specific problems with it we didn't have any i didn't have any information to say
00:52:12 i didn't have any information to say that it was definitely not correct so yeah and you have a clear recollection of that
00:52:18 of that being them suggesting it do you yes yeah they put that in it's in there i think it's in various phenolic certificates yeah it's some of their standard wording they put in a lot of certificates it's in lots of other product
00:52:29 it's in lots of other product certificates as well yeah and you weren't troubled that you might get technical queries thereafter about what it meant and that you didn't have an explanation as to what um no we would have if we did we would
00:52:41 um no we would have if we did we would have to go and ask the bba at the time when the query came in i suppose because how we would have looked at it yeah let's go to section seven now which that introductory section refers to
00:52:53 which starts towards the bottom of page five
00:52:58 so here we've got the section on behavior in relation to fire and what we see at 7.1 is a description of the system tested to bs 8414 part
00:53:10 bs 8414 part 1. do you see that there yeah and it says it was a 60 millimeter thick board with those dimensions it was mechanically fixed to a non-combustible substrate
00:53:21 substrate um and then it's got um six millimeter thick
00:53:25 thick cement particle boards mechanically fixed as well yeah and then it further down it says the cement particle boards provided the over cladding for the rain screen system do you see that there yeah
00:53:38 now the date of that test is not given in this certificate can you help us as to why that was i don't know no it doesn't it it's something the bba don't seem to list
00:53:49 something the bba don't seem to list yes it's saying the same for the sort of fire resistance one underneath yeah they don't seem it's not something they used to list in the certificates right yeah and just at the end of that
00:54:00 yeah and just at the end of that paragraph giving the description of the system
00:54:03 system we can see that it says um and this is in the last three lines starting right on the right hand side with the word within it says within the stated test time the temperature at the level two
00:54:15 temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c
00:54:18 c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 yep do you say that yeah and in your
00:54:31 yep do you say that yeah and in your witness statement you you tell us that you did believe that that wording was correct is that right yeah
00:54:39 yeah on what basis did you think it was correct that the product had met the criteria in br135 or bre 135. you can see it very clearly in the last
00:54:50 last few words of of that paragraph it says and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135.
00:54:58 135. do you see that there yeah well it's referring to that particular test isn't it so it's when it's tested in that construction it met it's referring to a specific test
00:55:09 it met it's referring to a specific test it is um and that's why i'm asking about the
00:55:12 the the word product there yeah rather than saying
00:55:15 saying that the system means the criteria stated wouldn't it have been accurate to state that the system met that criteria possibly if that was the case and we'll come to that rather than the product met
00:55:28 come to that rather than the product met it
00:55:29 it yeah it might possibly would you agree with me looking at that now that it the the word product shouldn't be there and it should have talked about the system um personally i don't think it
00:55:43 um personally i don't think it matters that much because it's it's sort of it's in the section written specifically about a specific test so it's saying in that specific situation it met the requirements
00:55:54 requirements so i i yeah i personally don't see it there's a lot of difference between them but that's opinions i see yeah can we just look at what uh
00:56:03 what uh philip heath has said about this in his witness statement we'll come back to the certificate again in a moment if we go on page 48 of his statement kin30s 20709
00:56:14 kin30s 20709 page 48. and i want to look at paragraph 7.35
00:56:26 and he says in in the first four lines there he says having reviewed this statement in preparation of this witness statement is talking about this certificate i note that the bba certificate should have said that the system rather than the product meets the criteria stated
00:56:38 the product meets the criteria stated within br135 although i was not aware of this error at the time the bba certificate was issued did you see that there yeah would you agree with mr heath that that was an error um well i suppose maybe maybe
00:56:52 an error um well i suppose maybe maybe it would have been clearer but yeah it's i didn't didn't at the time see it as a particular issue but it might have been perhaps clearer
00:57:04 but it might have been perhaps clearer for people not familiar with the with the testing and things possibly yeah
00:57:09 yeah do you remember was the the draft certificate approved by by philip heath before it was issued yes he saw it yes yeah so he would have seen that wording and had the chance to pick up on that error
00:57:20 error well he certainly was sent it i don't know if he read it or not but he sent it and came back and said it was okay yes okay yeah thank you if we can go back to the certificate then it was bba
00:57:31 back to the certificate then it was bba um 6038 page six sorry five sorry five
00:57:38 um yes so so we've looked at 7.1 if we go on to page six and look at 7.3
00:57:51 it says here um in buildings with a floor
00:57:55 floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder did you see that there yeah can you help us as to how that wording ended up being included in this certificate
00:58:07 included in this certificate i don't remember offhand no no
00:58:13 if we just look at your witness statement at this point on page 13 of your statement paragraph 44a
00:58:24 you say this you say in respect of issue one of certificate and that's the issue the one issued on the 27th of october 2008 the bba did request a copy of the bs-8414 test report
00:58:36 bs-8414 test report yep although it was not compulsory to provide this a copy was supplied to the bba because king's van wanted the bba to emit some standard wording from the
00:58:47 to emit some standard wording from the certificate that said that the product definitely could not be used on buildings with a floor above 18 meters from ground level yeah you see that there yeah so i think you're telling us that
00:58:59 yeah so i think you're telling us that it would have been standard wording for the bba to say the product could not be used on buildings with a floor above 18 meters yeah but kingspan is is this right wanted the bba to emit that wording
00:59:11 wanted the bba to emit that wording from the certificate yep
00:59:15 and on what basis did kingspan want the bba to emit that wording um well it was based on the tests that they'd done the bs8414 test the test in 2005. yes
00:59:31 and and was this a compromise with the bba
00:59:35 bba it's uh instead of having that wording that the bba wanted to put in this contact that the manufacturer clause at seven people there would have been then some
00:59:46 been then some alternative wording yeah i i don't know exactly how that specific wording was created if it was some yeah i can't remember exactly how that sentence in itself was how that came together if it was a
00:59:57 how that came together if it was a standard bba clause or if it was something
01:00:00 something that resulted from drafts and being changed or anything i can't remember on that
01:00:03 that okay well we're going to come to various bits of correspondence on on this but it's just whether you remember king's fans succeeding in persuading the bba to delete the wording about not being
01:00:15 delete the wording about not being suitable above 18 meters and instead inserting wording about seeking advice from kingspan on the over 18 meters yes they said if well they they told us that if they were going to take out the
01:00:26 that if they were going to take out the standard wording that they would need a test report to bs 841 for yeah and
01:00:34 yeah and in your witness don't statement i don't think we need to go to this you say that you circulated the draft wording for section 7 of the certificate to the proofreading team that's for the transcript that's at page 15 paragraph 45h of your
01:00:47 15 paragraph 45h of your statement who was in the proofreading team that would have looked at the draft wording of the statement i can't remember offhand you can't remember no it was just it was a group email thing that we had
01:00:58 it was a group email thing that we had set up on the system but i can't remember who was actually in it yeah were they um members of the technical team that would have pre-fred or were they there would have been some there would have been some people from the sales
01:01:09 have been some people from the sales side and some people from the marketing side as well yeah so a mixture of people across different divisions would have looked at the language yes and proofread it yeah yeah
01:01:20 and you also tell us in that same paragraph 45h that you would have collated comments and sent them back to the bba
01:01:28 the bba but you can't remember at the time of preparing your statement you couldn't remember what those comments were yes that's right yeah let's go to an earlier draft of the certificate now which we think is dated the 4th of june
01:01:39 which we think is dated the 4th of june 2008.
01:01:39 2008. it's at bba 50249.
01:01:49 so this is an earlier draft of that certificate
01:01:54 we can see under key factors assessed on that page
01:01:57 that page behavior in relation to fire the insulation will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard we've got that there
01:02:05 there and then if we can go to page four where we get the detailed section on fire
01:02:11 it's at the bottom of that page in this draft it's section four and
01:02:20 four and we see at 4.1 there it says the cool them k-15 component of the wall will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or percent of smoke or toxic hazard
01:02:34 toxic hazard and then something about the board must not be carried over junctions between roofs and walls and and that's continued at 4.2 about
01:02:45 and and that's continued at 4.2 about not carrying it over to junctions between roofs and walls yeah and then at 4.3 is what i want to ask you about so it says this 4.3 when installed with an
01:02:56 an internal lining board for example 12 millimeter thick plasterboard the insulation will be contained between the external wall and the internal lining board until one is
01:03:07 internal lining board until one is destroyed
01:03:08 destroyed therefore the insulation will not contribute to the development stages of a fire
01:03:13 a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard do you see that there
01:03:20 so it would appear that perhaps the wording about the insulation will not contribute to the development status of a fire
01:03:31 status of a fire originated from a clause which is longer and is telling us that when it's installed with an internal lining board 12 millimeters thick plasterboard and it's contained between
01:03:42 plasterboard and it's contained between the external wall and an internal lining board
01:03:44 board do you see that yeah
01:03:48 and if we go over to page five at 4.7 towards the top of the page we can see there the wording in this
01:03:59 we can see there the wording in this draft it says the insulation component is combustible and then someone's put query
01:04:05 query but it may be used in a wall not more than one meter from a boundary where no story is at a height of more than 18 meters above ground unless the insulation is within a cavity
01:04:16 unless the insulation is within a cavity of two leaves of masonry concrete at least 75 millimeters thick with cavity barriers around all the openings and the top of the wall in accordance with mandatory standard 2.6 and annex 2 and
01:04:27 mandatory standard 2.6 and annex 2 and then there's another query about that do you see that there yeah so this is very much an unfinished draft it would appear yeah um
01:04:38 but this was the draft as it stood when the bba first sent it to you is that right
01:04:42 right i i don't know if this is the first version or not but it's at some stage yeah yeah now i want to look at an email where you provide some comments on the draft
01:04:54 provide some comments on the draft it's from july 2008 if we go to bba 50244
01:05:01 and it's your email to george lee of the bba dated the 1st of july
01:05:11 and you say there to george lee attached is the first draft for the cool firm k-15 certificate which i collected from yourselves during my meeting i've
01:05:22 from yourselves during my meeting i've included within our comments and requested revisions and a test report to support some of the data we have requested to be inserted in addition i've included a number of drawings for inclusion section
01:05:33 drawings for inclusion section do you see those there yeah and then it's that you say if you could return a time scale time scale for production of the revised draft this would be of assistance if you have any queries regards the
