Barry Turner, formerly of LABC, gives evidence about the registered details scheme for Kingspan K15, the LABC's handling of concerns raised about the product, communications with NHBC, and the Building Control Alliance technical guidance.
00:00:30 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:33 hearing today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from mr barry turner formerly of the labc so would you ask mr turner to come in please
00:01:14 good morning mr turner ready to carry on ahead yes thank you very much yes mr scream yes thank you yes just to pick up where we left off yesterday we were in the middle of looking at some of the k-15 certificates
00:01:27 looking at some of the k-15 certificates issued under the registered details scheme
00:01:30 scheme and i'm going to jump back in in july 2014
00:01:34 2014 if we can go to a document labc
00:01:39 nine 302690
00:01:44 and i want to look at the bottom of page one
00:01:47 one so this is some correspondence between you
00:01:50 you mr ewing and mr bassen and at the bottom of page one we can see just for context that was steve evans's email to brian
00:02:02 that was steve evans's email to brian martin
00:02:03 martin then one email up above that we see
00:02:09 we see steve evans email to you and mr bassen and then i want to pick up above that we see on the 6th of august at 9 53 mr bassen emails mr ewing
00:02:22 at 9 53 mr bassen emails mr ewing copying you in saying this hi david can you look at the email chain below also see the text below this an extract of an email i sent to barry this morning
00:02:33 of an email i sent to barry this morning we have just chatted and he tells me he thinks you were meeting with kingspan to discuss this have you and if so any comments
00:02:41 comments i'm waiting for steve evans to ring me later today with the outcome of the meeting between hbc and kingspan on the use of this material in buildings over 18 meters high and then he's got email to barry i sent
00:02:53 and then he's got email to barry i sent earlier this morning hi barry i confess i've not responded to this email from steve he rang me this morning and is meeting kingspan at 10 o'clock today to discuss how they're going to prove the material is acceptable across a range of
00:03:05 acceptable across a range of construction types he thinks they're not going to be able to do this and so is thinking what will be the next steps exclamation mark as i understand we have a and registered detail rd for this that
00:03:18 a and registered detail rd for this that expires soon but of course there may be many buildings built other than in accordance with the very restrictive requirement of a masonry base
00:03:29 of a masonry base exclamation mark we'll ring you in a minute to have a chat doug so um
00:03:35 so um that's um the email that he sends now do you remember discussing this with mr bassen at the time by this time i was not
00:03:47 by this time i was not involved with the rd process um i was copied in as a matter of courtesy and obviously um was aware of the the people that were
00:03:59 was aware of the the people that were dealing with it but the matter was dealt with by others within labc not me who were those others that were dealing with it the people that you've read out in that email so mr
00:04:10 that you've read out in that email so mr ewing and mr basson yes well we'll we'll be asking mr ewing about this when he comes to give evidence later today but it does appear that there's an email to you there from mr bassen in which he
00:04:21 you there from mr bassen in which he said
00:04:22 said there may be many buildings built other than accordance with the very restrictive requirement of a masonry base
00:04:29 base did that concern you when you received that communication from him i put my trust in those that were dealing with the matter so you didn't investigate whether there were in fact many buildings
00:04:41 were in fact many buildings no
00:04:42 no if we scroll up to the top of this email chain
00:04:45 chain we see an email from mr ewing in response to mr bassin but again copying you in and he says hi both sorry for the late reply i've been over in birmingham today
00:04:57 reply i've been over in birmingham today at my meeting with kingspan on the 25th of july i was advised that testing to bs 8414 had been undertaken in line with the requirements of br135 for materials of limited combustibility
00:05:10 for materials of limited combustibility and shown to be satisfactory with fire barriers at 34.5 metres centers we have not been given this test data as yet as they have not received the final report so i'm not sure
00:05:22 report so i'm not sure if this is global or for individual specifications as such the renewal has not been started as yet and the registered detail remains invalid
00:05:31 invalid i am however in the process of providing a dual quote to them one for seven products and one for all 30 of their product range so i'm keen to get them on
00:05:42 product range so i'm keen to get them on board particularly as we could also get them involved with the constructive details and named products with the registered details behind the details and then he makes a number of comments
00:05:53 and then he makes a number of comments about the bba certificate he says the new bba advises under 8.3 that if the specification is detailed as 8.2 then it can be used over 18 meters in height
00:06:05 can be used over 18 meters in height this is also one of the specifications given in the old 7.5 the old bba 7.1 wording is the same as the new 8.1 so the definition has not changed its category as low risk and
00:06:16 changed its category as low risk and class naught all that has changed is the removal of the second specification in the old 7.5 in reality the new bba actually gives sanction to one specification whereas
00:06:27 sanction to one specification whereas 7.2 only ever recommended seeking advice from the certificate holder over 18 meters hopefully the new testing regime will resolve all concerns
00:06:38 will resolve all concerns please let you know let me know if you receive anything else from steve evans i know we've recently assessed a new celetex product to compete with k15 and wonder if nhbc are being pressed for a
00:06:49 wonder if nhbc are being pressed for a decision
00:06:50 decision now just taking that email in stages and going back to the beginning of it he says that he's been advised by kingspan that testing has taken place to 8414
00:07:02 8414 in line with the requirements of br135 full materials of limited combustibility can you help how does bs 8414 and br135 have any relevance at all
00:07:15 have any relevance at all to whether a material is of limited combustibility
00:07:23 the eight four one four parts one and two tests and
00:07:30 and the 135
00:07:32 the 135 assessment of those tests does not
00:07:38 does not consider the um combustibility of a product no it may be
00:07:45 be that
00:07:47 that as part of the
00:07:51 the assessment there is some submission regarding the combustibility of material but i'm speculating yes
00:08:00 yes did you know at the time that there are wholly different tests for uh a material to be classified as one of limited combustibility it's not incorporated in an 841 test no
00:08:13 it's not incorporated in an 841 test no and did you know that at the time when you read this email
00:08:20 i knew yes i knew that there was confusion um and i thought that the the way that the it was being considered was satisfactory
00:08:32 was satisfactory sorry you say you knew there was confusion did you realize that mr ewing here has made an error he said that the requirements of br135 are full materials of limited
00:08:43 are full materials of limited combustibility did you pick up the problem there is he not referring and
00:08:50 you're asking me to comment on an email i was copied into yes but not party to and i was not party to the discussions that were ongoing
00:09:01 discussions that were ongoing um and therefore did i pick up that there was a slight error there no okay
00:09:11 okay now
00:09:12 now you know at this time that the registered details certificate is being relied on by specialist contractors as proof of compliance with adb you've been informed about that for example by mr
00:09:23 informed about that for example by mr everett of euroclad yes yes and you're aware that there's been concerns raised by brian martin and the nhbc about
00:09:34 about statements that k15 is of limited combustibility you knew that yes and you also knew you accepted yesterday that the bba certificate uh had uh been revised in december 2013
00:09:48 uh had uh been revised in december 2013 there was a new vlba certificate indeed mr ewing's referring to it here yes
00:09:57 yes in those circumstances can you explain to us how the labc came to issue another registered detail certificate for k-15 that was valid between august
00:10:09 for k-15 that was valid between august 2014
00:10:10 2014 and october 2014 based on the old bba certificate no you can't explain that not party to that process
00:10:22 now if we move forward if we go to labc 301841
00:10:34 what we see here is there's an email from mr brennan to mr ball at kingspan copying in mr ewing saying that he can confirm the cost for
00:10:45 saying that he can confirm the cost for the annual renewal for the kingspan k15 to cover additional testing etcetera would be 1 200 plus vat and he says i've attached revised certificates noting a new expiry date of
00:10:57 certificates noting a new expiry date of the 31st of october so this is that new certificate i was referring to now the certificate itself appears if we go to labc 301843
00:11:10 that's the certificate and then the drawings and document list appears at labc301842
00:11:23 and we can see that under the third row supporting documentation the bba certificate appears as the third document
00:11:32 document supporting that but it's the 27th of october 2008 bba certificate so
00:11:41 so there we see the old bba certificate rather than the december 2013 bba certificate um that was clear a clear failure on the labc's part wasn't it to issue that new
00:11:53 labc's part wasn't it to issue that new certificate relying on an old out-of-date bba certificate i was not party to that document being produced so i can't comment so are you saying you
00:12:04 i can't comment so are you saying you didn't know that k15 had got a new certificate yes
00:12:09 yes when did you find out i couldn't tell you do you remember finding out and realizing this process was being dealt with by others within the company there
00:12:20 with by others within the company there was a registered details manager with technical ability there were others within the company with a technical ability and i was not party to the
00:12:31 ability and i was not party to the process
00:12:33 process okay so you just knew nothing nothing about it
00:12:37 about it so you can't help us as to how this came about no
00:12:40 about no [Applause]
00:12:44 if we go um to an email another email chain in august 2014 labc 30270
00:13:00 this is an email chain and i want to look at the bottom of page one third email down
00:13:09 there's an email there from doug bassen
00:13:14 to you and mr ewing
00:13:17 mr ewing now you're not copied in there you are a recipient of this email 22nd of august 2014.
