Kingspan marketing manager Adrian Pargeter's testimony on the company's combustible insulation marketing and testing practices, including misleading representations about fire safety.
00:24:38 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:24:41 hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from mr adrian say would you ask mr partiter to come back in please
00:25:03 good morning mr pardister good morning sorry we've kept you waiting a bit but we're ready to go now yes mr miller mr chairman members of the panel uh good morning mr partisan good morning
00:25:13 morning i'm going to ask you now about a campaign called the reasons why campaign from may 2015. do you remember the existence of such a campaign yes yes can we look at kin 408258 please
00:25:33 and here is the first page of a document called kingspan cool foam k15 rain screen board reasons why campaign uh is that the first page of a document you um can tell us about are you familiar with the document i
00:25:45 are you familiar with the document i think so right let's look at the first page
00:25:50 and we can see on that page aim objectives how audience tactical output just looking at that page is this a document that you are familiar with from that time i
00:26:03 are familiar with from that time i haven't seen this recently no but now i'm showing it to you
00:26:07 to you are you familiar with it from that time what was the date again sorry well i was hoping you might be able to tell me but we think it's may 2015.
00:26:22 is that right what is it later um i'm not sure well let me let me look at let me see if i can do better can we go to kin408255 please
00:26:38 can we go to kin408255 please um this is an email from you to cathy barlow
00:26:42 barlow uh she's the pr person you were engaging at the time as you told us yesterday yes uh wednesday may the 6th 2015 and you say hi kathy we've now put together a brief
00:26:53 together a brief of our thoughts on a mini campaign to cover the roots to compliance for k-15 addressing the fire as he's previously discussed and in the next paragraph you say the main focus is on producing the
00:27:05 the main focus is on producing the technical bulletin and we've attempted a basic structure and mind dumped our thoughts around what it needs to say pages four to six so is this and it looks as if
00:27:16 so is this and it looks as if looking at the attachments uh you had something called version two of the roots to compliance document technical bulletin um was this a document
00:27:25 document that you attached at the time or was created by you at the time well the route to compliance um is it's a document that i am aware of
00:27:37 it's a document that i am aware of um and i think maybe that other document was an early
00:27:42 part of that what became routes to compliance yes thank you did you commission this roots to compliance document assuming that that's the one you sent to cathy barlow on the 6th of may
00:27:54 cathy barlow on the 6th of may yes right let's get back to the document kin408258 please uh and on page two there at the top it says aim
00:28:05 says aim instill confidence in kingspan cool firm k-15 rain screen board and provide reassurance when used in buildings with a habitable story 18 meters or greater above ground level
00:28:16 greater above ground level objectives reduce loss of kingspan cool them k15 range screen board specifications and ensure all specifications gained result in an installation
00:28:27 result in an installation stem the tide of rockwool specifications and also celetex and extratherm and then rebuff
00:28:34 rebuff nhbc note that has allegedly made the bcb and installer nervous and provide a justifiable counter-argument
00:28:46 given that k-15 just pausing there given that k-15 would not be suitable for all eventual specifications this was quite an aggressive objective wasn't it
00:28:57 an aggressive objective wasn't it i wouldn't say it was aggressive but it it looked to maximize the the campaign yeah and it says uh
00:29:08 the the campaign yeah and it says uh rebuff nhbc note there in the third bullet point what was that note i don't recall what that note was do you remember how the nhbc
00:29:20 the nhbc was nervous or allegedly nervous or was or rather their views were making the bcb and installers nervous i can't recall what was the counter
00:29:32 i can't recall what was the counter argument
00:29:32 argument do you think the justifiable counter-argument that you are reaching for
00:29:37 for referred to there
00:29:42 might have been the um
00:29:45 the guidance for using desktop studies that i can't recall right looking down the page a little further we come to the how
00:29:55 how provide clarity on the overarching issue of insulation in rain screen applications from a fire safety and buildings perspective spin such that the story is not
00:30:06 spin such that the story is not fire fire fire all the time i.e talk about thermal speed of insulation installation etc provide a compelling case present a compelling case for the use of kingspan
00:30:17 compelling case for the use of kingspan cool
00:30:17 cool k15 rain screen board by giving reasons why it should be used gathering a body of evidence to support the case and bolstering the above by drawing on third-party research
00:30:28 drawing on third-party research and then educate the industry in matters of combustibility non-limited combustible and is insignificant its insignificance in terms of individual product performance in the
00:30:40 individual product performance in the grand scheme of things promote the added value services that kil offers standard back page we will guide you through the process now can you explain what you meant there
00:30:52 now can you explain what you meant there by
00:30:53 by spin such that the story is not fire fire fire all the time yeah i think fire is obviously an important element but for our products as well um they're very
00:31:07 for our products as well um they're very high thermally performing and because of their lightness are a lot easier to handle and install and so it was a matter of achieving a balance
00:31:18 balance between all of those factors rather than just focusing on on one element right so the message is this right was that you wanted customers for k-15 not to regard fire
00:31:29 customers for k-15 not to regard fire safety as the priority now it was to achieve a balance of the other
00:31:34 other factors as well as five seconds an equal balance
00:31:41 oh well just a balance between them when you say balance uh was fire safety uh being brought down to the same level as thermal performance or
00:31:52 as thermal performance or no it would still remain would it still remain the priority fire should still be a priority but the other elements need to be there as well would you say a priority only one thing can be a priority can't
00:32:03 only one thing can be a priority can't it
00:32:04 it that's why i perfect praise the question as i did was the message to the customers
00:32:08 customers that they should not regard fire safety as the priority no no i should should not regardlessly but so you're saying that it should be just one of a number of things treated in the same way equally
00:32:19 in the same way equally as a across the board no i think fire should be treated as as the priority but not exclusively it should be there with balance by the
00:32:31 it should be there with balance by the other elements as well looking at it another way the message i think you were looking to get across is this right is that you would spin the story
00:32:38 story say that fire would have become less important in the eye of the customer and that other matters thermal performance etc would become more important
00:32:46 important no that they would that they would be there as well it looks from these words at least is this fair that the document shows us that the basic aim of camp the campaign was to seek to draw attention away from fire safety in favor
00:32:59 attention away from fire safety in favor of emphasizing the benefits of k-15 such as thermal performance not away from fire safety well how do you explain spin such that the story is not far far
00:33:10 story is not far far far all the time because it says all the time so
00:33:14 time so instead of it being the only element of it it
00:33:18 it it needed to have say the balance of the thermal performance and the speed as well so it's not that it shouldn't be there it's that it should
00:33:27 should also have the other elements with it how do you explain educate the industry in matters of combustibility and its insignificance in terms of the individual product performance that's not treating it as fire safety is
00:33:39 that's not treating it as fire safety is equal
00:33:40 equal to individual product performance it's treating it as less significant isn't it
00:33:59 yeah i'm not sure exactly what's getting that there looking at this now well i'm suggesting to you that what it's getting out there is the reduction of
00:34:07 of importance of fire safety and an increase of importance of the individual product performance in the grand scheme of things
00:34:17 things that's what i'm suggesting to you and you are struggling with it yeah that's not the intention to reduce the element of fire safety but like i say to make sure that it's not the only
00:34:29 say to make sure that it's not the only topic that we're talking about this is a gracely a responsible message i have to suggest you to center the market that customers and indeed building control bodies should regard
00:34:41 control bodies should regard matters of combustibility is insignificant in the grand scheme of things
00:34:47 you accept that i think looking at it within the the system whether the products are non-limited or combustible if the system
00:34:59 combustible if the system passes the requirement then it it's a safe system so that's i think where we're trying to get to there is that you know combustible materials can be
00:35:11 you know combustible materials can be used safely um whether and against even non-unlimited combustible products well in a system yes
00:35:20 yes now you've jumped to a point i'm going to explore in some detail with you and i i i will explore what you've just said in some detail but i just want to see if i can get an answer to my question do you accept that telling the
00:35:32 question do you accept that telling the industry or educating them with the message that matters of combustibility were insignificant in terms of individual product performance in the grand scheme of things
00:35:42 things was grossly irresponsible i don't think it was grossly responsible because i don't think that was the the intention
00:35:49 intention it was it was like i say to balance it with the other factors
00:35:57 let's move look down the page tactical output first bullet point technical bulletin fire safety and rain screen clad buildings with a story 18 meters or greater
00:36:06 greater above ground level routes to compliance using kingspan cool cool phone k15 rain screen board [Applause]
00:36:16 and we i think then go to page four in this document
00:36:25 this is the proposed content technical bulletins it's part of the same document and again did you you saw this at the time did you early may 2015
00:36:36 it looks like an early version of the technical bulletin that of course was published in august but was attached to your email to ms barlow on the 6th of may i may have done i mean that previous
00:36:48 may have done i mean that previous document i don't recall at all that may be that it was early correspondence with the marketing team right with kathy so this may be the same as well okay it all looks part of the same document
00:36:59 it all looks part of the same document which is why this is on page four um but on page five we can see a heading regulatory considerations you see that
00:37:11 and it says here uh requirements in great britain england and wales and scotland and then the last bullet point in that
00:37:22 and then the last bullet point in that list it says this uh plant seed of doubt without crossing any lines that i.e that it is possible to specify a component that is to all intents and purposes compliant with the individual
00:37:33 purposes compliant with the individual product performance requirements of adb2 and thb 2 that's technical handbook in scotland too but which when built into a system would fail the rigors of the large-scale tests because of the complexity of the
00:37:44 tests because of the complexity of the interactions between the various components that's i think the point you were making earlier wasn't it about systems yes i think yes yes
00:37:55 about systems yes i think yes yes and when you say or it says plant seed of doubt without crossing any lines what was going on there what was what does that mean i don't know i don't recognize this you
00:38:06 i don't know i don't recognize this you don't recognize the document or you don't recognize the language well this this document it seems to have come from your department though it originated with with your department at this time yeah
00:38:17 at this time yeah you were or at least about to become head of technical as well as head of marketing
00:38:22 marketing yes so it would have it would given that it was marketing it was already within your dominion wasn't it yes so can we can we proceed on the basis mr pargeter that you were responsible for it
00:38:32 it um can you then explain just going back to my question what plant seed of doubt without crossing any lines was intended to mean or uh reflect
00:38:44 to mean or uh reflect i can't it's you know i don't recognize this
00:38:48 this right it was the idea that you would the aim of a campaign was to get customers
00:38:56 customers and regulators such as there were any institutions building control bodies to start to
00:39:02 start to to doubt whether the label of non-combustible or limited combustibility were really reliable but on the other hand to promote system tests
00:39:14 tests the alternative route to compliance i think it
00:39:17 think it it could well be because i think it is our belief that system testing rather than reliance on individual product performance is a safer way
00:39:28 product performance is a safer way to proceed particularly in high-rise buildings
00:39:32 buildings rather than just relying on the individual classification of a given product and was this targeted at rockwool in an attempt to gain back market share
00:39:43 in an attempt to gain back market share taken by non-combustible competitors by creating the impression that those products are themselves unsafe
00:39:51 unsafe or of less reliable safety no it's not not it wasn't any one particular um company it would have been at the you know the limited and um
00:40:04 at the you know the limited and um non-combustible products assumption that because they are labeled so then the system that they are in is is safe right changing my question
00:40:15 is is safe right changing my question very slightly in swapping the word rockwool for mineral wool was this message aimed at shaking the foundations of trust in
00:40:26 the foundations of trust in non-combustible and limited combustible materials such as mineral wool fiber
00:40:32 in order to promote a great greater market share for k-15 no not shaking the trust of an individual product as labeled it's more of the system
00:40:44 more of the system that then created well it says plant seed of doubt doubt what
00:40:51 that that it's just because these products are labeled as they are when they're combined in a system
00:40:58 system can we go over to pages sorry i'm sorry sorry i interrupted your answer sorry do you want to finish i think i said and you get the same result
00:41:07 can we go to page six please
00:41:12 under the heading routes to compliance for kingspan cool them k15 rain screen
00:41:19 uh in the fourth bullet point there you say
00:41:23 say or it says introduce the fact that we support a wider range of bodies allowed to do desktop reports and not restrict to ucas approved which is limited to two to four bodies and slows down the whole process leading to
00:41:34 slows down the whole process leading to jobs being lost we propose that qualified fire engineers in general should be allowed to do this report
00:41:42 so it looks like you were proposing that unaccredited fire engineers be permitted to do desktop studies in order to speed things up
00:41:49 things up and broaden the market is that right not unaccredited i think every fire engineer in order to be a fire engineer is accredited to one um body or another but
00:42:01 to one um body or another but the ones that were accredited to ucas um weren't that many and it was it was holding up a lot of construction and desktop studies rather coming
00:42:13 and desktop studies rather coming through the body so it wasn't that they weren't accredited it's just that they weren't accredited specifically i think then the thought lies in my question but were you were you proposing that um fire engineers who are qualified but
00:42:26 fire engineers who are qualified but nonetheless not accredited by ucas be permitted to do desktops in order to speed things up and broaden the market yes and that is that another example of kingspan willing to dispense with
00:42:37 kingspan willing to dispense with necessary safeguards and checks in order to increase the sales of k-15 not at all so what was um what was beneficial or
00:42:49 what was beneficial or what was holding things up with having desktop reports done only by ucas approved just at the moment they weren't there wasn't enough um approved via ucas
00:43:02 there wasn't enough um approved via ucas to cope with the amount of work or potential work that was coming through did you not see the ucas accreditation system as adding an extra layer of safeguards
00:43:13 safeguards or was it just um another lot of red tape
00:43:17 tape no it was just you know i wasn't sure why
00:43:20 why only the ucas one was was picked to use but um it wasn't um taking away a layer of
00:43:31 responsibility if you like
00:43:35 were you not thereby willing to do away with whatever safeguards the extra accreditation ucas brought [Music]
00:43:45 [Music] now i wasn't aware it did bring any extra
00:43:49 extra safeguards that's why i'm asking you so it was just a lot of red tape was it
00:43:56 it was just slowing down the process what was the purpose of the ucas accreditation
00:44:02 um for i don't really know the details for what's the difference between the different accreditation bodies and was different from the ucas one and a non-ucas one for a fire engineer did you or anybody
00:44:14 for a fire engineer did you or anybody to your knowledge actually think about the benefits that ucas accreditation brought to the desktop system which uh removing the ucas restriction would
00:44:26 uh removing the ucas restriction would lose
00:44:29 lose um i i can't recall we did
00:44:40 was this suggested widening of the scope of those who could draft a desktop assessment something that was discussed with the nhbc in relation to bca tgn 18.