01:05:44 if you have any queries regards the information in this please let me know
01:05:50 and the test report attached is a bre test report from 2004 to en1364 part one
01:06:00 part one produced for kingspan metalcon limited yeah we don't need to go to it but it's a fire resistance test do you agree uh what was the standard again saying
01:06:11 uh what was the standard again saying one three six four part one yes yeah and now if we can go to your comments on the draft bba 50250
01:06:27 and what this appears to be is a table in which you've explained paragraph by paragraph what the comments are yeah did you prepare this table did you write this uh
01:06:38 write this uh yes i would probably would have been myself yes i think we see your is this are those your initials
01:06:49 your initials in the left-hand side of each row yeah and and can you help us why did you do that why did you put your initials in i can't remember to be honest i'm not sure what that relates to
01:07:00 sure what that relates to no offhand and in providing these comments would you have had discussions with others in the technical team including people senior to you prior to going back to the bba uh yes
01:07:11 prior to going back to the bba uh yes yes so this would be collating different bits of information from
01:07:15 from yeah lots of people yeah and can you recall who you would have discussed it with
01:07:20 with uh um i don't know the exact i can't remember the exact people no no okay and on page one and the fifth row down
01:07:31 and on page one and the fifth row down of the table you ask that section 4.1 of the certificate be replaced with the following wording so you want um
01:07:43 so you want um it replaced with the product [Music]
01:07:49 [Music] is classified by so you say first of all you've got the quote and the quote is the product has a classification of query for reaction to fire in accordance with en
01:07:59 with en 135.1 2007. that's the quote and you want the following statement and test results yeah and you want instead the product is classified by the building regulations as being class
01:08:10 as being class naught and low risk by the technical standards in scotland you see that there yeah and then you've got the test results four seven six part six and four seven six
01:08:21 seven six part six and four seven six part
01:08:21 part seven yeah do you see that there yeah
01:08:29 and does that make sense to you why you were asking for class naught and those test results to replace what was said
01:08:38 was said there previously can you explain why you did that
01:08:44 um
01:08:49 well the i think the state statement before was just an incomplete one anyway it doesn't list a particular result and the the new wording is an extract from the k15 brochure that's a
01:09:00 from the k15 brochure that's a section of test text taken from the k15 brochure let's see now there are no bs 476 test results or reports attached to your email of the
01:09:13 or reports attached to your email of the 1st of july 2008 right um we've checked carefully none of those attachments are bs 476 tests
01:09:22 tests yep do you think that any bs 476 test data on k15 was ever sent to the bba or did you just propose this wording um we
01:09:35 did you just propose this wording um we definitely had test reports during the time i was there so
01:09:39 so some would have been sent at some point i don't know the exact date of when they were sent
01:09:43 were sent but do you remember whether you had test reports to 476 part 6 and part 7 for the new technology k15
01:09:54 and part 7 for the new technology k15 that you were selling by this time um i i wouldn't have known what technology i suppose i couldn't say definitely offhand what technology because yeah because you know they were
01:10:07 because yeah because you know they were with the changeover they were doing trials on the new product a long time before they changed over standard production so a lot of testing that was done before they did the new technology standardly
01:10:19 they did the new technology standardly was done on new technology products so it wasn't a straightforward thing as to you know a test before this date was one particular technology so yeah mr meredith has told us in his
01:10:30 yeah mr meredith has told us in his evidence that once the new technology was introduced kingspan struggled to get it to pass 476 part six the friar propagation test right did you were you aware of that
01:10:42 right did you were you aware of that when you worked at kingston um no i wasn't involved with the fire tests no no so although you understood that there were
01:10:50 were some tests to four seven six part six and part seven you weren't aware were you when those tests originated from or what k-15 product they were on no
01:11:02 or what k-15 product they were on no and i think we can agree that in terms of these exchanges the bba haven't been sent those test results have they um not in this email no no no but there would have been would have been other emails with
01:11:13 would have been other emails with information on because this is during the drafting process so this is a later part of the certification process so this is not all of the information they were sent i see we've looked at a lot of documents
01:11:24 i see we've looked at a lot of documents that we've been sent as an inquiry we haven't been able to see any 476 part 6 and part 7 tests being sent to the bba yeah i'm not saying that doesn't mean it didn't happen
01:11:34 happen but we can't see it in any of the documents at the moment right yeah i couldn't say the date because like even these bits here weren't disclosed to me when i was doing my statement so there's quite a bit of the stuff to do
01:11:45 there's quite a bit of the stuff to do with the certification which didn't get sent to me so i wasn't able to really fill in the details can you just help with this you you feel confident that certain materials were sent to the vba
01:11:56 materials were sent to the vba um i as far as like yeah i seem to remember there being tests to bs 476 part six and seven certainly
01:12:06 certainly as far as i can remember i thought the k15 and k10 ones were the first ones because they got a thicker facing that they actually got the results on but how were they sent to the vehicle it would have been emailed if we'd send them
01:12:15 them yeah that's how we sent everything to them if we have a full run of records we ought to have the email which uh to which they're attached is that right oh it should should be yeah yeah yeah all right thank you
01:12:29 yeah yeah yeah all right thank you yes now this wording that you've proposed just one more question it doesn't state does it when those test results to four seven six six and seven had been achieved does
01:12:42 six six and seven had been achieved does it
01:12:42 it no
01:12:47 mr term and i i need to keep going with this document but um right i think if we're going to have a break this is probably as good a moment as any oh is it yes so so why don't we break now yes we can do that that's okay
01:12:58 can do that that's okay mr mills we have a break during the morning in the afternoon and this is obviously a good time to take the one for the morning so we'll stop there we'll resume at half past 11 please and i have to ask you
01:13:09 i have to ask you uh on this and other occasions when you leave the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're away yeah all right thank you very much you'd like to give the usher please
01:13:31 right how fast thank you
01:15:17 [Music]
01:16:12 [Music]
01:17:04 [Music]
01:17:54 [Music]
01:21:10 [Music]
01:22:33 [Music]
01:24:00 [Applause]
01:24:11 [Music]
01:25:49 [Music]
01:27:04 [Music]
01:27:22 [Music]
01:27:40 [Music]
01:27:55 [Music]
01:29:11 would you ask mr mills to come back in
01:29:22 please
01:29:26 [Music]
01:29:31 right mr wills ready to carry on yeah thank you very much yes ms grange yes mr mills just before we go back to your detailed comments which we'll come to again in terms of how this
01:29:42 we'll come to again in terms of how this process
01:29:42 process started with the bba would you agree with me that you don't get an email from the bba saying this is everything we need the first contact you had over this was
01:29:54 the first contact you had over this was that draft certificate being sent to you is that right no no that's not right no so what happened then uh you have the contract
01:30:01 contract which outlines what the the initial information they'll need right and so that would give the main list of information yeah which we would have supplied probably about 18 months two years before that draft
01:30:13 18 months two years before that draft was produced um and then after they've assessed that they would possibly come back by email and ask for any additional information they may have decided they needed during the certification process
01:30:25 certification process um so that draft would be very late in the process that would be nearly the when you're nearly complete i see okay thank you let's go back to your comments then
01:30:37 comments then uh in terms of the the table that we were looking at bba 50250
01:30:48 were looking at bba 50250 and just staying with that comment on 4.1
01:30:51 4.1 yeah so what you're wanting replaced is something that's dealing with en13501 so
01:30:58 so euro classification yes do you see that there but would you accept that class naught is not the same as testing to the european classifications
01:31:09 testing to the european classifications is it it's um it's listed within the approved documents there's two alternative routes you can use you could still use the old british standard route or the euro class routes so they listed two two routes you could
01:31:21 so they listed two two routes you could follow
01:31:22 follow yes but would you agree with me that national class naught testing to 476 part
01:31:27 part six and part seven they're very different tests to the tests that are carried out under the european classification system and the actual test methods themselves may not be exactly the same
01:31:38 may not be exactly the same no no so can you help us as to why you're replacing something that's talking about the european classification with national class nord because in all
01:31:50 with national class nord because in all the applications where the euro class can be used in the approved documents they list an alternative method of compliance following the old british standard tests which was the bs 476 part six and seven
01:32:02 476 part six and seven so that is an alternative route in both the scottish and english and welsh and what was part of the reason for that that kingspan was struggling to get a good euro class classification for the
01:32:15 good euro class classification for the k-15 product uh possibly yeah when you say possibly is that something you have a memory of i i can't remember exactly now
01:32:26 i can't remember exactly now and the wording that you want it replaced with the product is classified by the building regulations as being class
01:32:33 class naught and low risk and then you just set out the test standards do you see that there uh so those would be the results you need to achieve
01:32:41 achieve which are to be so that's what results you need to those two tests to be classed as crossover or low risk that's listed in the tech in the building regulations yes you've set out what those uh test standards
01:32:54 set out what those uh test standards are but you're not setting out what the product has achieved pursuant to those test standards uh yes yeah the class one surface bit of flame and the index of performance of
01:33:05 and the index of performance of 12 and sub index of less than six would be the results you're not setting out those are you yes they're listed there
01:33:14 well that those are the standards no uh the s476 part six and then the fire test standard title and then the second sentence is the result
01:33:25 12 and substance to little i
01:33:30 i see you're saying those were the results are they okay we may come back to that let's go to the second row of the table on page two
01:33:42 and these are comments on section 4.7 of the draft certificate and and your comments read as follows the bs8414 test result supplied an assessment of these results following
01:33:53 assessment of these results following br135
01:33:55 br135 is an alternative method of compliance to the non-combustible request for walls within one metre of a boundary
01:34:03 boundary under the scottish technical standard england and wales b1 only requests class naught external finish with the same in b2 plus the request for any product
01:34:15 in b2 plus the request for any product facing into a ventilator cavity to be class naught northern ireland technical booklet requests class naught although this is only needed to be both sides of the cladding
01:34:26 be both sides of the cladding all regulations refer to the bre-135 assessment as possibly means of compliance with requirements above 18 meters yep therefore the product should be able
01:34:37 yep therefore the product should be able to be used within one meter from a boundary
01:34:40 boundary both above or below 18 meters provided the details relating to cavity barriers etc are followed
