UKAS Director of Accreditation testimony on BRE's accreditation for BS 8414 testing, revealing recurring failures in internal audits, procedures, and record-keeping over years.
00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:32 hearing uh today we're going to continue hearing evidence from lorraine turner of ucas so i'm going to ask mrs turner to come back in please thank you
00:00:46 [Music]
00:00:53 good morning mr tanner thank you good morning uh all ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes good morning mrs turner i want to start today with the building research establishment or the bre and
00:01:06 establishment or the bre and specifically the bre's accreditation as a testing laboratory under iso 17025. now just to be clear i understand ucas also accredits the bre to another
00:01:18 also accredits the bre to another standard iso 17065 for certification services is that your understanding yes it is but today we're specifically going to be talking about iso 17025.
00:01:30 iso 17025. can we go to that just to remind ourselves
00:01:33 ourselves vsi401726
00:01:44 and we can see that this standard covers the general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories this is the version as published in 2005
00:01:56 this is the version as published in 2005 but amended in 2006. and we saw on thursday that this covered both management and technical requirements and it might help to go to page seven just to remind ourselves of
00:02:07 page seven just to remind ourselves of the contents we can see there's management requirements at section 4 including for example having a management system document control and internal audits but
00:02:20 document control and internal audits but we can also see that there's technical requirements down at section 5 and that includes for example competent personnel accommodation and environment now
00:02:31 now when ucas assesses a body i'm right aren't i that it will look at this standard to see if it meets those requirements yes but am i also right that when ucas assesses a body for testing services it
00:02:44 assesses a body for testing services it will also look at that test standard as well
00:02:48 well for instance if ucas were assessing a body to perform british standard 476 testing it will look at the relevant part of that testing standard to see if
00:02:59 part of that testing standard to see if the body meets it is that right yes that's correct where those standards are effectively test methods procedures for tests yes yes exactly can we go to ucas accreditation process
00:03:12 can we go to ucas accreditation process policy which is acc 1000. the code is ucas
00:03:17 ucas 201
00:03:24 this is the more recent version of the acc 1000 policy which we were discussing on thursday you had said that this details the steps involved in the
00:03:37 details the steps involved in the accreditation process and the requirements that ucas has to me that's that's right isn't it yes now can we go to page 39 please and we can see at the top that this is
00:03:49 and we can see at the top that this is the assessment coverage requirements and in the dark blue row we see that this one relates to iso 17025
00:04:00 this one relates to iso 17025 and the columns in the pale blue row are initial surveillance and reassessment and we can see the rows are on the left locations visited
00:04:11 locations visited business and technical management system activities and if we just go over the page for a moment
00:04:19 it also includes staff so this sets out what ucas should assess at different points in the four-year accreditation cycle doesn't it yes now
00:04:30 accreditation cycle doesn't it yes now if we just go back to page 39 please it sets out at the bottom activities so the bottom row please
00:04:40 and in the surveillance column it says representative sample of accredited activities at each surveillance such that
00:04:50 that all areas of competence are covered between initial assessment or reassessment and the next reassessment and under reassessment in the far right
00:05:01 and under reassessment in the far right box it says range of tests etc including at least one from each field of discipline to ensure all key techniques methods and
00:05:12 ensure all key techniques methods and competences are assessed now that is what ucas is required to consider under ukassa's policy isn't it yes it is now focusing now
00:05:24 yes it is now focusing now on one example and i'm going to use bs 8414 tests as the example these are sometimes called large-scale fire testing and i want to look at how
00:05:36 fire testing and i want to look at how ucas has assessed bre over the years on that test
00:05:40 that test and i can tell you that on our analysis in 2012 which was a reassessment all of the fire tests were on the visit plan including the 8414 test
00:05:53 plan including the 8414 test but no test was actually witnessed in that cycle in 2013 again bs8414 was on the visit plan but not witnessed
00:06:04 plan but not witnessed in 2014
00:06:05 in 2014 the
00:06:06 the s8414 was on the visit plan but this time it was assessed by discussion and equipment checks but not by a live witnessed assessment in 2015 again on the visit plan but not
00:06:19 in 2015 again on the visit plan but not witnessed in 2016 there was a witnessed live test of bs8414 now on the assumption that
00:06:30 that our analysis of the documents is correct this means there was one assessment of 8414 by discussion and checking equipment
00:06:39 equipment and one live test as to the difference is witnessing a live test preferable to discussion and checking equipment
00:06:51 checking equipment um overall i would say it is it is preferable but there are practical practicalities and sometimes practical difficulties so it needs to be considered alongside
00:07:03 so it needs to be considered alongside the other activities that may have been witnessed
00:07:06 witnessed and the level and number of records that were looked at and examples that were looked at
00:07:12 looked at if it can't be witnessed how does
00:07:16 how does a discussion and equipment checks show that a technic that a technician is competent in these techniques um
00:07:25 um the uh
00:07:28 the records will show that whether the procedures have been followed uh whether the right information has been collected the report will also the report of the test will also contain some of that
00:07:39 test will also contain some of that information and i think that i we would expect the assessor to have had the discussion with the individuals involved with that testing so that they can
00:07:50 can gain an appreciation of their understanding of the tests and and their competence
00:07:57 does this does this in your estimation if as far as you can comment does that appear to you that history to meet the requirements of acc 1000
00:08:09 acc 1000 in terms of the the cycle from 2012 to 2016 because a reassessment is both the end of one cycle and and the start of another
00:08:20 cycle and and the start of another so you mentioned that it wasn't witnessed in 2012 we'd also have to consider what happened in the preceding years uh to 2012 but in the cycle 2012 to 2016 it was looked at um
00:08:33 to 2016 it was looked at um in 2014 and witnessed in 2016. and is that is it your evidence that that is
00:08:39 that is as far as you can comment yes that is sufficient and you say that it depends what happened in the previous years well i can actually tell you that in
00:08:48 in the cycle 2008 to 2011 on our analysis there was only one witnessed assessment and that was in 2008. now i should make very clear that
00:08:59 2008. now i should make very clear that the records for this period are not necessarily complete they are certainly much less detailed than the records from but if it's right that the last witness assessment was
00:09:12 that the last witness assessment was in 2008
00:09:15 in 2008 and then another in 2016 that would mean that the bre's performance of bs 8414 wasn't witnessed live
00:09:25 live at least
00:09:26 at least for
00:09:27 for seven years that's
00:09:29 that's nearly
00:09:30 nearly one at the beginning of the cycle and one at the end of the second cycle and then only once by discussion in the interim
00:09:38 interim um
00:09:39 um you certainly feel free to correct my maths on that but is that is that level of scrutiny does that sound sufficient for youcat i think it needs to be looked at in
00:09:51 i think it needs to be looked at in conjunction with the other activities um i think at first sight it does look it does look light but i think you have to we as i said we'd have to look at the
00:10:02 we as i said we'd have to look at the the level of um assessment conducted in that whole area with the other tests that were performed and witnessed where there may be similar competencies you know what are the critical competencies
00:10:14 know what are the critical competencies that that we need to see exercised in that test because a witness in itself is is really helpful but there are also limitations with the witness that is one test and that is a test that's performed
00:10:26 test and that is a test that's performed while our assessors are there as well so it is really valuable information but it needs to be seen alongside of the other tools and and techniques that assessors use when they're conducting assessments
00:10:38 use when they're conducting assessments but it's not as though bs8414
00:10:41 bs8414 is a similar test to say some of these smaller scale tests one can easily see an equivalence between certain tests if they use the same or very similar
00:10:53 they use the same or very similar apparatus but 8414 uses a very specific rig
00:10:58 rig is it not incumbent on ucas to be making sure that that test is seen more often than once every seven years um i i think i think it is a difficult
00:11:10 um i i think i think it is a difficult test to witness um a difficult test it takes time to set up the key competencies and and i'm not going to you know i'm not an expert in this area but temperature measurement
00:11:22 this area but temperature measurement the setup of the thermocouples the measurements that are made are
00:11:26 are competencies that we can see in other activities so i think we would expect it to be witnessed at least once in the cycle and then look we would look at then the other
00:11:38 other the the amount of time that is also spent uh looking at the records talking to the personnel concerned and so forth so much depends on the records is that right the records and the um
00:11:51 right the records and the um [Music]
00:11:53 [Music] and and conversations with the staff involved looking at their training records looking at the organization's own auditing and monitoring of the of the test which is also part of the requirements of
00:12:04 is also part of the requirements of their management system well in fact auditing is the next thing i'd like to ask you about can we return to page 39 of the policy document acc 1000
00:12:15 of the policy document acc 1000 can we look at the middle row business and technical management requirements and we see the coverage requirement at the
00:12:25 the surveillance column is this requirements of quality system such that whole system is assessed at least once between initial assessment reassessment and reassessment
00:12:37 reassessment and reassessment coverage at each surveillance depends on previous visits findings changes corrective actions must include participation in pt just pausing there i'm struggling with pt as
00:12:50 pausing there i'm struggling with pt as an acronym can you can you help us yes pt stands for proficiency testing it's also called in some fields in the clinical field external quality assessment um which is
00:13:02 external quality assessment um which is a but proficiency testing proficiency tests are exercises that laboratories can participate in where they are provided with a sample
00:13:14 where they are provided with a sample of of known known to the proficiency testing provider known data known results known characteristics and they will test that as part of their quality assurance activities and then their results are compared with other
00:13:26 their results are compared with other laboratories yes in fact can i draw your attention to the next line so must include participation in pt and then the next line is internal audit management review and complaints
00:13:38 audit management review and complaints at each visit now um
00:13:42 now um does the term internal audit mean that the body audits itself yes it does and the word audit appears to be different from assessment is that would i be fair
00:13:53 from assessment is that would i be fair to draw a distinction between audit and assessment um the the term audit in this context comes from the standard itself that requires the the body to have a program of
00:14:05 the the body to have a program of conducting audits examining its own activities making sure that it meets its own requirements and that it meets the requirements of the standard for accreditation if they're accredited yes and
00:14:17 they're accredited yes and you said refers to the standard another way of saying that be that the body is required under iso 17025 to conduct internal audits yes it is
00:14:29 to conduct internal audits yes it is and in those audits the laboratory is supposed to internally audit both its management system as well as how specific tests are conducted is that right that's correct now is ucas's role
00:14:42 right that's correct now is ucas's role in this
00:14:43 in this to assess
00:14:44 to assess um how the laboratory has managed the internal audit what the results are and how the body has uh taken action as a response yes now it looks like from acc 1000 this
00:14:58 now it looks like from acc 1000 this document that ucas's policy is that for every surveillance to review internal auditing is that is that right that's correct and does that indicate
00:15:09 that's correct and does that indicate that it's a particularly important part of how the body is conforming to iso 17025 yes it is
00:15:20 17025 yes it is and would i be right to guess that that's because ucas is only ever sampling the performance of a body in an assessment so much depends
00:15:31 assessment so much depends on the way that the body is assessing itself
00:15:34 itself that's correct i'm going to just take you now to a number of ucas assessment reports of the bra
00:15:42 bra and just to be clear as part of your day-to-day role you wouldn't be normally reviewing assessment reports of a body like the bre would you no no but i'd like your views as
00:15:55 no no but i'd like your views as director of accreditation on them can we please go to ucas304239
00:16:06 this is the 2012 reassessment report we can see that at the top that it's a reassessment and we can see the dates 2012.
00:16:17 dates 2012. can we please go to page 3 at the executive summary the third paragraph down starting with there was
00:16:26 there was and it says this there was however some serious concern about some aspects of management control and management system implementation the procedures for the operating the
00:16:37 the procedures for the operating the ucas accredited test centers are not apparent in the management system and not mentioned in the quality manual there are no comprehensive management system audits covering all elements of
00:16:49 system audits covering all elements of iso 17025 over the last year in most centres there have been no witness test audits over the last year most of the few witness test audits
00:17:00 most of the few witness test audits carried out are planned without the quality manager's knowledge and are not reported to him a management review has not been carried out since the last ucas surveillance no corrective actions have been
00:17:11 no corrective actions have been addressed over the last year these concerns need to be urgently addressed for the laboratory laboratory to be compliant with iso 17
00:17:22 laboratory to be compliant with iso 17 25.
00:17:23 25. now at the bottom of page 3 we also have a summary of michael richardson's report and just pausing there
00:17:34 and just pausing there you can take it from me that mr richardson assessed some of the fire tests for the bre in this assessment and in others
00:17:43 in others now just over the page still in michael richardson's report he says at the very top second paragraph only one internal audit in the fire field has been made
00:17:55 field has been made this internal audit did not fully cover the management system and was not a technical audit and just to finish the picture can we go to page six please
00:18:07 to page six please at the bottom we have a recommendation
00:18:12 accreditation to be renewed only if objective evidence is supplied to ucas to demonstrate that the mandatory improvements requiring closeout have
00:18:23 improvements requiring closeout have been suitably discharged an additional ucas extra visit satisfactorily demonstrates management control
00:18:32 control and that the management system is being implemented a date for this extra visit was agreed as 12th of september 2012.
