Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Phase 2 Opening Statements - Monday 27th January (afternoon session)
00:06:29 good afternoon the enquiry is about to resume therefore please can you take your seats and remain silent please can you put your phones onto
00:06:40 please can you put your phones onto silent and may I remind you that no photography is allowed to be taken in the hearing room at any time many thanks
00:10:03 yes no mr. Laidlaw I think you're going to address us on behalf of right
00:10:11 right thank you
00:10:19 those of us who represent Harley facades are acutely conscious that you sir and you madam would have read and considered the rule nine statements and accompany
00:10:31 the rule nine statements and accompany materials provided by the company you also both have Harley's open statements Oh opening statements which seeks to address the module one issues and you
00:10:43 address the module one issues and you will both no doubt now have a more informed view of the company of its part in the refurbishment project at Granville Tower and of the areas of
00:10:55 Granville Tower and of the areas of importance to be explored with the Harley witnesses in order to address the issues arising in this the first part of phase two so I'm not intending in these
00:11:06 phase two so I'm not intending in these oral submissions simply to repeat all that is it already in writing or to seek to engage in argument of the sort which we hope will be of more assistance when
00:11:17 we hope will be of more assistance when you are through all the evidence to be called and considered in the first three modules then will be the time to address the question how if at all the company
00:11:30 the question how if at all the company we represent satisfied itself insofar as they were required to address the question that the cladding system met the requirements of the building regulations
00:11:42 regulations instead and mindful of the fact that this is a public inquiry with an audience far broader than the core participants who have access to all this
00:11:53 participants who have access to all this material I want to focus if I may in these opening remarks on the following four areas first on the company itself
00:12:04 four areas first on the company itself its business and the nature of its involvement in the project because it'll be important when reach-in a view about the manner of its performance at
00:12:16 the manner of its performance at Granville to first identify which part or aspects of the refurbishment project were in fact Hartley's responsibilities before turning next to assess how well
00:12:29 before turning next to assess how well or otherwise it discharged that role and that as an exercise of collective judgment will obviously require the
00:12:40 judgment will obviously require the panel to have regard to the company's experience in the cladding industry and importantly as we suggest contemporary cladding industry standards and practice
00:12:53 cladding industry standards and practice second having regard to your clear findings as expressed in the Phase one report mr. chairman that it was the choice of the cladding materials of the
00:13:05 choice of the cladding materials of the Rana bond panels and a Celotex insulation which was the principal reason why the fire spread so rapidly I want to deal with what was and was not
00:13:16 want to deal with what was and was not in this particular regard the choice of the cladding materials Hartley's responsibilities and I do so not because I'm suggesting that the inquiry has
00:13:29 I'm suggesting that the inquiry has overlooked the true position but because there has been both a widespread misunderstanding about the cladding subcontractors role and also a great
00:13:41 subcontractors role and also a great deal of ill-informed and inaccurate reporting about Hartley's part in the choice of the rainscreen and insulation materials hitherto and mindful of the
00:13:55 materials hitherto and mindful of the importance of allowing this inquiry to proceed at its own pace without the commercial CPS seeking to advance or protect their own positions and despite
00:14:06 protect their own positions and despite in Harley's case the very great damage done to its reputation and consequently its business Harley has kept its silence but now is the time to set out with
00:14:20 but now is the time to set out with accuracy
00:14:21 accuracy the extent of Hartley's role and to make it absolutely clear that the cladding subcontractor was not responsible for the selection of these cladding
00:14:34 the selection of these cladding materials
00:14:36 materials the third area that I'd like to cover is this neither I but more importantly the Harley witnesses want to be accused of
00:14:47 Harley witnesses want to be accused of ducking the criticisms of aspects of their work which will fall to be considered during this part of the inquiry
00:14:58 inquiry inevitably in the very detailed examination of the events following this major tragedy which occurred in Phase two
00:15:07 two failings shortcomings and the like have and no doubt will be identified so I want to say a little by way of introduction in particular about the
00:15:19 introduction in particular about the cavity barriers and the standard of workmanship and then fourthly and finally I just want to say a word or two about Harley's witnesses and the
00:15:31 about Harley's witnesses and the treatment that they can expect at the forthcoming hearings so may I begin with that first area the company itself what it was and what it was not responsible
00:15:43 it was and what it was not responsible for