01:34:48 followed do you see that there yeah
01:34:52 and is that wording that you're suggesting should go into the certificate instead at 4.7 no no that's your comment yeah and and the words at the end there therefore the product should be able to
01:35:04 therefore the product should be able to be used within one meter from a boundary both above or below 18 meters provided details relating to cavity barriers etcetera are followed do you see that there yeah um
01:35:15 do you see that there yeah um were you suggesting that wording to that effect should go into the certificate um aberdeen wasn't specifically that wording but it was relating so that's a comment on the existing wording that they put in there
01:35:26 existing wording that they put in there about the
01:35:27 about the proximity to boundary walls or boundary lines sorry do you accept that it was you who suggested wording to the effect
01:35:38 suggested wording to the effect that the bs 8414 part 1 test allowed k15 as a product to be used in buildings over 18 meters um no we didn't we didn't suggest the
01:35:49 um no we didn't we didn't suggest the exact wording now the the bba draft the certificate but isn't that the very effect of your words here therefore the product should be able to be used
01:36:00 be used both above or below 18 meters provided details relating to cavity barriers or followed and you're referencing the 8414 test result the beginning of that comment yeah yeah yeah we're not suggesting the
01:36:11 yeah yeah yeah we're not suggesting the exact wording we're just commenting on it on the situation and then they're asking them to come back with an updated draft but that wording about k15 as a product being able to be used in buildings over
01:36:22 being able to be used in buildings over 18 meters
01:36:24 18 meters that was something you wanted included in the certificate wasn't it um i don't i don't think anything to do with product or anything was anything particularly important really it was just you know
01:36:36 just you know well the distinction is between product and system isn't it this is what council's really asking you to think about and yeah this is like a fairly informal sort of just discussion of comments this wasn't
01:36:47 just discussion of comments this wasn't so
01:36:47 so you know this isn't something that was intended so this this exact information to go out into the marketplace this is just a discussion on updating the draft right
01:36:58 updating the draft right but in fact we know wording to that effect was included in the first issue of the certificate we've looked at that haven't we right yes um yeah yeah something something similar
01:37:10 yeah yeah something something similar yeah
01:37:11 yeah did anyone ask you to make that comment was that you coming up with that or do you remember having a specific discussion with anyone about it i can't remember who provided the different comments offhand
01:37:23 provided the different comments offhand no no
01:37:24 no no and on what basis did you make this comment
01:37:28 comment why did you think it was appropriate to suggest at the end of that comment therefore the product should be able to be used within one meters from a boundary both above or below 18 meters provided details relating to
01:37:40 18 meters provided details relating to cavity barriers etcetera are followed on what basis were you making that comment um well that was based on the bs8414 test
01:37:49 test but that was a system specific test wasn't it yeah and that didn't tell you that you could use k15
01:37:56 use k15 on all buildings over 18 meters regardless of the system did it no no but we have sent them the test and reports which we're referring to which has the construction in it we've
01:38:07 which has the construction in it we've already sent that to them so we're referring to a specific test which they're already aware of so were you relying on the bba to pick up that that was one test and qualify it
01:38:18 qualify it on the basis that it was one test or did kingspan want it to to say that it could be used above 18 meters well we'd only sent them one test so you know we were assuming they would know there's one test as we'd only send
01:38:30 know there's one test as we'd only send them one
01:38:33 do you accept that at all times when you were dealing with the bba and obtaining this certificate it was the case that k-15 had not been assessed by a fire engineer against the criteria
01:38:44 by a fire engineer against the criteria in br135
01:38:46 in br135 not by a fire engineer no so who had it been assessed uh by um i don't i don't know exactly who did the initial assessment but it's it wasn't it's not a
01:38:57 but it's it wasn't it's not a particularly complicated sort of comparison to see the temperature rise of the thermocouple and compare that to the maximum allowable figure it's only comparing two figures
01:39:08 comparing two figures one against the other so it's not a complicated assessment with respect mr mills it's not that simple is it temperature is only one aspect of the criteria there's also mechanical performance for example
01:39:21 mechanical performance for example details of system collapse falling delamination have to be included as part of an overall risk assessment when specifying the system that's right isn't it and they do
01:39:32 isn't it and they do put in bits so they would have put in the test report about if there had been issues with those yeah yeah did you ever yourself see a br135 classification report relating to k-15
01:39:45 classification report relating to k-15 not one done by the bre no or anybody else
01:39:49 else a br 135 classification report 4k15 i 15. i didn't see anything written no no so can you explain why
01:40:01 no so can you explain why it is talking there about the bs 8414 results supplied an assessment of these results following br135 at the top and then
01:40:10 then all regulations refer to the bre 135 assessment yeah are you referring to bre-135 when the product hadn't got a bre 135 classification um it's because well to is someone it's
01:40:23 um it's because well to is someone it's about assessing the results of the report
01:40:26 report we had provided against br135 so it's using the word generally assessed not saying there's an actual report
01:40:35 but the pass fail criteria as we've agreed is only in the 135 classification report isn't it
01:40:42 it yeah so unless you've got that report it's not clear whether there's been a pass or fail against the criteria is there well if the bba the bba checked our interpretation of the
01:40:53 checked our interpretation of the results they had the report and we're happy that when they assessed it it met the criteria
01:41:01 criteria given that in 2008 you told us that you knew that there was no br 135 classification report and that you knew that bs 8414 is a system test where the exact system has
01:41:12 system test where the exact system has to be replicated can you explain how you came to make this comment
01:41:20 in regards to what sorry well let's take that final sentence therefore the product should be able to be used in one meter from a boundary above or below but we did say earlier it's we've already sent them the report
01:41:32 already sent them the report and we're referring to that construction they're already aware of this information this process has been going on for years they know what we're referring to this is not something that's been sent in isolation
01:41:44 did you think at the time that you were pushing hard for k15 to be presented as suitable for the over 18 meter market and we wanted it to be listed definitely that there was the potential it could be
01:41:55 that there was the potential it could be used
01:41:56 used yes we we knew that we weren't going to get something that said it could be used in every single situation no but we wanted certainly to get something that didn't completely prohibit its use
01:42:08 didn't completely prohibit its use okay let's go to the second draft um this is bba 50218
01:42:19 and what we see here is on the 11th of july 2008
01:42:24 july 2008 george lee of the bba has sent you a second draft of the certificate following your comments so he says
01:42:32 he says please find attached updated version of the draft for further comment as you will see it's quite different from the initial version as primarily we need to focus on the product in question this to some extent simplifies
01:42:44 question this to some extent simplifies the document but i am aware of trying to allow it to be as informative as possible
01:42:49 possible do you see that there yeah and then if we can go to that second draft this is bba
01:42:54 bba 50219
01:43:01 and then if we can look at the wording under product scope and summary of certificates if we could just move the page up
01:43:12 we can see under that uh heading it says this certificate relates to cool them k15 rain screen insulation board an insulation product comprising rigid phenolic board with foil composite facings for use as
01:43:24 with foil composite facings for use as an external thermal insulation on new and existing steel frame or masonry walls in conjunction with masonry or weather type ventilated cladding systems in domestic and non-domestic buildings
01:43:37 in domestic and non-domestic buildings up to 18 meters do you see that there yep so it very much says up to 18 meters in that paragraph
01:43:44 paragraph do you see that and then at section seven on page seven
01:43:54 there in relation to behavior in relation to fire in the middle of that page
01:43:59 page there's a description of the system tested
01:44:02 tested do you see that there yeah and it says there um it in under the bullet point there in 7.1 it says a 60 millimeter thick
01:44:13 in 7.1 it says a 60 millimeter thick board
01:44:14 board of and then it gives the dimensions we're mechanically fixed to a block work substrate yeah do you see that there yeah
01:44:23 yeah so i just want to hold those two um amendments in in mind the block works substrate and they're up to 18 meters um and if we can move now to bba
01:44:34 um and if we can move now to bba 50210
01:44:41 which is an email of the 15th of july 2008 when you replied to george lee there you attach further requested revisions do you see that in the first lines please find attached our comments
01:44:54 lines please find attached our comments and requested revisions for the latest draft of the call them k-15 certificate do you see that there yeah in the second paragraph you're talking about an acoustic performance report
01:45:06 about an acoustic performance report yeah etcetera and if we can go to your further requested revisions there at bba 50211
01:45:19 if we look in the middle of that page and is it right that your comments were in red on this draft certificate um
01:45:30 um yeah that would look like it yeah and we can see there under that same heading
01:45:37 heading that at the end it says remove up to 18 meters as bs 8414 test report demonstrates the product could be used above 80 meters
01:45:48 above 80 meters you see that there yeah
01:45:53 now why did you suggest that amendment um well because we'd sent them the bs8414 report which showed a situation which would meet the criteria
01:46:04 meet the criteria for use above 18 meters so because there was one situation which met it it meant that the statements prohibiting its use above 18 meters in all situations was not correct
01:46:16 situations was not correct but this wording here that you're proposing a change to is very broad wording isn't it yeah that's because it's it's just an introduction it's just the main information then is further in the certificate
01:46:28 further in the certificate yes but if that if that wording and the removal of the up to 18 meters is made it suggests that k15 can be used in any construction above 18 meters doesn't it
01:46:40 above 18 meters doesn't it um i wouldn't wouldn't say so now you wouldn't no because you know you could potentially take out a reference to the height or you know rather than just saying it can be used in all situations above 80 meters they could have just taken out
01:46:51 meters they could have just taken out the reference and then refer to the section further in for more information because they can't put it all in the intro but it's very specific about um new and existing steel frame or masonry
01:47:04 new and existing steel frame or masonry walls isn't it this language it's got it's got that much detail in it hasn't it you see that in the third line
01:47:14 where was the test evidence that showed that k15 had been tested on a steel frame system to well it doesn't say there was one no point does it say there was one
01:47:28 but surely that's implicit if it's saying it can be used on an existing steel frame system there must have been some eight four one four test data to to show that to part two of eight
01:47:40 to to show that to part two of eight four one four well no because not all steel frame buildings are over 18 meters but you're suggesting the removal of the up to 18 meters aren't you yes because we're saying that
01:47:52 aren't you yes because we're saying that it's not completely prohibited but that's a that's an introduction statement that just covers the general areas