00:13:24 2014. he says speaking of kingspan despite me chasing steve evans for an outcome from the supposed crisis meeting with kingspan on their materials in buildings over 18 meters high i haven't heard a
00:13:35 over 18 meters high i haven't heard a thing exclamation mark now can you help us what was the supposed crisis meeting he was referring to
00:13:46 no you don't remember no discussing that i have no recollection of the and you don't remember what you were expecting to hear after that crisis meeting
00:13:57 to hear after that crisis meeting no
00:13:59 no and then if we scroll up we see a further email from mr ewing immediately above that
00:14:07 he says this again to you and mr bassin i was talking to a celetex rep yesterday and mentioned the new rs 5000 registered detail
00:14:15 detail immediately immediately came back with the same question on k-15 you mentioned something i hadn't noticed that the cavity created for k-15 and on the bba is only 25 millimeters between rain
00:14:26 is only 25 millimeters between rain screen and insulation board whereas the rs-5000
00:14:29 rs-5000 is 40 millimeters the bba spec appears to be largely for retrospective fitting onto non-combustible substrate rather than for new build apparently this is where k-15 has been identified up in
00:14:41 where k-15 has been identified up in manchester on a new build which i assume is being warranted by an hbc the smaller cavity would also be more beneficial on a fire test and then he says i received this
00:14:52 and then he says i received this yesterday in response to the current limitations on our registered details the attach states that k15 can be used over 18 meters in height if there's a non-combustible substrate this is no
00:15:04 non-combustible substrate this is no longer the case the new test data that we are waiting on was done with a class naught cp board as the substrate and therefore it no longer has to be a non-combustible substrate this is the
00:15:15 non-combustible substrate this is the main achievement that we're keen to communicate this is what the awaited testing is intended to verify but we can't do this until we see the reports so that's david ewing and then at the
00:15:26 so that's david ewing and then at the top of the email we can see a response from mr bassen again to you and mr ewing and he says this wasn't this from a meeting in july you attended with
00:15:38 meeting in july you attended with kingspan
00:15:39 kingspan i'm surprised given the potential implications of this that we're having to wait so long for the test results are we
00:15:46 are we labc exposing ourselves here in any way by knowing there may be a problem and waiting for them rather than a general warning or threat of one to our members question mark cheers doug
00:16:02 now what was the answer to that question we can't see any response but it's clearly being sent to you and mr ewing did you ever answer that question posed by mr basson
00:16:13 by mr basson about whether or not they you ought to be issuing a general warning or at least a threat of one to the members i don't recall the um
00:16:25 the um what happened with that at all um as i say i copied in but um my trust was put in others within the company that were dealing with it
00:16:36 the company that were dealing with it it was
00:16:38 it was being considered by others and i took that as a
00:16:43 that as a a courtesy copying in to me well you're not copied in mr turner it's sent to you in that case i do not recall responding to it
00:16:54 to it you don't recall ever considering in accordance with mr bassen's invitation whether or not you ought to be
00:17:01 be in the absence of test results that you're waiting for from kingspan and you know the nhbc are waiting for them and having paul responding to this email
00:17:14 paul responding to this email and you don't recall having any other discussions with anyone about this at the time
00:17:18 the time not this particular email do you accept that these emails show that you were involved at the time even if you can't remember the email show that i was copied in
00:17:32 i'll leave that there can i just ask um mr turner um mr basson and mr ewing who look as though they were the people primarily concerned were they all working within
00:17:44 concerned were they all working within your department no um
00:17:48 um i was not their line manager no no it wasn't question i asked you whether they work within your department say we had a department is um
00:17:59 shall we say is a little um [Music]
00:18:02 [Music] strong um they were people
00:18:06 people that were working within the registered detail or providing the registered detail function um i can't say that the the company was split into departments as
00:18:19 company was split into departments as such
00:18:20 such and so um i'm not quite sure how how you would describe it or what you're looking for but well let me see if i can help you sometimes when you're working in a with a group of people you meet them
00:18:31 with a group of people you meet them casually in the course of work and you have conversations and so on was that the case between you and mr bassing or you and mr ewing did you um
00:18:42 bassing or you and mr ewing did you um [Music]
00:18:44 [Music] we were all home workers so it's not that we any um
00:18:51 any um conversation was electronic oh i see so you did you didn't meet them personally in the office i can't say regularly uh for a given
00:19:03 i can't say regularly uh for a given purpose it may be that um my
00:19:07 my visits to the office were infrequent right well that helps because i was going to ask you whether you ever had conversations in which these sort of problems were raised but if you
00:19:20 sort of problems were raised but if you weren't bumping into them i can see that that's perhaps not very likely um no the majority of the as i say that the conversation was electronic thank you that's helpful
00:19:31 electronic thank you that's helpful thank you yes if i can just follow up on that i i think mr turner you told us yesterday that you were actually line managing mr bassen isn't that right um
00:19:44 not really um within the i didn't say that i'm fairly certain that i am and if if it was inferred then not likely to be
00:19:56 not likely to be correct
00:19:59 i was not the
00:20:01 the the line manager as such for people within that department i i was i was not a departmental manager if that's what you what you what you're
00:20:13 that's what you what you what you're looking for
00:20:17 so yesterday the transcript page six i asked you we understand from mr bassen's statement that you were his line manager is that correct yes
00:20:26 yes that's the answer you gave yesterday are you saying that's not correct um
00:20:32 each
00:20:35 i was never um [Music]
00:20:39 [Music] to my knowledge tasked with with that
00:20:43 with that um we worked together we worked with uh and you know as the emails show um
00:20:51 um but a lot of the the work that that doug did
00:20:54 did was on the the registered detail side and also with the technical side so there was a crossover um i'm not sure that i would describe myself as his line manager in terms of i
00:21:07 myself as his line manager in terms of i provided
00:21:08 provided him with instruction as to how to carry out his his daily tasks
00:21:17 right did you ever do appraisals of him did you carry out appraisals no no okay um
00:21:25 um let's look at another email chain now this time a little bit further forward in time 27th of october 2014. this is at labc305710
00:21:39 now this is this email is in response to steve evans request to discuss the issues that were concerning k15 and if we look on page two
00:21:52 and if we look on page two we can see there's an email from you
00:21:56 to mr ewing and you say hi dave what nhbc's worry now thought this had been sorted
00:22:03 sorted now does that provoke any recollection why did you think the matter had been sorted at this stage i have no recollection
00:22:15 you can't help you don't remember i don't i mean again as i say conversation was electronic um
00:22:23 um see i find that i can't i can't recall the background to send in that message
00:22:30 message right
00:22:32 right but this issue i find that surprising because
00:22:35 because this is a pretty big deal isn't it you've got the nhbc who are clearly very worried they're having crisis meetings with kingspan they're concerned that they don't have the test evidence to support the claims
00:22:47 the test evidence to support the claims made about k-15 you've been told that the test evidence doesn't exist to support the claims you've been made you've made i've been told that the test evidence doesn't
00:22:58 told that the test evidence doesn't exist
00:22:59 exist yes the nhbc have told you that they've told you that they've asked kingspan to do more testing that's what mr evans email reported i was under the understanding that the
00:23:10 understanding that the um the details that that were being dealt with within labc were supported by certifications both bba and
00:23:22 certifications both bba and the the necessary tests which had been checked by others i see
00:23:31 well picking back up on this email thread if we go to the next email up you've said what's nhbc's worry now thought this had been sorted david ewing and the next email up bottom of page one says
00:23:44 next email up bottom of page one says sorry hi barry sorry been up in rotherham k15 has been used outside of the scope of installation from the bba cert
00:23:52 cert and the recent bre fire tests have apparently shown that it continued to burn for 20 minutes after a flame was taken away steve awaiting an arab fire engineering report citing its suitability for use as
00:24:04 report citing its suitability for use as per note in adb and deadline for this was the 18th of october so it looks like it has not been received
00:24:12 received nhbc unhappy with its use and looking for industry-wide shutdown on acceptance we'll need technical group guidance and e-shot to spread message to local
00:24:23 e-shot to spread message to local authority teams if we are taking a unilateral stance this i suspect is the purpose of the call so that's what mr ewing reports back to you
00:24:35 back to you and then you then respond at the top of the page
00:24:38 the page and you say this cheers dave we'll phone in now but not going to say or admit to anything at this stage exclamation mark barry
00:24:48 barry now if you weren't involved in any of this why were you the person that was calling the nhbc at this time in response because i was their contact
00:24:59 because i was their contact through
00:25:00 through steve evans um
00:25:04 um which is as much as i can recall
00:25:08 so because you were the contact that steve evans knew you were the one calling nhbc back in relation to this serious issue about the fact that they haven't got the
00:25:19 about the fact that they haven't got the test evidence they require and there's a potential going to be a potential shutdown
00:25:24 shutdown uh by
00:25:26 uh by he's inviting you i think you and the nhbc to do that in relation to the k-15 product yes do you recall that discussion you had with mr i don't recall that conversation
00:25:37 with mr i don't recall that conversation or whether it took place
00:25:42 so you can't help us by about what you mean there when you say i'm not going to say or admit to anything at this stage that i think was because of the
00:25:57 again my trust in the registered detail process and those dealing with it um
00:26:03 um and the the certification process that that relied upon um
00:26:08 um if there was something that needed to to be dealt with but um i i don't recall the conversation i don't recall the reason that the main reason for that
00:26:19 the reason that the main reason for that for that comment and can you recall there being any consideration in the autumn of 2014 about whether the labc registered detail certificate for k-15
00:26:31 certificate for k-15 ought to be withdrawn in the light of this significant information i believe that there were discussions and i believe um that they it may well have been reported
00:26:44 that they it may well have been reported to the board but i can't comment on that i have no recollection of the of the process that it went through so when you say i believe that there were discussions can you help us what do you know about that no um
00:26:56 know about that no um saying i believe is is incorrect um my
00:27:02 vague recollection is of those discussions but i can't tell you the content of them i have no recollection of the content of them again
00:27:14 them again they read the people dealing with the registered detail process were the ones re producing the the information and the reports
00:27:23 reports to the
00:27:24 to the to the group and if necessary to the the manager of the registered detail process and the board of directors
00:27:37 let's look at another email string a little bit forward in time in december 2014. if we can go to labc 302817
00:27:50 so this is another email string between you mr ewing and mr batson and i want to look at the second email down on page one
00:28:02 so mr bassen is responding to an email from mr ewing asking you and mr bassen to advise on any discussions at the bca the building control alliance in relation to k-15