00:15:45 for the company I prefer to as Harley began life in 1996 as Harley curtainwall limited its sole director as you've heard mr. rabe a Baily has now some 35
00:16:00 heard mr. rabe a Baily has now some 35 years of practical experience as a specialist contractor in external facades
00:16:07 facades the circumstances in which that company ceased to trade and the contract was novated to the company we now represent during the course of the Grenville tower
00:16:19 during the course of the Grenville tower refreshment are set out in mr. Bailey's witness statement it's important I say this during the 20 years plus of Hartley's existence it had been involved
00:16:31 Hartley's existence it had been involved in a number of large-scale building M projects involving high-rise residential blocks using a variety of ACM products
00:16:42 blocks using a variety of ACM products without any cause for concern in do indeed a little later I'll make mention of their work on the child cot estate in Camden
00:16:53 Camden the cladding industry in this country at the time of this terrible fire as we understand the position to be comprised of a significant number of companies
00:17:05 of a significant number of companies ranging in size from multi-million pound conglomerates to small and medium-sized businesses there were a relatively small number of smaller companies of which
00:17:18 number of smaller companies of which Harley was one which functioned as what is known as managing sub contractors and as is typical of a small company of its size it had about 15 employees at the
00:17:31 size it had about 15 employees at the time of the Grenville project Harley did not undertake the fabrication of the materials for the eternal external facade or carry out the installation
00:17:43 facade or carry out the installation with its own labor instead the company would source the appropriate materials coordinate supply and fabrication of the external facade and
00:17:55 external facade and subcontract the installation which it Harley managed Harley had as you understand an in-house design resource but depending on capacity would also
00:18:07 but depending on capacity would also subcontract out the production of working drawings I turn now to the refurbishment of Grenville tower and how it was Harley facades came to be
00:18:18 it was Harley facades came to be appointed as the cladding sub contractor Harley first became involved in the Grenville tower project in late September 2013 as mr. millet has
00:18:32 September 2013 as mr. millet has correctly said when its director and commercial manager were invited to meet Studio II the architects who've been engaged by the clients the TMO for the
00:18:45 engaged by the clients the TMO for the project it was an in formal meeting and at that stage Harley had yet to be invited to tender for the project let alone to be appointed to carry out the
00:18:57 alone to be appointed to carry out the work as has now emerged and we deal with this at paragraph 11 of the opening statement but though Harley would not then have known this various cladding
00:19:09 then have known this various cladding options were already under consideration before that meeting including the use of Rena bond as the email correspondence of April 2013
00:19:21 April 2013 between studio E the suppliers CEP and the manufacturer now our colleague demonstrates during that meeting several aspects of
00:19:33 during that meeting several aspects of the proposed worked were discussed including different rainscreen panel product products including ACM and in due course Harley sort costumes for a
00:19:44 due course Harley sort costumes for a number of alternative products the final choice was ultimately for the T and O in fact it was not until July
00:19:55 fact it was not until July 2014
00:19:56 2014 following the tendering process budgetary discussions and continuing correspondence in relation to the choice of materials color and configuration for
00:20:08 of materials color and configuration for the rainscreen product that Harley was formally appointed as the external facade
00:20:15 facade subcontractor by right right and of course having been appointed as the principal contractor the lead designer for the project including for the external facade was Studio II
00:20:29 external facade was Studio II while there is now as becomes clear from the opening statements a significant dispute as between Studio E and Harley
00:20:41 dispute as between Studio E and Harley as to the nature of the design relationship between the two of them the point as we make clear at paragraph 6 of our written statement the point is this
00:20:55 our written statement the point is this we point forgive forgive me to the specification document the NBS as it is called because that makes it clear we would suggest that the architects were
00:21:08 would suggest that the architects were responsible for the basic design of the rainscreen cladding system which incorporated the vertical channels that became a focus of phase 1 along with the
00:21:20 became a focus of phase 1 along with the architectural crown again something of great concern to you sir what Harley through its subcontractor Kevin lamb of
00:21:31 through its subcontractor Kevin lamb of bespoke design services was required to do under the contract was to produce the more detailed drawings that those who would actually do the work needed for
00:21:42 would actually do the work needed for construction purposes that included the method of fixing the panels to the backing wall and the detail of the supporting structure the working