01:47:58 areas it could possibly be used and then the detailed information is included further in if we go to the second amendment um if we go to page seven at section
01:48:09 um if we go to page seven at section seven point one bba five zero yeah sorry we're on the same document yeah page seven section seven 7.1 and if you remember it had previously
01:48:22 and if you remember it had previously read
01:48:23 read that the substrate was a block work substrate
01:48:26 substrate yeah and now you've replaced that with non-combustible substrate do you see that there yeah can you help us why did you suggest that amendment um i i can't remember who asked
01:48:38 um i i can't remember who asked asked for it to be honest it was one of the comments we sent back but i can't remember specifically whose it was
01:48:46 was did you satisfy yourself before you suggested it that it was an appropriate amendment to be making um it well it was a non-combustible substrate and it was something i was asked to send back so
01:48:58 asked to send back so would you agree that non-combustible substrate is wider and a more generic term
01:49:04 term which has the potential to be applied to a wider range of external wall structures and i suppose possibly yeah yeah yeah i'm trying to remember on the dates because i know certainly that the
01:49:15 because i know certainly that the because the bs 8414 part two report the test standard was not issued at the same time as the part one standard so there was a number of years in between where the part two test
01:49:26 in between where the part two test didn't exist um i can't so but it did exist by this point i i'm not sure well we know that because there were tests in 2007 and 2008
01:49:37 there were tests in 2007 and 2008 to bs 477 to 8414 part 2 that k15 failed spectacularly you were aware of that weren't you uh i didn't know i didn't see the test
01:49:48 didn't know i didn't see the test reports no i knew they'd done tests so i didn't know the full constructions and the dates
01:49:53 the dates because none of that was sent to me when i did my statement no sorry so if that's right it can't be explained can it by the fact that 8414 part 2
01:50:01 part 2 wasn't in place possibly i'm really summarizing because none of this information was sent to me when i did my statement so i'm just you know trying to sort of see at the time now and i understand can we just look at an
01:50:13 and i understand can we just look at an email relevant to this if it's
01:50:22 kin3024476 this is an email from philip heath he was your line manager at the time is that right yep yeah to you and to others and
01:50:35 to you and to others and it's headed cool them k-15 comments on draft one do you see that there yeah and he says all and he says suggest we try and amend the wording below as detailed remove block work and insert
01:50:47 as detailed remove block work and insert non-combustibles insert non-combustible yeah might allow us to use a little spin in future to see that there yeah
01:50:59 what did you understand him to mean by that when you received this email well that you wanted me to go back and ask him to put the non-combustible substrate into instead of block work yes
01:51:11 substrate into instead of block work yes he would you agree that what he's suggested
01:51:15 suggested significantly broadens the scope of the wording
01:51:18 wording in an inaccurate and misleading way
01:51:24 um to be honest at the time i didn't really think about it too much because he was my direct line manager and he told me i had to do it so i had to do it
01:51:36 was it any part of of your thinking at the time that this was an amendment was being suggested because it allowed kingspan to represent that a part 2 8414 test
01:51:47 to represent that a part 2 8414 test was unnecessary um i i wouldn't have said i gave it that much thought because it's listed in a line directly after the fact it's a part one result is listed sort of
01:51:58 it's a part one result is listed sort of in the line before it i thought it would you know that sort of does cover it's a part one result fairly clearly
01:52:08 do you remember kingspan deciding to refer to
01:52:12 refer to a non-combustible sheathing board being fixed to the steel frame to get around the fact there was no force 8414 part 2 test and i do know that they used to
01:52:23 and i do know that they used to recommend using like a calcium silicate board on the outside of a frame which is non-combustible board yeah yeah and do you also remember that that wording was chosen to get around the fact that there was no
01:52:34 fact that there was no successful 8414 test to part two possibly
01:52:37 possibly yeah i i don't know the exact i wasn't involved on the decision making to decide to do that but i know they did it yeah if we can
01:52:49 yeah if we can go now to another email chain this is kin403718
01:52:56 this is a series of emails between you mr meredith and mr heath in august 2008 and i want to look first at the third email down in the chain towards the bottom of page one on the 18th of
01:53:07 the bottom of page one on the 18th of august
01:53:09 august at 17 44. mr meredith and he says gareth have we sent the reports as detailed in either's first bullet points to the bba i
01:53:17 i test with and without cladding do you see that there yeah and then we see your response the next email up at 8 43 the next day
01:53:29 at 8 43 the next day and you say this the official test report of the k-15 onto masonry with a non-combustible cladding has been sent to the bba and is listed within the last draft certificate during the review of the last draft a
01:53:41 during the review of the last draft a request was submitted to the bba to change the reference to masonry substrate
01:53:45 substrate to a non-combustible substrate test work without the cladding which i believe was an indicative non-official test does not have a full test report so this information has not been sent to the bba
01:53:57 information has not been sent to the bba do you see that there yeah so was that the sometimes being referred to as the naked test uh i would think that that's that's the one without the cladding yeah
01:54:08 one without the cladding yeah where it just had k15 on it
01:54:18 were you aware at the time that there was a deliberate marketing strategy being perceived by kingspan to widen the scope of this certificate and other certificates
01:54:30 certificates and they were i know that yeah it was mentioned i think they'd been speaking to the bre to look at getting some assessments done to cover different applications and that yeah were you aware at the time
01:54:42 and that yeah were you aware at the time you were working on the bba certificate that there was a deliberate marketing strategy in place to widen the scope of any certificates
01:54:53 widen the scope of any certificates obtained
01:54:54 obtained by kingspan and they would they would want to cover as many applications as possible yes so yeah even if they didn't have test data supporting those applications that's
01:55:05 supporting those applications that's right isn't it um a lot of the applications the widening they didn't need specific tests for but yeah i suppose they did want things to be as general as
01:55:16 they did want things to be as general as as possible yeah yeah when you say for a lot of the applications and the widening they didn't need specific tests for what what do you mean by that well it should be used onto a steel frame for example you don't
01:55:27 frame for example you don't always need a test report so if it's below 18 meters there's no specific test report you need if it's a masonry jointed outer leaf which is one of the extra applications added in
01:55:38 extra applications added in there's no specific test you need just to use that and if it's below 18 meters so there's lots of different construction variations which don't require a specific test unless they're in these high-rise applications so
01:55:50 these high-rise applications so generally on use of the product you don't always need a test would you agree with me that when we're coming to over 18 meters that's where bs8414 is relevant yes
01:56:03 that's where bs8414 is relevant yes and you would wouldn't you if you were trying to say that it could be on a steel frame structure over 18 meters you would have to have a system specific test to that effect wouldn't you
01:56:14 wouldn't you uh yeah you would either yeah you would need some sort of testing or an assessment by a qualified person yeah yeah of course so you can probably need some sort of testing for them to extrapolate from if it wasn't a specific
01:56:25 extrapolate from if it wasn't a specific test yeah
01:56:26 test yeah and kingsman didn't have this at this time didn't i they only had the one test yeah on a masonry substrate
01:56:34 if we move on with the story to september 2008 and we go to bba
01:56:41 two eight seven four
01:56:47 and we look at the bottom of page two we can see that mandy osman an administrator at the bba sends you a third draft on the 23rd of september 2008
01:56:58 september 2008 at 1354. do you see that there yeah um so this seems to be a we're calling that the third draft because we're counting through the emails and
01:57:09 we're counting through the emails and this seems to be the third one yeah um
01:57:15 yeah um so we know you received that on the 23rd of september 2008. yeah and we'll go on in that chain in a moment but just before we do having got that in our minds if we can go to kin3024487
01:57:39 if we can go to kin3024487 you can see that on the 29th of september at the bottom of that page you
01:57:46 you email philip heath either meredith andrew pack joel clark do you see that there yeah and you say attached to the latest draft of the bba certificate
01:57:57 certificate although this draft does quote a certificate number it's not been formally issued to date so they've asked that this number is not quoted to an external source as this version may be suitable to issue it would be helpful if any comments could be returned by lunchtime tomorrow
01:58:09 could be returned by lunchtime tomorrow do you see that there or at the earliest opportunity and then we can see philip heath then emails
01:58:18 back
01:58:22 actually he emails andrew iva meredith andrew pack joel clark mark swift you're not on that email saying gents is there anything that needs a mending on this to our advantage especially the far section yeah do you
01:58:35 especially the far section yeah do you see that there yeah were you aware at the time that that happened that they were asked is there anything that needs amending to our advantage especially on the far section i
01:58:47 the far section i don't think so no i don't think i've seen that email no no then going back to the team we were in bba
01:58:53 in bba four zeros two eight seven four having been sent that third draft on the 23rd of september 2008 and you've sent it round
01:59:02 it round internally for comment on the 3rd of october 2008 you reply at 3 30 there in that email to george lee of the
01:59:14 there in that email to george lee of the bba
01:59:15 bba with some more amendments do you see that there
01:59:20 and you say in the first line with regard to comment four in my previous email we would like to make small amendments the additional text and replace with the statement below
01:59:31 replace with the statement below yeah and then you're saying section 4 paragraph 7.1 on page five yeah and you're asking for these words to be
01:59:42 and you're asking for these words to be to go in
01:59:43 to go in with the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c
01:59:50 c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre-13 yeah i don't think it's actually inserting that full statement most of
02:00:02 inserting that full statement most of that statement was already in there that's a there's a minor revision to the wording somewhere but i'd have to look at the draft to say which particular words change but most of that sentence sentences were already in the draft
02:00:15 sentences were already in the draft i see but can you help us as to who had decided that that particular wording should be included no i don't remember no it appears that that wording was
02:00:28 no it appears that that wording was accepted by the bba and the certificate was formally issued we've looked at that and exactly that wording does appear yeah if we can look at your witness
02:00:39 yeah if we can look at your witness statement
02:00:40 statement uh on page 13 yeah
02:00:49 you tell us in your witness statement at paragraph 44 a you say in respect of issue one of the certificate the bba did request a copy of the bs 8414 test report
02:01:00 of the bs 8414 test report do you see that and you say although it was not compulsory to provide this a copy was supplied to the bba because kingspan wanted the bba to emit some standard wording we've looked at this before
02:01:13 would you agree that in fact you provided that 8414 report unsolicited and to seek to justify your proposed amendments as to the use of k15 over 18 meters well yes we wanted them
02:01:27 over 18 meters well yes we wanted them to take out the section saying it couldn't
02:01:29 couldn't there were no applications it could be used in yeah yeah and at paragraph 44 l on page 14
02:01:38 you state that it was the bba who provided the wording which reads the product meets the criteria within bre 135.