00:44:51 in relation to bca tgn 18. i can't recall
00:44:55 let me move on to the question of the nhbc again i'll go back to this now you say in your first witness statement please if we can go to that at page 16
00:45:10 at paragraph 4.20 you say between about january 2014 and november 2015 kingspan was in regular contact with the nhbc regarding the use of k-15 in
00:45:23 nhbc regarding the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters high i have been directly involved in these discussions only since february 2015 and the details i provide below the discussions prior to that data solely based on my review of relevant
00:45:34 based on my review of relevant documentation
00:45:37 so just pausing there it's it's clear i think what you're saying here in this statement your first statement is that up
00:45:45 up uh before before february 2015 your evidence is simply based on a review of the documents but you have live recollection uh from your personal involvement after february 2015.
00:45:56 february 2015. yeah i think that's correct um now um
00:46:03 you told us yesterday when i showed you the note of the march 2015 meeting that nhb50977 that you weren't
00:46:14 meeting that nhb50977 that you weren't aware of that meeting yes i didn't i didn't recall that meeting right that's day 84 page 167 lines 3 to 24 just for our transcript i don't need to show you the
00:46:25 transcript i don't need to show you the transcript i think you could recall the effort yes you gave yes could you just explain why you weren't aware of you say you weren't aware of that march meeting given as you say in your statement that you
00:46:36 as you say in your statement that you were directly involved in the discussions with nhbc from february 2015
00:46:44 [Music]
00:46:49 i think because i didn't attend that meeting
00:46:53 meeting so i wasn't directly involved in that meeting right were you indirectly involved in it in the sense of discussing preparations for it or discussing what happened at the meeting with those who did attend it
00:47:04 meeting with those who did attend it no so when you say i've been directly involved in these discussions only since february 2015. that's not correct then is it
00:47:11 is it it that may be earlier than right well do you know your first meeting with them right when did you when did you become directly involved in the discussions with nhbc
00:47:20 with nhbc i think later on in the statement i i'll highlight all the meetings that i've been present at right but being present at the meeting is
00:47:30 is is one thing but you can also be in email contact with nhbc or talking to them on the telephone yes so when was it that you first began having direct contact with the nhbc oh my god
00:47:43 contact with the nhbc oh my god i can't recall precisely when the first contacts were at the time you became involved
00:47:51 involved did you detect that the relationship between kingspan and the nhbc was to some extent strained there were difficulties yeah yes my first involvement with it was that would be my impression yeah and
00:48:02 that would be my impression yeah and were you aware when you did become involved that the nhbc had been seeking fire test data to approve the use of k-15 over 80 meters since 2013 from two years or so before
00:48:13 2013 from two years or so before yes i believe so and do you remember that
00:48:17 that nhbc had said that they would stop approving the use of k-15 um and in response kingspan had threatened an injunction through their solicitors do you remember that yes
00:48:30 do you remember that yes and you do remember fennec elliott solicitors being engaged by kingspan to send a letter threatening litigation on the 13th of february 2015. i'm aware of that letter were you
00:48:42 i'm aware of that letter were you involved in in the decision to instruct fennec elliot to to write that letter i was
00:48:48 was involving um discussions internally um i think the two meetings i think uh calls i was involved in at the time but most of the um decisions and discussions
00:49:00 most of the um decisions and discussions were there taken by others there were other meetings
00:49:05 who who made the decision do you recall to send
00:49:10 to send the letter or to ask fennick elliott to send such a letter you can look at the letter if you like i think i think tony engaged tony military
00:49:20 military engaged fenwick elliott initially and then there was a team of people involved in the the calls regarding
00:49:30 regarding the progression to that letter yeah because i would describe it and when tony that's tony miller chap engaged fennec elliot did he do so under your instruction or did he do it on his uh of his own
00:49:41 or did he do it on his uh of his own volition and then tell you about it [Music]
00:49:45 [Music] who did make the ultimate decision to threaten an injunction can you tell us i no i don't know who exactly um can i go to your second statement please page 65
00:49:58 page 65 and i want to look at paragraph 6.43 c on that page and you say that in 2015 kingspan worked with the nhbc to agree the terms of the nhbc note
00:50:10 the terms of the nhbc note published in about march 2015 in support of bcatgn18 and which is explained in paragraphs force in paragraph 476 above endorses the bca guidance
00:50:21 the bca guidance setting out acceptable methods for demonstrating compliance with the building regulations as required by the nhpc standards does that tell us that kingspan's work with the nhbc in march 2015
00:50:33 with the nhbc in march 2015 was against the background of kingspan's solicitors fennec elliott threatening the nhbc with an injunction if they told the market that k-15 was
00:50:44 if they told the market that k-15 was unsuitable for use above 18 meters
00:50:49 it's it's certainly around the same time so nhbc's discussions is this right with kingspan in march took place with the threat of legal action hanging over them
00:51:00 action hanging over them i can't recall exactly when that letter was dated the legal injunction 13th of february 2015. and for our transcript reference it's nhb six at five zeros
00:51:11 nhb six at five zeros five zero is nine four one and we can look at it if you like but no if that's the data that's done then it answers yes yes so i think the answer is yes uh to your knowledge was the nhbc told
00:51:25 uh to your knowledge was the nhbc told that the k-15 being sold at that time the first quarter of 2015 was not in fact the k-15 as tested in 2005. no i don't believe so
00:51:42 now a meeting took place with the nhbc on the 18th of june 2015 which i think you did attend didn't you yes uh and just to prompt your recollection
00:51:54 uh and just to prompt your recollection there were a number of things discussed including a list of about 184 projects for which queries existed on the use of k15 that's correct yeah do you have a recollection of that meeting
00:52:05 meeting yes let's look at the note kin402499 please
00:52:17 uh and uh it says i'm afraid it says july at the top but we all i think think that's erroneous uh and i think i've been meredith confirmed that that was wrong and it should be june
00:52:29 june uh the first action there well you can see who was there you were there as was richard burnley and ivan meredith and uh five uh individuals from nhbc including
00:52:39 including steve evans graham perrier and dave white and the first action in there in box one
00:52:45 box one under action is details of all tests carried out to date as well as forward testing program wall typologies time scales duration and sequencing to be provided to nhbc and you can see on the right hand side
00:52:56 and you can see on the right hand side who kingspan apim that's you and mr meredith yes and by 19th of june which was actually the next day so it was urgent wasn't it
00:53:08 uh yes do you know whether that was done whether the action point was carried out i think it was uh i think i've sent the list that they were requesting
00:53:21 sent the list that they were requesting well i ask you that because we do you remember there was a meeting later in the year
00:53:25 the year on the 12th of october 2015 that you attended
00:53:28 attended uh with adrian braze uh with adam brazier
00:53:32 brazier uh adrian brady abrasion yes yes let's go to that nhb uh four zero is one one nine nine please
00:53:46 that's the note of the meeting again you're present there with adrian brazier same individuals there from nhbce meeting 12th of october 2015 action one thing's been to compile comprehensive list of all tests
00:53:58 comprehensive list of all tests including k-15 past straight failed straight planned including details of ownership of results
00:54:03 results and where the test data can be obtained from including the contact details and who by nhbc builders fire engineers etc
00:54:12 etc and we can see that again who is kingspan apab and 23rd of october 2015 is the buy date so it looks as if you were asked for a second time
00:54:23 for a second time to provide a list of kingspan test data to the nhbc um was that new data that you were being asked for or was it a prompt to provide what was indicated you should have provided earlier in the year in june
00:54:37 provided earlier in the year in june i was sure over had sent something so it may be just to give us give any new data was it discussed at the meeting that the nhbc
00:54:50 discussed at the meeting that the nhbc whatever they had been sent by either meredith in june was not satisfactory and that nhbc needed far more detail
00:55:01 i can't recall that detail but possibly but i can't recall that right uh looking at item two kingspan to provide updated project query lists containing
00:55:12 updated project query lists containing details of current inquiries received from builders straight designers around 200 yes sir car 200 kingspan apab 23rd of october 2015. that's that's only uh eight ten days
00:55:25 that's that's only uh eight ten days uh hence isn't it so again further detail there uh and the reference to the circa 200 was that a reference to 200 or so outstanding
00:55:36 outstanding queries on the use of k15 over 80 over 18 meters
00:55:40 18 meters that was that the query list which kings banner developed right uh and probably
00:55:47 probably item for kingspan to provide desktop study reports supporting the eight examples shown in routes to compliance fire safety appendix c pages 18 and 19. is that a reference to
00:55:59 pages 18 and 19. is that a reference to the
00:56:00 the document that was published in august yes that's correct did you provide the desktop reports referred to in the routes to compliance document that you've published two months or so before i believe so
00:56:13 two months or so before i believe so were they subsequently approved by the nhvc do you remember i don't recall you're recording
00:56:23 can we then go to july 2016
00:56:30 kin402297 please
00:56:35 this is an email chain from july 2016 about a year after the discussions we've just been looking at a yeah or nine or nine months or so after that and if you look at
00:56:47 after that and if you look at page one at the bottom we can see that there is an email from adam heath on the eighth of july to you and to adrian brazier and mo asifa fan and others and if you go to the top of page two
00:57:01 and if you go to the top of page two adam heath says yesterday at the nhbc facades conference at which nhbc dclg bre and xover presented
00:57:10 presented nhbc unveiled a new technical note which will be expanded in the future as more test evidence becomes available basically they've taken all the test evidence available in the market featuring combustible insulations
00:57:21 featuring combustible insulations six kin kingspan two extra therm one celotex to come up with three standard wall buildups that they deem automatically compliant
00:57:32 that they deem automatically compliant they all have a number of caveats and any deviation from one of these three wall types will still require supporting evidence in line with bca tgn 18 the basic wool buildup behind the cladding is the same in all instances
00:57:44 cladding is the same in all instances which is as follows and then a list is set out
00:57:53 and um you could see that there now that that news is then sent on if you look back up the email chain please to page one by you
00:58:05 to gwen davis roy veghorst and john garbert the same day a few hours later and you say gents interesting development
00:58:17 you say gents interesting development from nhbc they've effectively eased the passage of compliance for a selection of combustible insulation brands k15 included in three select build ups in high rise rain screen applications overall i feel this is good news as it
00:58:29 overall i feel this is good news as it shows a shift in thinking and an acceptance of combustible insulation and i'm sure is a direct result of our testing and campaigning on this issue however the bad and annoying news is it
00:58:41 however the bad and annoying news is it also allows celetex and extra therm after relatively little effort to ride in on our shirt tails and will put significant pressure on us in these select applications now did you perceive at the time when
00:58:53 now did you perceive at the time when you say that you're sure it's a direct result of our testing and campaigning on this issue that you have had some part to play in the apparent relaxation by the nhbc
00:59:04 in the apparent relaxation by the nhbc in their new guidance in july 16. yeah i thought that the evidence that we provided them um had helped with their thinking but also
00:59:14 also um you know with other work they we're doing but
00:59:18 doing but we were sure we were i'm involved
00:59:23 yes um what testing are you referring to there
00:59:27 there that would have been a large-scale testing at the time right would that have included your july 2014 test
00:59:37 2014 test it it would yes but
00:59:42 which is it that by this time you would have known of course was not the same k-15 as being used in in on buildings you would have known that no i didn't it wasn't until
00:59:53 no i didn't it wasn't until later that i discovered well you would have known it because you knew in july 2014
00:59:58 2014 that it was a research and development product i
01:00:01 product i i knew that that test yeah but at this time i
01:00:04 time i hadn't put that together that that was the same test as we were we're using no we're across purposes you would have known at this time
01:00:13 time that well let me ask you this way was one of the tests that you're referring to that was sent to the nhbc uh the july 2014 test it was it was and therefore you would have known that the nhbc
01:00:27 known that the nhbc had relied upon that test which was not on k-15 as standard but on a development product
01:00:32 product to relax the uh regulate the approach that they displayed in their july 16 document no because i didn't become i was aware
01:00:43 no because i didn't become i was aware that that was that test and that that was there if you steal me i explained earlier um when you say you weren't aware that test was there you mean that test was there
01:00:55 was there you mean that test was there but i
01:00:55 but i hadn't made the connection that it was the development test until later on i i thought you realized it was a development test from 2014 at the time because you were
01:01:06 from 2014 at the time because you were involved in it that's what you did art told us earlier yes what i said was
01:01:11 was that i was aware of that of a development test but then when that test started to be used i didn't make the connection that that it was the same test i thought
01:01:22 that that it was the same test i thought it was was a standard product test oh i see this is the same non-connect this is back to the same non-connection that we discussed yesterday yes so this is another occasion on which you failed a seventh i think occasionally which you
01:01:33 a seventh i think occasionally which you failed to make the connection between use of standard k-15 in the market and the the fact that the july 2014 test had been on a development product yes i see
01:01:46 um and campaigning uh what term i'm so sorry let me just ask you this about testing is it right that you've done no tests with acm panels
01:01:57 with acm panels by july 16.