00:21:53 supporting structure the working drawings were progressed through a drawing approval process led by Studio E which involves Studio E as the architects and lead designer and in
00:22:05 architects and lead designer and in accordance with the obligations under the letter of appointment reviewing Hartley's drawings and either amending or approving them for construction in
00:22:17 or approving them for construction in terms of the completed detailed design drawings produced by Harley to reflect studio ease preliminary design our position based upon very clear based on
00:22:31 position based upon very clear based on our very clear understanding of industry practice is that there was nothing unusual about them the external facade design is one that was widely used at
00:22:42 design is one that was widely used at that time throughout the cladding industry and what we suggest will also become clear is that nobody associated
00:22:53 become clear is that nobody associated with the design had seen the possibility that the crown as designed could contribute in a fire of the sort which broke out to its lateral spread in light
00:23:06 broke out to its lateral spread in light of the Christians now made of the design as the inquiry team know we are very anxious
00:23:13 anxious that an expert in cladding if at all possible should be called so that the inquiry has the opportunity to test assertions of this sort and so that an
00:23:25 assertions of this sort and so that an expert can also assist you with where ultimately responsibility for design lay it is to be noted having regard to the
00:23:36 it is to be noted having regard to the evidence you heard in phase one and your findings as to the extent the standard of the internal window reveals work contributed to the to the spread of the
00:23:47 contributed to the to the spread of the fire that Harley was neither sub grunt contracted to carry out nor involved in any internal modifications to Grenville tower save for the entrance area this
00:24:00 tower save for the entrance area this was work to be completed by others as for the moving forward and the replacement of the windows it appears to have been the intention of ridin at
00:24:13 have been the intention of ridin at least at the early stages of the tendering process that Harley should be responsible for all that that work would entail but on the grounds of costs it
00:24:26 entail but on the grounds of costs it would appear that Harley's estimate for that work was considered to be too expensive Harley was are simply to provide the windows which Osborn Barry fitted Harley was not responsible for
00:24:39 fitted Harley was not responsible for the u PVC windows rounds or the insulation beneath it the final aspect of the relationship between Harley the
00:24:50 of the relationship between Harley the cladding subcontractor and studio II as the light lead designer that I should draw attention to was studio E's ongoing duty to review and approve the work done
00:25:02 duty to review and approve the work done by Harley to bring its studio ease design for the building facade to fruition and as mr. Hyatt has said in his report and the references are to be
00:25:15 his report and the references are to be found a paragraph 20 of Harley's opening statement Studio II had the responsibility to review the work carried out by and on half of Harley
00:25:27 carried out by and on half of Harley with a view to ensuring compliance with the relevant building regulations and guidelines in terms of the actual building of the external facade
00:25:38 building of the external facade Harley arranged for the fabrication and the supply of the components for it as for the installation itself as all know that was carried out by Osborne Barry
00:25:50 that was carried out by Osborne Barry but along with the installers Harley obviously had inspection obligations in respect of the fittings and the fixings I turn now to the second of the
00:26:04 fixings I turn now to the second of the areas that I must deal with Reina bond and Celotex and I'm inevitably in this part of my submissions also going to touch I'm
00:26:16 submissions also going to touch I'm afraid or module two issues I hope that you will forgive me I do so because of course these issues are bound to be explored with the Harley witnesses in
00:26:28 explored with the Harley witnesses in the first of the phases which you are about to embark upon having regard to the ill-informed assertions and claims that have been
00:26:41 assertions and claims that have been made as to the identity of the individuals or bodies who were responsible for the choice of the rainscreen and insulation materials that
00:26:52 rainscreen and insulation materials that were installed onto Grenville tower not I hasten to add emanating from this public inquiry it is important that I should make it clear that Harley were
00:27:04 should make it clear that Harley were not responsible for the selection of the rainbow and all the Celotex the Reina bond one of a number of rainscreen products highly sought quotes for during
00:27:15 products highly sought quotes for during the tendering stage and the Scylla techs as I have said were selected by the architects and Lee designers Studio II and the client and it was these
00:27:27 and the client and it was these materials which were specified in the NBS documents which Harley were required to you
00:27:36 to you now as a result of all that has occurred since the terrible events of the summer of 2017 it has become clear that neither
00:27:47 of 2017 it has become clear that neither Reina Bond a cm nor Celotex rs.5000 should ever have been used for the refurbishment of Grenville Tower or indeed any other high-rise residential