02:01:47 135. yep do you see that at l but that's simply not correct isn't it kingspan provided that wording didn't they
02:01:55 they i've just seen it in the email we looked at yes but that's most of that statement was already in the draft we were just we were proposing a minor change to the wording we weren't proposing that whole
02:02:06 we weren't proposing that whole statement but most of that statement was already written in the draft
02:02:14 well we can look at that again in a moment but i'm suggesting to you that that was kingspan's wording the product meets the criteria within bre-135
02:02:29 yeah i don't know i'd like to check the previous drafts but the end of that i'm pretty sure that wording was already in the draft before we sent that comment let's have a look go back to draft
02:02:42 let's have a look go back to draft two but in in essence anyway it's it's something that the bba write the documents anyway so they are they approve and potentially any comments after we send them and decide
02:02:53 comments after we send them and decide if to include them let's go back to draft two bba five zeros two one eight
02:03:06 oh sorry that was the email in which it sent vba 50219
02:03:13 and on page seven we get section seven
02:03:20 if you look at the bottom of that paragraph there's nothing about br135 there is there in 7.1 no
02:03:28 in 7.1 no no no
02:03:40 i take it the bba wouldn't or you didn't expect at least the bba to make a statement about br 135 uh on its own initiative
02:03:52 uh on its own initiative you i assume that you proposed that statement
02:03:55 statement it's possible we may have proposed some reference to it um yeah but i suppose we were expecting you know as they draft the actual certificates we're expecting them to
02:04:06 certificates we're expecting them to you know actually write something that they were happy with in relation to it yeah
02:04:12 mr mills on the documents it's clear that that wording the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 was from kingspan in that email that you sent back okay
02:04:24 sent back okay yeah yeah it it looks like they did just copy it by the looks of it yeah yeah they cut and paste it and put that in yeah but there was no br135 classification
02:04:35 but there was no br135 classification report we've established that haven't we yes yeah but we're not saying there is we're just saying you can assess it against
02:04:42 against the r135 and it met the criteria we're not saying there's an actual br assessment let's go back to the email
02:04:53 assessment let's go back to the email and it's bba four zeros two eight seven four on page one at fifteen thirty
02:05:03 it states there that the product meets the criteria stated within bre-135 yeah you didn't have a classification report
02:05:12 report assessing that test against all of the pass-fail criteria in br135 we hadn't asked the bre to do an assessment no but you didn't even have an internal report yourselves that
02:05:23 an internal report yourselves that assessed for example mechanical performance did you i i don't i don't know what was what was done on it to be honest no i was told we had been assessed and people had looked at it and it met the criteria
02:05:33 criteria so yeah so that's why you suggested the wording
02:05:36 wording um i i yeah that's what was sent back i'd as i say i don't know who came up with the exact wording then though because yeah none of this information was provided to me this has always been
02:05:47 provided to me this has always been brought up today so i you know i couldn't use it to produce my statement as no one
02:05:51 as no one sent it to me and can you remember who was it who suggested to you that wording the product meets the criteria in within bre-135 no no i don't know i'm not sure
02:06:03 no no i don't know i'm not sure no because yeah this is was it 12 years ago
02:06:07 ago yeah no just from memory i can't remember who was proposing it no are you prepared to accept
02:06:13 accept that that phrase should not have been included in this certificate the product meets the criteria within bre 155
02:06:21 bre 155 for two separate reasons one you didn't have a classification report to bl-135 and two you can't classify a product as opposed to a system to bl-135 do you agree that um i don't
02:06:33 to bl-135 do you agree that um i don't agree on both those things because the fact that they hadn't got a report from the bre an assessment doesn't mean it couldn't meet the criteria in bre-135 so those two things are separate items
02:06:45 so those two things are separate items and you know if it's the product or you know system is a little sort of debatable on clarity but this is something that's a statement that's not written in isolation is written at the end of this
02:06:56 isolation is written at the end of this paragraph about the specific test listing the specific construction
02:07:04 what i'm going to put to you mr mills is that that was a deliberate calculated attempt to make the certificate broader than it should have been
02:07:20 do you agree with that i i i can't remember exactly who came up with the wording and so i don't know their reasoning on it no so i can't really comment on it
02:07:31 no so i can't really comment on it now after the publication of the first version of the certificate the bba wrote to kingspan about two months later on the 24th of december 2008 proposing to amend the very wording that
02:07:42 proposing to amend the very wording that we've been discussing do you remember that
02:07:45 that yes i know they came back after a little while after the certificate was issued yeah if we can go to kin402093 and go to the email on page two
02:07:58 and go to the email on page two the 24th of december 2008 at 9 50. do you see there we get george lee from the bba to you yeah being in chris hunt yep
02:08:10 yeah being in chris hunt yep and he says this dig hi gareth we've recently received a number of comments on the k-15 certificate in relation to the clarity of wording used as part of this certificate's far
02:08:21 used as part of this certificate's far section
02:08:22 section in response to this we have suggested a number of amendments to the text which we wish to make this amendment we will make at no cost to yourselves and as an improvement to the certificate which i hope you will
02:08:33 the certificate which i hope you will agree
02:08:34 agree will improve how this certificate will read in the future yeah and then he goes through the changes that he's proposing
02:08:43 yeah and if you look at the second bullet point there under key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire
02:08:54 what he's proposing is saying the boards are classified as class naught the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire the product has been tested to bs 8414 part one
02:09:05 part one for a specific construction on masonry walls
02:09:09 walls see that there yeah now when you receive that email from george lee did you consider there to be anything inaccurate in that proposed amendment
02:09:20 inaccurate in that proposed amendment um i didn't they both yeah it sort of describes
02:09:26 describes yeah the product was class was crosstale and it was tested to be as eight for one form
02:09:30 form yeah on a measuring ball yeah no that would seem accurate yeah i see so focusing on what he says about eight four one four the product has been tested to eight four one four part one for a specific construction on masonry walls that was entirely accurate wasn't
02:09:42 walls that was entirely accurate wasn't it
02:09:43 it yes the test was done it's a part one result which is onto a masonry wall yeah i say entirely accurate i should qualify that because we do know that by now you're selling a different version of k15 kingspan r right for the one that
02:09:55 of k15 kingspan r right for the one that was tested at that time so putting that issue aside for a moment in terms of trying to describe the 2005 test
02:10:05 test it says it's been tested for a specific construction on masonry walls and that was accurate wasn't it yes there was a specific construction tested yeah yeah and would you agree that that is
02:10:16 and would you agree that that is accurate
02:10:17 accurate in contrast to the original wording i mean it's probably it's more descriptive yeah yeah neither one state anything that's incorrect that's
02:10:28 incorrect that's but that one is probably more informative yeah what i would suggest to you is that that's accurate and the original was positively misleading oh they're both masonry is non-combustible so both are
02:10:39 masonry is non-combustible so both are actually true statements that one's a more descriptive one yes
02:10:44 but the point about classification to br135 we've discussed that already that's a different section that's not the two sections they aren't the same sections that you're looking at yeah that's from the introduction bit
02:10:55 yeah that's from the introduction bit there
02:10:56 there and can you remember what was the reaction of of others within kingspan to that proposed amendment do you remember that um i don't remember exactly offhand no
02:11:07 um i don't remember exactly offhand no um i think they would have preferred it probably as it was but i no i don't remember exactly what they said offhand no okay it's not you that replies to
02:11:18 no okay it's not you that replies to mr lee what we're going to see in a moment is it's philip heath that replies yeah can you remember why that was um well he decided that it was something he wanted to deal with
02:11:29 wanted to deal with so as the manager i had to leave him to do so
02:11:32 do so i see he told you that did it did he say actually
02:11:36 actually gareth i i want to deal with this now um i can't remember exactly what he said all the conversation or anything now but you know in him going back and sort of taking the lead then i would just sort of have to you know take take a lead from him
02:11:48 you know take take a lead from him really is yeah if we can go now to kin40s 9103
02:11:56 and i want to look at the second email down on page one at 14
02:12:04 47. so this is mr heath's response to george lee on the 5th of march 2009. so george lee had written on the 24th
02:12:15 24th of december 2008. can you remember why there'd been such a delay until
02:12:22 until march 2009 before king's fan get back to the bba uh no no i don't remember offhand what would been going on in between no and uh mr heath says good afternoon
02:12:35 no and uh mr heath says good afternoon george gareth mills has brought to my attention your recent emails in relation to our bba certificate for k-15 firstly maybe may we register our concern
02:12:45 concern at the proposal to reissue this certificate so soon after publication when we have waited some considerable time for its issue do you see that there yeah and then he says secondly your request is receiving our attention
02:12:57 request is receiving our attention however we are determining the implications to kingspan of this speedy reissue as documentation has been published that refers to the current certificate and the wording therein therefore there could be cost
02:13:08 therefore there could be cost implications to kingspan that we would have no option but to pass on the ba the bba if we are in agreement to your request once we have completed our audit to determine the implications for king
02:13:19 determine the implications for king spell insulation we will be back to you do you see that there yeah
02:13:28 so he's expressed concern about the reissue of the certificate and he said that their the request is receiving attention and they'll get back to yeah um the bba two minutes later
02:13:41 yeah um the bba two minutes later after he sent that email philip heath we can see from the top of this page forwards that email to you andrew peck and mr meredith with the words let the file gather dust
02:13:53 with the words let the file gather dust guys
02:13:54 guys regards phil do you see that there yeah so
02:13:58 so um what did you take that as an instruction to do and uh i wasn't going to do anything until he instructed me otherwise that was quite an unusual instruction would you say
02:14:09 would you say um yeah yeah so
02:14:14 did you think it was unusual especially given that you could see from mr heath's response
02:14:18 response that the bba had been assured that the proposals were receiving kingspan's attention
02:14:25 sorry yeah well i i don't know i don't know if phil was doing stuff and just you know i'm not sure what he was doing so but yeah i just took it to leave it until i heard back from him so you took that as a clear instruction
02:14:36 so you took that as a clear instruction from mr heath a stall in getting back to the bba about their amendments is that right um yeah yeah i took it to sort of wait until i had further instructions yeah can you help us about what was going on
02:14:49 can you help us about what was going on internally at this time why was kingspan not prepared for the bba to make it clear to the public that there were restrictions on the use of k-15
02:14:58 k-15 over 18 meters whatever the cost um i'm
02:15:05 um i'm i can't remember the specific conversations and things like that but you know looking at the email which feels sense i suppose it's something that they may have been referring to some of the
02:15:16 been referring to some of the certificate numbers and things like that like the first edition rather than second edition in brochures and things like that so they'd have to reprint lots of literature and things like that is one of the things that he refers to
02:15:27 one of the things that he refers to because this is only i think this is only is it a few months after the certificate so it would normally be about three years before they reissued and things so yeah because we'd only had the
02:15:38 yeah because we'd only had the certificate number late in the year before
02:15:40 before i think a lot of the documents had only just been printed but did it ever occur to you that this was a matter of life safety
02:15:51 i'm not an expert as i've said on fire engineering so you know that's not something which i just i you know i don't propose to be an expert and know exactly how much effect certain
02:16:02 how much effect certain details have but but you must have been aware
02:16:05 aware you were a technical advisor at kingspan they're producing you said you know they're producing combustible insulation yeah you must have been aware that there were potential health and safety consequences
02:16:16 consequences as to whether or not this product was used in tall buildings including tall residential buildings
02:16:24 buildings um yeah i knew there was a requirement to follow the regulations yeah yeah and what underpins those regulations is life safety isn't it i just assume that's probably something involved in when they're
02:16:35 something involved in when they're writing them yes
02:16:40 is it right that philip heath wanted the file to gather dust because it was in kingspan's commercial interests to keep the then current broad version of the bba certificate and that's possible possible yeah you'd
02:16:51 and that's possible possible yeah you'd probably be you know phil would be able to answer better but yes that's possible i i understand that and we'll we'll ask him but i want to know what your understanding was at the time you're on these email chains you had the
02:17:03 you're on these email chains you had the lead role with the bba yeah i i don't know this is sort of you know um
02:17:08 know um you know it's 11 years ago i don't i don't know if i had a discussion with phil or if i didn't i'm not sure i can't remember
02:17:14 remember yeah so it didn't occur to you is this what you're saying that it might have been in kingspan's commercial interest to keep
02:17:20 to keep no first broader version of the certificate in place i'm saying i can't remember what the discussions were and what what my exact thought process was at the time i'm saying i can't remember
02:17:33 did you find it concerning at the time that your superior was dismissing the concerns of a respected certification body in terms of fire safety and well i i on that i didn't i didn't know
02:17:45 well i i on that i didn't i didn't know if if he was just sort of doing nothing or if he was just saying for us to do nothing and while he was working on it so
02:17:50 so you know i didn't know exactly what was being done at the time was so as far as i can see so yeah
02:17:59 did you at any stage while working for kingspan including as a senior technical advisor
02:18:04 advisor did you ever raise concerns about the approach that was being taken to fire safety certification within kingston with anybody there were some occasions on things i'd raised about what testing
02:18:16 on things i'd raised about what testing they had and you know certainly looking to expand that if they wanted to sort of promote to a wide range of applications yeah and did that relate to the k15 product that you had yes
02:18:27 that you had yes yeah that was one of the ones which i mentioned yeah yeah and can you remember when and to who did you express those um there was something i sent to a product what do they used to do it project proposals
02:18:39 they used to do it project proposals thing about doing additional testing at some time i'd sense yeah that was one of the applications i'm you know a lot of things i can't remember the specifics because of the time scale and that but
02:18:54 if we can look at paragraph 94 of your witness statement on page 24
02:19:04 there you say that you're not aware of any policy or strategy of delay between 2008 and 2016 in relation to the compliance testing and or certification
02:19:15 compliance testing and or certification of k-15 in order to continue the supply or promote k-15 do you see that there yeah would you agree with me having looked at that let the file gather dust email just now that that's not correct
02:19:28 email just now that that's not correct now you've seen that documentation um i i don't know on that yeah it's sort of it's
02:19:33 of it's although you know in some ways with what's going on since maybe not that appropriate but it's written in a slightly jokey tone so i don't know how serious he was about that at the time or not so i don't know if it was a
02:19:44 not so i don't know if it was a yeah i don't know if that was a an overall policy for the company or not i'm not sure but you you took it at the time as a an instruction to stall didn't you for me
02:19:55 for me yes yeah yeah but i i don't know if that was the whole company was stalling or if it was just for me not to you know get involved until he dealt with it well you and all the other people who were
02:20:07 people who were um parties presumably yes yeah yeah there was it three or four people who were on the email chain yeah i see so if you'd been asked the question that specifically and not just about kingspan you would
02:20:19 and not just about kingspan you would agree
02:20:19 agree that that was a strategy of delay at that time with the bba wasn't it um yes he did it did say for yes uh specifically not to not to sort of get involved at that for
02:20:30 not to sort of get involved at that for us for a while yeah yeah let's go now um to the amended bba certificate um if we can go to that which is at bba 6037 and this dates from 2010.