01:02:01 that's correct yeah so when it says as it does in the email that one of the wall buildups was acm
01:02:13 that wasn't presumably a reference to a kingspan test no did you know or do you know even today
01:02:20 today what test that was i don't do you know or did you know at the time uh what the celetex desktop was
01:02:32 no celtic desktop uh all the test evidence which which was submitted by celetex no i think we were aware that seletex had a test
01:02:43 had a test right i thought assumed it would be that that test right you can't help me you can't help me further with that no campaigning you refer to testing and campaigning on this issue
01:02:55 campaigning on this issue what what camp campaigning was that the campaign route compliance right so you saw at least some kind of link testing campaigning
01:03:06 campaigning between kingspan's testing and campaigning in 2015 and the nhbc technical note which emerged in july 2016. yes i saw a link did you have any direct
01:03:20 yes i saw a link did you have any direct communications with the nhbc about the production of that july 2016 guidance
01:03:33 i think we may have showed them the routes to compliance document right all right but but did you have any input or did anybody in your team have any input into the creation
01:03:45 creation or drafting of the guidance itself that came out from the nhbc in july 2016. no not aware of right
01:03:57 do you know what had happened in between the period october 2015 and the the meeting the minute of which
01:04:08 and the the meeting the minute of which we saw a moment ago and july 2016 which uh impelled nhbc suddenly to approve combustible
01:04:19 suddenly to approve combustible insulation above 18 meters in those three
01:04:22 three designated wall buildups not it's not specifically anything i'm going to turn to a slightly different topic which is lobbying after the fire it's right isn't it that
01:04:33 after the fire it's right isn't it that after the grenfell tower fire in june 2017
01:04:36 2017 kingspan launched a campaign relating to combustible materials used over 18 meters
01:04:45 yes that's correct and i think is this right that the name of that campaign was the kingspan political engagement plan i don't recognize that you don't phrase
01:04:58 i don't recognize that you don't phrase let's um let's look at a document kin four zeros eight one two zero
01:05:09 four zeros eight one two zero now this is a document called kingspan political engagement plan uh and this is the first page of it um with a designed up so this is a created
01:05:22 a designed up so this is a created document
01:05:23 document do you recognize it no you don't um instantly it doesn't carry a date inside it but uh we we the inquiry uh has discovered that the file name
01:05:36 uh has discovered that the file name uh bears the date of august 2017 does that help you with your recollection no have you ever seen this document before do you think i don't certainly don't
01:05:48 do you think i don't certainly don't recall
01:05:48 recall recall that cover right uh well let's look at let's look on into the document um it seems to be drafted by some people called portland
01:05:59 called portland do you know who portland are yes i believe they're an agency in in london an agency for doing what um public relations public affairs yeah
01:06:11 public relations public affairs yeah and did you engage them or do your knowledge
01:06:15 knowledge anybody else at kingspan engage portland in 2017.
01:06:18 in 2017. yes i recall kingspan engaged in portland yes who engaged them who within kingspan engaged them
01:06:26 i'm not sure exactly who would have started that process were you involved in their engagement i certainly went to a couple of meetings
01:06:37 certainly went to a couple of meetings with um portland right let's um let's look on into the document and see if see if you can help us with it can you go to the second page please and
01:06:48 can you go to the second page please and look at the overview um the overview says it's time to get our message out to the people that matter
01:06:55 matter in the first instance initial outreach should be made by kingspan and not by portland
01:06:59 portland it looks better we will draw off letters and emails on your behalf we will ensure each one is tailored to the recipient and we will prepare you adequately for each and every meeting that you're granted
01:07:08 granted portland will be the engine room we must be realistic though some people will not want to meet you and they will not want to be lobbied but there is still immeasurable value in getting kingspan's manifesto in front of these decision makers
01:07:20 these decision makers we want them to read it we need them to read it but that's why it's vital that our messages are punchy memorable and easy to understand following initial contact there will be a program of follow-ups and that's where we hope to
01:07:31 follow-ups and that's where we hope to use our network of contacts to nudge where appropriate and while we cannot promise you access we will pull every string to ensure your messages reach the key people finally there is a discussion to be had about approaching the public inquiry
01:07:43 about approaching the public inquiry we don't know the inquiry's terms of reference and we don't know if kingspan will be asked to give evidence uh and then underneath that we'll look at the bottom of page two group one constituency mps we'll come to
01:07:56 group one constituency mps we'll come to look at that in a moment and the last paragraph might give us a clue to the date of the creation of this document we don't know the inquiries terms of reference now those were published in the middle of august 2017 that's a
01:08:08 the middle of august 2017 that's a matter of record so can we take it that this document was generated after the fire in the middle of june 2017 but
01:08:21 in the middle of june 2017 but after but before the uh publication of the inquiries terms of reference it would appear so far yes it's only about six or say weeks so that that can pin it down pretty accurately now uh can we look at page three
01:08:36 the heading of which is orphaned onto page one constituency mps and here is a list of mps that portland are uh suggesting be lobbied by kingspan is
01:08:47 uh suggesting be lobbied by kingspan is that is that right that's correct yeah does this look familiar to you do you remember this list
01:08:52 list no i don't remember the least looking at the middle of the page do you remember hot kevin holland rake mp yes he's a conservative member for thirsk and malton yes yes and he's got uh two stars next
01:09:04 yes yes and he's got uh two stars next to his name because he's a member of the dclg select committee isn't he [Music]
01:09:09 [Music] i believe so yeah
01:09:12 now do you remember that these individual mps were particularly important to king's band's campaign yes do you remember why they were selected in particular
01:09:26 no i can't recall
01:09:32 can we look at page four group two
01:09:38 key decision makers and there is a list of readily familiar names uh sergio javid amber rudd michael gove
01:09:49 uh sergio javid amber rudd michael gove dame judith hackett and also neil cooper
01:09:56 those were just key decision makers in positions of high political influence weren't they yes and the idea was to
01:10:07 was to be able to access them as well wasn't it i appear to have in this document yes yeah
01:10:12 yeah and then meeting requests to secretaries of state are likely to be referred to the appropriate ministries alok sharma mp minister for state for housing and planning nick heard mp minister for state for policing and the fire service and george
01:10:24 policing and the fire service and george eustis
01:10:25 eustis minister for state for agriculture fisheries and food including better regulation actions underneath that portland to draft letter requesting a meeting kingspan to approve and send portland to provide follow-up to secure
01:10:36 portland to provide follow-up to secure meetings
01:10:37 meetings portland to provide briefing notes ahead of meetings and the document goes on in that kind of vein but but it's clear from that that
01:10:48 it's clear from that that kingspan had engaged portland to be able to facilitate as best it could with no guarantees accessed to the very highest levels of power
01:11:03 it yes it doesn't i can't see that very eyes levels of power and then group three bottom of page four top of page five
01:11:11 five group chairs and mps with a key interest
01:11:20 page over to page five please yes um and here are some particular mps with key interests uh uh do you know how that group was selected
01:11:32 selected other than perhaps by reference to their positions
01:11:37 no just from what portland's view was i think right and we have a number of obvious names here don't we we've got uh clive betts he was the chair of the dclg select committee wasn't he yes
01:11:48 dclg select committee wasn't he yes yes uh and others such as helen hayes who's a member of that committee and mark prisk
01:11:59 and mark prisk who was a member of the select committee on housing and planning and the appg [Music]
01:12:04 [Music] can we then go to kin408117 please
01:12:15 this is an email from [Music]
01:12:21 [Music] thomas annaly at some people called grayling
01:12:26 who are public affairs it appears yes yes to siobhan dwyer john garba mark harris and tony ryan of kingspan and the email is fifth february 2018 and
01:12:37 and the email is fifth february 2018 and and mr annaly writes all please find attached an updated letter to clive betts a key messaging document and stakeholder list which details next actions regarding the key messaging document it
01:12:49 regarding the key messaging document it would be very helpful if you could let us know of any feedback technical mistakes we might have made and if you could provide any proof points to support argumentation one of the key arguments that we need to win with political stakeholders
01:13:02 win with political stakeholders is that combustible materials are no more dangerous than non-combustible materials when improperly installed we've attempted to provide some lines on this but feel the argument needs to be stronger
01:13:12 stronger regarding the stakeholder list we've used the portland one as the basis but added some more mps tiered them and added next steps the next steps are also tiered by urgency if you could have a look at the kingspan actions column
01:13:24 a look at the kingspan actions column and in particular send us any further feedback on the meetings you've already held that would be most appreciated we will then collate everything together you'll see that there is an officials tab and a third-party tab we're compiling names to add these now
01:13:37 we're compiling names to add these now now before i ask some questions on this i just want to show you kin-408118 please which is a spreadsheet
01:13:48 and we need to go to the native of that please where we will see
01:14:07 [Music] i'm sorry about the pause yeah there it is
01:14:18 is a a spreadsheet uh and the uh first entry on the spreadsheet right at the very top is clive bett's labour party position chair department
01:14:29 labour party position chair department for communities and local government and uh you can see what the spreadsheet does it identifies the uh mp the party the position kingspan site emails follow up one two three and four
01:14:41 follow up one two three and four grailing action kingspan action priority notes it goes on um do you recognize that spreadsheet uh i don't you don't have you ever seen it before
01:14:53 i don't recall it in that fashion but i know there was information around that who i mean of course you at the time this is early 2018 now so after the fire and after the portland communications
01:15:05 after the portland communications document we've seen um who within your department was responsible for this exercise
01:15:17 from the from the business so the political engagement was mainly driven through
01:15:23 through john garbert and shaborno dwyer
01:15:30 right and what was your role i was you were after all head of technical environment i was there supporting them yes right you were there supporting them did you not see this this document at the time i can't recall it right
01:15:42 it right and we can see from this document the efforts that have been made to contact mps and stakeholders by telephone email letter and then follow-ups to get meetings
01:15:52 meetings the impression one gets from this document is that this was a a pretty uh carefully orchestrated campaign
01:16:02 yes across a wide front with a number of extremely powerful and important stakeholders yes
01:16:10 [Applause] now can we then go to your second witness statement i want to come back to the precise arguments that you're actually putting forward which i think we saw from the
01:16:22 we saw from the the grayling uh email the key argument which is that combustible materials are no more dangerous and non-combustible materials when improperly installed
01:16:33 when improperly installed that's what said i just want to ask you about that if you go to your second statement please and go to page 113 i'd like to look at paragraph 12.3 e at
01:16:44 i'd like to look at paragraph 12.3 e at the foot of the page there and you um are explaining perhaps i should just show you the start of this paragraph if you go back a page please
01:16:54 please 112. uh
01:16:57 112. uh you you explain in paragraph 12.2 just so because it's fair to be fair to you to give you the full context you say this
01:17:05 this experience and reflection has led us to the view
01:17:09 the view that the most effective way of achieving the goal of improving the safety of building occupants in the event of a fire would be to ensure that all cladding systems are tested as complete systems
01:17:18 systems in their intended configuration to bs8414 standard says to meet the requirements set out in br135 experience suggests that this delivers better safety outcomes and in our view is the best practice
01:17:29 and in our view is the best practice rather than simply banning of classes of certain materials the rationale behind this view is as follows and then you set it out just pausing there this is your second witness statement so it was done
01:17:42 witness statement so it was done in october 2019 wasn't it it saved some two and a half years after the fire yes and you're you're not giving evidence
01:17:50 evidence as to what happened in the past you're explaining kingspan's current position why was that why did you feel it necessary to set out what kingspan's view was as at the date
01:18:01 what kingspan's view was as at the date you wrote this statement i think it was just to show that you know we believe that testing large-scale testing is
01:18:13 testing large-scale testing is as important on the all systems rather than just
01:18:17 than just on certain classifications was the idea to
01:18:20 to promote this message through the inquiry i think it was just to provide um my view on it right and the relevance of your view
01:18:31 right and the relevance of your view in the context of a witness statement in the inquiry was what just just two in just to inform in form i would suggest it goes a bit further than that it was
01:18:42 it goes a bit further than that it was to promote or push the kingspan line through the inquiry
01:18:49 i think it was to show what what my thinking was at that time so you right okay let's look and see what you say then where i wanted to go next page please 12.3 e
01:19:02 12.3 e you say it's not correct to assume that any combination of non-combustible systems are safe irrespective of how they are assembled in a holistic system permitted combinat product combinations can yield
01:19:13 combinations can yield unsafe systems systems comprising so-called non-combustible and limited combustibility both in quotes
01:19:21 quotes insulation and or cladding system have failed to meet br 135 criteria such as and then you set out under subparagraph one failed in big bold italics
01:19:33 one failed in big bold italics capital letters test one uh 27th of october 2016 and you set out the identity there and over the top of the next page you can show that the
01:19:45 can show that the insulation material was rockwool fujira rockwool foil face mineral fiber stone wool insulation rated as a1 and then failed to test two australia
01:19:56 and then failed to test two australia 6th march 2018 with an a2 panel with rockwool mineral fibre stonewool and then fail test three this test was
01:20:07 fail test three this test was commissioned uh by kingspan and carried out at x over in dubai
01:20:12 in dubai on the second of july 2018 the system comprised rockwool duo slab which is rated a1 and vitricore g2 which was understood at the time by kingspan to be rated a2
01:20:22 rated a2 the construction of the test rig was a replica of the ministry of housing communities local government tests conducted immediately after the tragedy at grenfell tower the test failed on the basis of thermocouple data which is detailed in
01:20:33 thermocouple data which is detailed in the enclosed br135 classification report from x over and i'm going to come back to that in a little bit of detail later on um i don't know
01:20:44 um i don't know mr podgetto whether you saw or approved kingspan's opening submissions for module two did you i think i saw them right did you you would have seen
01:20:56 right did you you would have seen therefore that kingspan in its evening submissions made specific reference to these three failed tests yes yes and indeed another one little venice towers
01:21:06 towers um now
01:21:10 i want to come back to the dubai test shortly but i want to look at some email chains
01:21:15 chains related to kingspan's testing in 2018 first and first is ulster march 2018.