00:28:14 relation to k-15 and mr bassin says this and you are sent this email you're not copied you're sent it we discussed yesterday and steve came clean that must be steve evans
00:28:25 clean that must be steve evans about the continued to burning discussion we had last friday exclamation mark they nhbc are placing the onus on installers builders who have used it to
00:28:36 installers builders who have used it to prove compliance where it is not strictly in accordance with the bba certificate conditions of use the sales director of kingspan was apparently very bullish when steve spoke to him last week and has said the
00:28:48 to him last week and has said the responsibility for how its use that might be how it's used is down to the developer so they are distancing themselves from it
00:28:57 it not sure if barry has anything further to add it seems there is no likelihood of kingspan coming up with tests that will prove it works in the high-risk situations with combustible
00:29:09 situations with combustible constructional details now had you been at the bca meeting um that they're talking about there in which uh this was discussed
00:29:21 which uh this was discussed can you remember no i had no recollection well let's help you if we go to the top of this page you respond to this email
00:29:33 you respond to this email and you say this i think doug has summed it up
00:29:36 it up i came away with the overall opinion that if it is not absolutely in line with the specification indicated on the bba certificate then it should not be used there seems a reluctance on
00:29:48 used there seems a reluctance on anybody's part particularly fire engineers to say otherwise be now can does that help your recollection what discussions had you had
00:29:59 what discussions had you had particularly with fire engineers about this problem with k-15
00:30:06 i don't recall the meeting um
00:30:09 um and that is you know my first view of this for quite quite a long time uh since it was written so i can't comment on the
00:30:21 comment on the content of the meeting in any detail right by this point had you appreciated and checked and realized that the certificates that the labc had
00:30:33 that the certificates that the labc had issued for the k-15 product had sanctioned the use of it significantly beyond the specification on the bba certificate by this time labc
00:30:46 by this time labc and the people dealing with the registered detail process we're aware of it
00:30:50 it what about you i was aware of it so you were aware that there was a problem with the certificates you'd issued in the past the evidence there would suggest so yeah
00:31:02 would suggest so yeah did you think at that point about issuing a warning to your members to say well there's a problem here we've been issuing certificates for many years now for the k-15 product and that those
00:31:14 for the k-15 product and that those certificates have inaccurate information on them previous email suggests what the company were considering doing with that
00:31:25 and i left it to the others that were dealing with the matter as indicated in the email that you've looked at earlier to follow that up
00:31:36 to follow that up what are you referring to in terms of the action that others were going to take in relation to that i'm not quite clear
00:31:43 clear one of the earlier emails that you've you've displayed this morning um indicated that there was going to be consideration
00:31:54 there was going to be consideration the
00:31:56 you're asking me to to comment on something which i've not had direct dealings with but the the registered detail was
00:32:08 out of date i think the email said and that there was concern and a view to advising the members yes you were one of the recipients and
00:32:20 yes you were one of the recipients and the question was being raised of you as i've said recipient um as a matter of courtesy the um
00:32:31 whether that was taken forward or not i have no recollection sufficient to make a statement about it
00:32:43 sufficient to make a statement about it let's look at another email chain in december 2014. if we can go to labc40863
00:32:53 and i want to start at the top of page two of this string
00:33:01 this is mr ewing on the 18th of december 2014
00:33:05 2014 subject
00:33:07 subject kingspan insulation hi barry i've amended the certificate and highlighted changes in red for ease if you could consider these to see if they reflect the aims of the amended bca guidance
00:33:19 the aims of the amended bca guidance document i would be grateful as i can then go back to kingspan and also to celetex regards david so um
00:33:30 so um and then you respond to this email in the email above this
00:33:39 and you say hi dave everything looks to be covered by the amended wording almost to the point of it not being possible to meet all the requirements but that's okay by me
00:33:49 me i have one concern over the wording in the product description at the beginning of the document it states quite categorically that k15 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 15 meters in height
00:34:02 applications above 15 meters in height while this may be true and i note that immediately after attention is drawn to the conditions of certificate do we have to say it quite so noticeably i can't help but think that this will be
00:34:13 i can't help but think that this will be used by kingspan marketing and will encourage people to read no further can i suggest that the paragraph reads k15 complies with br135 for use in rain
00:34:25 k15 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height however see scope and conditions of certificate for more information i'm still nervous but can't see that we
00:34:37 i'm still nervous but can't see that we can do any more regards barry
00:34:42 um now the first point is what was that reference to 15 meters in error did you mean 18 meters there
00:34:59 possibly
00:35:03 i'm trying to think of a situation
00:35:08 situation where
00:35:09 where a limit of 15 meters is appropriate and i can't think of one so it is likely that it should have been 18. yeah and looking at the wording you're proposing on what basis did you think it
00:35:20 proposing on what basis did you think it was appropriate for the certificate to state
00:35:23 state k15 complies with the r135 for use in range screen applications above 18 meters in height however see scope and conditions of certificate for more information why was that an appropriate
00:35:34 information why was that an appropriate statement
00:35:35 statement to make in a certificate
00:35:41 [Applause]
00:35:54 i'm not sure what certificate is being referred to well this is for the next registered details certificate for cases oh the scope and conditions of
00:36:06 scope and conditions of the student um so that would be the scope and conditions of the of of the registered detail and that they would either i'm assuming that they had
00:36:19 either i'm assuming that they had the the
00:36:21 the the more
00:36:22 more information regarding the restrictions you see the problem with that statement that you're suggesting i suggest to you is that it's it's inferring
00:36:33 it's inferring global approval for use of k-15 in rain screen applications over 18 meters in height whereas it should have said that k15 complies with br135 only when
00:36:46 that k15 complies with br135 only when used in one specific system configuration
00:36:54 with hindsight and with a legal appraisal of it i would not disagree however the intention was that the scope and conditions
00:37:05 conditions indicated what the limitations were
00:37:11 that was my wording if my wording was not correct and you challenge that now i would accept that but it was not done with legal implications in mind
00:37:23 with legal implications in mind but you clearly were aware of the risk because you spell it out in this email the risk that kingspan marketing would use that wording to encourage people to read no further you flag you flagged that risk in your
00:37:36 you flag you flagged that risk in your um email so why not make the wording tighter and system specific easy to say now i thought i had
00:37:50 if your opinion that that wording does not do that i have to accept that but it was an attempt that that was the intention of that wording it's just what's difficult to understand
00:38:01 it's just what's difficult to understand is that
00:38:02 is that given the number of times the labc have been made aware of the problems with the k-15 product from nhbc from brian martin from rockwool it's difficult to see how
00:38:15 from rockwool it's difficult to see how more care why more care wasn't spent on the wording of this certificate at this point in time can you explain that no that was my um
00:38:27 um intention
00:38:29 intention and if that wasn't sufficient i have to accept that but that would the intention was to ensure that we uh we did that we did um
00:38:42 put those limitations in place right now the next certificate that is uh issued it's data before you go on i i see that you conclude the email
00:38:55 i i see that you conclude the email by um admitting that you were still nervous what were you nervous about do you think
00:39:02 you think i think the
00:39:05 my recollection by by this time and this period
00:39:10 period there would there was a this
00:39:15 this process was under scrutiny
00:39:22 i would
00:39:27 i don't recollect the
00:39:31 the detail of the of the the conversations that that were taking part at that time but it's clear from the the email strings that such
00:39:42 the the email strings that such conversations were taking place um
00:39:45 um and maybe therefore perhaps i would have liked to have walked away from the whole issue
00:39:54 issue but
00:39:55 but by by making that statement it is i'm trying and has now been highlighted didn't achieve the
00:40:06 the to provide the limitations that were necessary well that's interesting because you go on to say you can't see that you could do any more which suggests perhaps that
00:40:18 which suggests perhaps that you would like to be more specific about the limitations but didn't feel able to come out
00:40:24 come out on the face of the document and say this is not suitable except in one limited range of circum set of circumstances um
00:40:33 um yeah my i i can only suggest um that that was governed by the uh the wording within the approved documents
00:40:44 documents that
00:40:46 that we were obviously trying to show with this certificate that um
00:40:52 that um the approved the requirements of the approved document were being uh followed so
00:41:00 so if somebody in my opinion has provided sufficient evidence to satisfy what's written in an approved document
00:41:11 what's written in an approved document then
00:41:12 then we are very limited if not totally unable
00:41:19 unable to prevent it going further all right thank you very much yes yes
00:41:25 yes sorry i don't entirely understand that um
00:41:29 um you're quoting from br135
00:41:32 br135 which does appear in the approved document but if you read that publication it was made very clear in it that it was a system specific test it couldn't confer any kind of generic
00:41:45 it couldn't confer any kind of generic or global approval so how does the wording in adb help you here
00:41:56 br 135 is an assessment of the 8414 test
00:42:03 test and it is a specific
00:42:08 construction that is tested and a specific method and as we we found subsequently in more recent times
00:42:19 in more recent times minor
00:42:20 minor differences make a big difference i'm not sure that the industry as a whole was was quite as aware of of those
00:42:33 aware of of those of the significance of that at the time um
00:42:37 um i
00:42:38 i can't comment any further because i i really don't know i don't even know what the scope of the conditions of the certificate were at this stage
00:42:49 at this stage so i i can't comment any further on that did you read br135 before you intervened and wrote this wording for the certificate unlikely
00:43:03 so you wouldn't know whether in fact br135 makes it very clear that it's a system specific test and only the system can comply if it meets the
00:43:14 can comply if it meets the classification in order to satisfy the requirements of the approved document um it is a statement from
00:43:26 a ucas accredited testing laboratory um that says whether or not a construction has satisfied the 841 or satisfied the criteria within
00:43:40 the 841 or satisfied the criteria within br135
00:43:42 br135 so for building control it is that certificate which is the
00:43:50 focal point once a laboratory has issued a certificate saying um the
00:44:01 the recommendations of 135 have been met and they issue a certificate to that effect that that is the focal the focus for
00:44:11 for building control now what is being referred to there the scope and definitions of the pacific certificate whether it is something on the certificate issued as a result of
00:44:24 the certificate issued as a result of the the 135 assessment or whether it is the certificate um the labc were about to issue i do not know okay
00:44:33 know okay were you aware at this time that br one the s8414 was a system specific test yes you were
00:44:45 okay let's move forward then um so the next certificate that's issued by labc is another registered detail certificate that was issued in march 2015. if we look quickly at that