00:18:42 2012. now on thursday you uh gave evidence that i think extra visits were a reasonably small proportion of ucas's assessment work
00:18:53 proportion of ucas's assessment work can we take from the fact that an extra visit
00:18:56 visit was uh effectively booked in on this assessment that ucas had identified that something was really quite wrong here
00:19:06 that certainly appears to be the case yes and there in fact was an extra visit in that september and i understand that the improvement actions were closed out at that point that's what the records indicate yes yes can we go now to the
00:19:18 indicate yes yes can we go now to the 2013
00:19:19 2013 surveillance that's it ucas 30426
00:19:28 we can see again at the top right that this is a surveillance and it is dated 2013. can we go to page 3 please
00:19:39 at
00:19:41 the yes the very very top it says during last year's reassessment visit serious concerns were raised concerning the procedures for operating
00:19:53 concerning the procedures for operating the ucas accredited test center were not apparent the lack of management system test and calibration audits the lack of management reviews corrective actions were not being addressed
00:20:05 were not being addressed it goes on it was apparent that management have addressed these concerns both in clearing the improvement actions raised and generally over the last year the quality team has been reorganized
00:20:16 the quality team has been reorganized and expanded including the appointment of robbie scott as technical audit manager a program of audits is now being implemented that appears to be a somewhat better
00:20:27 that appears to be a somewhat better performance is that fair yes i think so but it doesn't say that bra be area up to date it says program audits are now being implemented do you see that
00:20:38 do you see that yes well let's carry on with the narrative 2014 surveillance that's ucas 304315
00:20:51 again we see at the top it's surveillance and again we see it's 2014. again to page three please second paragraph
00:21:02 second paragraph it was noted that there was a culture of good commitment to quality apparent in the organization which favorably contrasted with concerns noted two years ago
00:21:13 two years ago there has been recognition of the need to carry out management and witness test audits
00:21:18 audits order programs have been established although it was noted that there has been some delay due to accident or illness
00:21:25 illness the quality team is now up to full strength and there is good effort being made in catching up with delayed audits it was however noted that improvement actions were not being addressed in a
00:21:36 actions were not being addressed in a timely manner this has been recognized as a problem and was being addressed so for whatever reason it appears that audits are behind and improvement actions
00:21:48 and improvement actions are not addressed in a timely manner now that can't be satisfactory to ucas can it
00:21:54 it um
00:21:56 um i think it would depend on how how far behind um but it certainly looks like there are some issues yeah there's there's no point in having an audit without improvement actions being
00:22:07 without improvement actions being addressed is there um
00:22:11 um well i think there's always a point in having an audit and then you if you identify improvement actions they they will need to be addressed yes can we look now at what happened in 2015. can we go to ucas30439
00:22:28 we can see this is the surveillance and we can see that it's july 2015. can we go to page three again under the executive summary it is
00:22:39 again under the executive summary it is the third paragraph down but you you might find it easier to find the fifth paragraph the fifth line down it starts with the laboratory have you found that
00:22:50 the the third paragraph fifth line yes cursor yes the laboratory has very competent and experienced staff who have an ethos of carrying out their
00:23:01 who have an ethos of carrying out their work to very high standards some opportunities for improvement were identified in the areas of record keeping document control and equipment calibration records
00:23:12 calibration records resource issues over the past year mean that internal auditing has fallen significantly behind and closeout of actions has been slow in some circumstances the resource issues appear to have been
00:23:24 the resource issues appear to have been resolved and the team is working hard to catch up in this area but efforts need to be maintained in order to restore the effectiveness of the internal audit system
00:23:33 system where audits have been completed they have been effective in finding non-conformities but the follow-up of these has generally been too slow it was noted that connections between
00:23:44 it was noted that connections between different processes such as internal auditing and non-conforming work are not always identified now
00:23:52 now the the description there is significantly behind in audits that signifies quite a serious situation doesn't it
00:24:03 doesn't it potentially yes and we can see that closeout of action has been slow that's somewhat similar to the finding of 2014 isn't it yes it is and on this point of there being a lack of connection between
00:24:15 there being a lack of connection between audits and non-conforming work can we just go to page seven
00:24:23 there's a header there called non-conforming work and at the third line i'd like to start with all non-conformities perhaps we can have a cursor to help mrs turner find
00:24:35 have a cursor to help mrs turner find that all
00:24:36 that all non-conformities thank you if you found that yes
00:24:39 that yes all non-conformities are recorded in the improvement action database these include audit non-conformities there were no instances of non-conforming
00:24:50 non-conforming work recorded as such though it was discussed that some audit findings were instances of non-conforming work where equipment was out of calibration or conditions outside the specified range
00:25:02 the specified range whilst these are recorded in the database the investigation of the scale and impact of the non-conformity has not been carried out and as such there is not the information available as to
00:25:14 not the information available as to whether immediate containment action is required such as halting work we can see there a code which indicates i think that an improvement action has been raised on that point
00:25:26 been raised on that point now
00:25:27 now just stepping back from that can we can we take from this that the bre had not understood its obligations as to regarding non-conf recording non-conforming work here
00:25:41 um it it appears that that appears to be the case yes and the reason that matters i think i've understood is that non-conforming work records are
00:25:52 non-conforming work records are important
00:25:53 important for ucas to have visibility of what is happening throughout the body is that is that right do you agree with that yes i do now one of the observations here was that the equipment was out of
00:26:05 that the equipment was out of calibration or the conditions were at the specified range now that could affect the veracity of a test couldn't it
00:26:11 it it could yes and the assessors noted that there was such a lack of information that he couldn't say if work actually needed to be halted that raising the possibility that work
00:26:23 that raising the possibility that work might need to be halted indicates that there's a serious problem doesn't it i don't think it indicates that there is a serious problem i think it could indicate that there could be a serious
00:26:34 indicate that there could be a serious problem well without investigation the bre can't know how widespread that non-conformity is can it no and if bre doesn't know and record it
00:26:46 no and if bre doesn't know and record it then ucas can't know either can you no and that that's the reason why it was recorded as a finding
00:26:57 at this point ucas couldn't have had confidence in the bre's work could it
00:27:05 i i don't think that's a statement that can be sort of said in isolation because of the other aspects that were covered at this assessment and you can see from this assessment report the
00:27:16 this assessment report the the level of detail that was covered across the whole scope of the organization and the number of findings that have been the nature of those findings so i think when we're looking at one
00:27:29 think when we're looking at one particular aspect there there will be concerns and clearly there are concerns that's why there's an improvement action has been recorded the impact of that needs to be considered alongside all of the other findings
00:27:42 alongside all of the other findings and the outcome from the assessment overall
00:27:46 i follow but stepping back if we look at the reviews together just on this audit point someone might say that a picture emerges that the bre
00:27:59 that the bre may not have quite got on top of internal audits or at the very least there were periods where they definitely were not on top of their orders and yet the overall course is that ucas
00:28:10 and yet the overall course is that ucas consistently found fundamental failings raised improvement actions but there was no absolute fundamental addressing of the problem is that is that a fair picture
00:28:23 is that is that a fair picture i think that certainly appears to be the case yes
00:28:26 case yes um
00:28:27 um does this evidence show that even if the bre managed to get on top of auditing at times
00:28:32 times there were periods which ucas could not have been confident in their work
00:28:38 i i would i would repeat what i said before i think that is an extrapolation um that
00:28:45 um that when we look at the outcome from the assessment overall the recommendation from the assessment team will take all of those things into account and the recommendation will be the
00:28:56 and the recommendation will be the reflection from the team with regards to maintenance of accreditation and and therefore linking pulling that through into having confidence in their work overall
00:29:08 work overall does this recurring theme of audits coming up in this period does that indicate that whatever actions the bre were taking year to year
00:29:19 were taking year to year were not quite getting to the root cause of any problem that might have been there that appears to be the case now is that something that you would have expected ucas to have spotted
00:29:32 expected ucas to have spotted um yes yes i would but i think it also will depend on the reasons and i think the examples that you've shown show perhaps slightly different reasons they didn't have some resource then that resource
00:29:43 resource was interrupted for some for some reason um so perhaps that's uh that's an indicator that that there is overall insufficient resource potentially but that's
00:29:55 potentially but that's one scenario maybe i see right now i'm going to leave audits for now but i'm going to continue to look at the assessment history can we go to ucas 304364
00:30:13 this is the assessment report for the reassessment in 2016. can we go to page 19 please
00:30:24 now at the bottom we see a report from daniel patterson or dan patterson as he is there on technical competence do you know can you explain what role mr
00:30:35 do you know can you explain what role mr paterson had um i understand uh dan patterson um looks at fire testing yes and is is uh he an employee or a contractor he's a
00:30:46 he an employee or a contractor he's a contractor and uh is he would i be right to say he has expertise in relation to fire performance i understand that's the case yes um i can tell you that he did look
00:30:57 yes um i can tell you that he did look in this reassessment specifically at fire testing and indeed on a number of of other visits as well can we please go to page 21 which is still within mr
00:31:08 to page 21 which is still within mr patterson's report and under the header suitability and review of laboratory procedures 5.4 he says this both fire resistance and reaction to
00:31:20 both fire resistance and reaction to fire testing do not have officially issued test proceedings or standard operating procedures for any of the testing carried out both labs rely on the test standards for the test procedure however the test
00:31:33 the test procedure however the test standards do not indicate how the test specimen is set up within the laboratories or how the equipment is used
00:31:40 used during the visit examination of test and project files and discussions with test staff indicate that there exists some test procedures that have been created by individual staff for their own use
00:31:53 by individual staff for their own use formal general and specific test procedures should be created for all testing that relate to operating the test equipment and test setup this will ensure all test staff are carrying out
00:32:04 ensure all test staff are carrying out testing in the same way to prescribe procedures the test or standard operating procedures can also be used as training tools and reminders for existing staff
00:32:16 tools and reminders for existing staff the following tests witnessed did not have formal test procedures british standard 476 part 7 british standard 8414 part 2 from 2015.
00:32:32 now mr patterson's no before that let's just uh carry on to the next paragraph there are no testing test or operating procedures
00:32:43 test or operating procedures for fire resistance testing equipment test setup data transfer report writing or other key process relating to testing there exists ad hoc personalized quote
00:32:56 there exists ad hoc personalized quote simon's checklist end quote and ad hoc quote data transfer procedure end quote these are not part of quality system documents and were found within project
00:33:08 documents and were found within project files and there's improvement actions we can see all through that now mr patterson's concern seems to have been about consistency of
00:33:19 seems to have been about consistency of performance of tests do you agree with that yes i do does it follow that without consistent operating procedures the bre might have been performing tests
00:33:30 the bre might have been performing tests inconsistently there is that possibility and also perhaps that neither the bre nor ucas
00:33:38 nor ucas could say whether or not they were being performed consistently
00:33:44 um i think i think that's that's true but perhaps even if a test procedure existed that that's also potentially the case that's why looking at the records and having the discussions with the assessor
00:33:56 having the discussions with the assessor with the
00:33:57 with the laboratory operatives is also an important part of that but there is certainly a risk um if if
00:34:04 um if if mr patterson had had conversations and was confident that
00:34:09 that in even in absence of test procedures there's nothing to be concerned about surely he wouldn't have been raising this or he would have noted it in his assessment report that there was no concern he hasn't said there's no
00:34:21 concern he hasn't said there's no concern and he's raised at least three improvement actions that indicates some concern about this point doesn't it yes it does
00:34:29 it does now still on page 21 can we scroll up to the header accommodation and environment section 5.3 now it says the test for the bs 476 part 7 testing
00:34:43 the test for the bs 476 part 7 testing was clean and tidy sorry forgive me the test area was clean and tidy and suitable for testing the environment did not in any way affect any aspect of the testing
00:34:54 testing the test area and control rooms for the bs-8414 part one and two testing in the burn hall were untidy and storage disorganized equipment and test
00:35:05 disorganized equipment and test materials were not stored appropriately this housekeeping issue needs to be addressed to ensure the test area is safe and suitable for testing and for client access
00:35:16 client access equipment should be stored appropriately so it does not get damaged continuing test specimens for bs 8414 part 1 and 2 need to be protected during
00:35:28 part 1 and 2 need to be protected during the application curing and testing process from temperatures outside the range of minus 5 to 40 degrees centigrade environment conditions within the burn
00:35:39 environment conditions within the burn hall test areas are not monitored to check the temperature is within required limits during the conditioning period this may especially be an issue
00:35:50 this may especially be an issue during hotter summer months although most of the time this would be unlikely to be a problem there is no indication that this is the case some sort of environmental monitoring of
00:36:01 some sort of environmental monitoring of the burn hall is required at the top of the specimen now mr patterson has identified some clear non-conformance
00:36:12 some clear non-conformance with iso
00:36:13 with iso 17025 hasn't he yes and do you agree that some of these findings
00:36:20 findings might have had an impact on the performance of the systems in the tests yes they might have had an impact yeah but we can't say but but we can't know either
00:36:32 but but we can't know either um yeah i would agree with that yes do these findings suggest to you
00:36:38 to you that perhaps there's a lack of care and control with regard to bs 8414 testing at the bre at this time i think these findings show that they were not meeting all of the requirements
00:36:50 were not meeting all of the requirements of the standard for accreditation very well now improvement actions would or or indeed should rectify this for the future that that's the point of them isn't it
00:37:01 isn't it yes and also consider if there has been an impact on on any work that's gone before if that's appropriate for the for the finding um well none of these i can tell you none of these improvement actions
00:37:13 none of these improvement actions require any looking back at any previous tests
00:37:17 tests so if there had been a problem improvement actions won't rectify problems in the past will they um overall no they they won't they won't fix it but they will help um depending
00:37:29 fix it but they will help um depending on the circumstances of the finding um they may help understand the impact of of of that circumstance on any results that have gone before yes
00:37:41 that have gone before yes we can't see that any work was done specifically to investigate if there'd been any effect on previous 8414 tests and should there have been in your view
00:37:53 your view um i think the now yes because of the i think linked to the sort of root cause um we that we discussed also uh in the last session um
00:38:04 discussed also uh in the last session um and the standards uh 1705 has been strengthened uh in in in that regard and also our standard the standard that we use 17011
00:38:15 standard the standard that we use 17011 in 2017
00:38:17 in 2017 so i think more more focus is placed on that now but there would have been an expectation at the time as well i think this was this was 2016 i recall yeah um
00:38:28 um so expectation at the time you're saying that
00:38:31 that now there's been updates to at least two standards 17 00 25 and 11 that strengthen the requirement to to look backwards exactly
00:38:42 to look backwards exactly it's strengthened it but i think there is still always that there has always been
00:38:47 been the the need to correct the problem to consider the impact of the problem and to