01:21:26 is ulster march 2018. can we go to kin40s 4637 please
01:21:35 if we go to the bottom of the email chain to page three and the first email in time there uh we can see that it's from the 2nd of march 2018
01:21:46 march 2018 from mark harris to you and john garbert among others uh and you can see that tony ryan is a recipient and sivan eduard is copied as is gilbert mccarthy just tell me
01:21:57 as is gilbert mccarthy just tell me gilbert mccarthy what was his role at the time
01:22:01 the time i think he's managing director of the what we call the panels side of the kingspan
01:22:08 kingspan business right and the subject of the email was ulster test stroke mhclg select committee lobbying hi adrian john at al
01:22:20 hi adrian john at al it's clear that kevin hollinrake he's an mp
01:22:24 mp as we've seen in your list is still pretty lukewarm about our draft letter stroke arguments to address mhclg select committee and mp concerns the major evidence gap in quotations
01:22:35 the major evidence gap in quotations is his concern about fastbred with quotes combustibles unquote in relation to poor installation he seems to believe that poor installation is a major problem with combustible systems but not with non-combustible in other words he and
01:22:47 non-combustible in other words he and members of the select committee need to see evidence to persuade them that poor installation is an issue with both systems following discussions with tony with roy tony and adam
01:23:00 tony and adam i have a simple proposal that could address this issue and give us the evidence we need to demonstrate the non-combustible systems are not as fail-safe as many presume one gather evidence to demonstrate that
01:23:12 one gather evidence to demonstrate that fire-spreading cavities is potentially dangerous
01:23:15 dangerous irrespective of cladding type a good example is the statement in br135 and there's a quotation from br135 third edition 2013
01:23:26 from br135 third edition 2013 um two further iso 13785 part one tests at ulster university to demonstrate similar performance of k15 versus rw that is is that rockwool i would think
01:23:39 that is is that rockwool i would think so
01:23:40 so when tested without cavity barriers this would involve a repeat of the original tests
01:23:44 tests 100 millimeters k15 with a2 acm without cavity barriers and flashing at top of rig and duo rock with a2 acm is above there's little doubt that flames will
01:23:55 there's little doubt that flames will appear at the top of the rig during the test
01:23:59 test and the time differential between k-15 and dunrock sorry duo rock duo rock may not be significant i think this evidence will be critically important in persuading kevin hollinrigg
01:24:10 important in persuading kevin hollinrigg to be become an advocate of our view and very useful in lobbying activities elsewhere to demonstrate that so-called deemed to satisfy systems can have rapid fire spread if cavities are not protected for example as a result of
01:24:21 protected for example as a result of poor installation fast bedding cavities is similar with mmmf and k-15 and mmf is mineral fiber isn't it yes yeah and k15 ie lack of cavity barriers
01:24:32 yeah and k15 ie lack of cavity barriers and high performance rigid insulation systems the past br 135 requirements is not an enhanced risk against non-combustible the critical issue is the correct design and installation of all systems
01:24:45 and installation of all systems now you've explained our w is rockwool could be rockwool yes uh iso 13785 part one test
01:24:53 one test uh is similar isn't it to a bs8414 test but we're using a gas fire and on a smaller scale yes it's more of a medium scale yes than a large scale yes so you understood when you got this
01:25:05 so you understood when you got this email is this right that mark harris was advocating a comparison between rockwell on the one hand or mineral wool on the one hand
01:25:13 one hand and k-15 on the other when tested without cavity barriers in order to demonstrate that fire spread can be similar in each case yes i would have understood that
01:25:26 yes i would have understood that and indeed that's why he equates br135 which is that if cavity barriers are absent then a facade system is going to be unsafe regardless of whatever materials are used yes now
01:25:39 why was it necessary to demonstrate that in a in a test rather than simply um using experience
01:25:48 i think we just add weight to the to the argument of experience right let's go up page three go up to page three and go a
01:25:59 page three go up to page three and go a little bit higher up the page to the response that uh you send to mark harris
01:26:07 uh on friday the 2nd of march 2018 uh and to others uh including gilbert mccarthy
01:26:16 mccarthy hi mark okay i see where you're coming from and i've been more than happy to swap our plan tests on a2 to set up as described below it would be easy enough you see that and then two days later if
01:26:27 you see that and then two days later if you go up
01:26:27 you go up to the bottom of page one and over to page two fourth of march 2018
01:26:35 uh john garbett responds to you uh and the same recipients on the email chain it appears looking at the videos he says looking at the videos of the original test the flames only got as high as the
01:26:46 test the flames only got as high as the cavity barrier and the a2pf tests so i think you're going to need to create some draw to get the flames to get above the barrier or rig so we will get a greater draw with narrower gaps or wider
01:26:57 narrower gaps or wider sorry i'll do that again so will we get a greater draw with narrower gaps or wider gaps between panels clearly the flashing will have to be absent we would be would we be better using fr
01:27:09 we would be would we be better using fr or a2 for this test roy which would give most fuel to get the flames
01:27:15 flames up there now first of all what videos is he referring to do you know i don't no no well you received this email did you ask him so that you could understand it
01:27:26 understand it no i don't think i did why is that um
01:27:33 trying to think what videos i may have understood what videos you meant at the time i just can't recall it now [Music]
01:27:42 [Music] all right why is he suggesting creating draw on the mineral will test to ensure flames get to the top of the rig [Music]
01:27:56 i think to do a comparison you'd have to do exactly the same on both
01:28:03 both so one of the um factors of how a system would perform is the cavity size for example and so if you have a narrow cavity
01:28:17 and so if you have a narrow cavity would that create more of a draw than a wide cavity but whatever you did for one you'd have to do for the other in order to get a comparison and why is john garbert asking the
01:28:28 and why is john garbert asking the question which would give most fuel to get the flames up there i don't know why he's asking that
01:28:35 that is he setting the rig up to fail i don't think so no because like i said you'd have to do it for both so if if it was
01:28:46 for both so if if it was more challenging for one it would be equally more challenging for the other
01:28:54 right what would be the point of his question which would give the most fuel to get the flames up there either an
01:29:02 an fr or an a2 [Music]
01:29:06 [Music] acm well that's on me that's how i think he's saying there which of the fr grade or a2 to use for this yes why would you want to get the flames up
01:29:19 why would you want to get the flames up there
01:29:20 there i think try and create a worst case scenario for the comparison testing
01:29:27 well well a worst case scenario would be not to use cavity barriers wouldn't it as well as the other the other
01:29:37 other factors so the cladding element the cavity size no cavity barriers they all have a an influence
01:29:45 influence right okay so this was the idea was to create a worst case scenario is that right trying to piece together from this information i think well let's see how we go with that um we can look at the
01:29:56 we go with that um we can look at the response
01:29:58 response uh from um mr harris mark harris if you go to page one just a little bit above it uh fifth of march
01:30:09 march uh to you uh and uh others uh hi john i think we definitely have to use the a2 acm an important message of this test could be that you can get excessive fire spreading cavities in
01:30:20 excessive fire spreading cavities in rain screens that are compliant with the linear route they thereby demonstrating the importance of installing cavity barriers and testing the full system to demonstrate they work in the actual rain screen build-up
01:30:32 in the actual rain screen build-up in addition it demonstrates that getting the installation right is just as important with so-called non-combustible straight limited combustible systems as it is with combustible systems that pass bs-8414 so does that tell us that the
01:30:43 bs-8414 so does that tell us that the point of the testing was to demonstrate that k-15 was no more risky than mineral will
01:30:54 i think to compare them in in the same system to show how they perform and perform the same way then it could be assessed as
01:31:05 assessed as but at the same risk if you like same performance yes my question is was the purpose of that to demonstrate that k15 was no more risky fire risky
01:31:16 that k15 was no more risky fire risky than mineral rule
01:31:20 yeah i think you've to show a similar performance yes in a system that is
01:31:28 and in doing that you were proposing or a system build up that would fail even with mineral wool
01:31:36 yes
01:31:40 let's look at another email chain a little bit later in the year the next month kin four zero is four six five eight
01:31:55 this is a chain which is entitled linear route action plan uh it's a long email chain and it's it runs from pages one to page six pages one to six and the first email on
01:32:06 pages one to six and the first email on the chain starts on page four and runs through to page six so can we go to page four uh it's at the bottom of page four mark harris ninth of april 2018
01:32:20 harris ninth of april 2018 and it's sent to john garbett you and others including nick jenkins and tony ryan and it's copy to gene merta and gilbert mccarthy see that yes and it's
01:32:32 see that yes and it's a lot of it's in red and it starts the objective of the discussion was to look closely at potential issues related to the use of linear route compliance in other words provide evidence to demonstrate that the
01:32:43 provide evidence to demonstrate that the linear route approach has weaknesses and full-scale testing is essential for all systems we reviewed evidence currently available and discussed
01:32:54 available and discussed how we can generate evidence for use in both the political arena and with the hackett review team you see that
01:33:01 that yeah the objective of the discussion what discussion was that it was clearly a discussion which had preceded this email
01:33:07 email what was that you know not specifically what that might have been right
01:33:16 why did you need evidence for use in the political arena and with the hackett review team i think because there was an assumption that just classifying
01:33:30 an assumption that just classifying products on their own performance and then allowing them on a linear route wasn't always going to be potentially safe
01:33:38 safe when you compare it to say an 8414 test for example on a system
01:33:46 right did you realize by this point this is april 18 that the insulation used at grenfell tower was rs 5000
01:33:57 tower was rs 5000 namely a pir product oh pir yes we knew yeah
01:34:01 yeah sorry and that therefore wasn't a product of limited combustibility or a non-combustible product was it that's correct so materials of limited combustibility or
01:34:12 limited combustibility or non-combustible materials hadn't actually caused any problem at grenfell tower no that's correct so what was the point of attacking their use
01:34:23 because if you assume just by their individual performance that when they put into a system is is safe without testing that
01:34:35 is is safe without testing that system that assumption could be flawed but that position was one that kingspan was driving no one had suggested at that point
01:34:48 no one had suggested at that point that materials which were either non-combustible or of limiting combustibility were dangerous aren't they no and in and of themselves they're not and materials of
01:35:00 they're not and materials of non-combustibility or limited combustibility have not caused the fire or any role to play in the fire at grenfell tower had they no that's correct so what was the point of mounting a campaign
01:35:12 of mounting a campaign to attack the use of non-combustible materials or materials of limited combustion not to attack the use of them it's too it's to question the logic
01:35:23 it's too it's to question the logic around
01:35:24 around only only using them based on their individual performances rather than how they perform in a system that question was one that originated with kingspan
01:35:35 with kingspan wasn't it
01:35:39 that question about how they perform in the system yeah or what i've just said yes yes it wasn't a problem in the market or the
01:35:50 it wasn't a problem in the market or the industry it wasn't a problem that had been
01:35:52 been come across by by the tests that the dclg or mhclg as it was it was it was a problem that had originated with the marketing campaign
01:36:03 campaign which uh we saw in the portland document and then the thomas emily annaly document about getting the message out correct yeah now let's um go on with the email
01:36:16 now let's um go on with the email point one over the page please data from failed bsa414 tests we are aware of at least two bsa414 tests
01:36:25 tests comprising only non-limited combustible materials that have failed to meet bl-135 criteria key reasons for the failures are believed to be associated with the a2 cassette type robustness geometry and or combustibility of the mineral fiber
01:36:37 combustibility of the mineral fiber insulation system binder content presence of polyethylene adhere aluminium foil however we don't have access to the reports or any rights to make this information public actions test a leukopanel a2 material in
01:36:49 actions test a leukopanel a2 material in bomb calorimeter to determine heat release nj that's nick jenkins has sample also test vitricor a2 honeycomb in a bomb calorimeter this testing is for information only at this stage
01:37:01 this stage and then two the s8414 test proposal dubai
01:37:06 dubai kil has three upcoming slots at x over in dubai and has agreed to make a slot on the 10th of may available for a test on a system comprised of materials deemed to satisfy br135
01:37:18 br135 discussion during the meeting identified the following test proposal for a configuration that has the potential to fail br 135 criteria
01:37:28 criteria a bs8414 part 2 b mmf duo slab insulation three 38 millimeter ventilated cavity four
01:37:38 four aluco bond a2 acm cassettes with quotes weak structural specification e cavity barriers included actions nj to create drawing of a2 cassette assembly that could perform poorly
01:37:49 assembly that could perform poorly also arranged fabrication detailed test specifications to be developed and agreed by all ap that's you nj nick jenkins to arrange materials for tests on 10th may in dubai
01:38:00 materials for tests on 10th may in dubai kip strait kil to share costs mhap so looking at this is it right that the basic plan was to show that materials which could be used on the linear route
01:38:12 which could be used on the linear route might be included in the bs8414 system test which would then fail that's correct and your commercial purpose in undertaking this effort would be to promote the use of a k15
01:38:25 would be to promote the use of a k15 through 8414 tests that's correct and uh to undermine the market for uh non-combustible uh materials and
01:38:36 uh non-combustible uh materials and materials of limited combustibility at the same time from them taking the linear route so yes they should also be tested is is our view every system should be tested
01:38:48 view every system should be tested and the plan was to sew dots in the mind of the mhclg about the safety of mineral wool and a2 products
01:38:57 not about the products and themselves no it's because the products aren't in themselves unsafe as our
01:39:05 our combustible products in themselves are not unsafe it's how they perform in a system which could be used on a building as the system that's outlined there yeah
01:39:16 as the system that's outlined there yeah and the purpose of doing that would be to demonstrate that if they fail an eight four one four test then then they're dangerous to label non-combustible or materials of limited combustibility no not dangerous to label than that but just it would be