00:44:57 march 2015. if we look quickly at that this is labc 301881
00:45:05 so this is the certificate for the kingspan cool them brain screen board product it's headed it's a certificate at the
00:45:17 it's headed it's a certificate at the top and we see at the bottom it's got a date
00:45:22 the certificate was first issued 28th of august 2013 valid and it was issued it says it was issued on the 30th of march 2015 and we can see the wording that you
00:45:33 and we can see the wording that you suggested in the yellow box at the bottom of the yellow box above k15 has been tested to comply with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height however see
00:45:45 above 18 meters in height however see scope and conditions of certificate for more information so that text that you drafted appears on this front page of the certificate yes now i just want to look at an email or
00:45:57 now i just want to look at an email or some emails leading up to this certificate if we go to labc40965
00:46:13 this is an email from david ewing to mr ball of kingspan and if we look at the bottom of page one
00:46:22 sorry it's the email from mr there's an email from mr ball to mr ewing and mr brennan
00:46:28 brennan um
00:46:29 um and what we see then if we go over the page
00:46:33 page is
00:46:34 is mr ball is commenting and and on the k15 certificate that's been sent and he makes we don't need to go to the detail
00:46:45 makes we don't need to go to the detail of it he makes a number of detailed comments on it and if we scroll up to the next email above that on the 8th of january 2015
00:46:58 we can see that mr ewing says back hi dan i've gone through your proposed revisions and tracked the changes into one document attached to information i forwarded on
00:47:09 attached to information i forwarded on to back this on to barry turner our director of technical policy for comment whom i consulted with initially in relation to the bca guidance document i await his response but will be back as
00:47:22 i await his response but will be back as soon as i can with this and they say one thing that we will need from you will be an amended bre report dealing with the 12 millimeter particle board rather than the 15 millimeter
00:47:34 board rather than the 15 millimeter um
00:47:35 um and then he goes on we don't need to look at the rest of it now um can you just help us mr ewing is saying that there's been some consultation with you initially
00:47:47 some consultation with you initially in relation to the bca guidance document can you help us as to what that consultation was
00:47:56 no
00:47:59 i don't recall i'm
00:48:02 i'm i can assume which guidance notice was but i i i don't recall the conversation
00:48:13 the conversation if we then picking up this this same chain go to labc seven 30579
00:48:25 this is an email from mr ewing to you
00:48:30 of the 8th of january 2015 and he says hi barry i've received a revised certificate from kingspan c note below and have altered our certificate in red to reflect the requested changes the
00:48:41 to reflect the requested changes the bulk is for generic fixings which i think is fair but there is also an amendment to the actual report and i do not think it is appropriate unless there's a corresponding amended bre report that reflects this 15 millimeters
00:48:53 report that reflects this 15 millimeters or 12 millimeter particle board i will leave this with kingspan to sort this out can you let me know what you think and we can then put this to the big wide world
00:49:02 world thanks david now um
00:49:08 now um can you help us it looks like you are being consulted this time to provide technical input into the certificate is that right
00:49:20 is that right that's what suggests so yes were herefordshire council no longer involved in the process by this time can you help on that i don't know
00:49:31 don't know so no i can't answer that
00:49:37 if we look at another email labc 302848
00:49:43 i want to start by picking this up on um page four
00:49:48 page four there's an email from mr everal to you and a number of others to you and mr hammond with stimson mr basson
00:49:59 mr basson and the heading is building control alliance
00:50:04 alliance and he says good afternoon a few points from today's meeting of the alliance which alison and i attended and then i want to pick it up in the third paragraph it says he
00:50:16 it says he also mentioned that there were now 24 bca technical guidance notes on the bca website are there links to this site on our website do we need to do more to make our members aware of them
00:50:27 make our members aware of them presumably all have been agreed by the bca technical group on which we are represented and so are suitable for endorsement by us and then it goes on there are apparently some insulation manufacturers producing
00:50:39 some insulation manufacturers producing products which do not meet the non-combustibility requirements for buildings above 18 meters nhbc are planning to issue a guidance note to builders on this i have asked steve to send me a copy so
00:50:51 i have asked steve to send me a copy so that we can if you think necessary alert our members [Applause] and then he goes on but we don't need to look at the the rest of what he says
00:51:02 look at the the rest of what he says it's on different topics and then at the bottom of page two we can see lorna stimson replies to this
00:51:14 so right at the bottom there's an email from her of the 21st of january 2015 and if we go over the page we can see what she said again you're you're a recipient of this
00:51:26 again you're you're a recipient of this email
00:51:27 email serena and kathal can you please go on to the bca website and find the 24 guidance notes and provide suitable links from our website david can you please take a look at our current registered details to make sure
00:51:39 current registered details to make sure we don't have any of the said insulation products
00:51:43 products and then we see your response on the same day at the top of page two
00:51:52 you say this just briefly we are aware of the insulation issue above 18 meters it has been discussed at bca technical and dave e
00:52:03 e is more than well versed in the issues with kingspan k15 it is an insurance issue rather than compliance with regs warranty know about it and are reasonably okay with it all
00:52:17 now i just want to take this email in stages you say in those first lines that dave e is more than well versed in the issues
00:52:28 is more than well versed in the issues with kingspan k15 what did you mean by that i meant that mr ewing was dealing with with the matters
00:52:36 but you obviously knew what those matters were by this time yes i had left it with the people dealing with the registered detail there were
00:52:47 there were at least three technical people dealing with the matter and i was i took this to being copied in as a courtesy
00:52:58 as a courtesy when asked for comment i made comment and you have evidence of what those comments were yeah you were the ones sitting on the bca technical guidance committees weren't
00:53:09 technical guidance committees weren't you one-off yes yes was mr ewing sitting on those no no mr bassen did what do you mean when you say in the second part of your email it is an
00:53:21 second part of your email it is an insurance issue rather than compliance with regs
00:53:26 with regs that must be a detail uh i i don't know what i meant there i i have no record i don't recall what what that particular comment was about
00:53:39 what that particular comment was about i mean it appears you're saying that the issue with k-15 is an insurance issue rather than compliance with rex doesn't it based on this email it might appear like that but whether it was or not i cannot confirm
00:53:52 whether it was or not i cannot confirm or deny
00:53:53 or deny can you help us to why you might have believed that was the case at the time no
00:53:59 no because it absolutely was a compliance issue with the regulations and with approved document b wasn't it depends on the topic of the conversation and i don't know what the conversation
00:54:10 and i don't know what the conversation was
00:54:12 was well we can see the context what's happened is mr everall has said there are apparently insulation manufacturers producing products which don't meet the
00:54:23 products which don't meet the non-combustibility requirements for buildings over 18 meters and that appears to be the issue that you're commenting on from based on the first paragraph of that email why i believed it to be an insurance
00:54:36 why i believed it to be an insurance issue
00:54:37 issue i i do not recall
00:54:43 can i ask you go on to say that warranty know about it and are reasonably okay with it all what is warranty referred to um
00:54:54 um warranty is the insurance is insurance um
00:54:58 um labc warranty um
00:55:02 um who
00:55:03 who provide um some of the the warranty insurance is for labc sites not all um they're also an approved inspector in
00:55:14 um they're also an approved inspector in their own right and have their own technical
00:55:19 technical competence competencies their own technical department
00:55:26 i must have spoken with one of their technical people and they had obviously told me that they were aware
00:55:38 obviously told me that they were aware of it and okay that that from that and that is my only recollection but their technical people were also aware of it yes it look i mean i the impression i
00:55:49 yes it look i mean i the impression i have is that you'd had some form of discussion possibly fairly detailed about the nature of the problem with someone who was dealing with the warranty
00:55:59 warranty uh i think may well have done but i do not recall the detail no all right thank you
00:56:09 do you recall ever discussing with with warranty
00:56:13 warranty i had very few discussions with warranty that may even have been a third party contact um
00:56:24 third party contact um again the
00:56:26 again the there are others within labc that liaised with warranty not me and it may well be that i was informed
00:56:39 that i was informed by
00:56:40 by someone else that they discussed it with warranty which is more likely to be the case
00:56:47 case who are those others you're talking about
00:56:49 about martin taylor in particular and poss i don't know whether
00:56:54 whether doug bassen was uh linked with them and lorna stimpson they were the contacts and the the liaison people with
00:57:05 contacts and the the liaison people with warranty not me
00:57:08 it would be a pretty important issue for warranty to be aware of wouldn't it
00:57:16 they may well have been they may have been well aware of it i don't know i wasn't
00:57:22 i wasn't i wasn't a contact with them the wording you've used here is interesting it says they're reasonably okay with it all that suggests that they might not have been entirely comfortable with the position again does that help
00:57:35 with the position again does that help no
00:57:36 no i
00:57:38 i from further thought on that message um
00:57:43 um i
00:57:44 i my i can only assume that i was given that information by one of the people that were in contact with the warranty people i was not in fact very rarely in contact
00:57:58 i was not in fact very rarely in contact with the warranty technical department right
00:58:01 right let's look at another email on this topic an earlier email 22nd of december 2014 if we go to labc labc40841
00:58:11 and this is email at the top of that first page
00:58:16 this is from you to mr ewing copying in mr brennan and mr basson and you say hi dave the minutes are in the form of action points only the bca guidance note with amendments was discussed and agreed
00:58:28 with amendments was discussed and agreed subject to each of us taking it back to our own technical groups so it would appear you're reporting back on a bcaa technical meeting we will put it on the agenda for our
00:58:39 we will put it on the agenda for our technical meeting in january but the likelihood is that we will accept the wording as it is and sorry i should have noted the subject of this is k15 you see that from the top line top lines
00:58:51 the top line top lines and then you say this as you have already explained it is a warranty issue rather than a building regulations direct matter unless we consider the duty of care element
00:59:02 element i don't see that we can do any more than you have indicated in the proposed registered details barry
00:59:10 barry now so we see again you're saying that it's a warranty issue rather than a building regulations direct matter can you help us as to what you meant by that
00:59:25 no
00:59:27 i i do not recall the
00:59:30 the details of the the issues being discussed
00:59:35 discussed and again
00:59:37 and again i was not in direct contact direct contact with the warranty people
00:59:46 so i i
00:59:48 i wouldn't
00:59:52 it is likely that that is a repeat of information passed to me in conversation with people that have been in contact
01:00:04 with people that have been in contact with warranty you say you don't recall the details of the issues being discussed do you recall in general terms there being a discussion about whether this problem with k-15 was merely an insurance
01:00:15 with k-15 was merely an insurance problem or was actually a problem which was fundamentally about compliance with building regulations and