00:38:54 to uh to ensure that it doesn't recur as much as is possible to do i see i'd like to turn to events after the
00:39:05 i'd like to turn to events after the fire
00:39:06 fire there were two ucas assessments of the bre after the fire one was a routine immediately after the fire one was a routine surveillance in 2017
00:39:17 routine surveillance in 2017 and one was an extra visit also in 2017 and i understand ucas was looking at bs8414 tests which had been commissioned by the dclg
00:39:29 by the dclg is that your understanding of yes it is i'm not going to go into very much detail on those points specifically um
00:39:38 um i want rather to go to ucas ucas2010859
00:39:48 and this is an email chain internally at ucas
00:39:52 ucas and at the bottom of the page we see an email from sam giles dated the 14th of september time 1714 have you found that yes now sam giles was he the section
00:40:03 yes now sam giles was he the section head
00:40:04 head of construction and physics is that right yes that's correct that's an operational role is that right yes and he's in charge of assessments in that area is that fair yes the the section head manages a team
00:40:16 yes the the section head manages a team of assessment managers who manage in in turn manage the relationship with the accredited organizations and manage the assessments of those organizations i follow now the subject
00:40:28 organizations i follow now the subject is
00:40:29 is summary of testing and certification related to grenfell tower and he has you can't see it in that particular extract of this email but he has in fact attached a document
00:40:42 has in fact attached a document which i'll come to in a moment can we just go down to page two
00:40:50 two and at the top he says the risks are more howitzers than bullet points um forgive me for what might see a silly question but how it's as a large-range gun isn't it
00:41:02 i don't know but i suppose to explain the joke is to ruin it but i think what he's saying is that there are a number of bullet points but they're not really bullets they're actually really quite damaging weaponry
00:41:14 actually really quite damaging weaponry um
00:41:15 um is that perhaps what you might take from this
00:41:18 this potentially um
00:41:20 um in effect he's saying there's some big risks
00:41:24 risks isn't he
00:41:25 isn't he i think that could be interpreted from that text yes and um would you be understanding him to be talking about risks to ucas specifically it might be difficult for you to comment i understand yeah i i don't know very
00:41:38 i understand yeah i i don't know very well can we go to the attachment at ucas2010860
00:41:48 and uh on page one he deals with product certification we might come back to that when we deal with the bba can we go to on page two
00:42:00 can we go to on page two a header called summary and he says ucas need to adopt a tougher approach with bre over the closure of improvement actions raised to ensure these are being
00:42:12 actions raised to ensure these are being implemented across the board testing is carried out competently however record keeping leaves a great deal to be desired this should be again followed up with a
00:42:23 this should be again followed up with a tougher approach then he talks about risks the lack of consistency of training records thus ensuring that there are these are appropriately recorded and
00:42:34 these are appropriately recorded and maintained competencies are not being maintained appropriately or that staff may not be competent and not being adequately supervised
00:42:45 supervised and just down to page three
00:42:49 the top paragraph there is that some organization merely close out findings raised and do not apply corrective actions across the board that a certain level of arrogance
00:43:01 board that a certain level of arrogance may exist within accredited bodies that dismiss improvement actions now were you aware of mr giles view as expressed here
00:43:13 as expressed here i've seen this report yes did ucas accept this as a candid but nonetheless correct statement
00:43:23 statement of risks posed by some conformity assessment bodies yes and that would include the bre and the bba wouldn't it yes now were those views as expressed uh
00:43:35 yes now were those views as expressed uh by mr giles were they shared by those more senior at ucas um i think these views were expressed as a result of the the work that was carried out immediately after the fire
00:43:48 carried out immediately after the fire to to visit a number of organizations and as the picture emerged as to their involvement variously with the different products um that
00:43:59 um that that this was a summary um
00:44:02 um this report was produced as a summary from from those assessments it was then discussed further with the um
00:44:10 um the operations director and the chief the then chief executive and a board report was produced so yes i think i think there was nothing to suggest that that wasn't a reasonable summary
00:44:23 a reasonable summary i see
00:44:25 i see in the years after this report was issued there was
00:44:31 there was a full or more or less a full accreditation cycle a four year cycle where
00:44:37 where ucas visited once a year and continued with assessments that's that's right isn't it yes there were some additional extra visits i i can say that for specific projects but on the whole it
00:44:48 specific projects but on the whole it was
00:44:50 was returning to the usual way of assessing the bre is that right yes i want to talk about the extraordinary assessment in 2021
00:45:02 2021 um
00:45:04 um i'm doing so really rather to see what it might say about historic performance now mr ledbeter from ucas
00:45:13 from ucas gave evidence in a witness statement on this we have mentioned him before but can you just confirm that he's a senior assessment manager at ucas yes he is and
00:45:24 assessment manager at ucas yes he is and he tells us in his witness statement that he has quite a lot of training in different types of fire product um so performance of products in fire
00:45:37 um so performance of products in fire and he says that he's a technical focus person at ucas for fire testing now what is a technical focus person um a technical
00:45:48 um a technical focus person is somebody with normally within our own staff team who will take responsibility for leading on a particular technical activity providing support to colleagues
00:46:00 activity providing support to colleagues where it might not be their their field of expertise he will also or she will also liaise with the technical assessors any committees any uh gather information
00:46:12 any committees any uh gather information that is relevant to that particular field is the role of technical focus person a recently created type of role no it's a role that we've had um in the
00:46:23 no it's a role that we've had um in the organization from for many years that but they they knew technical focus person roles will arise if the need arises to create one yes
00:46:35 one yes now mr ledbete tells us in his witness statement that the decision to assess the bre in 2021 was prompted by an article in inside housing by peter apps
00:46:46 article in inside housing by peter apps is that your understanding yes it is now for your information uh and to perhaps remind the panel um peter apps's article was about a letter written by kingspan
00:46:59 was about a letter written by kingspan to the bre withdrawing certain test reports for the k-15 insulation product and he reported on that on the 20th of november 2020
00:47:10 on the 20th of november 2020 now ucas appears to have become aware of the inside housing article in around march 2021 is that is that your understanding yes it is now are you
00:47:21 your understanding yes it is now are you surprised that the bre did not contact ucas about this matter in november 2020 yes i am
00:47:30 yes i am that's the sort of event you would expect bre to alert you to isn't it yes
00:47:36 can we go to the assessment report of this visit it's at ucas 30473
00:47:50 and we can see at the top that it is a surveillance reassessment it's dated the 5th 6th of may 2021
00:48:03 it's dated the 5th 6th of may 2021 and we can see at the front towards the left and the bottom of that screen that it was issued by john ledbetter john led beta forgive me can we go to page two
00:48:15 can we go to page two and we can see at the top that it's a report for the extraordinary assessment of bre global limited now that's not called an extra visit
00:48:26 that's not called an extra visit which is how perhaps the ucas policy documents might put it is this a does that indicate this is a different type of assessment or perhaps that mr ledbetter has not quite recorded correctly that it was
00:48:39 not quite recorded correctly that it was merely an extra visit i understand that this was an extra visit what we would call an extra visit right can we go to page two we're still on page two can we go to the bottom of the page
00:48:50 the page under the word objective we can see that the objective is set out there and it is
00:48:55 and it is to enable ucas to understand firsthand the reported issues of test reports being requested to be withdrawn and to gain assurance in so far as possible
00:49:06 gain assurance in so far as possible that testing of samples kingspan product especially to bs8414 had been performed correctly and that the requirements of iso 17025 could be demonstrated
00:49:20 it goes on test records were requested and reviewed in respect to fire resistance reaction to fire and large-scale fire testing either directly on or product containing kingspan
00:49:31 on or product containing kingspan insulation since 2005 to present the records requested were to include where possible records of contract review test reports data worksheets equipment calibration
00:49:44 data worksheets equipment calibration records uom budgets estimations training and competency records internal vertical audit records and details of qcpt work
00:49:55 audit records and details of qcpt work next paragraph the objective of this extraordinary assessment was not to produce any formal improvement actions or recommendations directly
00:50:05 directly but to attempt to identify any incorrect testing methodology and any areas of weakness in respect of compliance with the requirements of iso 17025
00:50:17 the requirements of iso 17025 and then he mentions both versions so
00:50:21 so it was looking both historically at the bre's performance as well perhaps as the current performance is that is that right
00:50:30 right yes i think so now mr ledbeter tells us in his witness statement that sam giles directed him in a meeting
00:50:38 a meeting not to produce any improvement actions and we can see that is recorded in the objective there why would ukass
00:50:50 why would ukass not wish to produce formal improvement actions
00:50:56 um well i i think i don't know i think formal improvement actions should have been recorded if it was appropriate to
00:51:07 been recorded if it was appropriate to do so
00:51:08 do so um the only thing that i think then is clear uh in my examination of this event is that the scope was a little bit unclear as to whether it was a further look at
00:51:20 whether it was a further look at historical records because of the um article in in the press um
00:51:28 um as well as and and i think would always be the case if we're actually conducting an assessment considering what's actually happening at the time yes we'll come certainly on to a review of
00:51:40 we'll come certainly on to a review of of what happened afterwards but i think we might agree that if ucas can assess
00:51:46 assess a conformity assessment body at any time surely it can raise improvement actions at any time that that's right isn't it that's correct and do you take it that this was something that was agreed with the bre before the
00:51:58 that was agreed with the bre before the visit that improvement actions would not be raised
00:52:01 be raised i don't i'm not aware that that was agreed with bre very well can we go to page seven of this document this is the summary
00:52:14 and he says this is a very very long document i'm only going to take you not very long but it's very um it is worth reading in full i'm just going to take you to some of the points briefly
00:52:26 points briefly he says
00:52:27 he says in summary the conclusion of the assessor over the two-day assessment is that there is confidency confidence in the competency of the staff that perform the accredited testing
00:52:38 testing and that the test is completed correctly there is however some significant concern that bre are not able to demonstrate consistently and robustly
00:52:49 demonstrate consistently and robustly the required and expected compliance with the requirements of iso 17025
00:52:56 next paragraph the coverage of the topics assessed during the assessment while limited has certainly identified a number of areas of weakness that require immediate resource commitment to ensure
00:53:07 immediate resource commitment to ensure appropriate compliance with the accreditation standard is achieved there have been no improvement actions raised from this extraordinary assessment but had this been a routine assessment
00:53:18 assessment there would have been a number of significant findings the senior management and key members of staff involved in this process have been advised that should similar and sufficient degrees of non-compliance be
00:53:30 sufficient degrees of non-compliance be noted on the next routine assessment there may be grounds for either partial or full suspension the areas of weakness identified may be considered as systemic quality
00:53:41 considered as systemic quality management system failings a key consequence of these failings is preventing bre for being able to demonstrate that test equipment and calibrations of equipment are subject to appropriate control with documentary
00:53:54 appropriate control with documentary reviews against defined acceptance criteria that provide evidence equipment is fit for purpose
00:54:01 third paragraph there is also a need to make particular comment on the overall effectiveness of the past and present internal audit regime the records and reviews from this assessment indicate
00:54:13 reviews from this assessment indicate that the audits are not robustly challenging the requirements of iso 17025 and attention is required to their future scope and depth to ensure the
00:54:24 future scope and depth to ensure the exacting requirements of all clauses of iso 17 he means zero 25 are considered appropriately the importance of effective completion of internal audits was stressed to bre
00:54:37 of internal audits was stressed to bre as a crucial process that ucas expects organizations to perform rigorously as they should aid compliance the next paragraph the fourth paragraph
00:54:50 the next paragraph the fourth paragraph it was also noted that there are often issues and areas of weakness that have been subject to previous ucas improvement actions the recurrence of such issues is indicative that any
00:55:01 such issues is indicative that any corrective action has either not been effective or is not implemented across the necessary business areas consideration must therefore be given to ensuring internal follow-up audits
00:55:13 to ensuring internal follow-up audits are performed to confirm corrective actions have been effective and maintained and finally in conclusion the key areas of weakness that have been identified as a result of this
00:55:26 identified as a result of this assessment are as follows one lack of equipment records that meet all iso 17 0 five requirements two
00:55:35 two lack of records and procedures to demonstrate that any calibrated equipment is reviewed against appropriately defined acceptance criteria
00:55:44 criteria three effectiveness of the internal regime
00:55:47 regime four use of controlled documents and completion of records five provision of appropriate training to staff on iso 17025 requirements
00:55:58 to staff on iso 17025 requirements and the use of the bre quality management system now that is only a small section of the report but it is the summary and
00:56:08 and just
00:56:09 just looking at that would you agree that that is a fairly damning set of remarks isn't it
00:56:14 isn't it yes it is now given that the assessor was looking at historic records going back to 2005 does that not reduce ucas confidence in the work that had been done by bre
00:56:26 the work that had been done by bre historically yes yes it does i think it also has to be looked in conjunction with findings that were raised at the time as well because some of these areas are sort of repeating
00:56:38 of these areas are sort of repeating um
00:56:39 um things which had already been reported yes in 2017 for example yes
00:56:45 yes now the report points out that these areas of weakness have been subject to ucas improvement actions in the past and indeed we've seen some we might have seen some examples of that
00:56:56 we might have seen some examples of that already this morning the conclusion was any corrective action has either not been effective or not implemented across the necessary
00:57:07 implemented across the necessary business areas now is
00:57:10 now is is that saying that
00:57:13 that the lessons from the past have not been learned by the bre i think that appears to be the case now if improvement actions are not properly addressed
00:57:24 properly addressed and not applied across the business isn't that also something of a criticism of ucas for not having ensured that bre's actions were sufficient to address failings
00:57:37 to address failings potentially yes now with hindsight should ucas have required further action from the bre because they were not sufficient to address the root cause
00:57:48 sufficient to address the root cause do you mean from from this assessment or from previous assessments well with with hindsight looking back now
00:57:56 now should previous assessments have been have identified that the root cause of any failings was not being addressed by bre if there was a consistent root cause yes
00:58:08 if there was a consistent root cause yes should ucas have requested better evidence from the bre that it had properly addressed improvement actions possibly
00:58:19 possibly that and should you have requested better evidence that the bre had identified the systemic root cause of improvement actions i think i'd say the same possibly
00:58:32 i think i'd say the same possibly depending on the findings the particular findings
00:58:37 findings let's look at what happened sorry can you just help me with this and the impression you get from this passage we've been looking at is that there had been quite a long period of time
00:58:48 period of time over which bre had not uh for whatever reason been been managed or operated in accordance with the required standards is first of all is that a fair
00:59:01 standards is first of all is that a fair understanding of this yes it is and is that something which ucas ought to have discovered by whatever means
00:59:13 by whatever means i i think there is evidence that we had identified the failings over the in each of the reports the the improvement actions that were raised
00:59:24 improvement actions that were raised i think where where it is difficult to see how many of those issues were recur
00:59:31 recur for the same reasons a management system in an organization is quite a dynamic thing audits are done on an ongoing basis so are other reasons for programs slipping