01:39:30 to label than that but just it would be wrong to assume that it depends what your what's your bar for safety so what we're saying is our bar for safety is a bs-8414 test it's the most rigorous
01:39:41 is a bs-8414 test it's the most rigorous test in in the uk and possibly arguably in the large scale across the world and so we feel that that is a potential level of
01:39:51 level of safety to achieve and so if you have a system
01:39:55 system that doesn't achieve that level of safety regardless of the material that are in it
01:40:01 are in it then is that is that then safe did you not if that was the plan detect a degree of irony
01:40:11 irony in the approach given that for more than a decade
01:40:14 a decade as you well knew by this point kingspan k15
01:40:18 k15 had actually been sold without an applicable 8414 test
01:40:27 yeah i would agree with that there's an element of irony but it's the it's the whole system i mean systems generally were being put onto buildings without any testing whether there was
01:40:38 whether there was um you know our product or other products in the market that was happening yeah so you know to stop that happening and to
01:40:49 you know to stop that happening and to um
01:40:50 um issues that like we saw on grenfell is if you had an 8414 test for that system regardless of the materials
01:40:59 materials that comprised it and it passed you you'd have a measure of safety built in yes [Music]
01:41:10 [Music] looking at the last paragraph of this email on page five
01:41:25 yeah he says i thought we had an extremely useful session this morning with actions that could deliver some very valuable evidence to support the need for full-scale testing of all systems and demonstrate that materials that are deemed to satisfy the linear route do
01:41:37 deemed to satisfy the linear route do not automatically meet br 135 criteria when tested full scale to bs 8414 that was the purpose wasn't it he's captured it in a nutshell there yes i just i've just explained
01:41:48 i just i've just explained and the commercial purpose for kingspan would be to remove wouldn't it a major source of competition in the above 18 meter market because you would require people like rockwell to submit their uh mineral
01:42:00 rockwell to submit their uh mineral world not only to uh a four seven six eleven test for not for non-combustibility or limited combustibility but also an eight four one four test well it it wouldn't fall on rockwell to provide a bs8414 test that
01:42:13 provide a bs8414 test that didn't correct rockwell as kingspan insulation don't manufacture systems they just manufacture components that go in those systems so it would have required whoever is
01:42:25 so it would have required whoever is responsible for the design or installation of a given system to have it tested with the products they'd like to use did you see the aftermath of the grenfell tower fire as something of a
01:42:36 grenfell tower fire as something of a commercial opportunity absolutely not and you were going to exploit the commercial opportunity uh by casting that sewing doubt planting the seed of doubt about
01:42:47 the seed of doubt about as we've seen the use of non-combustible and limited combustible materials by directing attention to 8414 and how those materials even if they are
01:42:58 and how those materials even if they are non-combustible can perform badly in a full system test now what we know is as the government testing proved that had that system been subjected to an four one four test
01:43:09 been subjected to an four one four test under the criteria of one three five it wouldn't wouldn't have passed going back to the middle of page five in this email if we can i read this to you and i'm going to ask you about it in a little bit more detail
01:43:20 you about it in a little bit more detail uh you can see that the dubai proposal under part 2 of this email
01:43:26 says under letter d that it would be designed or configured with the potential to fail the criteria d a leukobond a2 acm cassettes with weak structural
01:43:37 a2 acm cassettes with weak structural specification you see that yes and then under the letter e
01:43:42 letter e nj to create drawing of a2 cassette assembly that could perform poorly why was why were was mark harris designing a test with weak structural specifications and an a2 cassette
01:43:54 specifications and an a2 cassette assembly that could perform poorly i would say there's different
01:44:00 different methods of manufacturing cassettes and i would have i guess from that you've got a range which um some may perform better than others
01:44:11 um some may perform better than others structurally um and so it's possible that a you know that construction or weaker structural product would be used within a project
01:44:22 a project so if you make it to that then you're creating that sort of worst case scenario well you say you're setting up a worst
01:44:33 well you say you're setting up a worst case scenario it looks as if kingspan was planning to set a mineral test up to fail
01:44:39 fail no it was to set it up to a potential scenario that could be realistically built on a on a building
01:44:53 but what i'm not sure i understand this the the a to e are particular details of a bigger idea which is introduced in the sentence which precedes it which is namely a configuration that has the
01:45:04 namely a configuration that has the potential to fail br 135 criteria why design a test that has the potential to fail
01:45:10 to fail because that could be a system that could get
01:45:14 could get through the linear route onto a building but
01:45:18 but but yeah the idea surely would be to do the best you could to show the most robust system and then compare the two repair k15 a mineral wall not the worst well now a most robust system
01:45:30 well now a most robust system you would assume or that the most robust you could build that you would assume would pass a br-135
01:45:39 if the idea was to set up a test which would demonstrate that mineral wool was not reliably non-combustible and that that label should not shouldn't be used anymore why not set up a a test that illustrated
01:45:53 why not set up a a test that illustrated the similarities rather than reduced everything down to the lowest level the worst case scenario i'm not sure what you mean by it shouldn't carry a label i've limited i don't think we ever challenged
01:46:04 i don't think we ever challenged that scenario about what um rock will describe their products or whoever else described their products but
01:46:11 but what we're trying to do here is demonstrate that this is a potential it's a standard manufacturing process it's a potential to have a building designed and installed
01:46:21 installed along these lines which ordinarily would not get any challenge on each overall performance the plan was to use a test which has the potential to fail wasn't it
01:46:30 wasn't it uh as a so-called piece of empirical evidence with which to lobby the mhclg in order to either to remove or dilute
01:46:38 or dilute the linear route it was to have an alternative to the linear route and that is to have a tested system
01:46:47 system and we can see from the email run that gene merta and gilbert mccarthy members of kingspan's top management were in on this weren't they they were aware yes mr chairman i'm
01:46:58 they were aware yes mr chairman i'm i'm part way through this email but i'm not going to finish it before a natural break
01:47:03 break right so should we stop at that point that's probably sensible right thank you just give me a moment please
01:47:19 and mr pardister are we to understand that the motive for all this testing at kingspan's expense was to benefit the public at large
01:47:28 large i i believe that if the regulations were based around the 8414 test and that every system was tested to that then that could have that effect
01:47:42 then that could have that effect no but that wasn't quite my question my question was whether you're telling us that the motivation of kingspan in undertaking all this testing was entirely altruistic
01:47:55 um openstack was entirely altruistic but it's it's it's part of it right well we'll stop there for a short break we'll come back at quarter to 12
01:48:06 break we'll come back at quarter to 12 please and again please don't discuss your evidence with anyone while you're out of the room closed up all right thank you very much
01:48:20 of course the 12's in this
02:06:46 yes would you ask mr paul jr to come back in please
02:06:57 back in please [Music]
02:07:04 all right mr puncher yes thank you yes mr millen
02:07:07 mr millen yes uh mr potager we're still on the email at
02:07:11 email at 4658 please we can just go back to that
02:07:17 and i've shown you the middle of that page already the test program at ulster university uh and it's right isn't it that in that one as well the cassette drawings if you
02:07:28 one as well the cassette drawings if you look in the indented part nj to prepare cassette drawings standard and weak
02:07:33 and weak variants you see that yes um just looking at these two i have to suggest to you that kingspan was searching for the worst case scenario in regards to acm
02:07:44 worst case scenario in regards to acm cassette geometry to test in their linear route bs8414 test both in dubai and in ulster
02:07:59 [Music] um where did it say worst case scenario well standard a week very weak
02:08:08 very weak yes but within the obviously the realms of the manufacturing process right um looking at uh the last point number four that relates to poor installation and it
02:08:19 that relates to poor installation and it says we discussed the potential to demonstrate that poor installation can cause failure in bs8414 it was generally felt that this was a dangerous route to go down for a variety of valid reasons
02:08:30 of valid reasons it was always promote best practice installation information from the above tests in dubai and ulster would mitigate the need for data on poor installation why would the did you understand it why
02:08:41 why would the did you understand it why would these tests mitigate the need for data on poor installation
02:08:54 i think what he's saying there is if it's designed and installed correctly then you don't need to discuss poor it's not relevant then on
02:09:05 then on poor installation it's very difficult to design a system around a potential poor installation scenario
02:09:15 scenario so it's best stick to best practice right
02:09:19 right so it doesn't then it does mitigate any need for collecting data on a on a poor installation because you haven't built a poor installation so you could eliminate poor installation as one of the variables
02:09:31 of the variables yes now going up the email chain the next day 10th of april 2018 if we can go up to page four uh
02:09:43 we in fact i think i want the bottom of page three i'm so sorry which is where the email starts uh nick jenkins sends an email to mark harris john garbett you phil cook and others including gene
02:09:54 phil cook and others including gene merta and gilbert mccarthy you see and he says okay this represents a real challenge however we've made some good progress today and then if you look at a little bit
02:10:05 and then if you look at a little bit lower down um under bs 8414 test proposal dubai um he's talking there about a 10th may slot for that test
02:10:16 a 10th may slot for that test and he says to utilize the test slot booked by kil on 10th may available for a test on a system comprised of materials
02:10:24 materials deemed to satisfy br135 ap is advised we need to get the full set of panels and components to penbridge to be packed for air freight to dubai by the end of the day friday the 13th of april this week
02:10:35 week now this represents a challenge but it's not impossible and then he makes a list drawings preparation started today etc and then at b we have some a luca bond a2 in stock from which we can fabricate
02:10:47 a2 in stock from which we can fabricate the panels c ap is confirmed they have 180 millimeters rw in stock at pembroke to service this test
02:10:56 test so that's the background to that now the next part of this email i want to focus on particularly d the siderest have recommended we use the envirograph cavity barrier products these meet regulation or regs
02:11:07 these meet regulation or regs requirements but their performance is expected to be poor we will not utilize panel inserts but attempt to cut the cavity barriers to suit the geometry of the panels this will further weaken their performance
02:11:19 performance e the panel system as drawn is expected to perform badly in spite of being a2 as it relies on bonded stiffness and extrusions for its structural stability
02:11:30 stability the panel is not fixed on its vertical edges and the bonded connection are expected to deteriorate and fail quickly in the bs 8414 test the way the internal corner is detailed will allow the flames to bypass the
02:11:42 will allow the flames to bypass the vertical cavity barriers and attack the cavity of the wing wall
02:11:47 f the vertical joint is ventilated and the fire will enter the assembly through this baffled joint g the horizon the horizontal joint is ventilated and the fire will enter the assembly
02:11:58 and the fire will enter the assembly through this baffled joint it looks from those parts of this description of what was proposed that this
02:12:05 this was a deliberately uh planned test so that it would fail deliberately set up to fail i think again i think that is the weakest option
02:12:16 weakest option of a compliant system so it would still be compliant with that i'm not sure whether that would be
02:12:23 would be a typical build up but certainly a potential build up um so i think again it was designed around
02:12:31 around building something which could be used on a building potentially but you're not setting up are you a worst case scenario kind of or or as you put it weakest option of a
02:12:42 or as you put it weakest option of a compliant system in order neutrally to see what happens you're setting it up deliberately so that it will fail
02:12:53 that it will fail the performance will be weaker that's what's happening here isn't it but that system would still be within regulations and guidance so if that system then fails it it
02:13:06 so if that system then fails it it proves the point
02:13:10 why not just a stamp set set up a best case scenario in order to do the comparison because a best-case scenario regardless of the materials that you do you use is very likely to
02:13:24 that you do you use is very likely to pass
02:13:25 pass as we've got many passes with our product built to those conditions i'm sure with the you know the non-combustible insulation that would also pass why not take an example from one of the
02:13:36 why not take an example from one of the historic desktop studies pendleton spruce for example and just replicate that just use mineral and just use mineral fiber in other words a system that was being used in the market because
02:13:50 being used in the market because if you've got a p called acm on for example that was already proved that that would fail by the government testing
02:13:59 testing all right try one without a pe core
02:14:04 well this but then a p core not a p core is not of limited combustibility unless you're then talking about the a2 product
02:14:12 product so this is an a2 product so it's got the linear route to compliance so this system is a linear route to compliance system
02:14:23 compliance system well it's not a linear route compliance system is it that's a contradiction in term or there's no such thing as a linear root compliance system is there you either have a linear root compliance which passes the limited combustibility
02:14:34 which passes the limited combustibility tests
02:14:35 tests or you have a system test so this this was built up so there's a system on the building that's the system i'm talking about that system would comply with the linear
02:14:46 that system would comply with the linear route to compliance which then if you then subject to an eight four one foot test and it fails proves the point we're trying to make
02:15:00 i mean how else can you explain what mr jenkins says in e for example and it is only an example of what he's saying where the panel is not fixed on its vertical edges and the bonded
02:15:11 vertical edges and the bonded connections are expected to deteriorate and fail quickly why did you set out to have the panels deteriorate and fail quickly
02:15:23 because like i said that's a potential design that could could get used on a building
02:15:32 the email continues assuming sign off of drawings tomorrow we will and then he sets out a a a set of proposed
02:15:41 proposed milestones and then he says also looking to source some vitrical g2 via contact in dubai this would be another deemed to satisfy product that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system everything is
02:15:53 poorly as part of a system everything is going to have to go like clockwork for all this to work but it all is possible i'm going to come back to vitricord g2 shortly your response to all of this is the next email above it on the 11th of april 2018.