01:00:23 and raising wider public safety issues
01:00:30 no
01:00:33 can you help us as to what you mean by unless we consider the duty of care element
01:00:53 no
01:00:57 is it possible what you meant there was a duty of care to your members to warn them about this to notify them about the problems with the k-15 no it
01:01:08 about the problems with the k-15 no it is more likely um
01:01:11 um that
01:01:12 that it is the
01:01:14 it is the duty of care element that local authorities hold
01:01:21 hold in in their execution of their duties and do you mean by that strict legal duty of care that they hold is that what you meant probably
01:01:32 is that what you meant probably that that is the likely
01:01:37 thought process and just expand on that for me if there had been
01:01:42 had been a duty of care element as you you posit in this email what might that have meant in terms of what you needed to do at this time i don't know i i don't recall i don't recall it in
01:01:55 i i don't recall i don't recall it in sufficient detail to be able to answer that question because again what's surprising is that we're getting no sense of urgency here in these labc emails no
01:02:07 urgency here in these labc emails no sense of
01:02:08 sense of wow we need to go back to our members because we've been certifying this product
01:02:13 product with inaccurate statements about it for years
01:02:17 years why wasn't that being recognized and action taken about it
01:02:23 i don't know
01:02:26 do you ever remember any discussions about that taking place with these these
01:02:32 these people i recall the the references in in bca and on that but i do not recall the detail
01:02:43 there is a reply from mr brennan if we go to labc302848
01:02:58 at the top of the page we can see mr brennan saying to you and to others i don't think it's a coincidence either that we got that large piece of registered details business with
01:03:09 registered details business with kingspan at this time either can you help us what he meant by that no
01:03:19 did you think at the time that kingspan were trying to sweeten the labc and soften them up by placing a lot of registered details business with them at a time when they were in crisis
01:03:30 a time when they were in crisis about the testing that they had to support their products use over 18 meters
01:03:36 meters that would be the inference from that message
01:03:41 can you help us about that
01:03:47 the email chain then continues if we go to labc 302850 and i want to start page two in the middle of page two
01:04:08 there's an email from you 21st january 15 1516 in the middle of page two and you say this nhbc are trying to use bca to protect their warranty
01:04:19 bca to protect their warranty my opinion labc warranty are well aware of it and don't see it the same way now again can you help us as to what you were referring to in this email
01:04:32 were referring to in this email why were the nhbc trying to use the building control alliance to protect their warranty
01:04:48 it is likely that that is a result of discussions that took place at bca
01:04:59 details of which i do not recall
01:05:07 and you can't help us with the second part labc warranty are well aware of it and don't see it the same way so it looks like that is a repeat of my previous comment
01:05:21 yes it looks like they
01:05:24 don't what don't think you can use the building control alliance to protect their warranty i mean it's not entirely clear
01:05:32 clear labc warranty were not party to the building control alliance but it looks like they had an opinion which might have been different from what the nhbc were thinking at the
01:05:44 from what the nhbc were thinking at the time based on this email can you help us with that i can't tell you what that opinion was no if we go to we're carrying on with this same chain labc 302852
01:05:58 on page two
01:06:02 there's an email from mr ewing to you and the others 21st of january 2015 and he says hi sorry i'd switched off to finish the fire risk assessment for something
01:06:13 something and then
01:06:14 and then the first big substantive paragraph he says
01:06:18 says i've been talking through this with barry and the wording now on the registered details certificate is exactly the same cut and pasted as the revised bca document i've done the k15
01:06:29 revised bca document i've done the k15 document and now intend to replicate the guidance on the celetex registered details as this is also a thermoset material they might be less keen as we do not know if their product carried on
01:06:40 do not know if their product carried on burning for 20 minutes after the flame was taken away the only negative to this is that control has been handed to warranty for acceptability of the material the failings in the material are not
01:06:51 the failings in the material are not addressed in adb3 we can con some we can control fire spread test past but there's no control of the material stability eye what drops off and is likely to hit someone below
01:07:03 off and is likely to hit someone below david
01:07:05 david so he's talking about changes you're making to the registered detail certificate to replicate the guidance um and then if we go
01:07:16 um and then if we go up the page we can see at the bottom of page one there's a response from lorna stimson
01:07:24 she says this um to you and others this issue's been burning for a long time though hasn't it get it exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark
01:07:35 exclamation mark exclamation mark why is it raising its head again all of a sudden
01:07:40 a sudden now
01:07:41 now can you help us as to what her awareness was at this time of the problems with the k-15 product and its use over 18 meters did you ever discuss that with her
01:07:51 her no
01:07:54 we then see a response from mr ewing at the top of page one he says this again you are a recipient of this email nhbc have several large
01:08:05 of this email nhbc have several large sites all using the material outside of the tested specification as such their special risks team are jumping up and down there was initial concern raised that
01:08:16 there was initial concern raised that our registered details inferred global approval
01:08:19 approval and this has been amended since january 2014 when bba revised their agremont certificate for the product kingspan had it tested last year by bre
01:08:30 kingspan had it tested last year by bre and the results were a pass to the requisite tests but collapse of the material as it burnt we don't know if the tests carried out by celetex for their rival product was redacted to
01:08:42 their rival product was redacted to exclude this information from us
01:08:47 now we can see there clearly that mr ewing is raising the fact that
01:08:54 that the registered details certificate inferred global approval and he says this has been amended since january 2014 but we just saw in the march 2015
01:09:07 but we just saw in the march 2015 certificate that it was still inferring global approval after this point can you help us about that no i was not party to the issue
01:09:24 and we can see from the beginning of that email that the special risks team from nhbc are jumping up and down because they've got several large sites all using the material outside of the tested specification
01:09:37 outside of the tested specification why wasn't the labc jumping up and down thinking to itself wow k15 is going to have been used on multiple projects because of our certificates for years
01:09:49 certificates for years we need to get on top of this problem quickly
01:10:02 that is not a question for me to answer um
01:10:07 um the correspondence that you have indicated and that particular letter shows that it is being considered by labc
01:10:17 labc maybe not as quickly as you
01:10:19 as you infer it should have been but it was being considered well all we can see really is is you saying
01:10:27 saying it's a warranty insurance issue and you're not suggesting we should do any more why not
01:10:38 i was repeating information passed to me by others
01:10:51 so it never occurred to you at the time that there might be some pretty serious public safety considerations that labc needed to be working through as a matter of urgency
01:11:02 working through as a matter of urgency in relation to the k-15 product
01:11:07 not as a matter of urgency it was being worked through
01:11:13 well we can see what happened in march 2015 you issue a certificate that suggests i didn't give you a certificate labc might have issued a certificate i didn't yes but the key wording on the
01:11:25 didn't yes but the key wording on the front of that certificate was suggested by you we've just seen that an amendment to it was suggested by me yes and that that amendment inferred
01:11:36 yes and that that amendment inferred global approval on the front of the certificate didn't it that is your interpretation of it which i have to accept it was not my intention
01:11:46 now we can see then in january 2015 that the labc then decided to approach the bre to get some advice
01:11:57 the bre to get some advice if we go to labc 305793
01:12:07 this is from um david ewing to philip carney you're copied in 26 hi philip we've recently reviewed the registered details certificate in place for kingspan k15
01:12:18 for kingspan k15 particularly as a result of building control alliance technical guidance note issued this one month i wonder if it would be possible for your colleague steve howard to cast an eye over the revised certificate and then he goes on we don't need to go
01:12:29 and then he goes on we don't need to go into the rest of what he says so you were clearly aware that the bre were being consulted at this point yes i was copied in as a matter of courtesy clearly aware i think is a strong
01:12:40 clearly aware i think is a strong statement well i'm sorry to interrupt again but
01:12:44 again but this has happened time out of mind now uh mr turner we see that you're either an addressee of an email or you're copied into it and you say it's copied as a matter of courtesy but
01:12:56 it's copied as a matter of courtesy but i assume that the people who sent you these emails expected you to read them did you read them yes and if you read them then i think we could assume that you understood the contents can't we yes
01:13:09 you understood the contents can't we yes yes thank you very much can you help us as to who it was that made the decision to go and seek some advice from the bre
01:13:19 no can you explain why it took so long for the labc to do that to take advice from specialist third parties with expertise in this area given the multiple times that
01:13:32 area given the multiple times that concerns have been raised with the labc about its registered detail certificate for k-15 before this yeah
01:13:42 and we can see in further email exchanges if we go to labc 305804
01:13:50 and look at page two
01:13:57 on the 30th of january 2015 mr ewing says to you i've just spoken to philip carney regarding k15 who suggested a quick meeting with steve howard the fire
01:14:09 meeting with steve howard the fire tester at bre exact wording used was discussion in confidence to avoid labc digging a bigger hole than they might already be in exclamation mark exclamation mark and then he
01:14:22 exclamation mark and then he says when that meeting might take place um
01:14:27 um who was mr carney i mean was he a contact um at the bre
01:14:38 i know of mr carney um what his role was at bre i couldn't tell you and can you help us as to what he was
01:14:49 and can you help us as to what he was referring to there when he talked about discussion in confidence to avoid labc digging a bigger hole than they might already be in that would suggest that they are now looking into the issues which
01:15:01 looking into the issues which uh you already referred to was that a fair assessment of the labc's predicament at that time it would appear to be and hindsight would suggest yes
01:15:13 would suggest yes yes
01:15:14 yes and then just to finish this off if i can just finish the final email mr chairman and then of course i've got a different completely different topic and there's an email chain if we go to labc40931
01:15:31 mr ewing writes to you on the 9th of february informing you of the outcome of the
01:15:36 the meeting he says i met with steve howard philip carney this morning regarding k15 there were no gates shocks however we would be approaching the registered details
01:15:46 details certificate correctly if we cross-reference our document to the bre classification reports issued for k-15 rather than the testing reports sent through to us and then he goes on and in the second
01:15:58 and then he goes on and in the second paragraph main part of that email he says as such if you're in agreement i'll amend the certificate accordingly after i've received confirmation from kingspan of the relevant classification reports
01:16:10 reports and then there's a further labc exchange in relation to the k-15 certificate in february if we go to labc eight two 305823
01:16:24 on page two we can see that mr ewing attaches the most recent version most up-to-date recent version of the k-15 registered details certificate
01:16:36 certificate and he says following discussions with bre and kingspan i've reworded it that was that email and then we see your response
01:16:43 response on the 16th of february at the bottom of page one