02:20:45 6037 and this dates from 2010. if we go to the bottom left-hand corner date of first issue 27th of october 2008 certificate amended on the 6th of april 2010. do you see that language
02:20:57 2010. do you see that language underneath yep so that appears to be the date of this
02:21:06 and it says it's amended on the 6th of april 2010 in that wording with revisions made to scottish building regulations references the behavior in relation to fire and maintenance sections do you see that
02:21:18 maintenance sections do you see that there so it's flagging that behavior in relation to fire has been amended yeah and then still at page one under key factors assess their behavior in relation to fire it says
02:21:31 behavior in relation to fire it says there
02:21:31 there the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire and then we see the wording the product has been tested to bs 8414 part one for one specific construction
02:21:44 part one for one specific construction on masonry walls do you see that there yeah
02:21:52 and was that wording uh included at the bba's insistence um yeah well it looks like that's the wording that they were referring to in that
02:22:01 that yeah that we've just been looking at previously yeah and can you help us as to when this certificate was actually published and circulated for use do you have any can you have that sixth
02:22:13 do you have any can you have that sixth of april then would have been when this new one was issued so that's when it was made public right two bba employees have told us that's john
02:22:22 john denier and john alban have told the inquiry in their witness statements that this certificate was not published until july 2013. all right okay that's possible possible but i was
02:22:34 okay that's possible possible but i was yeah i would have thought from yeah i just wanted to ask you whether you think that might be right do you have a recollection that there was some delay in actually publishing this i i don't remember the exact date
02:22:46 this i i don't remember the exact date so i couldn't say definitely which one of those two is correct no i think if we can go now to page five of the certificate and specifically section seven behavior in relation to fire
02:22:59 in relation to fire if we can look at section seven point one it says there the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in
02:23:11 the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then for england and wales below that it's got approved document b paragraph eight four volume one and paragraphs twelve point five
02:23:23 paragraphs twelve point five twelve point six and twelve point seven volume two do you see that there yeah and you were asked about this particular
02:23:35 and you were asked about this particular wording by the inquiry and your witness statement
02:23:38 statement yeah uh this for the transcript it was at page 15 paragraph 45 i and you said from memory i believe the justification for stating that the product satisfied the provisions of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
02:23:51 paragraph 12.7 of approved document b was on the basis of the test results achieved to bs 8414 yeah
02:23:58 but it's right isn't it that you've confirmed earlier that you understood limited combustibility which is what 12.7 deals with that's right isn't it um i think is that what i think it lists
02:24:09 um i think is that what i think it lists the two methods of compliance does it or is it
02:24:11 is it is that just the first section and it's in the following paragraph i'm not sure offhand
02:24:15 offhand so if we go clg 50224 and we look at page 97 i'm going to show you paragraph 12.7 of approved document
02:24:26 b so maybe it's the one on or possibly the one back from that it's either just before or just after diagram 40.
02:24:38 that's the right document if we go one page
02:24:41 page earlier 96 yes there we have 12.7 insulation materials and products in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation
02:24:53 above ground level any insulation product
02:24:54 product for the material etcetera used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility do you see that there
02:25:03 is yeah sorry no yeah so no it doesn't have that it's not in the same paragraph a bit about the alternative method of compliance is it no that's 12.5 we can look at that on the page before if we go to 95
02:25:15 the page before if we go to 95 bottom of the page 12.5 has a general warning and then it has the two routes to compliance yeah okay yeah now you confirmed earlier that you don't you understood that limited combustibility
02:25:27 limited combustibility and testing to bs 8414 are separate and alternative routes to compliance for insulation materials yeah that's
02:25:38 materials yeah that's right isn't it yeah and bs 841 for system testing is wholly irrelevant to the question whether a product is one of limited combustibility isn't it uh yes it was just yeah yeah yeah that
02:25:50 uh yes it was just yeah yeah yeah that testing would be to bs 476 part 11 or you'd have to get an a1 or an a2 under the european classification system wouldn't you to be of limited combustibility
02:26:01 combustibility yeah so it's right isn't it that k15 could never comply with or will be used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of
02:26:12 the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of adb could it um it could be used in accordance with that section because you just apply it says it's crossover and used in accordance with it and then it lists in that paragraph what
02:26:23 it lists in that paragraph what if you want to be used above 18 meters you need to be limited combustibility so if you aren't you can't be used or you follow other sections of the regulations can we look at 12.7 again it doesn't say specifically it meets the limited
02:26:35 specifically it meets the limited combustibility requirement in that section
02:26:37 section hang on let's look at 12.7 again 12.7 is only dealing with a building with a story 18 meters or more isn't it yeah and it's dealing with insulation
02:26:49 and it's dealing with insulation products and it's saying they've got to be of limited combustibility there's no reference to class naught there is there no no so let's go back to the certificate which we were looking at bba 6037 page
02:27:03 which we were looking at bba 6037 page five
02:27:06 where it says there
02:27:09 so to read it again the product therefore
02:27:12 therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of yeah and then paragraph 12.7 of adb yeah there is also another diagram that's referred to at the end of that section as well
02:27:24 section as well okay leave that aside for one moment leave diagram 40 aside i'll come to that in a moment because that relates to class o though that's where the crossover comes in yes i understand that
02:27:35 i understand that but just leave that diagram 40 and brackets to one side yeah it's right isn't it that the product could not be used in accordance with
02:27:45 with 12.7 of adb could it well that 12.7 lists that diagram doesn't it uh we can go back to it is it is that yeah don't believe it
02:27:56 yeah don't believe it yeah i thought it listed a sector that was written it listed another diet a diagram at the end of the section go back clg 50227 at page 96.
02:28:12 at page 96. oh no that's that's the one to do with the masonry wall construction isn't it the masonry over 75 mil okay yeah yeah it doesn't it doesn't refer to diagram 40. because diagram 40 if we go on to the next page
02:28:25 diagram 40 if we go on to the next page 97 is dealing with what your external wall surface has to be there or
02:28:34 there or b etc yeah it relates to items facing into a ventilated cavity as well so would you agree with me looking at this that k15 could never comply
02:28:45 this that k15 could never comply or be used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of adb it could be used in accordance with it yes how well because if it's you would just follow
02:28:56 because if it's you would just follow the requirements it says that you either if you limited combustibility you can be used generally above 18 meters if you're not then you can't so you can still follow any product
02:29:07 so you can still follow any product could be a could be used in accordance with that statement but not used accurately in accordance with
02:29:14 with yes yeah you either use it above 80 meters or you don't depending on if it's limited
02:29:21 i combustibility i think we might just run this course um going back to the certificate again vba five zeros
02:29:32 again vba five zeros sorry six zeros 37 page five i want to put it to you that that is wholly misleading and inaccurate to have 12.7 there on that certificate
02:29:48 okay did you realize at the time that you received this uh that that was problematic well no because
02:30:00 problematic well no because as i sort of said previously i thought you know
02:30:03 you know my opinion was that you could assess the products against that paragraph depending on its performance so i didn't see it as a particular issue
02:30:12 i see that's genuinely what you thought at the time is it that you could as far as
02:30:19 assess the product against 12.7 what what kind of assessment are you talking about
02:30:25 about well it says is it limited combustibility or not that's what the paragraph says yeah and k-15 is not yeah so under that paragraph
02:30:33 paragraph you can't use it above 18 meters
02:30:38 but this wording therefore may be used in accordance with it's not saying you might use it in accordance with or you might not use it yeah but it doesn't say that you can use it above 18 meters in accordance with that paragraph it
02:30:49 in accordance with that paragraph it just says it can be used in accordance with the paragraph the paragraph covers both situations right well i think we've probably got the evidence i think we have to i think we have
02:31:06 can you help us as to how that wording got into the certificate we can't work this out at the moment on the base of the documents we've seen how reference to 12.7 got in there can you
02:31:17 reference to 12.7 got in there can you help us at all as to how that happened i i don't know definitely i would imagine it's possibly as it's some of the
02:31:23 the changes proposed by the bba when they did that update but i don't know who came up with the changes now if we go to bba four zeros two six four
02:31:35 if we go to bba four zeros two six four four and i want to look at the very last email in the chain on page seven sent to you by chris hunt of the bba on the 8th of april 2010 at 10 44.