00:59:43 programs slipping the same or are they one-off events so i think it certainly appears that in some cases
00:59:50 cases the recurrence is due to the same to the same issue so that's why i say potentially because i think there is it's a bit of a mixed picture but i think that's a reasonable thing to con consider that that some of the
01:00:02 con consider that that some of the findings were recurring for the same reason
01:00:05 reason i mean i'm sure it's important to identify if you can the reasons for a failure of a business to comply with
01:00:16 a failure of a business to comply with standards in certain respects but there's a bigger picture isn't there if the business is consistently failing to comply
01:00:25 to comply for whatever reason and and is that not something that should have alerted you cast to a problem
01:00:32 problem uh
01:00:33 uh yes i think i i think that's correct um but i'd also say you've got we have to look at the reports in their entirety we focused on some some very specific
01:00:44 we focused on some some very specific things which are important issues but the report has to be looked at as a whole these are long reports which contain a lot of evidence of compliance as well as evidence of non-compliance
01:00:57 as well as evidence of non-compliance right thank you very much yes thank you sir i want to look now at what happened after this visit in may 2021 i understand that this report was issued
01:01:09 i understand that this report was issued to the bre and they responded can we go to the bre's letter of response which is ucas 30474
01:01:21 and it stated the 2nd of june and
01:01:26 and the first paragraph the bre notes that there are areas for improvement in the second paragraph the bre says
01:01:37 in the second paragraph the bre says however bre wishes to record its concerns that the may 21 report does not accurately acknowledge and reflect ucas previous interactions
01:01:49 and reflect ucas previous interactions with bre in relation to its testing processes
01:01:53 processes and makes certain findings which appeared to bre to be inconsistent with other positive feedback that ucas has given to bre in recent months in particular in the july 2020 ucas reports
01:02:06 particular in the july 2020 ucas reports for both certification and testing ucas remarked that it is evident from the samples that audits are robust and of sufficient depth to identify systematic
01:02:17 sufficient depth to identify systematic failings
01:02:18 failings and and are in short and in short are effective the may 21 report now raises concerns about this very area
01:02:28 very area second the may 21 report appears not to acknowledge major changes bre has made of its own volition to bre internal oversight
01:02:37 oversight bre has identified that there were opportunities for improvement with the way its previous compliance and the quality assurance team operated and changed this substantially last year in
01:02:48 changed this substantially last year in terms of both the structure and the people operating it in his february 2021 visit report ucas commented on how well this change had been managed and on the success with which the new approach appeared to be
01:02:59 which the new approach appeared to be operating however the may 21 report highlights the internal audit regime as a specific area for improvement
01:03:10 a specific area for improvement now just pausing there surely it is open to mr ledbeter on a detailed and targeted assessment to report on weaknesses he perceives
01:03:22 to report on weaknesses he perceives notwithstanding any views expressed by a previous assessor yes it is it stands to reason if previous assessments are only sampling
01:03:33 previous assessments are only sampling if something different is sampled mr ledbet is entirely entitled to make criticism if he finds criticism should be made is that right that's that's correct no just continuing with this uh
01:03:46 correct no just continuing with this uh letter
01:03:47 letter just referring you back to um
01:03:51 um yes this is the final paragraph on this page thank you bre is also concerned that the assessment objective as stated in the may 21 report was not to produce
01:04:03 in the may 21 report was not to produce any formal improvement actions or recommendations however the may 21 report in effect concludes that unless five areas for improvement are identified are not
01:04:14 improvement are identified are not rectified by the next routine assessment which is currently scheduled for the fifth of july less than five weeks away there may be grounds for either partial or full suspension this approach has not afforded bre with
01:04:26 this approach has not afforded bre with the usual opportunity to be appraised of major and minor non-conformities identified and to be afforded a timeline for rectification this has come as a particular surprise to bre given the stated objective of the
01:04:39 to bre given the stated objective of the assessment and newcastle's previous interactions with bre on a number of the issues addressed in the may 2001 report
01:04:49 now it appears certainly from the evidence of
01:04:53 of mr ledbeter that that the bre might be right that there was at least some sort of statement that no improvement actions were to be raised does that appear to be the case to you
01:05:06 does that appear to be the case to you um yes i'm assuming they've taken that from the report it looks like they've quoted it from the yes
01:05:12 yes and i think the bre is saying that they've not been given time to address any failings that mr ledbetter has raised is that is that your understanding
01:05:24 your understanding yes
01:05:25 yes um
01:05:27 um isn't it open to an assessor on an extra visit or a need or any visit to indicate that immediate change is needed yes so
01:05:37 so in if a circumstance is so serious an assessor can say this must be rectified now you will be sanctioned now is that that's possible isn't it yes it is now isn't that
01:05:48 is now isn't that really at least possibly what's happened here that mr ledbiger has said that in this circumstance the failure was so serious that he expects immediate improvement notwithstanding that in a
01:06:00 improvement notwithstanding that in a normal assessment an improvement action may
01:06:03 may the body may be given a bit of time to rectify the the problem is that is that fair yes and in a normal uh surveillance assessment uh body would normally be
01:06:14 assessment uh body would normally be given about a month unless it's a very significant finding that required a different time scale so
01:06:23 the bre perhaps would you say the bre might be being a bit unreasonable to say that we haven't been given time if indeed mr what mr ledbetter is saying is
01:06:35 indeed mr what mr ledbetter is saying is this is so serious you need to fix this now
01:06:39 now is that are they being a bit unreasonable and they're pushing back on that
01:06:43 that um i think they potentially yes yes do conformity assessment bodies commonly write to ucas in terms like this
01:06:53 not typically no now the events that followed this letter are set out in mr ledbete's witness statement but i will summarize
01:07:04 witness statement but i will summarize unless you particularly wish me to go to it
01:07:06 it he says that on the 10th of june the report was reissued by ucas with some changes that reissued report was sent to the bre
01:07:17 that reissued report was sent to the bre without mr ledbetter seeing it mr ledbeter considered that that report had some inaccuracies and i think he raised his concerns did he raise his
01:07:28 raised his concerns did he raise his concerns directly with you yes he did now senior management decided to withdraw both reports that is mr ledbeter's report and the reissued report
01:07:38 report and i think that was because the next surveillance assessment was about to start and it was decided that mr ledbete's observations would be carried into that next assessment is that is that a
01:07:50 next assessment is that is that a correct statement of the chronology yes it is now i'm just now that i've set out that chronology we'll go back and take a look at some of those steps can we have a look at the reissued
01:08:01 can we have a look at the reissued report briefly it's ucas2011435
01:08:16 and we can see it says it's the extra visit
01:08:20 visit um and if we go down to the bottom towards the middle of the page on the left we see the report was issued version 2 by andy ward and we can see
01:08:31 version 2 by andy ward and we can see that the date of that issue is the 10th of june 2021 can we take a look at the first paragraph on page three please
01:08:44 and it says here this assessment has provided confidence in the competency of the staff that perform the accredited testing and that the test is completed correctly
01:08:57 the test is completed correctly all bre representatives involved in this assessment were cooperative open and honest
01:09:03 honest and responded to requests for documents and information as expediently as possible
01:09:09 possible bre has acknowledged has responded to the feedback and outcome of this assessment in a positive manner and have acknowledged and indeed themselves recognized that there is a timely that
01:09:20 recognized that there is a timely that there is a need for timely commitment of resource to respond to the observations and comments made by ucas and it carries on now i can tell you that paragraph did
01:09:32 i can tell you that paragraph did actually appear in mr ledbete's report but it was at the very end and appears that this report has been restructured uh so that the most positive thing that could be said about bre is at the very
01:09:45 could be said about bre is at the very beginning do you accept that yes can i go to one example of mr leadbeater's comments it's on this page at the bottom of the page
01:09:57 and the yellow is the the original text of this reissued report and it says the assessment covered an historic period and as such has no
01:10:08 historic period and as such has no bearing on the current accreditation of processes in place at bre thus no recommendation of statement with regards to accreditation is to be made at this juncture areas identified as being historically
01:10:21 areas identified as being historically wanting shall be subject to assessment during the surveillance assessment in order to confirm the compliance of the activities with the current requirements of iso
01:10:31 of iso 17025 and ucas accreditation and mr ledbetter's comment is in flu jl comet
01:10:40 jl comet this is fundamentally incorrect the whole of day two of my assessment was based on examination of current bre accreditation processes neither did i make any comment about the
01:10:52 neither did i make any comment about the specific assessment of quote areas identified as being historically wanted as being assessed at the next su assessment now this report we saw
01:11:05 now this report we saw was issued by andy ward and he's the section head of the corporate customer team at ucas isn't he yes he is
01:11:15 yes he is but
01:11:16 but the
01:11:17 the responsible department for assessing the bre was the construction and physics department sam giles department wasn't it
01:11:27 it um
01:11:28 um no that's not not correct the the customer relationship for bre is managed in the corporate customer team so the assessment manager that looks after bre resides in the corporate
01:11:40 after bre resides in the corporate customer team right is that why on this occasion the head of the corporate customer team reissued the assessment report i assume so yes and it sounds like that
01:11:51 i assume so yes and it sounds like that was done without consultation of the lead assessor and technical focus person that's correct would that be usual practice within the within ucas no it wouldn't
01:12:02 within ucas no it wouldn't it's not usual practice just
01:12:05 just looking again at the very bottom of page three
01:12:09 three the original text highlighted in yellow the assessment covered an historic period and as such has no bearing on the current accreditation processes in place at the bre
01:12:21 at the bre and thus no recommendation of statement with regards to accreditation is to be made at this juncture is it fair to say excuse me
01:12:30 excuse me that that is effectively what the bre wanted ucas to say i i don't know whether that's what bre wanted ucas to say well do you accept that this reissued
01:12:42 well do you accept that this reissued version at least as far as we can see here
01:12:45 here materially tones down the criticism of bre
01:12:50 i think the
01:12:53 the substance of the original report has been pulled into this report but it has been changed was this report reissued to appease the bre i don't know
01:13:06 so is that a convenient moment for a break well i'd quite like before we leave are we coming back to this we are coming back to this after the break yes well then i'll be a bit more patient many thanks sir thank you very much yes
01:13:18 many thanks sir thank you very much yes well we're going to have a break now um mr turner we'll resume please at half past 11
01:13:24 past 11 and as i said to you last week please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room thank you very much
01:13:41 thank you very much how fast is that thank you
01:30:54 [Music]
01:31:00 would you ask mr attorney to come back in please okay
01:31:14 all right mrs turner ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes excited thank you mr stoner i want to return to the reissue of this report and just by way of reminder it's at
01:31:25 just by way of reminder it's at ucas2011435
01:31:30 when did you first find out that this report had been reissued um when john ledbeter contacted me after it had been reissued i can't remember
01:31:42 it had been reissued i can't remember the date actually yes but in some time in june yes yes did you read the reissued report at that time yes i did and did you read it as against mr ledbeter's report yes i did
01:31:54 against mr ledbeter's report yes i did and what did you think of the reissued report
01:31:58 report um
01:32:00 um i think my main thought was the the content was not dissimilar um
01:32:06 um but
01:32:06 but things had been reordered and i think the impression it gave was different from the original report in what way different
01:32:15 different in in that i think there had been some confusion over the coverage of the
01:32:21 of the extra assessment in terms of looking at historical records and also looking at current practice and i had some questions around that and i don't think that the second report clarified that
01:32:34 clarified that sorry in what way did the second report not clarify well i think it confused it confused it certainly my reading of it was was was confused as to whether it covered the historic period
01:32:45 period as well as the the current um
01:32:48 um practice
01:32:50 practice yes but the section that we've just seen from this report bottom of page three says it has no bearing on the current accreditation processes in place at bre and from mr ledbet's comment he said
01:33:01 and from mr ledbet's comment he said that is exactly not what i was doing i was looking at both as surely he was entitled to do he the second reports entirely changed what the
01:33:13 what the what the assessment was looking at doesn't it i don't think the second report changed what the assessment was looking at i think it it i think it sought to clarify was my impression
01:33:24 was my impression but my opinion was that it hadn't clarified
01:33:28 clarified it it hadn't clarified that it was not bearing on current accreditation or that it was bearing on current accreditation and that it was right to
01:33:39 accreditation and that it was right to have done so to have considered current accreditation my opinion was that it was right to have considered current practice and this report says exactly the opposite that it wasn't bearing on current accreditation i see
01:33:52 bearing on current accreditation i see who decided that this as far as you know that this report would be reissued as far as i know that was the um the person who issued it yes yeah and
01:34:05 person who issued it yes yeah and from your evidence i've understood that because the first you heard of it was after the reissue you were not personally involved in any discussion no do you know why
01:34:16 why it had been decided by mr ward to reassure this i understand that the following the receipt of the letter from bre
01:34:27 the letter from bre a meeting was held with i believe andy ward sam giles and representatives from bre and this result was produced that this report was
01:34:39 was produced that this report was produced
01:34:40 produced after that meeting
01:34:45 and in that meeting do you understand the bre to have made representations as to
01:34:50 to i suppose their understanding of what the report should cover i'm assuming so and could we take from that that they'd understood that
01:35:01 that the report was to have no bearing on the current accreditation processes in place at bre is that would that be a fair assessment i think that appears to be the case yes
01:35:12 i think that appears to be the case yes do you happen to know who was present uh at that meeting i think we do have a document we might be able to go to it yes i'd go to the document um it would take me a little while to call that document up so i might pause pause on
01:35:25 document up so i might pause pause on that we'll circle back to it
01:35:28 do you know why this report would have been reissued without
01:35:34 without john ledbete's input
01:35:37 input no i don't why would ucas ever issue a report without the input of the technical focus person who had conducted the assessment i think it's more that
01:35:49 i think it's more that not so much in his role as technical focus person because i think we issue a lot of reports without necessarily consulting a technical focused person if they've not been involved in the assessment uh the key for me is is
01:36:01 the key for me is is the it was reissued without the input from the assessment team the person
01:36:07 person and i would i would have expected that to be the case unless it was such a minor
01:36:12 minor yes uh editorial change or discrepancy like that and yes and even then i think we would expect that i would expect that the uh originate the the person who'd written
01:36:23 originate the the person who'd written the original report would at least be aware of that yes
01:36:26 yes um
01:36:27 um would you agree with me that it's a little undermining of ucas's own technical focus person and person who is at the assessment to have reissued a rewritten report without his comments
01:36:42 rewritten report without his comments it could be interpreted that way yes
01:36:47 as i say it might take us a little time to get to the document with that meeting but i'll certainly look into it over lunch before we leave this one can i just ask this um
01:36:59 this um on the face of it there was a clear disagreement between mr ledbitter and mr ward about the substance of the report because we can see what's said in the
01:37:10 because we can see what's said in the yellow passage and we can see mr ledbitter's comment in which he's saying it's fundamentally incorrect
01:37:17 incorrect do you know whether that led to any discussion between them or or do you know how it was resolved um i do know how it was resolved yes um after uh
01:37:28 uh john ledbeta contacted me about this i looked at both reports um spoke to andy ward
01:37:36 andy ward and