00:28:00 indeed any other high-rise residential block but the inadequacies of these materials would not again as I made clear known to Harley or indeed as it
00:28:12 clear known to Harley or indeed as it will appear to any other company involved in installing cladding in this country at the time and when you sir along with your panel turn to consider
00:28:24 along with your panel turn to consider the reasonableness or otherwise of Harley's collective state of mind about and its confidence in the certification of these products it will again we would
00:28:37 of these products it will again we would suggest respectfully be important to test their position against the view of an expert in this particular field of cladding someone who can provide an
00:28:50 cladding someone who can provide an informed and independent opinion as to how these products were regarded across the industry was this company harley
00:29:01 the industry was this company harley alone amongst other cladding companies in its reliance upon the reputation that these products then enjoyed if there was
00:29:13 these products then enjoyed if there was a failure to scrutinize the information provided by the manufacturers more rigorously was that a failing of Harley's alone or was that another failing shared across the planning
00:29:26 failing shared across the planning industry
00:29:27 industry mr. Hayat with his undoubted architectural experience can plainly speak authority about a number of the module 1 issues and he has expressed
00:29:39 module 1 issues and he has expressed views about how the cladding contractor might view the claims of the manufacturers of these two products but as he is the first to it cept he's not an expert in this field and he cannot
00:29:51 an expert in this field and he cannot speak with the weight of somebody who's actually operated in this part of the industry and address with the benefit of that experience what I anticipate will
00:30:02 that experience what I anticipate will be the position of the witnesses for this company namely that a small cladding company of Hartley's size isn't effect bound to accept such claims and
00:30:13 effect bound to accept such claims and to rely upon the efficacy of the testing of the products as they are reported by the manufacturers the reasons for Harley's confidence in the certification
00:30:26 Harley's confidence in the certification of these materials a confidence we believe shared by other companies installing cladding in this country right through to the fire at Grenville is set out in the final section of our
00:30:39 is set out in the final section of our opening statement and I deal first with Rayna bond it had been widely used in the UK for at least 30 years if not longer and as I've
00:30:52 least 30 years if not longer and as I've said Harley had used it for years without either issue or concern being raised about it we draw attention at paragraph 68 to 70 of the opening
00:31:04 paragraph 68 to 70 of the opening statement to a fire in early 2012 which broke out in one of the flats in one of the 23 storey tower blocks at the Child Cotter State in Camden back in 2007
00:31:19 Cotter State in Camden back in 2007 Harley had been appointed as the external facades contractor for the refurbishment of that estate and as specified by the architects architects
00:31:30 specified by the architects architects raela bond ACN had been installed on this occasion whilst the Rana bond panels around the windows were destroyed by the fire they did not ignite or
00:31:42 by the fire they did not ignite or contribute to a spread of the fire as was to be the case at Grenville it's not simply the performance of the Rana bond ACN which gave Harley no reason to be
00:31:55 ACN which gave Harley no reason to be concerned by its selection for the Grenville tower project in 2014 there was the reputation it's manufacturer enjoyed at that time and the
00:32:06 enjoyed at that time and the specification information which was produced to accompany the marketing of the product our colleague described itself as an I quote the world market
00:32:19 itself as an I quote the world market leader in an iminium and it was considered throughout the trading industry to be a well established and reputable manufacturer of ACM and other cladding products the marketing material
00:32:33 cladding products the marketing material produced by our colleague prior to the fire at Greenville tower gave no indication that Rena bond is not suitable for a wide range projects including high-rise residential blocks
00:32:46 including high-rise residential blocks as you remember that material spoke of the and I quote complete versatility in external applications quote close quote
00:32:57 external applications quote close quote of Rana bond and refer to Rayleigh bonds characteristic flatness making it suitable and again I quote especially for large-scale implementations with special
00:33:08 implementations with special requirements close quote it was claimed to be suitable for a range of applications open quote from the single-family house to residential commercial and industrial buildings to
00:33:21 commercial and industrial buildings to large prestige projects close quote indeed the front page of this particular marketing document also featured a photograph of what appears to be a
00:33:32 photograph of what appears to be a high-rise residential block other parts of our conics marketing material repeated the assertion contained in the BBA certificate that rana bond whether