01:16:46 page one and you say well done david it can't be said that we haven't scrutinized this one thoroughly exclamation mark exclamation mark now who had said that you had not
01:16:57 now who had said that you had not scrutinized other labc certificates thoroughly can you help us with what you were referring to at that point that was just a again an office comment electronically
01:17:10 again an office comment electronically um
01:17:13 way of end you know of saying thank you for sourcing it or thank you for dealing with it
01:17:19 with it can you explain as to why this appears on its face to be being treated as a joke
01:17:26 our office communications were electronic um
01:17:32 um and
01:17:33 and [Music]
01:17:35 [Music] that to me isn't a joke if it appears to you that way we obviously have different opinions okay mr term i think that's a good moment for
01:17:46 mr term i think that's a good moment for the morning break thank you very much well mr turner it's time we had a break for the morning we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 12 and again i must ask you not to discuss your evidence or anything relating to it
01:17:59 your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone when you're out of the room thank you very much
01:18:20 thank you miss grange 25 to 12. thank you
01:36:16 would you ask mr turner to come back in please
01:36:26 [Applause] [Music]
01:36:36 all right mr ready to carry on i hope yes was strange yes thank you yes i've got one main topic now to cover you with you one final main topic and this is to ask you some more detailed questions
01:36:47 ask you some more detailed questions about the building control alliance the bca yes
01:36:51 bca yes now um that was established in 2008 is that right does that sound right i believe so yeah yeah and is it right that members of the bca included the association of
01:37:02 bca included the association of consultant approved inspectors yes
01:37:06 yes local authority building control ilabc the chartered association of building engineers yes the chartered institute of building yes and the rural institute of chartered
01:37:17 and the rural institute of chartered surveyors yes
01:37:21 and it's right isn't it that organizations were members of the bca rather than individuals is that correct
01:37:31 i was not party to it so i can't confirm the
01:37:36 the the makeup of of it or what the articles were so um
01:37:42 um my understanding was that that it was the
01:37:45 the um
01:37:46 um association associations not individuals yes
01:37:49 yes yes and what was your role within the bca
01:37:53 bca i sat as a member of the technical group
01:38:01 and how long did you sit as a member of that group
01:38:07 prob probably for the majority of my time with labc yeah yeah so you're on it throughout um and can you just help us in brief
01:38:20 um and can you just help us in brief terms why was the bca created
01:38:24 at the time it was created government were looking to um remove or if that's the right word but but to to do away with building control in its
01:38:37 control in its form that it was and essentially make it a insurance-based system of of approach of regulation so
01:38:49 system of of approach of regulation so um and
01:38:51 um and so there was a common um
01:38:55 um a common belief or a common theme between both public and private building control bodies to resist that
01:39:06 to resist that that that particular attempt by government to remove to remove building control from there from the process yes
01:39:14 yes now you tell us something about this in your statement if we could look at that at page
01:39:18 at page 28 paragraph 92
01:39:24 so you you say there i should explain that the bca was set up as a result of a government review of the building control system and possible changes to the regulatory environment and you've just explained what those were
01:39:35 just explained what those were on this issue there was common ground between local authority building control and approved inspectors who were opposed to the proposals to relax building control requirements from this initial purpose of support and
01:39:47 from this initial purpose of support and promotion of building control the technical group was established chaired by nhbc
01:39:54 by nhbc with the aim of agreeing where possible the technical interpretation of building regulations so as to reduce the scope for competition based on different interpretations and to achieve consensus
01:40:06 interpretations and to achieve consensus a number of organizations were represented on or participate in the bca and the relevant government departments were i understand consulted or advised on the work of the bca and copied into
01:40:17 on the work of the bca and copied into papers
01:40:18 papers circulated to the technical group now just a few more questions about that you say the technical group was chaired by the nhbc um
01:40:29 um does that mean the nhbc always held the position of chair in that in that group yes and and was that always steve evans of the nhbc no
01:40:40 of the nhbc no he
01:40:40 he they were predecessors to steve yeah
01:40:47 and was it your understanding that the um
01:40:51 um nhbc was a member of the bca as well as being chair
01:41:01 they were a
01:41:05 significant presence within the bca [Music]
01:41:11 [Music] i can't say that i really thought as to whether they were a member or not so i can't answer your question it's not
01:41:20 it's not um
01:41:21 um i don't think they were formally you know a formal entity within the bca right but they did have a significant presence right yeah
01:41:33 presence right yeah and when you say that relevant government departments were consulted or advised on the work of the bca are you referring their principally to what would have been known as the mhclg yes
01:41:44 yes and what was your understanding of mhclg's role and involvement with the bca
01:41:52 they were
01:41:55 they didn't attend certainly the meetings that i attended they didn't attend
01:42:00 attend on a regular basis they were copied into papers i was not party to
01:42:09 party to their invitation in the first place so i can't really expand on okay mr evans says in his witness statement for the transcript this is a paragraph 165 b
01:42:21 165 b on page 60 as part of nhb403020
01:42:27 he says this he says um first of all the mhclg was a papers only member of the technical group it would be copied into emails and minutes is that your understanding i wouldn't disagree with that yeah
01:42:39 wouldn't disagree with that yeah and he says mhclg did not authorize the issue of any bca technical note but it did see the relevant papers again it was that your experience
01:42:50 that your experience nhbc were
01:42:52 nhbc were very
01:42:54 supportive of the process i'm very involved in the process purely because the the organization was um you know
01:43:06 the organization was um you know unfunded
01:43:09 unfunded when you say nhbc were very supportive of the process and very involved in the process i was asking you about mhclg i beg your pardon do you mean they were very supportive of the process
01:43:21 the process my understanding was that they they welcomed the the the
01:43:30 the discussions that took place at that group yes
01:43:36 what about authorizing the issue of any technical notes that the bca issued did you have any awareness of whether the mhclg authorized those notes or were merely aware of them um no i don't think
01:43:48 merely aware of them um no i don't think it's fair to say that they authorized them
01:43:51 them they were to my knowledge made aware of them
01:43:54 them um by by the chair of the group yeah mr evans also goes on to say says i cannot recall receiving any significant objections from mh clg at any time again
01:44:06 objections from mh clg at any time again is that consistent with your recollection largely um
01:44:13 there was input
01:44:18 and recognition so that they that they were obviously aware of the papers but but there was um little little input shall we say
01:44:30 yeah and were you ever aware of um mhclg having any objections to any of the technical notes that have been produced by the bca no and mr evans also explains that it was
01:44:42 and mr evans also explains that it was richard harrell and later brian martin who were the key contacts at mhclg and he says they would have raised an objection had they seen something that concerned them do you agree with that
01:44:53 concerned them do you agree with that yes
01:44:56 now looking at paragraph 91 of your statement on page 28.
01:45:06 you say this you say the use of p-u-r-p-i-r and phenolic insulation above 18 meters became the subject of detailed consideration by the technical group of the building control alliance this
01:45:19 the building control alliance this ultimately resulted in the bca issuing draft revised guidance in april 2015 which was finally published in june 2015.
01:45:27 2015. i was involved as a member of the group in those discussions but i do not recall details of the matters that were discussed
01:45:35 discussed now
01:45:37 now can you help us as to this when did the use of p-u-r-p-i-r and phenolic insulation become the subject of detailed consideration by the technical arm of the bca
01:45:51 arm of the bca i can't give you specific dates but they will relate to previous
01:45:57 previous correspondence and emails that you've already
01:46:01 already indicated
01:46:03 indicated so in terms of why it became the subject of detailed consideration was that because of the k15 problems that we've seen in the emails it was raised by um
01:46:13 um the nhbc representative yes in the context of k15 specifically no
01:46:21 no not to my knowledge it might have been a reference to k-15 but the the discussions
01:46:32 the the discussions were
01:46:33 were as i recollect about the external cladding do you mean as in about the external cladding as distinct from the external
01:46:44 cladding as distinct from the external insulation all right the external cladding system
01:46:51 so do you remember there being discussion about combustible insulation products as part of the external wall system i don't remember any detail of such discussion no
01:47:02 no but it's it's likely that they took part yes
01:47:07 yes now you've referred in that paragraph of your statement to the draft revised guidance from april 2015 which was published in june 2015 of technical guidance note 18 but there was an earlier version issue naught of
01:47:19 earlier version issue naught of technical guidance note 18 issued in june 2014
01:47:24 june 2014 that was the first issue of that guidance
01:47:27 guidance did you have any involvement in the drafting of that guidance from june 2014 no
01:47:35 mr bassen has told us in his witness statement that he understood that steve evans of the nhbc was the author of that bca technical guidance note 18. was that your understanding as well
01:47:48 your understanding as well yes
01:47:50 yes can you remember who was responsible for making the decision that a guidance note dealing with um amongst other things combustible cladding materials was required
01:48:03 my recollection is that it was brought to the table by by nhbc by or i beg your pardon by you know mr evans and can you remember the reason
01:48:14 evans and can you remember the reason for why such a guidance note was required what was the reason given
01:48:24 i don't recall the details of the reasoning no can you help her sister who decided that the guidance notes should be drafted and published by the bca as opposed to any
01:48:35 published by the bca as opposed to any other organization such as by the nhbc itself
01:48:40 in order that the the purpose of that group was to agree technical
01:48:49 technical um
01:48:50 um interpretation throughout the the building control bodies both public and private to avoid
01:48:58 to avoid competition on um
01:49:01 um interpretation of the regulations as it were
01:49:05 were or to to try to itinerate so i would imagine that the reason for bringing it there was to promote it in a
01:49:17 bringing it there was to promote it in a in that way across all building control bodies yeah and in your view was there a need for such guidance i was being made aware of it at that
01:49:28 i was being made aware of it at that time
01:49:29 time but did you have an opinion on it i saw nora i saw no
01:49:34 no objection to not issuing the guidance right
01:49:40 right do you know who was responsible for the technical content of the note for example the drafting of option three on desktop assessments did you have the the drafting of it was
01:49:51 did you have the the drafting of it was was put forward in
01:50:00 the the paper was put forward by by mr evans right yeah for discussion at the group
01:50:08 the group can you help as to whether any experts were consulted such as any experts in fire engineering cladding or fire safety in the drafting of that guidance in its production it was my understanding that
01:50:20 production it was my understanding that the um the nhbc um fire
01:50:28 engineers had been
01:50:31 had been party to it but that that was you know
01:50:35 you know that that's my recollection
01:50:40 right so nobody external to the nhbc you weren't aware not what i'm aware of no no
01:50:47 no now if we look at mr evans statement nhb
01:50:54 and look at the top of page 66.