01:37:37 and concluded that the second report this report that's displayed here now couldn't stand because it didn't have the support of the lead assessor from that assessment
01:37:48 lead assessor from that assessment um and because the assessment was the annual assessment was pending was was very imminent within the next few weeks
01:37:58 weeks i gave the instruction to withdraw this report
01:38:01 report and carry the issues over until the surveillance visit if the surveillance visit hadn't been imminent then i think we i might have suggested a different course of action
01:38:12 suggested a different course of action that we reverted to the original report but i think there was clearly confusion on the part of bre as to the scope of the assessment and and that seemed that that was my
01:38:23 and and that seemed that that was my decision to to resolve it in that way and did you expect that the next assessment would review both the historical position and the current position yes i did
01:38:34 current position yes i did all right thank you very much thank you
01:38:38 mrs turner the decision was to withdraw both the additional report the the mr ward report as well as mr ledbeter's report
01:38:51 as well as mr ledbeter's report uh wasn't it well i think effectively mr ledbeter's report had been withdrawn when this when when it was reissued with the version that is here if as you say that the june 2021 report
01:39:03 if as you say that the june 2021 report couldn't stand uh
01:39:07 uh why why could not the may 2021 report by mr ledbeter not have stood why did that have to be withdrawn as well i think it because it had already been
01:39:18 i think it because it had already been withdrawn
01:39:19 withdrawn it already been withdrawn with the reissuing of this report so
01:39:26 so as i say i think there were two options that i considered one was to revisit reissuing the original report um recognizing though that it was my
01:39:38 um recognizing though that it was my opinion that there was some confusion because clearly there were non-conformities that were described in the body of the report that weren't reflected as improvement actions
01:39:49 improvement actions and and i could understand why that appeared confusing to bre we couldn't re produce those at this time because the assessment had been completed
01:40:01 assessment had been completed so it seemed sensible because of the forthcoming surveillance to carry it through it was it was only a matter of a few weeks
01:40:09 few weeks and then revisit the whole thing this time ensure that all the findings were recorded as improvement actions
01:40:19 right i think we have actually got certainly a letter to the bre on the 24th of june about that meeting that which i think might be about that meeting can we go to it at ucas304778
01:40:39 and we can see it's from mr ward
01:40:44 and it says further to our meeting on the 24th of june ucas have considered the reports issued for the extra assessment conducted under ucas project number and there's a number
01:40:55 ucas project number and there's a number covering testing of kingspan k15 as we discussed and agreed in the meeting ucas were are formally withdrawing both versions of the report that have been issued to date the
01:41:07 that have been issued to date the reasons for withdrawal lie in an initial lack of clarity of the scope of the assessment and then these subsequent changes which in retrospect have materially altered
01:41:19 in retrospect have materially altered the technical interpretation of the assessment these issues appear evident from the discussion both within our respective organizations and both within and
01:41:31 organizations and both within and between sorry forgive me so i'm going a little word blind discussions both within and between our respective organizations and are clearly exacerbated by concerns that in its
01:41:42 exacerbated by concerns that in its current form there is no mechanism for monitoring the progress of resulting activities due to a decision not to raise improvement actions at the time of the assessment
01:41:55 actions at the time of the assessment and then it goes on rather than produce a further revision and reissue of the report
01:42:00 report it was determined that the best approach for recording the outcomes of the continuation of this extra assessment would be that they are detailed in the report to be provided in support of the scheduled surveillance assessment in
01:42:11 scheduled surveillance assessment in july 20 21. now
01:42:15 now if i can just draw out perhaps two points from that there is
01:42:20 there is it's said that there is a lack of clarity
01:42:23 clarity of scope of the visit isn't it up to ucas to decide what an extra visit can look at and newcast can look at
01:42:34 can look at and newcast can look at anything on a visit can't it yes we can yeah so in a way a lack of clarity for scope
01:42:40 scope is really a non-point isn't it um i think that i would take that as as reflecting what was what was in the reports and i think particularly
01:42:52 particularly in relation to it being an assessment that there was an instruction not to to raise any findings and i think that that is where the scope is confused in my opinion
01:43:05 it certainly was my under my understanding of your evidence was that you weren't sure if the bre were aware of any instruction to not raise an improvement action in this
01:43:17 not raise an improvement action in this report does this indicate that bre was aware
01:43:20 aware that there was no improvement action i think they were made aware in the first certainly in the first report i understand from my memory that that the first report issued by john ledbeter
01:43:33 the first report issued by john ledbeter contained that statement that fought that findings were not recorded
01:43:38 recorded i may be mistaken but that's my memory it certainly is in that report so that that is what i'm referring to uh as far as bre had read that report that report had been issued to them yeah
01:43:49 that report had been issued to them yeah and just on the improvement actions it says here there's no mechanism for monitoring progress but
01:43:57 but i think it was your evidence that if an improvement is needed or is it your evidence that if an improvement is needed ucas can just issue
01:44:08 issue an improvement action report and require improvement at any time isn't it um yes we can
01:44:14 we can but i think this is complicated by the process of normally an improvement action is recorded
01:44:20 recorded um
01:44:22 um with the with the knowledge of the organization because an improvement action is written as a statement of fact that we would seek acknowledgement that not that that is a non-conformity but
01:44:33 not that that is a non-conformity but that the statement of fact is correct and because they had not been recorded at that first assessment in that way it would have made that difficult now as i say i think
01:44:44 now as i say i think the remedy for this would have been different had their surveillance visit not been imminent i think in that case we would have sought to record the findings as
01:44:56 sought to record the findings as improvement actions and issue them to bre yes and effectively that's what happened as i understand it at the assessment that took place shortly after this letter was issued
01:45:07 shortly after this letter was issued yes but it had had that not been imminent it was entirely possible for ucas to have done it it is not a case that
01:45:15 that ucas would be fed it would be not allowed to raise an improvement action at any time is it no that's that's correct and was it your decision to
01:45:26 and was it your decision to step effectively stand these potential improvement actions over to the next surveillance yes it was and i think you've given us the the why on that it was largely a
01:45:38 the the why on that it was largely a matter of timing was it it was timing um i discussed it with um with andy ward with um
01:45:47 with um john ledbeter and with also with our operations director and it seemed to be the
01:45:52 the the the neatest solution to what clearly had been you know at something which which was unfortunate in terms of the way that the information had been presented but
01:46:03 the information had been presented but the material facts from the original report i think were were not altered in the uh substantially altered in the second report so they had that bre had had sight of those yes and
01:46:16 that bre had had sight of those yes and if i were to say that
01:46:19 that the people in receipt of this letter
01:46:23 letter may well have included tanya alexander and
01:46:28 and andrew herbert of the bre would with that accord with your understanding insofar as you know we'd have to check the um i would assume that this was sent
01:46:40 i would assume that this was sent via email and copied to relevant people at bre yes
01:46:46 yes certainly um
01:46:49 that seems to be the suggestion if necessary i can confirm that can we turn now
01:46:56 now unless the panel has further questions on that can we turn now to the surveillance at 2021
01:47:04 the next routine surveillance was as we've already identified very shortly after in a few days in july and august of last year and
01:47:15 and as your evidence is and as mr ledbeter tells us the issues from the may and june reports were indeed raised again and mr ledbeter raised 30 improvement
01:47:28 and mr ledbeter raised 30 improvement actions
01:47:29 actions just in his area from that surveillance can we go to his witness statement at page 21 that's ucass2011426
01:47:40 page 21.
01:47:48 at paragraph 19.3
01:47:52 he says where the follow-up of any issue resulting from evidence made public by the by bre at the grenfell inquiry was necessary
01:48:03 at the grenfell inquiry was necessary these were considered as part of the normal assessment process where there was a need to refer to any specific pieces of evidence discussions took place with the bre head
01:48:15 discussions took place with the bre head of passive fire and full consideration and respect given to ensuring that bre did not breach their obligation not to discuss or comment upon matters
01:48:27 not to discuss or comment upon matters not in the public domain um can you first help us with what mr ledbetter means by follow-up of any issue resulting from evidence made public by bre at the
01:48:40 from evidence made public by bre at the grenfell inquiry yes the
01:48:44 yes the visit plan for this annual surveillance assessment included visiting
01:48:54 visiting some of the issues that had arisen when bre gave evidence to this inquiry earlier in the year so
01:49:03 so we were mindful to having followed that evidence
01:49:07 evidence where there had been reference to following procedures records and so on that was included in within the scope of the surveillance assessment
01:49:19 the scope of the surveillance assessment and that's recorded on the assessment plan yes
01:49:25 plan yes now he says full consideration and respect given to ensuring that bre did not breach their obligation not to discuss or comment
01:49:36 obligation not to discuss or comment on matters not in the public domain do you know what obligation [Music]
01:49:44 [Music] bre would be under not to discuss matters not in the public domain no i don't does this mean to you that the bre did not tell ucas
01:49:57 that the bre did not tell ucas about what they're doing or perhaps that the bre did tell ucas but
01:50:03 but respect was given such that ucas did not record
01:50:06 record actions
01:50:07 actions um
01:50:08 um no i don't i don't understand that to be the case i think um but but i am this is this is just my perhaps opinion of these words uh it was more i think we have been mindful to
01:50:20 more i think we have been mindful to ensure that nothing we do sort of
01:50:25 sort of conflicts with the matters that are the subject of this inquiry but we recognize that you know we need to pursue
01:50:34 to pursue lines of question assessment of activities which fall within the scope of our of of our accreditation so there is a i think perhaps this is um
01:50:46 so there is a i think perhaps this is um john's attempt to say he was mindful of that but
01:50:49 that but that's just my impression he says not to discuss or comment on matters not in the public domain i mean
01:50:59 i mean if
01:51:00 if it's the case that the bre
01:51:03 the bre didn't tell you cass about matters not in the public domain doesn't it follow that ucas cannot be sure what the bre is doing to its full extent
01:51:15 extent but
01:51:15 but on the other hand if you didn't record matters not in the public domain there seems to be no particularly good reason for ucas not making a proper formal record as part of its
01:51:26 formal record as part of its accreditation activities do you
01:51:29 do you is there some proposition i've missed on that
01:51:33 that no i don't i don't think so i think if if it would be wrong if the impression from this
01:51:40 from this statement was that we would only consider matters that were in the public domain
01:51:45 domain because that's not the case because we're looking at bre's records um which which may or may not be in the public domain does it then follow that my second proposition is right that ucas would as
01:51:58 proposition is right that ucas would as part of discharging your your duties ucas would be looking at matters not in the public domain but
01:52:07 but there was
01:52:09 there was some respect given such that it wasn't recorded
01:52:15 i don't think it says that well it says full consideration and respect given to ensuring that bre did not breach their obligation not to discuss or comment
01:52:26 not to discuss or comment upon matters not in the public domain i confess i i struggle to understand myself
01:52:33 myself what that means i'm just asking for some help on
01:52:37 help on what what it can mean and and if it is entirely consistent with ucas role as the national accreditation body
01:52:48 um i i don't know um i don't i i don't i don't think it would be correct to [Music]
01:52:57 [Music] to read from this that we would not comment on matters that are not in the public domain i think there is evidence in the report from the assessment
01:53:08 from the assessment to the to the contrary that we have that we we will comment on uh on on matters i think we the the point and certainly we have had the discussion
01:53:19 the discussion internally that we need to be mindful of the
01:53:23 the scope of the inquiry what does being mindful of the scope of the inquiry in terms of well to make sure that there's no action that we take that would would cause a difficulty
01:53:34 take that would would cause a difficulty um sorry a difficulty to whom difficulty to the to the inquiry and so is it your evidence that ucas would absolutely collect
01:53:46 ucas would absolutely collect and comment on matters with the bre that are not in the public domain yes
01:53:55 excuse me i have just one topic remaining on the on the bre can we go to ucas2011306
01:54:13 these are dated the 2nd of september it's a set of minutes for an account meeting between the bre and ucas
01:54:22 and ucas and you're not there um i i presume it is not your role to be at an account uh management meeting but i would like your view on just one very short point are you aware
01:54:34 very short point are you aware that bre and ucas have an account management meeting from time to time yes yes i am and they've had those for some time i i understand i understand that's the case yes does
01:54:46 i understand that's the case yes does ucas have regular account meetings with other conformity assessment bodies we do particularly the large the larger organizations that have and by large i mean in terms of the scope of
01:54:57 mean in terms of the scope of accreditation yes multiple standards lots of conformity assessment activities and as we saw on thursday the bre has a very extensive schedule of accreditation so there's a lot of things that are
01:55:08 so there's a lot of things that are accredited yes can we go to the bottom of page two please
01:55:13 please at the very bottom it's under item six it says assessments extra assessments and there's a number there which ends in 06220202
01:55:26 and the item is grenfell bre certification assessment has been placed on hold now i believe that pertains not to the bre as a testing body
01:55:39 not to the bre as a testing body but to the bre as a certification body under
01:55:43 under iso
01:55:44 iso 1170 is 65. so it's a little out with exactly what we've been talking about does that some does that appear to you to be the case yes it does can we now just go to
01:55:55 yes it does can we now just go to ucas2011309
01:56:04 and at page 2
01:56:08 under item 6
01:56:12 item 6 we see that that item has changed to extra assessments g bre certification um
01:56:20 um now the reason that that might have changed might well be set out in an email which is at ucas2011384
01:56:34 and at the bottom of page one we can see an email from tanya alexander and it's 12th of october timed 12 43 now over the page
01:56:46 now over the page we can see so it was to nikki mckinney at ucas and over the page the fourth paragraph down i have some questions point one
01:56:57 point one in black
01:56:58 in black miss alexander says agenda point 6.1 i don't do not recall this being on an agenda in recent times can the reference to grenfell please be
01:57:09 can the reference to grenfell please be removed and it appears that ms mckinney has responded in blue this has been on the agenda for many months
01:57:17 months as it is
01:57:19 as it is as it is a live project on our system i'm unable to remove it currently but i have replaced grenfell with g as a compromise can you help us with why ucas would
01:57:31 can you help us with why ucas would remove the word grenfell from
01:57:35 from a long-standing agenda item i don't know
01:57:43 very well can we go to ucas2011331
01:57:53 now this appears to be an internal document and we believe it to be dated around the 21st of october 2021 that is our assessment of the date it
01:58:04 that is our assessment of the date it may that may not be correct but
01:58:07 but in any event if we start at the bottom of the first page we can see there's a table
01:58:14 table and it's called bre follow-up questions the second column is headed aspect to follow up with the bre and it looks like there are
01:58:26 and it looks like there are some numbered issues going down the down the page
01:58:29 the page and
01:58:30 and they're recorded in that cell there and then the next column along it looks like there are some comments
01:58:39 comments if we just go to page two
01:58:43 two we can see that there's some comment bubbles
01:58:45 bubbles there's a purple one and it's lt is that you is that you commenting on this document yes it is can we take from that that you're very familiar with this document
01:58:56 document i've seen this document yes and was i approximately right that it was in october 2021 or thereabouts that it was produced um
01:59:06 not uh
01:59:09 uh no i don't think so i think the document was produced um the questions primarily on the left-hand side
01:59:17 side had arisen from viewing the evidence that bre gave at this inquiry in
01:59:24 in february march spring march yes last year yes and so this is perhaps a living document upon which people comment and keep up to date with with that yes as i as i understand it the objective was
01:59:35 as i understand it the objective was well obviously evidence had been heard at this inquiry that we may may or may not have been aware of in conjunction with other evidence so not just from bre