00:33:43 BBA certificate that rana bond whether it contained a PE or F our core was a class o material for the purposes of fire certification in Great Britain there was no caveat or exception to that
00:33:58 there was no caveat or exception to that assertion
00:34:00 assertion but in addition to the materials available to Harley at the time of the Grenville tower project the company was also in direct communication with our
00:34:11 also in direct communication with our colleague prime leaf are primarily via its UK technical Sales Manager it is clear from those exchanges we would suggest that our chronic knew that it
00:34:22 suggest that our chronic knew that it was been proposed that Rayna Bond 55 PE will be used on a residential high-rise block at no point was it suggested by the manufacturer that that product
00:34:34 the manufacturer that that product should not be used at Grenville it's against this that the enquiry will want to consider the proposition that a parent is be advanced by our Koenig and it really has the appearance of being an
00:34:47 it really has the appearance of being an astonishing proposition then it should have been obvious to anybody involved in construction that its product was not of limited combust ability what has now emerged is that in our comics marketing
00:35:00 emerged is that in our comics marketing material material apparently produced in December 2016 so after the completion of the Grenville tower project but before the fire on the 14th of June of the
00:35:13 the fire on the 14th of June of the following year it was said that Rayna bond with a PE core was only suitable for use in buildings up to 10 meters in height that Rayna bond with an F our core was only suitable for use in
00:35:26 core was only suitable for use in buildings up to 30 meters in height and an above 30 meters Rayna bond was an a2 rated core should be used this was never brought to the attention of Harley nor
00:35:38 brought to the attention of Harley nor apparently to the attention of anybody else who had as the manufacturers must have known used their rena bond on high-rise buildings neither of course
00:35:51 high-rise buildings neither of course was Harley or apparently anyone else working in this country outside our colleague aware of the CSTB testing which took place in 2015 which again
00:36:03 which took place in 2015 which again revealed that the class o claim in the BBA certificate could not be justified I turned then to Celotex rs.5000
00:36:15 rs.5000 like our conic Celotex was another highly respected brand throughout the cladding industry and marketed itself as I quote the UK's leading manufacturer or
00:36:28 I quote the UK's leading manufacturer or PIR insulation and again I quote the brand leading manufacturer of PIR boards Celotex as you well appreciated started
00:36:41 Celotex as you well appreciated started making PIR foam installation boards a lot as long ago as 1980 and again as is our understanding although it would no doubt be helpful to have the evidence of
00:36:52 doubt be helpful to have the evidence of a cladding acts but on this issue two insulation materials of this sort have been used extensively in the cladding industry on buildings of varying heights and uses for around 40 years
00:37:06 and uses for around 40 years what has been described as the product datasheet for RS 5000 produced by seller text in August 2014 features in its header a description of the product as
00:37:19 header a description of the product as an again I quote premium rainscreen cladding board suitable for buildings above 80 meters in height close quote further details set out on
00:37:32 close quote further details set out on the front page of that document state but again I quote that Celotex RS 5000 is our premium performance PIR solution for used in rainscreen cladding systems
00:37:45 for used in rainscreen cladding systems and is the first PIR insulation board to meet the performance criteria in BR 135 for insulated rainscreen cladding systems and therefore is acceptable for
00:37:58 systems and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height it is only on the third page of the document that there is the caveat to the effect that the fire performance and
00:38:11 the effect that the fire performance and classification report relates to the components in the wall buildup that was tested is to be found and a warning that any changes the components will need to
00:38:22 any changes the components will need to be considered by the building designer but nowhere is it suggested in the product datasheet that changes to the components would render the fire
00:38:33 components would render the fire performance and classification report invalid or that such such changes might make RS 5000 unsuitable for use in buildings above 18 meters further
00:38:47 buildings above 18 meters further assurances about the suitability of rs.5000 for use above 18 meters are we found at various other points in Celotex marketing material the references to
00:38:58 marketing material the references to which are to be found at paragraph 65 of our opening statement moreover the purported suitability of this product was supported by local authority
00:39:11 was supported by local authority Building Control they're registered details drawing and document list stated that RS 5000 and I quote has successfully tested two Bs 8 4 1 4 2
00:39:25 successfully tested two Bs 8 4 1 4 2 2005 meets the criteria set out in BR 1 3 5 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with storeys above 18
00:39:36 in buildings with storeys above 18 meters in height subject to the ball have been fixed to a non combustible substrate apart from the stipulation that RS 500 should be fixed to a non combustible