02:31:48 so this is chris hunt of the bba 8th of april 2010. do you see that to you and he says there you may recall we sent you an amended version of the
02:31:59 you an amended version of the certificate back in march 2009 this arose from a clarification in the fire section you were reluctant to agree the amendment at that time and then it says he says this subsequently we've been contacted by our
02:32:10 subsequently we've been contacted by our scottish regulations commentator in relation to a couple of referencing errors to the clauses in the technical standards
02:32:18 standards we've therefore prepared an updated version of the amended certificate the amendments are referred to in the note below the signatures on the front page
02:32:26 page we have also taken the opportunity to delete
02:32:30 delete something referenced this is no this no longer applies due to their withdrawal from building guarantees do you see that there
02:32:41 now in april 2010 mr hunt then asks for your comments on various proposed amendments if we can go up to the next email in the same chain on page six
02:32:52 same chain on page six you respond two months later on the 21st of june 2010. so he's written to you in april on the 8th of april 2010 you respond on the 21st of june 2010 yes
02:33:07 now can you explain that delay can you help us as to what was going on during that time do you remember no no and would you have discussed your response with
02:33:18 response with your superiors including philip heath or possibly tony millerchat by this time before going back to the bba uh yes are we on about is this the same
02:33:30 uh yes are we on about is this the same update
02:33:32 update was this a different update is this a new this is a new update yeah it would have been circulated the draft when it came in the new proposed wording was circulated yes yeah and we can see um
02:33:45 yeah and we can see um if we read your comments back to chris hunt you say please find attached our comments for the proposed call firm k-15 bba certificate i've also included some additional data that we wish to include as the document is being updated
02:33:57 is being updated the comments and proposed changes are as follows do you see that and then under one key factor's assessed behavior in relation to fire we can see that you've highlighted the
02:34:08 we can see that you've highlighted the text that says the product has been tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 for one specific construction on masonry walls we see that highlighted yeah
02:34:20 yeah and you want that text to be changed to read the board will not contribute to the development stages of a fire just see that there i can't see that i've it's not scroll down to the our proposed changes i could only see the
02:34:32 proposed changes i could only see the original
02:34:32 original on screen at the moment well i i think what you're doing here is you're setting out well just a minute you should have the whole of the top section of the email have you not got that i've got the top section right yeah
02:34:44 that i've got the top section right yeah then
02:34:45 then can you see under paragraph one key factors assessed you've got that okay yeah yeah oh sorry oh we're on up here sorry i thought we were there i'm sorry that's my fault
02:34:56 sorry that's my fault i'm sorry so under item one key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire page one
02:35:01 page one do you see that there okay yep what it looks like you've done in this email is you you've put the text of the draft
02:35:09 draft yeah right below it you've highlighted the bit
02:35:12 the bit that you want changed and then you've said below that this text to be changed to read the board will not contribute to the development stages of a fire c-section
02:35:23 development stages of a fire c-section seven
02:35:23 seven do you see that there yeah yep so that's asking i think that's so that's quoting some text from a previous draft yeah yeah i mean basically you're just asking to have that reverse to the specific construction on a
02:35:35 to the specific construction on a masonry wall taken out uh yes it looks like yeah yeah looking to in that intro bit at the front looking just to revert it back to the previous
02:35:43 previous section but it looks bit yeah [Music]
02:35:47 [Music] yeah and that's that was wording that the bba had placed in because they wanted it to be more accurate we've looked at that already haven't we all right
02:35:59 all right so you're asking it for it to be taken out again do you see that uh yes yeah it looks like yeah it's swapping it looks like the wording that's underneath the proposed stuff is what was in or something very similar to what was in some of the other
02:36:10 some of the other documents yeah yes and if we look at point three of your email if we could go down
02:36:15 down and perhaps bring that up on the page so you've highlighted various parts there
02:36:26 there where it says masonry substrates cement particle board cement particle board cement particle board and then at the end you've also highlighted at the level two thermocouples did not
02:36:37 at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees do you see that there yeah and you've said add addition text to the end of this section to state at the level two thermocouples did not
02:36:48 at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c therefore meeting the criteria outlined in bre-135 do you see that there yeah so that wording had also
02:36:59 wording had also previously been removed by the bba due to concerns why were you asking for that to go back in um
02:37:06 in um well uh we went to we they were we thought it sort of clarified things as to what this 600 degrees i would assume probably was in relation to but yeah
02:37:18 to but yeah i i don't know the reasoning behind all of the reasoning behind because they didn't share with us what queries they received
02:37:24 received so we don't know why they made certain changes or we don't know the reasoning behind them so i see so are you saying you didn't understand why the bba
02:37:35 understand why the bba previously had wanted to take out that wording
02:37:39 wording uh yes yeah we don't know that no no we don't know the specific queries they received
02:37:43 received no did you ever reflect on the fact that this wording affected life safety and fire safety
02:37:54 life safety and fire safety to be adding it back in when it wasn't accurate
02:38:00 accurate i don't know i'm not following why it wasn't accurate because it hadn't met the criteria outlined in bre-135 there was no bre classification report wasn't there yes but it's not saying there's a
02:38:11 but it's not saying there's a classification report it's saying it met the criteria it also didn't meet the criteria because by this time
02:38:17 time the k-15 that kingsbound was selling was a different product that behaved very differently in fire wasn't it um apparently you've said
02:38:25 said yes yeah
02:38:31 and you're saying are you that you didn't know that at the time you didn't know that the need i did i didn't know what formulation the test report was done on no no
02:38:42 no no did kingspan have any updated testing to justify
02:38:46 justify the reintroduction of that wording had anything changed uh as far as i remember no that's still based on the on the one report yeah so there's a yeah i would assume if
02:38:57 yeah so there's a yeah i would assume if there'd be more other tests yeah we would have quoted both yeah i'm assuming and did you want this edition because you wanted the bba certificate to reflect what you were telling customers in emails
02:39:09 telling customers in emails about br135 assessments and the compliance of k15 for use over 18 meters we didn't claim in emails that we had an assessment from the bre we said you could assess the results
02:39:21 we said you could assess the results against bre-135 i see now if we go now forward in the story to december 2013 and the certificate issued then which is the last bba certificate
02:39:33 the last bba certificate issued while you were at kingspan it's at bba
02:39:38 at bba 6036.
02:39:44 if we could look at page one
02:39:47 and behavior in relation to fire under key factors assessed
02:39:57 we can see that it says there the product will not contribute to the development status of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard do you see that there yeah
02:40:08 so the wording about it being a specific construction has been removed hasn't it
02:40:18 uh yeah they've taken out the reference to bs eight four one four at that also in that first bit yeah and then if we go on to page five we can see that
02:40:28 see that uh under the behavior in relation to fire section it's been moved to section eight in this certificate it's now section eight do you see that there yeah
02:40:40 eight do you see that there yeah and then if we look so we've got 8.1 classified as class naught or low risk and if we go over the page eight two it says
02:40:53 eight two it says when tested to bs eight four one four part one the following specific cloud in construction met the criteria as stated in bre report 135 2013. okay you see that there
02:41:04 135 2013. okay you see that there yeah so it's talking about the specific cladding construction met that criteria yeah and then there's a description of the system tested in may 2005 and a footnote below that
02:41:16 footnote below that which reads this the test relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials do you see that there yeah and then
02:41:29 do you see that there yeah and then section 8.3 below that say it states the product incorporated in the construction defined in section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor
02:41:40 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level fire breaks should be used at every floor level after the first floor
02:41:49 now this is the first time that a bba certificate for k-15 made clear that the test data from the may 2005 test is only applicable to the specific tested system
02:42:00 tested system and that further testing would be required for any other combination of materials that's right isn't it um it is that that's yeah that that specific sort of sentence i think that's
02:42:11 specific sort of sentence i think that's the first one it's been in yeah and it's right isn't it that the inclusion of that clear limitation on the use of k15 over 18 meters
02:42:20 meters was something that kingspan had been attempting to avoid that's right isn't it
02:42:25 it um yeah i i don't know if they put that specific sentence proposed it before i can't remember now but yeah can we look at some email chains on this
02:42:36 chains on this if you go to kin409353 which is an email chain between you mr meredith and joel clark in november 2012.
02:42:50 i want to look at the very bottom email in the chain on page five
02:42:56 that's an email from mandy osman on the 5th of november 2012 attaching a revised certificate for k15 if we move up the chain on page four
02:43:09 if we move up the chain on page four we can see there's a chaser email then sent
02:43:17 on the 29th of november at 1338 yeah uh mandy osmond says to you dear mr mills further to my email date of the fifth november 2012 i know that we've not yet received your
02:43:28 know that we've not yet received your approval of the draft certificate yeah we would like to maintain progress therefore if we've not heard from you we'll assume you're happy with the content do you see that there yeah and then if we could go
02:43:40 yeah and then if we could go um so
02:43:43 um so what happens next is either meredith responds there's some further discussion on the same day and then if we go up to page two there's an email on the 29th of november 2012 at 14
02:43:54 november 2012 at 14 29
02:43:57 and in that email ivan meredith is saying you're not copied in here um okay i've copied my colleague joel he'll probably be leading the way with
02:44:08 he'll probably be leading the way with this work in the future however we shall come back to you as soon as possible do you see that there yeah and then if we go up to the next email chain on page two we can see that mandy osmond of the bba is
02:44:20 see that mandy osmond of the bba is still
02:44:20 still chasing for a response on the third of january 2013 at 13 56 please may we have your approval and if we go from the second email from the top
02:44:32 we go from the second email from the top now on page one which is sent by joel clark
02:44:35 clark 1049.