01:59:46 not just from bre so where there were lines of inquiry that we wanted to follow up that's that's helpful thank you can we go to the first page of this document
01:59:58 of this document and at the top there's a summary can you help us with who is to the best of your knowledge who's writing in black here i'm not sure
02:00:09 i'm not sure um
02:00:10 um and there's also some text in a bluey purpley color or say blue do you know who that might be
02:00:21 no it's possibly [Music]
02:00:24 [Music] possibly john ledbeter but i'm not sure yes well we we probably do have the records of that so yes uh if it becomes important we may seek those uh we'll just say the writer
02:00:35 seek those uh we'll just say the writer in blue and not speculate now it says at the top paul morrell wants us to be able to show that we have taken measure to prevent recurrence of such issues and
02:00:46 prevent recurrence of such issues and some dots
02:00:47 some dots and then the writer in blue says we have i believe raised appropriate improvement actions and requested internal audit regime is strengthened and evidenced to date suggests this has
02:01:00 and evidenced to date suggests this has been taken on board i suppose the only future assessments i suppose forgive me i suppose only future assessments will determine if the measures taken have been successful
02:01:11 measures taken have been successful is there any merit in an additional assessment before the next annual surveillance or an unannounced assessment is it pausing there is that paul morrell who recently conducted a review for the
02:01:23 who recently conducted a review for the government on construction product testing
02:01:27 testing i would assume so yes and i understand he was the government's chief construction advisor in 2009 2012 is that your understanding yes
02:01:38 can i just draw attention to the third paragraph
02:01:42 paragraph it says
02:01:44 it says what's our assessment of what they were doing then based on what we have assessed now and in may
02:01:51 in may the writer in blue says in my opinion based on my extraordinary assessment and the 2021 surveillance assessment there is evidence that there
02:02:02 assessment there is evidence that there would have been a lack of compliance with the requirements of iso 170 25 at the time of the bs-8414 tests subject to the gf i presume gwenfold
02:02:14 subject to the gf i presume gwenfold tower inquiry while they appear to have performed the test correctly the preparation of the reports
02:02:22 reports sample handling build details test equipment records etc would have been lacking
02:02:32 now so we take from the response in blue in that first paragraph that ucas
02:02:40 that ucas was continuing to assess the bre by its usual process raising improvement actions and monitoring and assessing if they were successful yes um but the person in writing blue says
02:02:51 um but the person in writing blue says he doesn't consider that there were robust procedures in the past and that there would have been a lack of compliance at the time of the bs 841 tests that the panel is considered in
02:03:03 tests that the panel is considered in this inquiry now
02:03:05 now that that someone might say that that's evidence of change going forward but
02:03:11 but that there's not a great deal of scrutiny has to change in the past and what must be done about that would you accept that
02:03:19 um i think they're different things so if if the if there's evidence of issues in the past
02:03:28 past all we can do now is ensure that they're fixed and don't recur but is
02:03:33 but is previous non-compliance not relevant no previous non-compliance is relevant to understand whether whether they were meeting the requirements at the time is very
02:03:44 requirements at the time is very relevant there's a clear finding from at least mr ledbeter and it appears the person writing in blue that the bre were not meeting the requirements in the past is it enough to say
02:03:55 is it enough to say well they are now and accreditation carries on as usual
02:04:03 um in in terms of imposing a sanction based on previous non-conformity if the problem has been fixed that's generally not a practice that
02:04:15 that's generally not a practice that that we would we would take in terms of some form of punitive measure because if accreditation is removed it will be reinstated when compliance is
02:04:28 reinstated when compliance is reinstated so if if they're complying now
02:04:31 now a sanction wouldn't necessarily be appropriate well i certainly appreciate the point of not
02:04:38 not not issuing punitive measures and removing accreditation for a body that is currently performing but is there not
02:04:46 there not some sort of issue by not noting or somehow publicly recording that in the past ucas
02:04:56 ucas didn't have or might not have had full confidence of the bre on the basis of material uncovered now what what do you mean by recording sorry
02:05:07 what what do you mean by recording sorry well is there not some way of recording i think it was your evidence on thursday to say you might if there were an issue of public safety that might be something that ucas might publish on a
02:05:19 something that ucas might publish on a website or or somehow record so that people could understand that is that not something that would be appropriate in these circumstances i think what is what is more appropriate
02:05:31 i think what is what is more appropriate is that the body themselves takes action to ensure that where those results have been issued if they if if they're called into doubt that the relevant parties
02:05:42 parties that would have received those results are aware of that i see so it is that is something sorry forgive me carry on that that has to be the primary um
02:05:53 um the action that is something that the body
02:05:56 body takes action on yes and is that something that ucas ensures the body takes action on yes where it's recorded yes um
02:06:05 um i'm moving now to talk about the bba i just want to check with members of the panel there's nothing further on well can i just ask one thing we've been a bit quiet about identifying the writer in blue but i notice in the second
02:06:17 in blue but i notice in the second paragraph
02:06:19 paragraph he he or she concludes by saying otherwise i would not have raised the 30 plus ias do you know who raised 30 plus ias that's why i believe
02:06:30 raised 30 plus ias that's why i believe it's john ledbeta's statement so because he raised 30 and i think the comments are consistent with
02:06:37 with the information he gathered during the assessment but we can confirm that that's what i'd inferred as well but um if we know who the writer was it's more useful than if we don't yes so thank you
02:06:49 useful than if we don't yes so thank you thank you very much sir
02:06:52 as i said i'm going to turn now to ucas's accreditation of the british board of agreement or i'll say the bba as we have been and it's right isn't it that ucas
02:07:03 and it's right isn't it that ucas accredited the bba under a number of different standards so the bba was accredited to do testing work under iso 17025
02:07:14 under iso 17025 and also inspection work under iso 170 20 and 21 is that your understanding yes it is but i'm going to focus as i say on the bba's accreditation for
02:07:26 say on the bba's accreditation for product certification that is to the iso 1765 standard can we just go to that at bba 40
02:07:35 bba 40 1920
02:07:48 sorry bsi was that my error bsi four zeros 1920. that was indeed my error
02:07:58 thank you it's called conformity assessment requirements for bodies certifying products processes and services and this would apply to bodies like the bba in their
02:08:10 apply to bodies like the bba in their certification work wouldn't it yes it does can we briefly go to the contents page at page six
02:08:18 and we see the sorts of things this covers section five we can see structural requirements like organizational structure and top management 5.2 we see mechanisms for mechanism for
02:08:30 5.2 we see mechanisms for mechanism for safeguarding impartiality and at section 6 we see resource requirements and to an extent this these contents rather follow
02:08:41 rather follow the iso 170 25 standard doesn't it yes but at section 7 we see process requirements and we see for example
02:08:52 requirements and we see for example 7.2 application 7.4 evaluation 7.5 review 7.6
02:09:01 7.6 certification decision so these are process requirements relevant to product certification activities or product services processes certification aren't they yes they are and again these are
02:09:15 they yes they are and again these are all the areas that ucas will consider when assessing the bba for
02:09:21 for product certification aren't they yes now this version as we can see from the front was published at published in 2012
02:09:32 published in 2012 now there we might see references from time to time to standards called en 45011
02:09:39 45011 and iso guide 65. were those the predecessor standards to iso
02:09:46 iso 17065 yes they were yeah and i'll refer to the predecessor standards if they were applicable at the time but just so we understand it's a different number but it's effectively the same topic coverage
02:09:58 effectively the same topic coverage isn't it yes it is can we go to an example of the bba's accreditation schedule at ucas 301450
02:10:10 and this is issue number 20 and it's dated the 27th of july 2015. we can see on the left it has ucas product certification logo and we see reference
02:10:21 certification logo and we see reference to the
02:10:22 to the 17065 standard if we go to page 2 this has a list of some of the areas in which the bba was accredited
02:10:34 accredited towards we see at the top it has details of accreditation on the left a product and there is a list of 13 different types of product
02:10:45 list of 13 different types of product and on the right we see it says standard and it refers to bba technical specifications 001 to 0013 and bba document
02:10:56 document bba001 we'll come to discuss those in a moment but the simple question is does that mean that the bba was accredited to issue certificates for a
02:11:07 accredited to issue certificates for a number of products including those listed on the left yes it does i'm going to call this the bba's aggramar certificate scheme there are a number of other schemes for example
02:11:20 number of other schemes for example micro generation product certificate or certification of installers and those sorts of things but for these for these 13 areas i will call that the agromont certificate scheme if that's
02:11:31 agromont certificate scheme if that's understood yes
02:11:34 yes the ucas um
02:11:37 when newcast assesses the bba it's looking across all of those schemes isn't it
02:11:43 isn't it yes
02:11:44 yes can we return to the accreditation process policy acc 1000 at ucas2011247
02:12:00 and can we go to page 35 please
02:12:05 and again we see a table which looks very familiar and it's the assessment coverage requirements but in this case we can see in the top blue the top row which is dark blue that it's for iso
02:12:17 which is dark blue that it's for iso 17065
02:12:19 17065 and again in the light blue row we can see that it's for the different points can i draw your attention to activities the third row along
02:12:30 the third row along at initial assessment we see in that first field we see a technical review of all schemes sufficient witnessed assessments to
02:12:43 sufficient witnessed assessments to provide confidence in cb's conformity body's competence to certify the conformance of the entire scope of products
02:12:52 products may include testing inspection of product processes or factory process control
02:12:58 control then in the next field under surveillance we see that the coverage has to be technical review of all schemes at least once between initial assessment or reassessment and the next
02:13:09 assessment or reassessment and the next reassessment more frequent for safety critical schemes
02:13:14 schemes and in the reassessment column it says technical review of all schemes has the conformity body confirmed that certification schemes remain fit for purpose
02:13:26 remain fit for purpose and then just to the final part of that sufficient witnessed assessments to provide confidence in the cb's ongoing competence to certify now we saw just now that the schedule of
02:13:38 now we saw just now that the schedule of accreditation for the agreement certificate scheme had the 13 technical specifications to the best of your knowledge when
02:13:50 when this policy refers to technical review of all schemes is that is the agroman certificate scheme a single scheme you don't look at all 13 as separate
02:14:01 you don't look at all 13 as separate schemes is that would that be right um in accordance with the definition of 17065 they would be considered to be individual schemes but we would look at agramont as a whole
02:14:13 agramont as a whole because of the process being being similar i see so this is a situation where an assessment of say the floor product a gramon scheme
02:14:25 the floor product a gramon scheme process
02:14:26 process if that's robust that can be attributed to the cladding product process
02:14:33 if the process is the same then we'll look at the process covering maybe multiple products but this also needs to be looked in conjunction with their other
02:14:44 conjunction with their other accredited activities on their product um certification scope because they've also got product standards and they've they're a um an approved body um for the construction products
02:14:56 um for the construction products regulations and there is overlap in in some of the elements and the competencies for evaluating products yes across the agramond scheme as well as
02:15:07 across the agramond scheme as well as the the other areas yes would i be right to say that under the aggramar certificate scheme the assessor will take samples of certificates projects done on
02:15:19 certificates projects done on certificates and assess that work done on it on them is that is that yes that's correct and it was a simple way of putting it and that sample might be taken from any of the 13
02:15:30 might be taken from any of the 13 technical specifications is that right yes
02:15:34 yes does that mean that in that sample there may not be assessed
02:15:40 assessed uh a cladding product if one is just looking narrowly at the agramont certification scheme from from the sample there is that potential
02:15:50 potential yes but they are as i said before in terms of the definition of a scheme each of the each of the products are effectively a scheme so it would it's likely that the
02:16:03 so it would it's likely that the um the assessment plan will take that into account we won't look at repeating things that don't um
02:16:11 um highlight any additional competence but the competence across the different products
02:16:16 products which is a is a quite an important competence needs to be an important competence needs to be examined but that may also be satisfied
02:16:27 examined but that may also be satisfied by looking at their other activities this is not just true for bba this would be for any other certification body where they've got multiple schemes um some
02:16:38 they've got multiple schemes um some product evaluation that falls under the construction products regulation yeah if there isn't a scheme specifically about cladding products
02:16:50 cladding products does it not follow that that cladding products should be more more of a focus for the agramont scheme assessment um
02:17:02 assessment um potentially yes just returning to the acc matrix this is still on ucas2011247 page 35 i think it's still up
02:17:13 page 35 i think it's still up still in the activities road just to remind you it said under surveillance more frequent for safety critical schemes before the grenfell tower fire was the
02:17:25 before the grenfell tower fire was the agramont certification scheme a safety critical scheme um
02:17:33 i i don't i don't know i don't know whether that would have been classified in the mind of the assessment manager as a safety critical scheme how does ucas define safety critical schemes
02:17:44 critical schemes um i think that's a good that's a good question i think there is a probably a degree of
02:17:51 potential subjectivity in that i think it will depend on the the on on the scheme i think what what this is saying is take a risk based approach would be my is my interpretation of that
02:18:03 would be my is my interpretation of that uh i haven't found a definition for which is
02:18:07 which is um
02:18:08 um which is somewhat odd in ucas documents to be frank um how how do ucas employees know what a safety critical scheme is if it's
02:18:19 what a safety critical scheme is if it's not
02:18:20 not defined or if it is as you say a little bit subjective or a degree of subjectivity applies i think they would use their professional judgment based on their own expertise and understanding of the
02:18:32 expertise and understanding of the of the scheme and in discussion with the assessors who will also have the relevant expertise for that scheme okay we have a witness statement from
02:18:44 witness statement from carrie randall not just pausing to
02:18:48 to tell us who he is he's an assessor at ucas now isn't he he's an assessment manager yes yes a lead assessor and a technical assessor at the moment
02:18:59 at the moment yes his job role is a is an assessment manager he may act as a lead assessor or a technical assessor i see until may 2012
02:19:10 until may 2012 he was an employee of the bba is that is that right yes as i understand and he worked in product certification in that role yes as i i understand that's the case and he joined ucas in
02:19:21 that's the case and he joined ucas in 2012 and since joining newcast he's worked as an assessor for organizations like the bre and warrington fire hasn't he yes yeah and
02:19:32 and that assessment work would it be fair to say that
02:19:35 say that he
02:19:36 he it certainly includes and perhaps focuses on product certification is that right yes that's correct now we asked mr randall uh how often the agreement scheme
02:19:47 agreement scheme was assessed over the years and i think we asked since 2006 can we go to his witness statement at page 13 that's ucass2011424
02:20:02 page 13 paragraph 17.2 and he says i reviewed ucas records and noted the following as examples of when the agramont certificate scheme had been
02:20:14 the agramont certificate scheme had been assessed during surveillance assessments 2008
02:20:18 2008 records show the bba scheme was assessed but not specifically cladding 2009 records show the agreement certificate was a theorem certificate scheme was included
02:20:30 scheme was included and cladding was assessed 2010
02:20:34 2010 agramont's scheme was included during a surveillance visit but not specifically cladding
02:20:40 cladding 2015
02:20:42 2015 agramont certificate scheme was included during a surveillance visit but not specifically cladding 2016 agramont certificate scheme was included during a
02:20:53 certificate scheme was included during a surveillance visit but not specifically cladding
02:20:57 cladding now
02:20:58 now that means that on mr randall's research and applying his expertise that in the nine years between 2006 and the fire in 2017
02:21:09 fire in 2017 the agreement certificate program was assessed i think five times doesn't it yes and it appears not to have been assessed at all between 2010 and 2015.