02:16:07 and you say there on page three thanks nick i can also provide some technical support plus filming for the iso
02:16:17 iso test in ulster once we've confirmation of the dates please let me know and i will arrange i think i take it that from that that at least you agreed with this scheme that nick jenkins was proposing or
02:16:28 that nick jenkins was proposing or rather that mark harris and nick jenkins had been proposing
02:16:33 proposing yes did mr murder or mr mccarthy who are copied in on these emails did they express to you any disagreement with the plan
02:16:41 plan to set up the dubai test so that it would perform in the way that mr jenkins had predicted or described in his email no
02:16:49 no did you have any discussion with jean murtagh or uh mr mccarthy gilbert mccarthy about these proposals no not not very cool what was the purpose of including these very senior members of management
02:17:01 members of management in this email chain uh i don't know what the purpose was from the from the original email that came out um other than obviously to keep them abreast of
02:17:12 abreast of the work that we were doing gene murtagh was and i think remains the chief executive officer of kingspan global doesn't he that's correct yeah so this linear route action plan was not some detailed
02:17:24 action plan was not some detailed uh proposal in some distant part of the business
02:17:28 business this proposal went right to the very top of the kingspan organization didn't it well these these emails are copied into gene and gilbert's we haven't seen we've seen a lot of material in the last
02:17:39 we've seen a lot of material in the last two and a half weeks from kingsman we haven't seen i think i'm right in saying any emails at all with gilbert mccarthy or jean murtagh on them does that tell us that
02:17:49 us that that of all the things to do with k15 this was of particular importance to kingspan
02:17:56 kingspan as a global entity
02:18:01 yes it would be now on page two we go up we can see nick jenkins response on the same day 1550
02:18:13 jenkins response on the same day 1550 to you again copied to the same uh copy or recipient parties i appreciate that adrian thanks roy any news on the availability of the effectus facility next week the ball is rolling
02:18:24 facility next week the ball is rolling for production of five panel sets as per the drawings i sent last night regarding the dubai tests please find attach the drawings for review and sign off
02:18:32 off the assembly is currently detailed with a block work wall and will in fact be an sfs wall i have introduced as many weak features
02:18:39 features stroke details as possible to ensure that it has the best chance of performing poorly whilst at the same time retaining the panel modules
02:18:48 modules and cavity barrier arrangement associated with all tests to date if you have any comments these will be needed by return as material will be cnc cut and fabricated into panels tomorrow
02:18:59 cut and fabricated into panels tomorrow uh mr pargeter that i have to suggest you speaks entirely for itself doesn't it
02:19:05 it that the the the plan here was to ensure that uh the design had as many weak features or details as possible
02:19:16 details as possible to ensure that it had the best chance of performing poorly that's right and again within within the linear
02:19:24 linear route so again it's possible to have a system built with those um weak points in it onto a building so the idea is to
02:19:35 onto a building so the idea is to obviously to test that and and prove that it can fail so do i take it that you're now you're setting out a test is this right this is your evidence you're setting up a test to be done
02:19:48 you're setting up a test to be done which would be deliberately designed to fail now it's deliberately got features in which
02:20:00 deliberately got features in which could be built on a building which could impact its fire performance i'm not sure i see the difference i've suggested to you that it was designed with all these weak features
02:20:12 designed with all these weak features so that it would have the best chance of performing poorly in other words designed to fail yes it wasn't it was not designed to be the most most robust system you could build
02:20:23 most most robust system you could build oh yeah and you have linear route it was designed to be at the other end of that linear route it was not designed to be the best
02:20:31 the best but nor equally was it designed to be neutral in other words fairly representative it was deliberately designed to fail now do you accept that
02:20:42 to fail now do you accept that it was to perform it was to be the most challenging system design under the 8414 test well there are challenging tests and
02:20:53 well there are challenging tests and there are tests which are designed to fail
02:20:55 fail now if we designed to fail then it would have we could have taken out the fire barriers we could have done a lot more this was designed to perform poorly but we wouldn't know if it would fail
02:21:07 wouldn't know if it would fail um until you tested it and that is i accept that but i'm looking at motive intention
02:21:12 intention the intention of kingspan right to the very top of the organization was to set up a test in dubai that was designed to fail it was designed to perform poorly what's the difference
02:21:25 perform poorly what's the difference well you could guarantee a failure by doing a lot of other a lot of other things but those are the things probably wouldn't be typical options within a build up so these are typical options within a build
02:21:36 these are typical options within a build up
02:21:38 up to challenge that system all right well if we change the words performing poorly to fail to ensure that it has the best chance of failure
02:21:48 failure that would come to the same thing wouldn't it no it didn't necessarily it was just to perform poorly we could guarantee a failure
02:21:59 failure well that wasn't the intention the intention was to look at the options that were available under the linear route what system could you build
02:22:07 build this is a this is a potential system it isn't the strongest design it is designed to challenge the the system under the test and and if
02:22:18 the system under the test and and if that fails then you you've proved your point it performs poorly and were you going to compare this system with the best chance of performing poorly with an equal and opposite k-15 test
02:22:30 with an equal and opposite k-15 test which also had the best chance of performing poorly [Music]
02:22:35 [Music] uh now because k 15 or any other combustible insulation can't be um allowed on the via the linear route but this is a an 8414 test you're
02:22:46 but this is a an 8414 test you're setting up isn't it yes so were you going to do a a a k-15 8414 test which also had the equal best chance of performing poorly
02:22:59 equal best chance of performing poorly so that those reading the two tests side by side could make a proper comparison no i we weren't questioning what we were doing with this test is questioning the linear route and
02:23:10 the linear route and k15 can't be used on the linear route so there's no point doing that test to challenge the linear route using a combustible insulation
02:23:21 so the idea was to set up a an 8414 test using mineral wool which had the best chance of performing poorly so that you could then go to government and say because it performs poorly
02:23:32 performs poorly in an 8414 test you shouldn't be labeling it non-combustible no nothing about labeling the product all right it shouldn't it should be well what would happen to it what was the idea you told me that the system
02:23:45 the idea you told me that the system that system shouldn't be allowed on a building
02:23:49 building if you use br135 as your criteria for safety
02:23:53 safety and where would that how would that help you
02:23:57 because with the linear route that system could be built therefore not meeting meeting the requirements of bl-135 what was the problem you were seeking to address by showing that mineral rule might also
02:24:09 by showing that mineral rule might also fail in a
02:24:10 fail in a admittedly poorly designed test under eight four one four that you shouldn't rely on the linear route
02:24:19 route as a guide to designing safe systems you should rely on an eight four one four test but you told us earlier that had been no historic problem with mineral wool whether or not used in an 8414 test
02:24:33 whether or not used in an 8414 test so what was the problem that you were seeking to address by this test to challenge the assumption that because the products individually achieve a
02:24:45 the products individually achieve a certain classification that together they necessarily produce a system
02:24:50 system which could be
02:24:54 which could fail or pass an eight for an eight for one four test which is the we're using that as a benchmark to safety it doesn't seem to make sense if you have a linear route
02:25:06 have a linear route system which doesn't have any large-scale tests which could go onto a building but then you have a large-scale test requirement because the the products are
02:25:19 because the the products are combustible within that system so you've got
02:25:22 got potentially different levels in balanced requirements on a system design that goes onto a building because the products are individually labeled
02:25:33 labeled as a april 2018 were you aware of any failure of a cladding system in which mineral wool fiber had been used as the insulation product
02:25:48 i think there were references to that
02:25:54 let me forget the tests okay were you aware of any experience in which a cladding system on the outside of a high-rise building
02:26:05 on the outside of a high-rise building had
02:26:05 had failed where the insulation in that system
02:26:10 system was mineral wool fiber
02:26:14 not that i can no call for me so in setting this test up in this way you weren't in fact seeking to address a problem which had arisen in experience were you now we were
02:26:25 in experience were you now we were addressing a potential problem with that assumption what i would suggest you were doing
02:26:33 doing was attacking the opposition for market share reasons no it's it's trying to address an an equitable level of safety
02:26:45 an equitable level of safety let's um move on the test went ahead didn't it and it failed yes and i think it went ahead in in fact in july 2018 second of july didn't it
02:26:56 in july 2018 second of july didn't it i believe so yeah let's uh just to be clear we've got the test or the classification report at kin-50480 let's have a look at that please
02:27:11 just to put it up on the screen uh here it is uh and uh it's uh report number sr0894
02:27:23 uh report number sr0894 vitracore g2 composite panel with 180 millimeter rockwool duo slab insulation and if we look down to the next page we can see just working through it this and this is an x over test uh you
02:27:36 this and this is an x over test uh you can see
02:27:37 can see uh the the test sample description uh with siderise cavity barriers there and then over the next page
02:27:47 the insulation 180 millimeters of rockwool railing and the cladding panel there vitricor g2 and more details on the right-hand side and if you go to the next page you can see the drawings
02:28:00 build up that do you have any reason to think that what was tested as per this classification report was different from what was discussed in the april emails we've been looking at
02:28:12 emails we've been looking at no no let's go to inq 3014076 please
02:28:30 this is a letter written by richard burnley
02:28:35 burnley to clive betts mp as chair of the housing community's local government select committee and it's dated the 6th of july 2018. so four days after the dubai
02:28:47 so four days after the dubai test and i just want to show you one or two paragraphs in it first of all should i i should ask you have you seen this letter before i think so yeah did you see it at the time i can't recall
02:28:59 time i can't recall did you have any input into drafting it i can't recall dear mr betts thank you for inviting kingspan group to give evidence to the housing communities local government select committee regarding your inquiry
02:29:10 select committee regarding your inquiry into dame judith hackett's independent review of building regulations and fire safety
02:29:15 safety first i wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate that as the world's leading manufacturer of insulated construction products containing both combustible and non-combustible insulation our first priority is safety
02:29:28 we are deeply saddened by the terrible tragedy of grenfell and take our responsibilities as a manufacturer very seriously
02:29:34 seriously we believe that kingspan has carried out more product and full system fire safety tests than any other construction material company and are committed to doing whatever is necessary to address the issues of transparency labeling traceability
02:29:46 of transparency labeling traceability and technical installation uh technical stroke installation support identified by dame judith hackett
02:29:54 i also wanted to repeat that the applications and products caught by a ban
02:29:58 ban on combustible materials as proposed by the government's consultation on banning the use of combustible materials in external walls of high-rise residential buildings would represent significantly less than
02:30:09 would represent significantly less than one percent of kingspan's group turnover our position is not about commercial benefit but about ensuring that building regulations are always rooted in science and engineering and then the next paragraph talks about
02:30:20 and then the next paragraph talks about the evidence given by those at the committee and some individuals are identified there and
02:30:32 individuals are identified there and then it says this regarding bs8414 we would also like to take this opportunity to agree with the comments of sir ken knight and mark hardingham notably that the test
02:30:41 the test is set at a very high bar that its credibility is not as doubtful as some have suggested and that of the 300 buildings that have the wrong cladding
02:30:48 cladding none have undertaken or passed the test we also support the view of the entire second panel that there is an important place for desktop studies in the building regulations provided they are reformed rooted in primary test evidence and carried
02:30:59 primary test evidence and carried out by qualified assessors i've set out kingspan's position in more detail below and enclosed copies of tenos international fire engineering consultants bs8414 review and details of the failed a1a2 tests
02:31:12 and details of the failed a1a2 tests which i referred to in my evidence i hope this information proves useful to the committee and if you have any further questions then please do not hesitate
02:31:19 hesitate to contact me
02:31:23 now if we go to page four of this document
02:31:26 document we can see that uh this is part of what is in fact a 94-page submission isn't it to the department or to clive