01:51:04 he tells us there he says in june 2014 bca published the 2014 technical guidance note this provided guidance in terms of summarizing three methods of demonstrating compliance
01:51:16 demonstrating compliance and he goes on he says in addition to the two linear routes it included a third option which involved a desktop assessment of the cladding system based on test data the 2014 bca guidance note
01:51:27 on test data the 2014 bca guidance note stated this was to be carried out by suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire and based on reasoned arguments or facts
01:51:39 and based on reasoned arguments or facts not his or her subjective opinion that fire engineer would issue a report that demonstrated equivalence of performance of a br135 compliance system and refer to test data the report will
01:51:51 and refer to test data the report will be specific to the project being proposed
01:51:55 proposed now do you agree with what mr evans has stated there
01:52:03 yes what were your views on the use of desktop study reports as an option in terms of the use of combustible materials on buildings with stories over
01:52:14 materials on buildings with stories over 18 meters
01:52:16 18 meters i don't recall that i had a view at that time
01:52:22 so were you just entirely neutral about the introduction of desktop assessments or did you ever express a view positive or negative
01:52:30 negative it was an option that was available via or suggested within the approved document as far as as i think i'm aware
01:52:42 as far as as i think i'm aware and therefore i didn't see that um there was an object i didn't raise an object and i have no recollection of raising an objection at the time right when you say it was an option that was suggested in the approved document what
01:52:53 suggested in the approved document what are you referring to there without the approved document i can't give you detail but the approved document um
01:53:03 from recollection allowed um
01:53:07 um [Music]
01:53:08 [Music] an assessment of issues such as this and my underst my recollection of understanding at that time was that
01:53:19 was that this was being that this was a um a reinforcement of that i see okay
01:53:28 did you ever express any concerns about opening up the possibility of desktop assessments i extrapolations from large-scale fire tests into something on paper
01:53:42 no
01:53:46 and and why not was that because you were the reason for for the reasons i gave you on my answer to the last question
01:53:52 question so you thought it was endorsed by approved document b yes i think that was the case yes or that was my um
01:54:01 um my recollection of understanding at the time
01:54:04 time and who told you that you said this is fine because it's covered by approved document b do you remember no
01:54:11 no uh it
01:54:12 uh it would have been put on the table you know at the bca group who who would have suggested it i can't say yeah
01:54:24 say yeah prior to publication can you help us as to whether any discussions had taken place about the inclusion of these option three desktops with for example other labc employees did you discuss
01:54:35 other labc employees did you discuss that with them no
01:54:39 no what about with mhcld were there any discussions you were aware of with mhclg about the possibility of introducing option three desktop assessment i have no recollection i can't comment
01:54:52 no recollection i can't comment let's look at the notes of a meeting of the bca technical liaison group if we can go to clg one three zero six eight eight nine
01:55:07 this is a meeting held on the 8th of december 2014. so this was before that march 2015 certificate registered detail certificate we saw you um have some
01:55:18 certificate we saw you um have some involvement in suggesting draft wording for
01:55:22 for and we can see the attendees of this meeting are listed at the top there's steve evans as the chair and we can see that both you and mr bassen are there
01:55:34 and then if we move to page four of these minutes and look at item 12
01:55:42 it says this use of combustible materials in cladding systems to buildings over 18 meters essie steve evans outlined the work carried out to date in identifying
01:55:53 carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters s e steve evans and bt you barry turner
01:56:06 s e steve evans and bt you barry turner to discuss further outside of the meeting
01:56:09 meeting confirmation of any actions to be fed back to the group steve evans tabled an amendment
01:56:16 amendment to
01:56:17 to guidance note 18 which clarifies the standing of a br135 assessment and the considerations that need to be made in respect of the mechanical performance of the materials as part of a bs 8414 test
01:56:28 the materials as part of a bs 8414 test and br135 assessment by the building designer comments to be passed to steve evans by 12th of december 2014 and and it says that all are supposed to
01:56:39 and and it says that all are supposed to be passing comments now just taking that in stages um
01:56:45 um in terms of that second paragraph mr evans outlined the work carried out to date
01:56:51 to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters
01:57:02 over 18 meters um can you help us as to what was meant by that
01:57:08 no why was the bca working to identify possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18
01:57:21 to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters
01:57:25 it was brought to the table for consideration by mr evans yes but mr turner i think the point that miss grange is asking you to focus on is this
01:57:36 this um
01:57:37 um the the words possible solutions suggest a problem that needs to be solved
01:57:43 solved what was the problem that someone thought need to be solved do you know does this ref i'm sorry i've i've lost track of dates
01:57:54 track of dates and i don't know where this falls in relation to some of the other discussions that you've you've raised but is this a result of the
01:58:07 result of the the issues raised by um
01:58:10 um brian martin and the the the staff i think it probably does follow that is that not right it would appear that it's part of the yeah the the story in
01:58:21 part of the yeah the the story in relation to that yeah and and it's clearly headed here use of combustible materials and cladding systems to buildings over 18 meters and we know that in december 2014 there
01:58:32 and we know that in december 2014 there was a lot of discussion going on between you the nhbc kingspan
01:58:37 kingspan about its testing etc so
01:58:42 so does that help answer the chairman's question
01:58:46 question only in as much as this
01:58:50 this topic was brought to the table by
01:58:54 by steve evans and i can only assume that it was prompted by the discussions that we've just we've just referred to the bca um
01:59:04 um why were bca being asked uh
01:59:09 that might i suggest is a question you need to put to mr evans because it wasn't
01:59:15 wasn't brought to that group by me well it may be that we shall do that but i think what we were interested in knowing at the moment is whether you could recall
01:59:26 is whether you could recall what was seen by nhbc or anyone else has a problem
01:59:32 a problem which required a solution in relation to the use of polyurethane type insulation in high-rise buildings what was the problem
01:59:45 again i refer to previous
01:59:49 previous issues that have been discussed um
01:59:54 um and it would be the
01:59:58 the use of
02:00:02 tests that could the correct interpretation of the the results of tests
02:00:08 tests right
02:00:09 right all right thank you can you help us as to on what basis that was considered an appropriate course of action for the bca to be taking to work towards
02:00:21 to work towards possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation to be used in cladding systems why was that something that the bca were interested in endorsing
02:00:33 i can't say that the bca were interested in endorsing it's something that was brought to the table for them to consider
02:00:42 consider and it julie was considered so it wasn't objected to it wasn't the bca that chose to discuss it
02:00:51 well we i mean do you have any reason to disagree with these minutes as an accurate record of what was discussed no
02:01:03 can you help us as to what the work carried out to date was in identifying possible solutions i mean you're then identified as someone um
02:01:15 um who's going to discuss this further outside the meeting with steve evans what was the work to date that had been done by identifying solutions my recollection is that it was the
02:01:27 my recollection is that it was the the work and investigations being undertaken by nhbc
02:01:38 so nothing that you'd had any involvement in
02:01:43 no you see why don't we see a record saying that the bca was working towards limiting the use of combustible insulation materials in cladding systems over 18 meters
02:01:55 over 18 meters you will have to ask the author of of that document i can't answer that and that was not something that you ever raised
02:02:04 raised it was not flagged up at the time it was again the choice of wording is is
02:02:16 not as we would like to see it today but the issue um was
02:02:22 um was to resolve the confusion in the industry with with this with the use of the testing now whether that is a correct use of the words these are very brief
02:02:35 words these are very brief um
02:02:36 um notes made of the meetings that that were always produced by by mr evans was the problem this that both the nhbc
02:02:47 was the problem this that both the nhbc and the labc for years had been permitting the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters and at this point people were looking for some kind of retrospective solution
02:02:59 for some kind of retrospective solution to endorse that approach no i would not agree with that so can you help us as to what was going on if that's not what it was
02:03:16 there was an obvious confusion
02:03:21 confusion within the industry within the use of these materials now
02:03:29 now whether that should have been worded limiting the use of rather than the use of
02:03:35 of is open to discussion um and may well be what was intended but that's not the way it was written and i didn't write it
02:03:47 now what was it that you and mr evans were going to discuss further outside the meeting um
02:03:55 um i can again i i don't recall and i don't recall that that meeting ever took place but it would be the
02:04:07 research or the information that that nhbc had
02:04:14 nhbc had got to date as far as i can surmise
02:04:20 you said in your answer a moment ago that there was an obvious confusion within the industry within the use of these materials what was the confusion the understanding of the requirements within adb again brought to the table
02:04:34 within adb again brought to the table the understanding of the use of the recommendations of adb guidance note 18 was
02:04:42 was guidance on guidance it was guidance on the requirements of adb
02:04:49 of adb and
02:04:50 and it did not
02:04:54 include anything outside the recommendations of adb it was effectively putting things in a uh
02:05:03 a uh a different order for different cons you know um
02:05:08 um to try and explain the requirements in great in a a more understandable manner but wasn't adb insofar as it applied to
02:05:19 but wasn't adb insofar as it applied to insulation materials pretty clear that either those insulation materials needed to be of limited combustibility or the whole system including the installation needed to have been subject to a system
02:05:31 needed to have been subject to a system specific test why was that unclear
02:05:40 there was a linear route within within adb and then there was the specific tests but
02:05:51 the information being put forward by those
02:05:55 those around the table was that people were coming with um fire engineered reports which were permitted within
02:06:06 permitted within the approved document and
02:06:09 and there was a need to understand and how those could be better understood i think by by by those trying to use the system
02:06:23 by those trying to use the system yes but can you explain how with the bca working to allow the use of combustible insulation help with the confusion that you're describing
02:06:32 i think the wording there is in itself
02:06:37 in itself confusing and probably does not portray the
02:06:43 discussions of the time um
02:06:45 um [Music]
02:06:46 [Music] and i can't comment any further right so you can't can you recall whether you passed back any comments to steve evans or had that subsequent discussion with him after this meeting
02:06:58 discussion with him after this meeting i've already said i do not recall whether that meeting took place or not you have no recollection of it none whatsoever we know then that there was a second version of the bca technical guidance
02:07:10 version of the bca technical guidance note 18 issued in june 2015 that was called issue one um can you recall who was involved in drafting issue one again that was done by mr evans
02:07:25 if we go to an email labc302954
02:07:39 this is an email from mr evans to a number of people including you on the 6th of may 2015 and he says dear all following the last meeting it was agreed that bca guidance note 18 would be amended to reflect
02:07:51 note 18 would be amended to reflect suggested changes made by nhbc labc and bre
02:07:56 bre can you help us as to what the changes were that the labc were suggesting no i
02:08:03 i i don't recall it
02:08:10 can i take you to the witness statement of mr evans again nhb 403020 and if we look in the middle of page 77
02:08:21 and if we look in the middle of page 77 at paragraph 200.