00:39:48 should be fixed to a non combustible substrate which clearly was the case of Grenville Tower that document contains no warning as to rs.5000 suitability for use above 18
00:39:59 rs.5000 suitability for use above 18 meters indeed the document explicitly states that and again I quote seller takes Rs 5,000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems including masonry or rain screen systems but what
00:40:14 masonry or rain screen systems but what might be of particular significance when you mr. chairman with your panel come to consider any fault for the use whether any fault for the use of the insulation
00:40:25 any fault for the use of the insulation can properly be laid at the door of the subcontractor is Hartley's reaction to the selection of Celotex by Studio E because unlike the Rana bond ACN Celotex
00:40:40 because unlike the Rana bond ACN Celotex RS 5000 was a relatively new product and Harley had not previously used it in any of its earlier projects and in
00:40:51 of its earlier projects and in circumstances where Harley was less familiar with this particular seller it's product one of Hartley's employees and we deal with this at paragraph 18 of our opening submissions sought further
00:41:04 our opening submissions sought further information from Celotex he was reassured as to its properties having been provided with a property data sheet the same one that I mentioned a few
00:41:16 the same one that I mentioned a few moments ago in addition to the marketing materials produced by seller texts Harley was again in direct contact with the manufacturer largely via correspondence
00:41:28 manufacturer largely via correspondence with Scylla Texas major projects and specification manager he was provided with the drawings of the proposed wall buildup to be installed at Grenville
00:41:41 buildup to be installed at Grenville Tower which included drawings showing the use of Rayna bond and a copy of the specific specification notes which referred to the use of aluminium
00:41:52 referred to the use of aluminium composite panels at no stage was it suggested by Celotex to Harley that what was being proposed at Grenville Tower in any way call into
00:42:04 Grenville Tower in any way call into question the suitability of the use of rs.5000 above 18 meters if having heard all of the evidence sir
00:42:15 if having heard all of the evidence sir you were to share mr. highest conclusions that it is probable that Celotex was marketing a product for the use on the external walls of buildings over 18 meters in height that they knew
00:42:28 over 18 meters in height that they knew to be non-compliant with the guidance given by a db2 then the extent which Harley could be criticized must plainly be tempered by that all that should not
00:42:40 be tempered by that all that should not of course obscure the position mr. Hayat appears to take and this is to be found at paragraph 10 of the opening statement that ultimately responsibility for
00:42:52 that ultimately responsibility for ensuring that the material specified in the NBS complied with the relevant building regulations and statutory guidance rested more broadly with the manufacturers and on the Grenville
00:43:04 manufacturers and on the Grenville project with Studio E the specialist fire consultant with Rhydon and with building control the third chapter in these are opening
00:43:18 the third chapter in these are opening submissions and concerns the criticisms to be made of the company so we represent
00:43:25 represent there are to be as you both of course understand in a number of different respects criticisms of the standard of Hartley's work at Grenville tower
00:43:37 Hartley's work at Grenville tower perhaps the most serious of which is in relation to cavity barriers you'll recall but if that particular concern is expressed at the absence of cavity
00:43:49 expressed at the absence of cavity barriers about around the window openings and at the top of the cavity where it met the crown purity is as I must acknowledge immediately that mr. hired has been careful to balance his
00:44:01 hired has been careful to balance his attribution of responsibility for failings of this sort by making it clear that studio II had placed an inappropriately high level of expectation as he describes it upon
00:44:14 expectation as he describes it upon Harley mr. Hayat has also made the point that the architects had carried out their early work properly it is likely that Harley would have got their detailed design work right or
00:44:26 detailed design work right or alternatively if they checked Harley's drawings as well studio eased duty then the errors would have been spotted in
00:44:37 the errors would have been spotted in any event it's obviously important in this regard I should set out the company's position for your consideration before the evidence unfolds and also to meet the broader criticism levelled by mr. Hayat in the
00:44:51 criticism levelled by mr. Hayat in the context of fire safety and despite as it is put Harley's claims to expertise as cladding specialists mr. Hayat suggests the company did not understand what was
00:45:03 the company did not understand what was required of them in order to meet the requirements of the building regulations we deal as you will remember with cavity
00:45:14 we deal as you will remember with cavity barriers albeit briefly thus far at two parts in the opening statement paragraphs 25 to ta set out the email exchanges between Harley and XO via the