02:31:37 isn't it to the department or to clive betts yes
02:31:38 betts yes as chair of the select committee and then halfway down the page he identifies failed a1 stroke a2 large-scale fire tests
02:31:48 tests now just in general and i've dived rather into the middle of this were you involved in drafting this 94-page submission um i don't recall possibly who else or who would have been um
02:32:03 who else or who would have been um i think richard richard burnley honestly and
02:32:06 and the team king spencer that would be um john garbett right you were head of technical yes marketing i think i think i was
02:32:17 i was involved you were involved yes yeah kingspan has evidence of three failed large-scale fire tests where the cladding system was made up of a1 and a2 products
02:32:26 products the tests are detailed below and supporting documentation is enclosed do you see that yes now let's go to page five please at the bottom where kingspan has set out
02:32:38 at the bottom where kingspan has set out test three this is a test which was carried out at x over in dubai on july 2nd 2018. the test was commissioned by kingspan the test the system was comprised of rockwool duo slab which is rated a1 and
02:32:51 rockwool duo slab which is rated a1 and vitracore g2 which is rated a2 the construction of the test rig was a replica of the ministry of housing communities and local government tests conducted immediately after the tragedy at grenfell tower
02:33:02 at grenfell tower the test failed on the basis of thermocouple data which is detailed in the enclosed preliminary report enclosed a brochures detailing rockwool duo slab and vitrical g2 as well as pdfs
02:33:13 duo slab and vitrical g2 as well as pdfs of the sectional drawings of the test rig
02:33:15 rig also enclosed the contact sheets of stills from the build and test video of the
02:33:18 the first 15 minutes of this test has been posted to the committee kingspan is waiting for the final classification test reports and full video footage and these will be forwarded to the committee as soon as they're received despite
02:33:29 despite failing this bs8414 test the products used in the system are a1 and a2 and would therefore be automatically permitted under current building regulations and the government's proposals on banning the use of combustible cladding
02:33:40 combustible cladding this evidence supports kingspan's view that cladding systems should be subject to large-scale tests as complete systems in their intended configuration in order to meet the objective of fire safety
02:33:52 we don't see anywhere in this letter or indeed in any of the underlying material where mr burnley or anybody else at kingspan tells the select committee that the test was
02:34:03 the test was designed to perform poorly do we no we don't see anywhere where they are told that it was set up to fail or a worst case scenario
02:34:14 to fail or a worst case scenario do we no
02:34:17 do we no now mr burnley was one of those senior individuals at kingspan who was not on the email string from
02:34:27 from april did he know that the test was designed to perform poorly
02:34:34 poorly when he wrote this letter to the best of your knowledge i i don't know the best of my knowledge whether he knew did you not have a discussion with mr burnley about this test before
02:34:45 with mr burnley about this test before he wrote this letter
02:34:49 i can't i can't recall it's unlikely and i'm not asking you to speculate but just to accept
02:34:54 to accept what is common sense that you as head of technical
02:34:58 technical and marketing and engaged in the campaign as we have seen for some months would have been bound to have had a discussion of some kind with him about these failed tests no well we would have done
02:35:11 no well we would have done yes it's important you see because i don't want to ask mr burnley something which is unfair did mr burnley to the best of your knowledge know that the april 10 the july test
02:35:25 that the april 10 the july test was designed to perform poorly
02:35:31 i couldn't confirm whether he did or not right was there a plan to keep mr burnley in the dark about the test being designed to perform
02:35:42 about the test being designed to perform poorly
02:35:43 poorly so that he would write this letter in all innocence no i don't think there was a plan to keep him in the dark
02:35:53 why did you not or did kingspan not tell clive betts chair of the select committee
02:36:01 committee that the test done in dubai was deliberately designed to perform poorly
02:36:08 poorly [Music]
02:36:11 [Music] because it was designed as a potential system on a building how would mr betts know that from this letter um really he wouldn't but it was
02:36:24 letter um really he wouldn't but it was built along the linear route so that was that was the objective all the weaknesses that were introduced into the system that we saw in the april email run
02:36:35 run which were designed to make the system perform poorly were not clearly identified as such in this document were they no and therefore anybody reading it
02:36:46 no and therefore anybody reading it would think that the system was designed not as a worst case scenario or as a was designed to perform poorly but just as a system correct as a system and therefore
02:36:59 correct as a system and therefore anybody reading this letter would be misled
02:37:01 misled wouldn't they into thinking that the test had not been set up to fail but was a fairly representative test
02:37:11 no they wouldn't have been misled it was a system designed which would comply with the linear route so that's that's not misleading anybody
02:37:23 so that's that's not misleading anybody that's what it was but if i may say so the key point that council is inviting you to consider is whether the system that was actually tested was designed so as to be fairly representative
02:37:36 so as to be fairly representative of what one might expect to be built was actual point mr minute yes mr chairman
02:37:43 then it was it was designed to be the most challenging for the for that test so i think it follows that it was not intended to be fairly representative of what
02:37:53 what man might expect to see built i think i would agree with that yes and therefore anybody reading this letter would be misled by the results of that test into thinking
02:38:04 thinking that tests involving mineral fiber were just as likely to fail as tests
02:38:11 tests involving kingspan k-15 well i think it was
02:38:14 was when that was not true and known by kingspan not to be true no i think if the letter had said this was built as a typical standard system then then that would be
02:38:25 standard system then then that would be true but it doesn't it doesn't say that it just says that what the system was do you accept this much that kingspan deliberately concealed from the select committee the fact that this test was deliberately designed to perform poorly no
02:38:38 perform poorly no you don't accept that it was deliberately you thought it was an accident did you
02:38:48 no i don't think it was it was an accident there was no um deliberate attempt to mislead it just was a system which complied with the linear route why not tell mr betts
02:39:01 as part of your response to the packet consultation that the dubai test was deliberately constructed with weaknesses in it in order to enhance its chance of performing poorly why not say that
02:39:15 well we could have done but but we didn't
02:39:20 come on mr partner this was a deliberate attempt to deceive mr betts and the and the select committee wasn't it no it wasn't a deliberate attempt at all
02:39:29 all there's no other way of explaining it is there it's it was a system designed along the potentially along the linear route that was that's all it was and anybody reading this letter would have been
02:39:40 reading this letter would have been misled
02:39:41 misled deliberately by kingspan into thinking that this test was a fairly representative test and the mineral will have just as higher chance of failure as kingspan in an 8414 test and that was the purpose of it wasn't it
02:39:52 wasn't it no i disagree there you are in mid 2018 in the aftermath of the grenfell tower fire presenting evidence to the select committee
02:40:02 committee which was gained that's not correct now there's a response to this letter um kin four zeros two five four zero
02:40:16 it's a letter which comes at the end of the month july 2018 from rachel mclean who's the director general at the mhclg there it is on the screen now it goes to gene mercer your ceo at
02:40:27 now it goes to gene mercer your ceo at the time and still
02:40:31 can you explain why miss mclean chose to write to mr murder as opposed to mr burnley no do you know whether there was any communication
02:40:42 communication between kingspan and the ministry of housing communities and local government between the 6th of july and the 31st of july when this letter was written
02:40:57 course particularly between those dates all right let's look at the letter dear sir in your letter of the 6th of july to the chair of the housing communities and local government select committee
02:41:06 committee excuse me you refer to evidence of cladding systems constructed from products rated a1 and a2 failing to achieve the standards required by the british standard bs 8414 large-scale system test in your
02:41:17 8414 large-scale system test in your evidence to the committee you refer specifically to a bs-8414 test commissioned by yourselves on vitricor g2 cladding and rockwool duo slab carried out at x over warrington fires dubai testing house
02:41:28 warrington fires dubai testing house on second july 2018 and you commit to sharing the full results of the test with the committee as soon as you receive them the ministry of housing communities and local government is taking forward work as quickly as possible to establish whether
02:41:39 quickly as possible to establish whether there is a public safety risk in relation to this clatting and to determine any action that should be taken to ensure public safety it is of the highest priority for ministers that we establish whether there is a risk to public safety
02:41:51 there is a risk to public safety based on your colleagues contact with the department to date i know that you are committed to ensuring maximum public safety
02:41:56 safety and to assisting us with our investigation
02:42:00 i understand that except for warrington fire have now provided you with a full report for the dubai test and i'm writing to ask for a copy to be sent to us by return along with your agreement for the department to enter into direct communication with x over warrington
02:42:11 communication with x over warrington file regarding the test this information will help us to advance our investigation which is critical to providing assurance to the public on the safety of their homes i know that you appreciate the urgency of our request etcetera i don't think i need
02:42:22 request etcetera i don't think i need the paragraph on the next page perhaps we just flash it up so that you've got the
02:42:26 the whole one you've also agreed to provide us with the remaining samples of the vitra core clouding currently in dubai so that we can carry out further tests and i ask that you ensure that this test this request is expedited i've read the
02:42:37 this request is expedited i've read the whole thing to you now um did mr murder respond do you know i don't know now we've seen mr merta was
02:42:49 i don't know now we've seen mr merta was on the april emails about setting the test up to fail or setting it up to perform poorly to your knowledge to your knowledge did mr murder or anybody else ever write back to the
02:43:00 anybody else ever write back to the department or declive bets asking them to ignore the 2nd of july 2018
02:43:05 2018 dubai test not to my knowledge
02:43:12 i'm going to suggest you that on what we've looked at kingspan was engaged in a wholesale attempt to mislead clive betts and the select committee into having doubts about the linear route to compliance because of the
02:43:23 route to compliance because of the threat of the ban on combustibles based on a deliberately manipulated test that is right wasn't it no it's not it's too
02:43:32 too is to challenge that level of safety and the level of safety for us should be the br135 bs8414 test rather than the linear route
02:43:44 and gene murta the ceo who was in on the april emails now receives this letter and although i entirely take your point that you don't
02:43:55 entirely take your point that you don't know anything about that can you tell us whether gene murder ever spoke to you or anybody else your knowledge about how to present or what to do about the second of july
02:44:07 or what to do about the second of july dubai test in the light of the government's increased and very focused interest in it not to me
02:44:18 not to me and the reality mr pardita is that kingston's position even in 2018 in the face of a government investigation into fire safety after grenfell was doing its best to ensure that the science
02:44:29 ensure that the science was secretly perverted for financial gain
02:44:32 gain that is the positions into that's not the position at all and that had been your own approach and kingspan's general approach for years i disagree and it's still going on no disagree
02:44:49 i just want to ask you a little bit more about this test and g2 uh as we've seen that that was one of the ingredients can we go back to april 2018
02:45:02 can we go back to april 2018 and kin40s 4658 please
02:45:14 and kin40s 4658 please this is the email of the 10th of april if we go down to page two we looked at it before it's the update on the ulster and dubai testing
02:45:28 on the ulster and dubai testing and uh he refers
02:45:34 in fact i'm saying sorry it's page three i think we need on that page three uh he refers uh the bottom of page three
02:45:47 uh he refers uh the bottom of page three uh to the test program adults university and then the dubai test again at the bottom of page three there and the panels and if we go to page four we can see
02:46:02 that he says at the bottom of the email in the middle of the page also looking to source some vitrical g2 via contact in dubai this would be another deemed to satisfy product that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system
02:46:15 poorly as part of a system is this the vitra core g2 that was subsequently sourced for the test that took place on the 2nd of july i believe so uh and did kingspan
02:46:29 um did kingspan realize that vitracore g2 was a highly unreliable product
02:46:39 product unreliable in whatsapp well he says this would be another deemed to satisfy product that we feel would perform poorly as part of a system so that particular component mr jenkins thought was one of those
02:46:53 mr jenkins thought was one of those on top of the others that would assist the test to fail yes yes i would agree it's right isn't it that
02:47:01 it that that was that product was then removed from the market wasn't it only in september 2018 and only two months after this test you remember that
02:47:13 possibly yep i can't i can't recall it specifically but right i can i can show you a document kin four zeros kan 5-0 is 545.