02:44:42 can you see that there on the fourth so the second one down yeah yes yep and you'll see seed it's sent to ivor and you'll see seed
02:44:52 and he's discussing the bba certificate reissue
02:44:55 reissue and he says this well the 60 millimeter thing can be viewed two ways at first read
02:45:02 read it seems a bit restrictive to state that the reaction to fire of the cladding system needs to be separately addressed assessed sorry for all thicknesses other than 60 millimeters on the other hand it could be read as
02:45:13 on the other hand it could be read as saying well implying that if you use 60 millimeters the reaction to fire of the cladding system is determined presumably in accordance with the test shown implying that any system using 60
02:45:24 shown implying that any system using 60 millimeters is basically a pass to br 135 so it could be read as the bba saying that 60 millimeter solutions are automatically suitable for use above 18 meters exclamation mark
02:45:37 for use above 18 meters exclamation mark and then he said it's whether we feel this is a good thing or a bad thing and also whether we can actually do a lot about it even if we don't like it do you see that there yeah and then either meredith responds
02:45:49 either meredith responds at the top of that chain again you're copied in
02:45:52 copied in and he says this as gareth has the experience and what we can and cannot get away with we need to take the lead from him and perhaps sit down and work out our approach asap
02:46:05 approach asap and then he asks gareth have you drafted anything to the bba reference this draft that can be circulated yeah do you see that there yeah now is it right that you had
02:46:17 yeah now is it right that you had experience of getting away with pushing the bba to include matters that were favorable to kingsburn um i've been dealing with them and with a number of years so i i
02:46:28 them and with a number of years so i i had experience of dealing with them yeah did you understand him to be talking about the previous bbas certificates assertion that the product met the criteria in br135 which was known to be
02:46:39 known to be inaccurate i i didn't necessarily know he was speaking about that specifically would you agree that that fairly characterized your approach to try and get away with as much as
02:46:50 try and get away with as much as possible
02:46:51 possible in order to support the use of the product regardless of accuracy or safety um it wasn't necessarily my approach but yeah i don't know
02:47:01 we don't see you going back on this email and saying what do you mean i'm not trying to get away with anything i'm i'm playing it straight do we yeah so we did sit sort of a few
02:47:13 do we yeah so we did sit sort of a few meters away from each other though in an office so we can we could sort of talk speak about them as well as so there would be additional bits in
02:47:20 bits in you know along with this email chain so not everything would be in an email correspondence did you ever correct that and say that that's not what i've been doing i i can't remember no no it's no i'm not i can't remember any
02:47:32 no it's no i'm not i can't remember any exact conversations from that far back would you accept now that there was a culture
02:47:38 culture at kingspan of trying to minimize the limitations on k15 rather than being transparent and accurate with its customers and with organizations like the
02:47:50 organizations like the bba um i would say yes they they did want to maximize you know what scope they could get on approvals and things like that i don't think at
02:48:01 and things like that i don't think at any stage they were sort of dishonest about what test data they had or not that i was aware of anyway it seems that you've said some other things this morning about that but yeah
02:48:14 so you're accepting they did want to maximize their scope of approvals for any of these certificates uh yes they wanted to cover as many situations as was possible based on what data they had you know
02:48:25 data they had you know even in circumstances where the wording that's being suggested is misleading
02:48:32 um well yeah i think it's a little bit sort of there's a few bits which we've debated on about
02:48:43 on about what they referred to but yeah if we go now to an email chain a long email chain from that runs from november 2012 to january 2013 this is at kin
02:48:54 kin four zeros five five seven two
02:49:01 and this correspondence is also about the issue of a revised bba certificate if we go to page 11 this change starts with the email we just looked at from mandy osmond on the 5th of november
02:49:12 osmond on the 5th of november 1506 attaching a draft certificate and then we see the same chaser emails going up on page 9 and page 10. and the email i want to ask you about in particular is on page 4 of this chain
02:49:25 particular is on page 4 of this chain sent by jill clark to you iva meredith and
02:49:28 and yeah to you and ivan meredith um you'll see seed here together with tony miller chap that's the one on the 9th of january 2013 at 1606.
02:49:40 january 2013 at 1606. and that's the day after a review meeting with the bba on the 8th of january 2013. can you remember attending that meeting with the bba i don't think i didn't know
02:49:52 with the bba i don't think i didn't know and in it joel clarks writes this sorry perhaps i wasn't clear i'm fully aware we want it as open and delimiting as possible that's blindingly obvious is it not however on the basis of some of the
02:50:04 however on the basis of some of the comments flying around yesterday my first thoughts are that we're not going to have it put back to how it was by butting heads i don't even think they'll give us the get out of contact the manufacturer the phrase used more
02:50:17 the manufacturer the phrase used more than once yesterday was there on to us even if being used in a tongue-in-cheek way we're not doing anything immoral or illegal after all it does perhaps reflect the position we
02:50:28 it does perhaps reflect the position we are in
02:50:30 are in and then he says if worst case we have to let them say in small letters that anything other than 60 millimeters shouldn't be should be assessed then we need an assessment of suitable weight and there's no problem
02:50:41 there's no problem and then he asks where are we with labc type approval do you see that there yeah
02:50:48 and in all the your work that you were doing with the bba was it blindingly obvious to you that kingspan wanted the certificate as open and delimiting as possible
02:50:57 possible oh yeah yeah yeah that would that would sort of come back from the comments i received when sending drafts around yeah yeah
02:51:04 yeah and can you help us when he says they're on to us
02:51:09 on to us can you help us as to what he's joel clark's referring to there no i don't think i was in the meetings i see
02:51:19 see and he he's saying there that they decided to put an end to the get out as he calls it of the contact the manufacturer for advice
02:51:29 advice provision that approved and uh appeared in previous drafts that's right isn't it that the bba were were not content to go back to that contact the manufacturer wording were
02:51:41 contact the manufacturer wording were they
02:51:41 they um i think they've taken that out in that latest one yeah yeah yeah why had that
02:51:45 that been viewed as a get out can you help us with that
02:51:48 with that um i don't know why joel viewed that as a get out really because we when they came back to us all we could do was advise them of the test which was already equated in the bba certificate so it didn't really mean a great deal in the end of things
02:52:00 mean a great deal in the end of things so
02:52:01 so well i would suggest it's much more significant than that and that you understood that that clause was very advantageous to kingspan because it put kingspan directly in contact with anyone wanting to use it
02:52:13 contact with anyone wanting to use it above 18 meters so that kingspan could use its sales pitch on them that's right isn't it um one on projects of that sort of size we were already in direct contact with the people involved in the project so i
02:52:24 the people involved in the project so i don't that wasn't sort of something which was that clause caused
02:52:29 caused in any way
02:52:32 okay um in your response to this email if we go k.i
02:52:38 k.i uh this yes within this email chain at the very end of page two at 10 11 on the 10th of january 2013
02:52:51 you you propose the following amendment sorry um yes so you say there um personally i don't think we can rely
02:53:02 um personally i don't think we can rely on getting any greater scope of approval from the labc given the complaints they received following the issue of their original certificate yeah we'll come to that later if we go over to page three
02:53:14 over to page three and you're setting out your thoughts about the the latest draft and if we look at your point eleven at the bottom of page three
02:53:30 do you see that there so you say section eight point one page seven so we know that the reaction to fire section has now changed to be section eight it was section seven
02:53:41 section seven and you say regards bs 8414 include generic description of construction also for the fire resistance include a similar generic list of the constructions tested
02:53:52 constructions tested also note also note should say that one hour fire resistance was achieved in the applicable cases not that this is in both directions through the construction do you see that there yeah so in those
02:54:04 do you see that there yeah so in those first lines you're saying regards 8414 include a generic description of construction you see that there yeah so you were wanting the wording to be as generic as
02:54:15 wanting the wording to be as generic as possible
02:54:17 possible about that system test weren't you um i'd have to have a look at the draft to be honest to be honest definite on it i don't know if did they include a list of the construction in the latest draft well let's move forward and and look at
02:54:29 well let's move forward and and look at what happens next this is another chain of correspondence near the time the amended certificate was issued this is at kin405870
02:54:40 this is at kin405870 and i want to look down on the second page we can see an email from mandy osman that the bba sent on the 6th of december
02:54:51 that the bba sent on the 6th of december 2013 to you attaching a revised copy of the final draft of the bba certificate for k15 at that point and then moving up to the next email
02:55:04 next email which straddles pages one and two we can see that you forward that final draft to joel clark and iva meredith on the 9th of december 2013. yeah
02:55:16 2013. yeah and if we look now at the next email up in the chain on page one on the 10th of december at 1617 sent the next day by joel clark to you and iva meredith we can see this he says
02:55:29 and iva meredith we can see this he says just been going through this the first paragraph is now exactly as it used to be which is very good news both attached for easy reference and then he says there's a mention of
02:55:40 and then he says there's a mention of some potential restrictions at 8.2 and 8.3 as per the following and then he says um 8.2 note 1 under bs8414 information the test
02:55:51 bs8414 information the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials and 8.3 the product incorporated in the
02:56:02 and 8.3 the product incorporated in the construction defined at section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 metres above ground level fire breaks should be used at every floor level after the first floor
02:56:13 floor level after the first floor and then he says given that the note 8.2 is in the smallest possible font and buried deep in the certificate itself we have made significant progress when compared with the last draft
02:56:24 when compared with the last draft and then he says the wording at 8.3 could be read as a restriction but logically speaking it does not preclude the use of other thicknesses saying one thickness can be used does not mean others can't be
02:56:37 not mean others can't be and then he says personally i believe this certificate is now acceptable at least in so far as much as is much less restrictive than it was and i do not believe we will get any joy in trying to have this last restriction
02:56:48 in trying to have this last restriction removed
02:56:48 removed happy to take on board your comments before going back to the bba do you see that there yeah and the note at section 8.2 that he's referring to there
02:56:59 there in the smallest possible font and buried deep in the certificate is the one we looked at that little note saying the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to
02:57:11 and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combinations of materials
02:57:20 and it's right isn't it that at this time within within this group it was considered progress to be hiding that limitation as much as possible wasn't it
02:57:29 wasn't it uh it appears that that's joel's opinion yeah yeah
02:57:36 yeah yeah for what legitimate reason would kingspan want to have accurate limitations on the use of the product removed
02:57:43 removed can you help us on that um on this to be honest at this sort of stage i wasn't having a lot of involvement with the discussions on it i wasn't going to the this is just before i finished and i
02:57:56 this is just before i finished and i wasn't going to the meetings or having that's why i just forwarded the certificate on pretty much when i that one draft when i got it so i wasn't having a lot of involvement with it
02:58:07 why were you and your colleagues so keen for the bba to admit omit something that was plainly a fair and accurate representation of the parameters of the existing k15
02:58:18 of the parameters of the existing k15 testing for above 18 meters
02:58:23 so which bit did they want to take out which we were referring to well it's clear that they wanted maybe a mix not the right word to minimize something that is a an important
02:58:35 something that is a an important limitation on the test information that kingspan had
02:58:40 had why would they want to do that why were you doing that i'm i i couldn't speak specifically for them um but yeah it was i suppose they're looking
02:58:51 i suppose they're looking it looks like they're looking to get it as general as possible the just the information i suppose yeah it's german i think that's a good moment yes it's great it is thank you very much
02:59:03 yes it's great it is thank you very much mr mills are going to have a break now so we can all get some lunch we'll come back at two o'clock please and yeah while you're away please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it yeah all right thank you very much
02:59:14 right thank you very much let's go with the usher please
02:59:18 [Music] thank you two o'clock please
03:00:25 [Music]
03:00:37 [Music]
03:00:57 [Music]
03:03:13 [Music]
03:03:52 [Music]
03:04:03 [Music]
03:04:44 [Music]
03:05:18 [Music]
03:08:49 [Music]
03:13:39 [Music]
03:15:27 [Music]
03:17:17 [Music]
03:19:07 [Music]
03:19:22 [Music]
03:19:54 [Applause]