00:45:28 exchanges between Harley and XO via the fie set fire safety consultants during 2014 in which Harley sought clarification about the positioning of the cavity barriers and at paragraphs 45
00:45:40 the cavity barriers and at paragraphs 45 to 46 there is a short summary of the further substantial correspondence between Harley ridin and Studio E which
00:45:51 between Harley ridin and Studio E which also involved the manufacture of the cavity barrier installer the manufacture the cavity barriers installed cider eyes and building control in March and April
00:46:03 and building control in March and April of 2015 that correspondence been about the integrity and the insulation properties of the cavity barriers which were to result in agreement as to the
00:46:16 were to result in agreement as to the positioning of them in light of mr. millets criticism of the position take taken by the commercial CPS in their opening statements I want
00:46:30 CPS in their opening statements I want to say this and to make Harley's position clear about cavity barriers Harley accepts now having the benefit in particular of doctor Lane and mr. Hyatts
00:46:42 particular of doctor Lane and mr. Hyatts report that the absence of cavity barriers around window openings was not in compliance with the terms of approved
00:46:53 in compliance with the terms of approved document b in making that concession Harley trusts it will be acknowledged in the inquiries approach to this issue that the company
00:47:06 approach to this issue that the company neither possessed nor held itself out as having any any expertise in fire safety and the fact that studio E had not
00:47:18 and the fact that studio E had not specified that there should be cavity barriers around the windows in the NBS or in the cladding design drawings moreover and it's a point readily
00:47:30 moreover and it's a point readily accepted by mr. Hyatt neither was the absence of cavity barriers in these areas raised as an issue or cause for concern by EXO via or Building Control
00:47:43 concern by EXO via or Building Control both of him knew that no cavity barriers people were be installed around the window openings despite the location of barriers having been raised by Harley
00:47:55 barriers having been raised by Harley but the bottom line is this and the inquiry will also have to give careful considered consideration to it the bottom line being from Harley's perspective and having an eye to the
00:48:08 perspective and having an eye to the realities of the way in which a company of its size could operate the bottom line being that it would be for these entities for EXO via and for building
00:48:19 entities for EXO via and for building controlled it will be these entities who the clatters would rely upon to ensure that the issue of fire safety had been properly addressed that in our
00:48:31 properly addressed that in our respectful submission is not an instance of passing the bark that is and we believe an expert in cladding would support this position that is the reality of a company of Harleys size and
00:48:45 reality of a company of Harleys size and sort
00:48:48 sort workmanship there may be other areas for example shortcomings in the standard of workmanship by Osman Barry which had not
00:48:59 workmanship by Osman Barry which had not been identified by Harley which may lead to criticism as to the rigorous rigorous Ness of the company's supervisory and inspection obligations but in this
00:49:11 inspection obligations but in this regard again I would urge some caution and also some regard to the central issues
00:49:19 issues caution for this reason because it was nearly neither practical or realistic to impose or imply some sort of constant
00:49:30 impose or imply some sort of constant monitoring obligation upon Harley they were entitled to rely on the experienced installers who retained the initial
00:49:41 installers who retained the initial inspection obligation in addition to the checks by Osborne and Barry and Harley of course right and the principle Contractor ahead of visits by Building
00:49:52 Contractor ahead of visits by Building Control also checked the installation works through its package manager and Clark of works and the fact is that no issue or concern about workmanship was
00:50:05 issue or concern about workmanship was ever raised with Harley further inspections of the work were in addition carried out by officers from the local authority Building Control Department and the practice within the cladding
00:50:19 and the practice within the cladding industry certainly prior to the fire at Granville tower both in regard to workmanship would also fire safety was to rely on Building Control in respect
00:50:31 to rely on Building Control in respect of the finished works and compliance with the building regulations and approved document b between the start of the refurbishment works at Granville tower on the 2nd of
00:50:43 works at Granville tower on the 2nd of June 2014 and completion on the 7th of July 2016 there appear to have been 14 inspections of
00:50:54 appear to have been 14 inspections of Grenville tower by building control officers of which seven involved inspection of the external facade works again at no point with any concern
00:51:06 again at no point with any concern expressed or issue raised with Harley in relation to any aspect of the external facade including the materials used the
00:51:17 facade including the materials used the provision of cavity barriers or indeed any other issue the view expressed expressed by Building Control was that the work was being completed to a high
00:51:28 the work was being completed to a high standard what has emerged again as you well understand sir from the expert evidence of barrel Menzies is that there were significant failings on the part of