02:47:27 this is a letter from james brokenshire mp
02:47:32 mp who was the minister uh vitra called g2 cladding and it's addressed to clive betts dear clive the government has today concluded for fire safety tests of the
02:47:43 concluded for fire safety tests of the vitricor g2 cladding product and then in the third paragraph we've taken immediate action and referred this matter to trading standards and asked the supplier to withdraw the product from the market until it can demonstrate it meets the required standard
02:47:54 it meets the required standard we've also contacted the two high-res residential building owners that have purchased vetra core g2 for use on their buildings
02:47:59 buildings to inform them of our finding this product is not widely used in the uk but we've asked the government's independent expert panel what additional action if any may be necessary
02:48:12 any may be necessary so the test that kingspan did uh including
02:48:16 including vetrical g2 as one of those items that was expected to assist the test performed poorly was not one of those widely used in the uk that's right isn't it looking at this yes
02:48:28 and that would assist the test being unrepresentative wouldn't it
02:48:42 yes oh sorry question again sorry yes that that would um that would that would be an additional factor may put it a different way that
02:48:53 factor may put it a different way that would be an additional factor or component in the test that would assist it to fail
02:49:00 the fact that it wasn't widely used in the uk
02:49:03 the uk no you're quite right you've muddled me and i've muddled you let me try again um the fact that vitra core g2 was not widely used in the uk would be a reason among others why the
02:49:15 would be a reason among others why the system tested in dubai was not a test of a system representative of systems used in the uk
02:49:29 i don't think so necessarily but i accept the fact that vitricord g2 isn't a common product in the uk now we've seen kingspan's plan which was
02:49:40 now we've seen kingspan's plan which was to demonstrate by empirical evidence so it was to appear
02:49:44 appear that the mh that the deemed to satisfy system had failed a large-scale fire test
02:49:50 test uh can we go to kin405 please
02:49:58 this is an email of the fifth of july 2018.
02:50:06 just the third email down on page one there
02:50:09 there uh from john garbert kingspan's divisional market director to brian martin note the date it's three days after the dubai test but
02:50:20 it's three days after the dubai test but the day before mr burnley wrote his letter to clive betts in closing the 94 page analysis and the dubai test result and he says this
02:50:32 dubai test result and he says this now hi brian and just to be clear brian martin was not only the author of the 2003 br 135 but but in 2018 was head of technical policy
02:50:43 but in 2018 was head of technical policy wasn't he in the building regulation and energy performance division of the mhclg
02:50:49 mhclg did that's right isn't it i believe so yes yeah hi brian paulzing there uh i i should ask you was he familiar to the marketing team at
02:51:02 pembridge um i wouldn't say it was for me i'd fill him into the marketing team in general but i certainly um was aware of brian martin had you met him
02:51:13 him yes you had in what context um i think i'd met him at um and there was a i think it was called beer
02:51:23 beer something like that which was looking at the um
02:51:28 the um definitions in adb as part of a group there for a short while i think i'd met him at the government fire testing right where was the first time you met brian martin
02:51:40 brian martin probably at the visa i think it was called group where was that
02:51:50 2015 right around that time and did other people at kingspan meet him with you
02:51:59 the beer meetings were just just me well just me from kingspan um i think we've met him with i think i've met him with john garb once as well right i'm often with the meetings with
02:52:11 right i'm often with the meetings with brian martin not very often quite rare what sort of things did you discuss with brian martin at those meetings that you had with
02:52:22 um
02:52:26 i think so the beer meetings were around the definitions and the update of of adb and our meetings would have been around um our products and
02:52:37 around um our products and where kingspan was moving forward with right
02:52:45 the notes of those meetings
02:52:49 i can't recall i think i've mentioned them in my witness statements what i've recalled right [Music]
02:52:58 [Music] did you communicate with mr martin by email
02:53:01 email on the occasions you did communicate with him yes sometimes yes
02:53:08 um in john garbett's email he says this hi brian the test we discussed earlier was conducted on monday this week at x over in dubai ucas accredited laboratory
02:53:19 in dubai ucas accredited laboratory to bs8414 and is a test of the current uk system
02:53:22 uk system it was commissioned by kingspan this test was of a system incorporating rockwool
02:53:27 rockwool duo slab and vitracore g2 the former is a1 and the latter is a2 c attached literature the construction of this test assembly was a replica of the mhclg tests conducted immediately post grenfell
02:53:38 post grenfell it can be seen on the attached sectional drawings we heard on the safe side and so
02:53:42 so the acms had their edges folded over to protect the core of the panels from the fire the test failed on the basis of thermocouple data that data and a mini report from xover confirmed the fail are also attached c also
02:53:54 the fail are also attached c also attached a contact sheet of stills from the build up and test we have high resolution video of the first 15 minutes of this test which is in the post on a memory stick to you this evening we only have the first 15 at the moment because the gopro
02:54:06 first 15 at the moment because the gopro failed
02:54:07 failed due to excessive heat we're waiting for the classification and test reports from this test and the test houses video footage and we'll forward them to you as soon as they are uh received regards john garbert
02:54:20 and uh
02:54:24 we see mr martin's response uh on the 12th of july i'm so sorry yes 12th of july hi john thanks for sending the usb stick over it seems only to have the video from the
02:54:35 seems only to have the video from the fire test at bre not the test carried out it's over just um
02:54:40 um just pausing there why do you know why why did john garbert think it appropriate to send brian martin details of the failed july test
02:54:53 july test i think it was just to update him well given that mr burnley was just about to and did the next day as we see send the details of this failed test to clive betts
02:55:04 clive betts the chair of the select committee why did kingspan feel it necessary also to send
02:55:11 to send these details to the department brian martin i just think like i said just to update him on what we found was it a pincer movement using a second channel
02:55:21 channel you had
02:55:26 i can't i can't say i just think john was trying to just update martin brian martin with what we'd found did you discuss mister did you discuss with mr garbert um opening a
02:55:36 opening a as it were a second front and sending the test results to mr martin not that i can recall
02:55:47 we can see brian martin's uh further email of the 12th of july 2018 a little bit higher up the page and he says hi john another question slightly odd request perhaps do you have
02:55:59 slightly odd request perhaps do you have any
02:55:59 any of the honeycomb material you tested left over as you might imagine we need to do some work to understand the burning behavior of this material and our first task is to get hold of some exclamation mark
02:56:11 and john garvin's response was we do but it might cost a meeting with a minister smiley face john g
02:56:20 uh can you assist us with uh whether there was in fact a meeting with the minister uh facilitated by mr martin or anybody else
02:56:31 by mr martin or anybody else not that i can recall the impression one gets
02:56:35 gets from this email run is that kingspan is to use a colloquialism perhaps cozying up
02:56:41 up to a senior civil servant in the mhclg with a view to using him as a stepping stone to
02:56:48 stone to access to power at the very highest level would that be an unfair reading of this email yeah i think it would be an over
02:56:55 over statement of that i think well what was going on then i think john was just being a bit sarcastic there hence the smiley face i don't think he
02:57:06 hence the smiley face i don't think he realistically meant we would we would only supply him that if we got a meeting with the minister that was just uh just a yeah one one can see that it was it was clearly a light-hearted comment because of the
02:57:17 light-hearted comment because of the winking smiley face we understand it but in fact it's right isn't it as we've seen that access to the very highest levels of power including very senior ministers was something which kingspan had been planning
02:57:28 which kingspan had been planning with portland and indeed others for many months
02:57:33 months as part of its political engagement campaign hadn't it yes it was definitely therefore it wasn't wouldn't have been surprising would it for mr garber to use his contact at the mhclg in order to try to achieve that i
02:57:50 in order to try to achieve that i i don't think that's this is what that was about this was just informing brian of the testing we've done to your knowledge was there any discussion within kingspan at this time of using your contacts at the mhclg
02:58:01 your contacts at the mhclg the officials there in order to try to access
02:58:05 access ministers
02:58:06 ministers [Music]
02:58:08 [Music] no i think they would have been mhclg would be on the list of people to
02:58:16 contact you get a meeting with the minister
02:58:26 because i can't recall i think we might have no i can't recall
02:58:30 second uh think at the moment i can't i can't recall you would remember if you met a minister yeah i'm just trying to think i mean you don't mean that many i imagine in the course no working day so
02:58:42 imagine in the course no working day so you would recall whether you did
02:58:51 i think we did get a meeting with the minister who was that
02:58:57 [Music] i'd have to check i might have checked my notes i can't i can't recall the moment it's what notes well i'd have to check my diary i think what diary my outlook diary
02:59:10 what diary my outlook diary has that been disclosed to the inquiry for this period um i believe so it's a it's not my computer
02:59:21 but we will check
02:59:26 who else to the best of your recollection sitting there without your ability to consult your diary would attended a meeting with a minister at this time
02:59:42 at this time what to be john i can't i can't recall a specific
02:59:47 specific at this very moment specific meeting with the minister
02:59:52 has anybody at kingspan been disciplined for presenting a misleading picture to clive betts in the select committee
03:00:02 no
03:00:08 mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions i think i i will need to check whether there are one or two and there's a matter of yes but we'll need the usual breaks yes
03:00:20 um i think we'll just say 10 minutes on this occasion yes unless you have reason to think that longer might be needed i i don't i think at the moment it
03:00:31 i i don't i think at the moment it depends what i what's in my inbox but um we will we will check and if we say 10 minutes and then come back to it more time yes that would be helpful mr parker said when council gets to the end
03:00:42 parker said when council gets to the end of his questions as he says he has we always have a short break so that he can just check that nothing's been overlooked but also to enable others who are following the proceedings from
03:00:53 are following the proceedings from elsewhere
03:00:54 elsewhere can suggest further questions that might be asked
03:00:59 be asked so we're going to stop now until ten to one
03:01:02 one it may be that we shall take a little longer if if that's required but we'll say ten to one for the time being and then we'll see if there any further questions at that point that we need to ask you okay thank you all right thank you very
03:01:13 okay thank you all right thank you very much would you give the usher
03:01:24 mr miller you can let us know if you think that a bit more time is required yes thank you it has a good reason yeah thank you very much right ten to one
03:13:46 would you ask mr parjita to come back in
03:13:54 please
03:13:58 [Music] all right mr parson now we'll see if there are any more questions for you mr millage yes mr joe just just one or two literally one or two um the first question is about the nhbc's july 2016 guidance
03:14:13 is about the nhbc's july 2016 guidance now i asked you earlier this morning at day 85 and currently page 25 whether kingspan had submitted a bs8414 test on acm
03:14:25 test on acm to the nhbc as part of the exercise we saw you doing in 2015 and you said no my question is do you know if anyone had done a desktop study justifying the use of k15 with acm
03:14:37 justifying the use of k15 with acm and in particular acm pe core uh and had submitted that to the nhbc well i believe there's been desktop studies with
03:14:48 studies with acm fr rated and a2 i don't believe there's any been done with pe cord right i see and the desktops justifying the use of k15 and acm
03:14:59 k15 and acm those though the ones you we looked at yesterday
03:15:03 yesterday in the roots to compliance document the case studies yes i see do you know whether those were submitted
03:15:10 submitted as case studies themselves to an hbc i don't think there would have case studies would have been right for the desktop but desktops desktop assessments
03:15:21 but desktops desktop assessments for any projects that they may have been right
03:15:24 right thank you now you refer to your diaries on
03:15:29 on outlook um we we um we have got those from you but i'm afraid we can't search them for any evidence of your meeting with an mp without a date
03:15:40 mp without a date um can you give us even roughly a date range when you think you might have met a minister yeah i i can't recall exactly whether i met a minister or not but
03:15:51 whether i met a minister or not but there were definitely meetings with mps and i was particularly at dinner i remember at the houses of parliament yes which i attended in there may have been a minister at that and that's why i was kind of
03:16:02 was kind of struggling to recall whether there was a minister there or not well i mean that that is clearly a matter of record and we have that that's the kevin holland rake dinner in january 2008.
03:16:11 2008. yes there were ministers there but i'm i'm really asking you about a minister after july 2000 a meeting with the minister after july 2018 uh can't i specifically recall one then
03:16:23 uh can't i specifically recall one then right okay thank you very much um now i've got a final question for you mr parchita looking back on all the evidence that we've seen in the last two and a half days and casting your mind back over everything that's happened both before
03:16:34 everything that's happened both before and after grenfell is there anything that you in your heart would have done differently or anything that you'd like to say to the families well to the families uh you know
03:16:46 well to the families uh you know deepest sympathies um i i didn't think that a fire like that could could happen in the uk um and in terms of
03:16:58 in the uk um and in terms of what i would do differently um i would probably look back in history a bit more than i did when i first took over so if i was taking over another role in a similar way
03:17:09 another role in a similar way i might be tempted to go back further in time
03:17:12 time and to check things out and i think my own perspective and i think for the companies as well we've definitely learned some lessons and we're trying to make
03:17:23 lessons and we're trying to make improvements on our processes and procedures to try and ensure that we improve the way we control
03:17:35 we improve the way we control bringing product bringing new products to market and in the marketing of those products um and keep that under constant review well mr berger thank you very much for
03:17:47 well mr berger thank you very much for your evidence i thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and for assisting us with our investigations so thank you mr president it's right that i should thank you on behalf of the panel for coming here to give your evidence i know
03:17:59 coming here to give your evidence i know it's taken rather longer than perhaps you or we thought it might but there were a lot of questions to ask you and it's been very helpful to have your evidence so thank you very much for coming and now of course you're free to go
03:18:10 and now of course you're free to go thank you
03:18:21 thank you right well that's a convenient point as far as this morning's concerned we have another witness after lunch we do i at a time convenient to you mr chairman and that'll be richard burnley yes well
03:18:32 that'll be richard burnley yes well unless you need more time i'm gonna say two o'clock two o'clock thank you two
03:18:38 [Applause]
03:18:48 o'clock
03:18:52 you