02:08:28 he says this he says 200 one of the amendments and this is in the june 15 version the second version was to widen the bodies that could provide option three assessments i
02:08:40 provide option three assessments i desktop assessments in the 2014 bca guidance note that was limited to a ucras accredited testing body in the 2015 bca guidance note that was amended to a suitably qualified fire
02:08:53 amended to a suitably qualified fire specialist and he says the reason for this was as described in paragraph 190 above my recollection is that bre had stated at the meeting on the 27th of november 2014
02:09:05 the meeting on the 27th of november 2014 that there was an issue with dealing with the volume of option three requests there were only three named testing houses to deal with these my recollection is that labc had received similar feedback
02:09:18 received similar feedback now can you help us do you agree with what mr evans has said there
02:09:24 i was not the
02:09:28 in discussion with bre and therefore i'm not in a position to um
02:09:37 um say whether the feedback was was that from labc or not well whether you or not you were in discussion with bre did you feed back to the labc
02:09:48 the labc that there was a concern about the volume of desktop requests that were being received i may well have done but i don't recall
02:09:59 i may well have done but i don't recall so you can't help us with any more information about that no
02:10:04 he he goes on to say in sub paragraph b this change to the bca guidance note was therefore to increase the capacity of suitable engineers to carry out the assessments it was not reducing the criteria for compliance in any way
02:10:18 criteria for compliance in any way and then it goes on he says this change was consistent with a pre-document b in appendix a um
02:10:25 um do you agree with the statement that made there at the end of b that it was not reducing the criteria for compliance in any way did you have a view about that
02:10:34 that it was not undermining the recommendations of approved document b that was my understanding
02:10:42 did anybody ever express any concern about widening the category of persons to this
02:10:48 to this phrase suitably qualified fire safety engineers
02:10:54 i think you will find that that wording is
02:11:00 is in adb
02:11:02 in adb and that may well be the reason for it being included there
02:11:07 did anyone at the bca as far as you can recall ever voice any concerns about amended option three assessments desktop assessments
02:11:20 assessments desktop assessments not to my recollection
02:11:26 technical guidance note 18 issue one was described internally within kingspan as incorporating some of the changes that we had asked for i some of the changes kingspan had asked for for the
02:11:37 changes kingspan had asked for for the transcript that emails at labc 303051
02:11:43 303051 can you explain that were you aware that kingspan
02:11:46 kingspan were requesting certain uh
02:11:49 uh types of wording in that amended bca technical guidance note i was aware that
02:11:56 that mr evans was in discussion with kingspan
02:12:03 and that is documented you've already shown such and therefore there was a belief and understanding that that was the
02:12:15 that's where that information came from
02:12:19 when you say there was a belief in understanding that that's where that information came from what are you referring to um i'm probably not explaining it properly could you repeat your initial question yes it's about
02:12:30 your initial question yes it's about whether you were aware that kingspan were um asking for some changes to be incorporated in this second version of the technical guidance note
02:12:41 the technical guidance note the strict answer to that is no but i was aware that kingspan were in discussion with nhbc
02:12:50 nhbc right so it's possible that kingspan fed back to nhbc possible but you don't know anything i don't know we're either of the two issues of the bca technical guidance note cleared or
02:13:01 bca technical guidance note cleared or approved by mr brian martin or any other official
02:13:05 official at mhclg prior to publication so far as you were aware i think cleared our approved is a little strong it was not objected to
02:13:19 and you were made aware of that where you was a member of the technical group made aware of what they didn't object to it yeah no it was
02:13:29 it was had they raised an objection it would have been reported to the group no such report was made to the group and they and and mr martin was consulted about bca technical guidance notes was
02:13:41 about bca technical guidance notes was he
02:13:42 he he was copied in as has previously been indicated
02:13:48 have you at any time discussed either in writing or verbally with mr martin
02:13:54 martin any matters relating to the use of combustible material on buildings over 18 meters
02:14:00 18 meters probably
02:14:03 but i do not recall the details of any such discussion i can't say that i haven't but i do not recall having done so how frequently have you had discussions
02:14:14 how frequently have you had discussions with mr martin over the last few years um
02:14:20 i meet him
02:14:22 meet him at the times there are
02:14:27 there are working dclg or mhlg whatever they call working group meetings um at which he has been in attendance and as he's normal at these meetings you
02:14:38 and as he's normal at these meetings you have a discussion while you're having coffee
02:14:41 coffee so can you help as to whether you've ever discussed with him the use of combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters i do not recall that specific topic being discussed
02:14:53 that specific topic being discussed right
02:14:54 right is it right that you chaired the post-greenville review of large-scale testing of cladding systems as part of the hackit review is that right did you chair one of the working groups
02:15:14 i'm sorry i'm struggling to remember what i did if the records show that then i will not disagree with it i did share several groups following that yes
02:15:25 that yes and what what kind of issues were those groups looking at when you were tearing them so presumably you can help us
02:15:34 i have not referred to anything since that time and i my memory is such that
02:15:44 i don't recall
02:15:48 i think the is the
02:15:50 is the group that you're referring to one that was set up by
02:15:59 the
02:16:02 hmm who's done the working groups for
02:16:09 sorry i can't remember the the the name of the body um
02:16:14 um can you remember chairing a working group that looked at the testing the large-scale testing of cladding systems yes
02:16:22 yes when did that work take place you mean the bsi group i don't know you tell us well that's what i'm trying to establish which group you are referring to
02:16:34 you are referring to because there were um there were numerous
02:16:40 groups working groups uh set up following the the grenfell tragedy of which i attended um
02:16:53 i chaired a bsi working group and i'm not sure which what which other you're referring to could that have been the working group
02:17:04 could that have been the working group looking at 9414 and
02:17:07 and there was a working group looking at 9414 which i was a member of right and the review of 8414 i did chair yes that is correct
02:17:20 i did chair yes that is correct thank you
02:17:22 thank you now overall and thinking back to what we've covered over the last two days do you accept this that the labc made serious errors in its system approval and registered detailed certificates over a prolonged period of
02:17:34 certificates over a prolonged period of a number of years
02:17:45 i would agree that there were errors
02:17:50 i'm not i will leave it to others for the inclusion of the word sirius and would you accept this that even when warned about the mistakes it had made
02:18:02 warned about the mistakes it had made and the serious consequences which might follow from that the labc stubbornly refused to correct its mistakes and carried on making technically inaccurate statements about k-15
02:18:16 inaccurate statements about k-15 again i would not agree with the word stubbornly refused did not
02:18:22 did not um follow up those accusations i would agree with thank you mr chairman i've come to the end of my uh pre-prepared question yes if we could have perhaps no more than a
02:18:34 if we could have perhaps no more than a 10-minute break i would have thought would be satisfactory we'll yes all right thank you mr turner when council gets the end of her questions we have to have a short break to give her a chance to make sure she's not left
02:18:45 chance to make sure she's not left anything out and also to allow other people who are following these proceedings from other locations can suggest
02:18:53 suggest questions that possibly we ought to put you so we'll break now um if ms grange thinks that 10-minute break is long enough i think we'll take her at face value and resume please at half past 12
02:19:05 at half past 12 and the usual injunction please about not talking to anyone about your evidence all right thank you very much would you give the usher then please
02:19:22 all right miss grace well we'll say how fast 12 if you find you need more time and you just of course yes come and tell us thank you
02:36:25 would you ask mr turner to come back in please
02:36:40 all right mr turner i'm sorry we kept you waiting a little longer than i had indicated earlier but i think we're ready now if you are and we'll see if there are any more questions for you yes from screen yes thank you and thank you for the extra time um yes just a couple
02:36:52 for the extra time um yes just a couple more questions if we can go to a document labc 5024 please i want to start by looking at the bottom of page two
02:37:07 so um this is an email chain on the 27th of june 2017 so just a few days after the grenfell tower fire
02:37:15 fire and what's being discussed in these emails is whether to withdraw bca technical guidance note 18 and this in this email from mr evans
02:37:26 and this in this email from mr evans which is sent to you as well as a number of others on the bca group we can see mr evans says martin i think this is a serious overreaction and
02:37:37 think this is a serious overreaction and i would advise against it to withdraw it either technical guidance note will not only leave a lot of schemes already under construction in jeopardy will also cause issues with the completed schemes
02:37:48 cause issues with the completed schemes where builders have used the note to demonstrate compliance and then he goes on the guidance in the note is sound and has been reviewed by dclg and many industry experts outside of building
02:38:00 industry experts outside of building control as a pragmatic method to demonstrate compliance with the functional requirements of the regulations i would much rather we put forward our own statement supporting the guidance in correcting the inaccuracies
02:38:11 guidance in correcting the inaccuracies in the news report and then if we go two emails up
02:38:18 we can see there's a response from you at the top of page two and you respond on the 27th of june 2017 and you say this i don't think withdrawing it with
02:38:29 this i don't think withdrawing it with immediate effect is a correct action it leaves bca with egg on its face consider a review by all means but don't leave those that have and then it says foey it correctly in
02:38:41 and then it says foey it correctly in the lurch maybe that should said followed it correctly in the lurch now just have some questions about uh this
02:38:50 this did you share mr evans opinion that it was an overreaction to withdraw the guidance
02:38:59 did i share it yeah
02:39:04 not that i recollect so what was your view about whether the guidance should be withdrawn
02:39:13 what i've said there
02:39:22 well you said you don't think it's a correct action why not for the reasons i've stated there because it leaves bca with egg on its face it makes bca look look silly
02:39:36 again it's a
02:39:41 correspondence between known
02:39:45 known people and so in
02:39:49 in that sense the the wording is
02:39:56 less than correct however
02:40:01 until it was considered or reconsidered by bca
02:40:09 as far as i recollect and as far as could be ascertained at the time the working group were satisfied with the guidance note
02:40:23 were satisfied with the guidance note and being satisfied with it
02:40:28 then there was a need to not have a knee-jerk reaction and ensure that it was still fit for purpose
02:40:39 fit for purpose and
02:40:40 and subsequent to that it has undergone a lot of scrutiny and is still available i see so just 10 days after the fire the bca had already
02:40:52 bca had already done a review and had concluded that the guidance
02:40:56 guidance should continue is that what you're saying not 10 days after no they had not given a review of it but
02:41:06 but the
02:41:09 inference was
02:41:11 was that it should be reviewed before it was withdrawn if it was found necessary to withdraw it it has been subject to a lot of scrutiny
02:41:23 it has been subject to a lot of scrutiny since that time and it is still available and was still considered to be satisfactory what level of influence did you have over whether documents should be withdrawn by the bca
02:41:36 withdrawn by the bca i could have commented and made
02:41:39 and made that
02:41:41 that point but it would then have been up to others in the group to either agree or disagree with me yeah well you concerned that withdrawing it might embarrass the bca because of its
02:41:52 might embarrass the bca because of its legitimization of the desktop study route no
02:42:00 did you believe that it would leave a lot of schemes already under construction in jeopardy if the guidance was withdrawn there was that possibility which had you know been raised
02:42:11 know been raised and i and i was in agreement with that with that thought at the time did you ask yourself the question before you sent this email about whether the guidance was a responsible piece of guidance to leave out there given what
02:42:23 guidance to leave out there given what had just occurred at grenfell tower that question had already been considered by by the group and agreed by the group that the document was
02:42:34 was fit for purpose and did you agree with that view yes right
02:42:40 right now thinking back over the matters we've covered and given what you know now is there anything you would have done differently if you had the chance to do it again
02:42:49 it again i'm sure there is um
02:42:52 um yes
02:42:53 yes can you help us as to what that would be it would have been to uh review the
02:43:05 rd policy the the registered detail policy and the way that we
02:43:10 that we um
02:43:15 dealt with the
02:43:23 support of material materials and systems through the registered detail policy
02:43:33 okay thank you very much mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions just want to thank mr turner for coming and assisting us over the last two days thank you well mr turner is right that i
02:43:44 thank you well mr turner is right that i should thank you as well on behalf of all three members of the panel it's no doubt been quite inconvenient for you to come up to give evidence to the inquiry we're very grateful to you uh
02:43:56 inquiry we're very grateful to you uh we've learned a lot by hearing your evidence
02:43:59 evidence and it'll be very helpful to consider in due course so thank you very much for coming and now you're free to go of course thank you
02:44:16 now miss grange we have another witness i understand but it's not terribly convenient to start quarter now before the usual no break time no um there will any in any event
02:44:28 time no um there will any in any event have to be uh allowance made for the usual housekeeping arrangements so um i would suggest that we break now
02:44:38 break now uh and resume a quarter two rather early than usual um
02:44:43 um and take him then that would be very helpful to give me the time with mr ewing thank you yes good right thank you very much well we'll break at that point and resume according to two please
02:45:17 you