00:51:39 were significant failings on the part of Building Control and it was only during the course of this inquiry that Harley has learned that building control carried out no in-depth review of the cladding works and neither have building
00:51:51 cladding works and neither have building control made any requests for information about the external facade from Ryden XO via studio ii or the t
00:52:02 from Ryden XO via studio ii or the t and that is not the standing the fact that Harley had provide all it's working drawings including specification notes and relevant information to both Studio
00:52:13 and relevant information to both Studio E and ridin that all said and without any without in any way seeking to minimize the extent of these failings any criticisms in the standard of
00:52:25 any criticisms in the standard of workmanship must fall to be considered against against the significance of any contribution that might have made to the spread of the fire at the tower in this
00:52:37 spread of the fire at the tower in this respect it is notable that the weight of expert evidence and the phase one findings is that any installation non-conformities at Grenville tower were far less significance than the nature of
00:52:50 far less significance than the nature of the rain screen and the insulation materials
00:52:55 materials lastly please in the last couple of minutes
00:52:59 minutes just a word about Hartley's witnesses if you will forgive me and the position that they occupy
00:53:10 that they occupy nobody could pretend that the suffering of any Harley witness could bear any sort of sensible comparison to that suffered by those who lost their lives
00:53:22 suffered by those who lost their lives at Grenville Tower or risk of losing their lives in such horrific circumstances or that suffered by relatives and loved ones and those who
00:53:36 relatives and loved ones and those who live in the vicinity and it would be grossly insulting of me to suggest otherwise but the impact of this tragedy as you mister chairman will understand
00:53:49 as you mister chairman will understand has stretched far beyond the BS ours and those affected by this shocking fire albeit indirectly and into this category
00:54:00 albeit indirectly and into this category for the Harley witnesses have without descending into any sort of detail also suffered and they are also now confronted with having to give evidence
00:54:11 confronted with having to give evidence in the glare of a level of publicity they had no previous experience of and they are we are told to have no notice of the particular areas of questioning
00:54:24 of the particular areas of questioning that they are to be subjected to the majority of the highly witnesses have also been interviewed by the police during their concurrent investigation
00:54:35 during their concurrent investigation and there are no doubt further interviews under caution to come during the course of Phase two with the Intendant anxiety that will bring the
00:54:48 Intendant anxiety that will bring the highly witnesses are as all will see decent ordinary hard-working people with families of their own none of whom would ever have associated themselves with
00:55:00 ever have associated themselves with Rana bond ACN or the Celotex rs.5000 insulation used at Grenville had they known that the claims as to combust ability were erroneous the suggestion
00:55:14 ability were erroneous the suggestion which I'm afraid appears in one of the opening statements that these individuals knew of the dangers the cladding represented to the residents of grenfell Tower is not only one without
00:55:26 grenfell Tower is not only one without evidential basis but it's also I'm afraid deeply unfair those who work for Harley had no idea and no reason to
00:55:37 Harley had no idea and no reason to believe that the principal materials used in the building envelope would behave as they did in the event of a fire it is only in the course of the disclosure from this inquiry and in
00:55:49 disclosure from this inquiry and in particular of the expert reports and the evidence from the manufacturers of the rains rainscreen cladding and the insulation that Harley now understand that their confidence in these materials
00:56:02 that their confidence in these materials and their reliance on the certification was badly misplace in that regard they were not alone so it is as I hope all
00:56:13 were not alone so it is as I hope all will accept a difficult position that Harley witnesses find themselves occupying and I trust as you have and assured them that the same level of
00:56:26 assured them that the same level of patience and sensitivity will be afforded then as it was to the other witnesses when they gave evidence in Phase two in phase one so unless I can
00:56:38 Phase two in phase one so unless I can assist you or your colleague any further those are my opening submissions on behalf of Harvey thank you thank you very much indeed thank you well we made very good
00:56:50 thank you well we made very good progress today we have actually now completed all the statements that were scheduled to be given today so I'm afraid we're going to have a
00:57:03 so I'm afraid we're going to have a short day that may not be entirely unwelcome there it is we're going to resume tomorrow please at 10 o'clock when we shall hear an opening statement on behalf of X over so thank you all
00:57:16 on behalf of X over so thank you all very much it was cool halt there and resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you very much