02:21:23 between 2010 and 2015. is my analysis right on that i think that's that's certainly what's indicated in the records well i can tell you that in 2012 there was a reassessment
02:21:35 there was a reassessment so the agramont scheme really should have been assessed at that point shouldn't it yes can you account for why ucas did not assess the scheme for those four years
02:21:46 assess the scheme for those four years no i can't now looking at this list from mr randall in the nine years before the fire
02:21:52 fire ucas assessed the bba's work on cladding in once in 2009. that that's i've read that right haven't i
02:22:03 i that's how i read it yet yeah and in fact it so happens that the 2009 assessment was on mr randall's own project
02:22:12 project were you aware of that
02:22:16 [Music]
02:22:21 i can't remember well we can actually see it if you like if we go to ucas 40586
02:22:33 we can see this is the assessment report it's a surveillance we can see the date 12th of may 2009 was the um plan and if we go to page five
02:22:50 there's a table at the bottom and the first line of the table certification scope bba agreement certificate external wall cladding we can see the product reference there and
02:23:01 can see the product reference there and the certificate number and we see covering the initial evaluation of product and production and certificate issue with carrie randall where the certification decision was
02:23:12 where the certification decision was made by brian chamberlain so that tells us that the one time that ucas looked at
02:23:23 looked at bba's work on a cladding bba aggramar certificate was in fact mr randall's own work doesn't it yes that appears to be the case yeah
02:23:35 now we saw earlier reference to bba001
02:23:40 bba001 and technical specification 0012 which is the cladding product
02:23:48 mr albon is the chief scientific officer of the bba and he explained in his second witness statement what technical specifications mean just might be helpful to go to that can we go to
02:24:01 helpful to go to that can we go to bba 3010723
02:24:11 at page nine please
02:24:17 paragraph 29 he says the technical specifications are not specifications as the term is commonly understood but rather a series of product types each of which is a
02:24:30 of product types each of which is a defined material this allows the bba to categorize the products for which certificates are issued
02:24:37 issued acm products are included within the schedule they fall under the product type cladding which is defined as a relatively lightweight material used to cover the exterior of a building
02:24:48 cover the exterior of a building structure often a framed structure an external vertical or near-vertical non-load-bearing covering to a structure now to see how
02:25:00 now to see how that is applied can we go to mr randall's witness statement ucas2011424
02:25:08 at page 11.
02:25:14 and paragraph 14.2
02:25:18 he says under the bba's product certification scheme the bba record their assessment requirements within the certification contract documentation in the contract
02:25:30 contract documentation in the contract appendix or within a document called an assessment program the scheme is managed so that products of the same type follow the same assessment as those for the first certificate of that product type the
02:25:42 certificate of that product type the first certificates are referred to as leader certificates and the other certificates issued are called follower certificates i can have the next paragraph up please 14.3
02:25:53 paragraph up please 14.3 thank you an organization that is interested in certification applies to the bba by completing an application form detailing the product and intended use
02:26:02 use the bba have an application review process which use which i think is used to ensure an assessment can be undertaken to identify the relevant leader certificate
02:26:14 leader certificate or identify if a new leader certificate is required the application review process includes identification of resources that will carry out the assessment
02:26:25 carry out the assessment now my understanding if i can perhaps put that into maybe simpler terms my understanding is that what the bba do is identify a product
02:26:37 product and identify that it is within their technical specifications then identify a leader certificate for that product which will be the first certificate of its type
02:26:49 its type and then follow the process that's been employed to create that leader certificate and that will include identifying competent staff to create to do that review work and
02:27:01 to create to do that review work and if indicated issue that certificate to the best of your knowledge is that what you understand the process to be yes it is
02:27:10 yes it is now based on mr alban's evidence mr randall's evidence it seems there's no particular documentation which sets out the process for certifying say cladding products
02:27:21 for certifying say cladding products specifically they just follow the leader is that your understanding that is my understanding yes now mr randall said that the assessment requirements recorded were
02:27:32 assessment requirements recorded were recorded in the contract documentation can i take us to an example of that vba 408042
02:27:48 this is the technical file for the initial certification of the reynabond acm cladding product back in 2008 at page 11
02:27:59 at page 11 we can see the certification we see the assessment program sheet now the third row it says safety 4.1
02:28:11 it says safety 4.1 the next column at the bottom it says fire behavior under fire the next column along says s3 i believe that is the section of the vba that will handle that that
02:28:24 of the vba that will handle that that point
02:28:25 point and then in the column on the far right which is comments assumptions equipment and external resource cost it says consult bmh
02:28:36 it says consult bmh now we believe that refers to excuse me that refers to brian haynes who was a technical manager at the bba so that is the assessment program sheet
02:28:51 so that is the assessment program sheet that was attached to the contract for the initial reynabond certification do you agree that this contains sparse information
02:29:03 information about how
02:29:04 about how behavior under fire will be
02:29:08 will be analyzed and how that work will be carried out yes i do there's nothing in here to say what needs to be considered when considering behavior under fire is there
02:29:20 there doesn't appear to be the case it doesn't say how the bba will make sure its analysis is correct applicable to the product in use or tells the reader important information
02:29:31 important information about the products behavior and fire does
02:29:35 i would it with you yeah as far as we can see there's no centrally controlled document that's kept up to date and disseminated throughout the bba that sets out exactly what a project
02:29:46 that sets out exactly what a project manager is supposed to consider when certifying a cladding product for fire performance without such a document
02:29:57 without such a document how can the bba know that its project managers are following a robust up-to-date process with the proper technical inputs i think that's difficult to tell
02:30:10 i think that's difficult to tell and if it's difficult to tell how can ucas assess whether an individual project manager has been following a robust and technically correct certification
02:30:21 technically correct certification product process for a cladding product
02:30:26 i think you could only tell that through the assessment and the discussion with the project manager to see what processes they do follow but if one is assessing a project manager like carrie randall who presumably knows this very
02:30:39 randall who presumably knows this very well and is very good at it that's one thing but how can ucas know that that process is being replicated across all of the many project managers who may be looking at cladding projects
02:30:51 be looking at cladding projects i think in in the absence of a document that describes that or even if there was a document you'd have to we'd have to look at the records from the different um certification
02:31:02 certification exercises that have been carried out but we've looked at the records and on mr randall's own evidence he says only one cladding product a project his own
02:31:13 project his own has in fact been assessed how can you cast be sure that a correct and robust certification process is being replicated across the organization in those circumstances
02:31:26 organization in those circumstances from from this information it would appear that that would be difficult to do isn't that all the more important when ucas is only sampling the agramont technical specifications during
02:31:37 technical specifications during assessment and even then only sampling a few certificates within them yes but i would also say we have to look at what other activities
02:31:49 we have to look at what other activities were included in the assessment as some of those competencies will also be relevant to to the scope of this work very well
02:31:58 very well now
02:31:59 now after the fire is it fair to say that ucas was interested in whether any of the products used on grenfell tower had been certified or
02:32:10 grenfell tower had been certified or tested by a ucas accredited body yes and it's correct to say i think that ucas quickly identified rayna bond 55 pe cladding panels as having a bba aggramar
02:32:22 cladding panels as having a bba aggramar certificate yes can we go to arc50687
02:32:38 this is the bba certificate zero eight four five one zero we can see at the bottom that it's was dated
02:32:47 was dated 14th of january 2008 and on the front at the top of the screen now we can see key factors assessed
02:32:55 assessed and third paragraph down behavior in relation to fire and there are some statements made can we now just look at page five
02:33:05 section six we see behavior in relation to fire and there are a number of statements made
02:33:13 made in your
02:33:14 in your normal course of work you'd be very unlikely to see the certificate wouldn't you yes
02:33:21 you yes but you're broadly familiar now with it aren't you yes i am i'm going to call that the rainer bond certificate and just to give you an overview of the order of events that i'd like to talk
02:33:32 order of events that i'd like to talk about
02:33:33 about the ucas ceo at the time was paul stennett and he asked ucas to assess the vba
02:33:40 vba with regards to his work on with regards to its work on the rainer bond certificate is that right i understand that yes and ucas planned an extra visit and that was to take place
02:33:52 extra visit and that was to take place on the 12th of july 2017 wasn't it yes but before that visit occurred on the 4th of july ucas received a complaint and that was from a bba
02:34:03 complaint and that was from a bba employee
02:34:05 employee and or from a then bba employee and i'll call him the whistleblower are you aware of that event yes i am and there were a number of exchanges between ucas and the whistleblower in july and in august both
02:34:17 whistleblower in july and in august both before and after the uh the visit in july is that right yes that's correct then the extra visit went ahead it was on the 12th of july
02:34:28 ahead it was on the 12th of july um at that visit it was decided that there would be a further extra visit to take place in august so two visits one in july and one in august is that right yes i'm not sure whether the second
02:34:40 yes i'm not sure whether the second extra visit decision was made at the or shortly after the july visit yes but in any event that extra visit was on the 15th of august 2017 is that right
02:34:53 the 15th of august 2017 is that right yes that's correct now just going back to the beginning of that chronology why did ucas decide to conduct the extra visit of the bba what was
02:35:05 the extra visit of the bba what was ucas's concern um
02:35:09 um as i understand it it was it
02:35:13 it was it immediately after the fire we were concerned whether any accredited organization had been involved in any of the products and
02:35:22 and we
02:35:23 we initiated a number of extra visits to all of the um or certainly all of those that we believed may have had may have had a role and obviously information was emerging all the time yes so not just
02:35:35 emerging all the time yes so not just bba bre happened to have their surveillance visit around that time anyway yes um so i i think that that that was the reason behind yeah and x over as well was obsessed at this
02:35:47 and x over as well was obsessed at this time as well yes
02:35:51 what was ucas's concern particularly
02:35:56 um i don't think we necessarily had a particular concern but we wanted to know what had happened um what the involvement was and clearly to
02:36:08 to to ensure that the organizations um if they had been involved to look at the work
02:36:15 work any relevant work i follow
02:36:18 i follow can we go to the first letter which is 4th of july 2017. i'm afraid it is quite long but i'll take you to a few passages can we go to ucas
02:36:31 passages can we go to ucas three zeroes one three eight two and can we go to page two of that please
02:36:41 and the fifth paragraph down starting with was fire safety treated can we zoom in on that thank you was fire safety treated adequately
02:36:54 was fire safety treated adequately seriously and by appropriately qualified staff
02:36:58 staff in my opinion fire performance has not been a priority for the bba in contrast to wind loading the likelihood of a panel falling off the wall under particular wind loads prevalent in
02:37:09 particular wind loads prevalent in high-rise applications this has been a quote huge unquote focus where cladding and external wall insulation clients have recently been
02:37:20 insulation clients have recently been charged thousands to prove that they are complying with bba defined engineering standards
02:37:27 standards the senior management had opportunities to direct resource towards investigating the fire safety issues and act accordingly i would suggest that their lack of technical competence and understanding of the implications of the
02:37:39 understanding of the implications of the issue contributed to their inaction and on page three under the heading was the rainer bond certificate up to date
02:37:50 the rainer bond certificate up to date the first line is despite public assurances that the rainer bond certificate was up to date this is not true
02:37:57 true the certificate had not been reissued since its original certification in 2008.
02:38:04 2008. and if we drop down to the third paragraph under that heading the certificate has been reviewed and as usual the client was sent a report and
02:38:15 the client was sent a report and contract to get the certificate updated however the reissued contracts were not taken up and the reissue jobs were abandoned
02:38:25 abandoned now were you aware of the complaint at the time that this was made
02:38:31 was made um yes i was were you aware of any of the details about what had been alleged i'd seen the the corresponding you'd seen this
02:38:42 the corresponding you'd seen this particular document uh yes and the whistleblower has alleged among other things that the bba had not historically treated fire safety as a priority
02:38:54 treated fire safety as a priority would that have been a concern to you cass
02:38:57 cass yes
02:38:58 yes the allegation would be a concern yes it is an allegation it is certainly not a not not proven he said that the bba did not have a great deal of technical competence
02:39:09 great deal of technical competence in fire safety again would that have been a concern to ucas it would have been a concern although taking into account that any certification body can contract in
02:39:22 any certification body can contract in expertise
02:39:23 expertise and subcontract elements of the evaluation process for certification so i think it's the statement as written is a concern but it needs
02:39:35 but it needs investigating and understanding how that relates to what's actually happening in practice in bba
02:39:43 bba well it goes a bit beyond that though doesn't it he says certainly it is alleged
02:39:49 alleged that the lack of technical competence contributed to inaction in terms of fire performance and that was in the same breath and he was saying fire performance had not been
02:40:01 was saying fire performance had not been a priority for the bba so it is rather beyond saying that they were not personally technically technically competent it is saying isn't it that
02:40:12 that the bba
02:40:14 the bba didn't have and didn't subcontract inappropriate technical competence on these issues isn't it it could be read in that way yes and the whistleblower also said that the certificate was not up to date and
02:40:27 certificate was not up to date and should have been reissued before the grenfell fire now again would that have been a concern to ucas yes it would can we go to a complaint file note dated the 11th of
02:40:40 a complaint file note dated the 11th of july 2017
02:40:43 july 2017 and it is at ucas
02:40:46 ucas three zeros 301378
02:40:49 and it's following a telephone call with jackie burton what is jackie burton's role when it comes to complaints
02:41:00 comes to complaints jackie burton is our um customer feedback manager so she is responsible for managing our complaints process yes we can see that this complaint filenote
02:41:13 we can see that this complaint filenote stated the 11th of july 2017 and we can see on the left towards the top that the investigating officer is sam giles and
02:41:24 investigating officer is sam giles and we've noted that he's the section head of construction and physics can we just go down to page three at the bottom
02:41:32 bottom and it appears that there was a telephone conversation between ucas and the whistleblower and this is the outcome
02:41:39 outcome it says agreement to make ucas team undertaking the review of this matter aware of the concerns being raised now this was the day before this was the
02:41:51 now this was the day before this was the 11th of july this is the day before the 12th of july extra assessment i think i've got that chronology right haven't i i think so yes and sam giles was also at
02:42:04 and sam giles was also at that extra assessment on the 12th of july wasn't he yes he was so if we um yes let's go to carrie randall's witness
02:42:15 yes let's go to carrie randall's witness statement at ucas2011424
02:42:24 and page 15 please paragraph 18.2
02:42:30 and he says this on the morning of the assessment 12 july 2017
02:42:35 2017 i was informed by san giles that information had been received from a whistleblower at the bba the information from the whistleblower was discussed with sam giles before the
02:42:46 was discussed with sam giles before the assessment at the bba on 12th of july
02:42:51 and he carries on uh presumably mr randall means that he discussed the complaint with mr giles is that what you understand
02:43:03 yes now do you take from that that mr randall would have been told the substance of the whistleblower's complaint
02:43:13 yes i would would carry randall have been given copies of the complaint documents for example that letter that we were looking at or the complaint file note from the day before
02:43:24 note from the day before um i don't know whether he was there wouldn't have been any reason why he shouldn't have been but sam giles as the investigating officer now he must have had those yes
02:43:35 officer now he must have had those yes yes
02:43:36 yes and he would have had them before the extra assessment took place wouldn't he yes
02:43:41 yes now to what extent would you expect ucas assessors to be looking specifically at the issues raised by the whistleblower
02:43:52 whistleblower uh i we i i would expect that we would be looking at the issues raised by the whistleblower um i think that there is always a sort of an open mind you have to have with dealing with these um
02:44:05 dealing with these um when we receive this kind of information um we'll also consider whether there's any objective information that's been provided along with um
02:44:16 along with um the the sort of narrative that's provided by the whistleblower um and then we will seek to i would expect that we would then seek to gather evidence to either
02:44:27 to gather evidence to either confirm or or not uphold any allegation that's been made right
02:44:35 can we go to
02:44:40 yes can we go to the report itself it's a ucas 301077
02:44:54 and we see at the top it's accreditation extra visit and we can see uh the dates and at the left we can see that the lead assessor was carrie randall
02:45:05 was carrie randall daniel patterson was the technical assessor and sam giles was the observer
02:45:13 observer now as for daniel patterson's attendance would he be there to assess fire performance uh certainly the fire performance content of the certificate i assume so yes and that's because mr
02:45:25 i assume so yes and that's because mr randall is himself not a technical expert in fire testing yes that's right as i understand it yes now we've noticed that mr randall had
02:45:37 we've noticed that mr randall had previously been employed at the bba until may 2012 but it's right to say isn't it that he'd not been involved with assessing the bba until after the fire in 2017 isn't it
02:45:50 until after the fire in 2017 isn't it as as far as i'm aware yes do you know why he was chosen to perform this assessment um
02:45:57 um no no i don't um i don't know why it it's not necessarily an unusual thing i know that the assessment we wanted the assessment to take place quickly
02:46:08 assessment to take place quickly um i think availability of of personnel would have been a um may have been a challenge uh at such short notice um
02:46:18 um why specifically he was chosen i don't know
02:46:21 know yes the person with technical sign-off for the rainer bond certificate in 2008 was a man called jeff gurney and when carrie randall was at the bba
02:46:34 and when carrie randall was at the bba he had at a time worked for mr gurney's section so on our analysis there are at least two potential conflicts of interest there one is that mr randall had worked at the
02:46:46 one is that mr randall had worked at the bba and the other is that at one time he'd worked in the bba within mr gurney's section um in your first statement you tell us how ucas manages
02:46:57 how ucas manages these sorts of conflicts of interests in assessment can we go to that ucas2011242
02:47:06 page 18.
02:47:18 thank you the first paragraph you say this the most likely conflict of interest for a ucas staff member or external assessor would be assessing an organization which
02:47:30 would be assessing an organization which they previously worked for there is a potential threat to their and ucas's impartiality as there is a risk that it could be assessing work which they themselves set
02:47:41 assessing work which they themselves set up or undertook to counter this staff are required to inform ucas of such a conflict in the event that they are asked to undertake an assessment of a former employer
02:47:52 an assessment of a former employer wherever possible ucas will not use its staff or assessors to assess organizations where those staff or assessors have previously been employed or associated
02:48:04 or associated where this is unavoidable then the accepted practice is as a minimum not to use staff within two years of having worked for a customer in addition the lead assessor assessment
02:48:15 in addition the lead assessor assessment manager shall be cognizant of the potential conflict and may spend additional time with the assessor during the assessment this fact is also taken into consideration by the independent ucas decision maker
02:48:29 by the independent ucas decision maker you've used the word unavoidable there presume you don't know whether the appointment of mr randall to this assessment was in fact unavoidable
02:48:40 assessment was in fact unavoidable i don't know um
02:48:42 um but was the appointment of mr randall to this assessment consistent with the policy and practice as you've described there
02:48:52 there yes because um he had left bba five years beforehand yes now the assessment report from this july extra visit deals with the
02:49:04 july extra visit deals with the potential contra conflict of interest in the report it says that mr giles was there as an observer and just i suppose to summarize the evidence
02:49:14 evidence carrie randall tells us that mr giles was with him overseeing all of the work saved for a short period of about 45 minutes the draft assessment report was
02:49:25 the draft assessment report was circulated to ucas senior management for comment and the outcome of the assessment was decided by a decision maker with no involvement in the assessment now would
02:49:37 involvement in the assessment now would those be the usual actions of ucas having identified a potential conflict of interest um
02:49:45 um they would be our usual actions um as part of our process in terms of the decision maker it wouldn't be usual for um
02:49:56 there to be a lot of review of the report by other members of staff other than the assessment team but i think under these circumstances that decision was was a sensible one yes
02:50:08 was was a sensible one yes and in terms of having an observer like mr giles there would that be a usual practice in these circumstances um
02:50:17 um it wouldn't it wouldn't be an absolute necessity but i think again it was a sensible decision now when appointing an ex-employee to
02:50:28 now when appointing an ex-employee to assess a body does ucas consider in any detail what precise roles or in what precise teams
02:50:37 teams that ex-employee had worked we will consider the role that they've had within the organization yes there is a mechanism within
02:50:49 there is a mechanism within the
02:50:50 the allocation of of of assessment teams to to do that there's that there is a check made at that point there's also we do rely on assessors as well to to
02:51:01 we do rely on assessors as well to to give that level of information based on their experience that we we may ask for further information over and above what what is perhaps in their cv for example
02:51:12 their cv for example do you know if as a matter of fact ucas did consider precisely which team and to whom mr cat mr randall
02:51:23 team and to whom mr cat mr randall had reported when he was at the bba i i don't know in this case well we know that the bba evaluated the rainer bond product in 2007 and certified it in 2008
02:51:36 2007 and certified it in 2008 and we know for sure that carrie randall was a project manager certifying products in 2009 that's because as we've seen his own work appeared in an assessment report
02:51:47 work appeared in an assessment report now
02:51:48 now in those circumstances might carry randall perhaps unconsciously be inclined to be uncritical of the bba's
02:51:58 bba's assessment work um
02:52:03 um there is a possibility when there is a conflict of a potential conflict of interest
02:52:08 interest for a number of circumstances and scenarios
02:52:12 scenarios um i think the our process is focused on managing managing that so to ensure in this case
02:52:20 this case the fact that he was accompanied by at all times by at least one other person um
02:52:26 um was the mechanism to safeguard that well mr randall worked on the agreement certification scheme projects for cladding at around the time that the
02:52:37 for cladding at around the time that the rayner bond certificate was first issued and you'll recall that some of the criticisms made by the whistleblower were that the bba did not historically prioritize fire safety that the bba did
02:52:49 prioritize fire safety that the bba did not have internal technical competence in fire performance now they are serious allegations criticisms of a group of people that
02:53:01 of a group of people that included carrie randall himself aren't they
02:53:05 they possibly wouldn't carry randall have had an interest again perhaps unconsciously in defending work from 2007-2008 when he was at that organization
02:53:17 when he was at that organization i would want to speculate about that was that considered i'm sure it was considered um as and and that is why i think sam giles took the lead on investigating the complaint
02:53:30 lead on investigating the complaint just to be clear there's no evidence that carrie randall was in any way involved in the reynabond certificate when he was at the bba nor can i say that there is any evidence
02:53:42 nor can i say that there is any evidence of
02:53:43 of tampering or conscious bias but some people might say that this does look a bit like ucas is allowing the bba to mark its own homework what's your response to that i wouldn't
02:53:54 what's your response to that i wouldn't say that
02:53:55 say that i wouldn't agree with that why not because i think the the potential conflict has been clear was clearly stated in the report um the the assessment was managed to
02:54:08 um the the assessment was managed to mitigate um that risk
02:54:11 that risk um i've seen no evidence of of of that having having looked at it i believe at the time the operations director looked at it very closely and and i think as you can see there were comments made as
02:54:22 you can see there were comments made as well around the report so i i i wouldn't agree with that that statement
02:54:29 statement notwithstanding that do you think looking back now that the selection of mr randall for this assessment was the best decision um
02:54:40 um i i don't think it was necessarily a bad decision because um
02:54:46 um you could also look at it another way that he was he he was
02:54:50 he he was had had expertise in that area and it's not uncommon that when we look for the best experts to to act as assessors that they have previously by very nature definition
02:55:02 previously by very nature definition have experience in that field and in some cases um you know there are not many opportunities and many locations they can gain that experience so we can't avoid the conflict we have
02:55:15 so we can't avoid the conflict we have to be aware of it and we have to manage it
02:55:18 it very well
02:55:20 very well so it is slightly early for lunch but my next topic will be quite large i think it is a good time to break this is it and how are you doing generally very well we are we are
02:55:31 we are we are we are going to finish today for certain all right well it is slightly early thank you very much it is slightly early but it sounds to me as it would be sensible to stop at that point so we'll break now for lunch we'll resume please
02:55:43 break now for lunch we'll resume please at two o'clock and while you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right okay thank you thank you very much
02:55:59 thank you very much two o'clock peace
02:56:12 you