Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Day 111
March 23, 2021
Opus 2 - Official Court Reporters
Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900 Email: [email protected] Website: https://www.opus2.com March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Tuesday, 23 March 2021 1 amended issue 1 of the BBA certificate for the K15 2 (10.00 am) 2 Kingspan product. If we can go back to {BBA00000178/2}, 3 MR JOHN ALBON (continued) 3 page 2 of that email chain. 4 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to 4 So looking at your email at the bottom of that page, 5 today’s hearing. 5 16 July 2014 at 12.14, I ’d asked you about the first two 6 As always, I ’m joined today by my fellow panel 6 main paragraphs, and I now want to look at what you say 7 members, Ms Thouria Istephan and Mr Ali Akbor. 7 in the second half of that email. 8 MS ISTEPHAN: Good morning. 8 You say, picking it up with ”The BBA operates”: 9 MR AKBOR: Good morning. 9 ”The BBA operates a system of ’Leader’ Certificates, 10 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Today we’re going to continue 10 in which we invite comments from a range of industry 11 hearing evidence from Mr John Albon of BBA. So my next 11 experts on the initial draft of each Certificate type, 12 task is to check that Mr Albon is not only there, but 12 and for example where changes are made to Building 13 that he can see me and hear me clearly. 13 Regulations. For many years we received such comments 14 Good morning, Mr Albon. Can you? 14 from DCLG’s predecessors, but unfortunately we were 15 THE WITNESS: Good morning. Yes, I can. 15 advised some time ago that you were no longer able to 16 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much indeed. 16 offer this service . I believe that it would [be]of 17 I think we ought just to run through the usual 17 benefit to both our organisations, as well asthe 18 housekeeping questions before we get back to your 18 industry as a whole, if you were able to reconsider this 19 evidence. 19 decision . 20 So I’m going to ask you, please, to confirm that 20 ”I have spoken to the BBA’s Chief Executive, 21 you’re alone in the room from which you’re giving 21 Mrs Claire Curtis− Thomas concerning your enquiry and we 22 evidence? 22 would be very willing to meet you at your offices to 23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. 23 discuss the relationship between the DCLG and BBA and 24 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you. 24 how we can work more closely together. Would you please 25 Can you confirm that you have no documents or other 25 let me know whether you would be interested in such
1 3
1 materials with you? 1 a conversation.” 2 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t. 2 Now, can you just tell me a little bit more about 3 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: And can you confirm that your mobile 3 what you had discussed with the BBA’s chief executive, 4 phone is in another room and that you don’t have any 4 Ms Claire Curtis−Thomas, about Mr Martin’s enquiry? You 5 other electronic device in the room with you which is 5 refer to that at the bottom of this email. 6 capable of receiving messages? 6 A. I think I had made Mrs Curtis−Thomas aware of this 7 THE WITNESS: No, I don’t. 7 approach from DCLG, and discussed with her the basis of 8 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much. 8 the BBA’s response, in particular whether we could 9 Well, you’re an old hand at this. The procedure 9 recreate this relationship whereby they were to comment 10 will be as it was on the previous occasions you have 10 on our certificates . 11 given evidence. If you’re still giving evidence during 11 Q. I see. 12 the middle of the morning, we’ll probably have a break 12 Did you consider at this time that the BBA was in 13 at that point, depending on exactly what point we’ve 13 need of guidance from the DCLG on aspects of the 14 reached. 14 Building Regulations or the BBA’s certification process? 15 Is there anything you would like to raise with me or 15 A. Well, we are able to seek guidance on individual 16 ask me before we start? 16 circumstances where, in our view, the situation is 17 THE WITNESS: No, thank you. 17 unclear and we continue to do so. This was more 18 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much. 18 a procedural situation whereby, if we could gain comment 19 In that case, I ’ ll invite Ms Grange to continue 19 on the content of certificates from those responsible 20 putting questions to you. 20 for the approved documents, clearly that would be 21 Yes, Ms Grange, when you’re ready. 21 an improvement to the process. 22 Questions from COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY (continued) 22 Q. Yes, and you were specifically wanting comment on each 23 MS GRANGE: Yes, good morning, Mr Albon. 23 leader certificate from DCLG; is that correct? 24 If we can start, I want to go back to the email 24 A. Yes. 25 exchanges you were having with Mr Brian Martin about 25 Q. And you’re saying that for many years you received such
2 4
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 comments, but unfortunately you were advised some time 1 ”• What has BBA put in place since the original 2 ago that DCLG was no longer able to offer this service. 2 certificate was issued to make you so confident this 3 In your view, had the accuracy of BBA certificates 3 won’t happen again? (a summary would be fine). 4 worsened with regard to the Building Regulations after 4 ”• Will you be notifying the 5 the loss of that DCLG commenting process? 5 manufacturer/certificate holder of the issue?” 6 A. I don’t believe the accuracy had worsened, but we would 6 Then if we go up to page 1 {BBA00000178/1}, we can 7 have a greater confidence in the content of certificates 7 see your response, sent a few days later on 23 July, and 8 if those responsible for the Building Regulations had 8 we can see you say in that first paragraph: 9 reviewed them. 9 ”The mistake was basically caused by human error. 10 Q. Yes, I see. 10 The Project Manager involved and their line manager no 11 Now, if we go up to the next email at the top of 11 longer work in the BBA’s operations department.” 12 page 2 {BBA00000178/2}, we can see that this request 12 Now, just pausing there, and just to be clear , what 13 that you made from DCLG was declined. Mr Brian Martin 13 had led you to give this further explanation that the 14 responds to you the next day, 17 July, and we can see, 14 mistake was caused by human error? 15 just focusing for a moment on the final paragraph of his 15 A. I think I made that statement as an introduction to the 16 email, he says: 16 subsequent paragraphs which explained the steps that we 17 ”I note your comment about the relationship with 17 had taken. Unless Mr Martin understood the reason for 18 DCLG and BBA. I think things have significantly changed 18 the error , there would be no context as to whether or 19 over the years and my understanding is that your status 19 not these corrective actions were appropriate. 20 is similar to any other certification scheme. I very 20 Q. Yes, I understand you might have put that in as part of 21 much doubt we could support all the various schemes in 21 the context for the ways in which you have addressed the 22 the way you suggest.” 22 issue in the following part of the email, but I want to 23 Now, what was your reaction to that response? 23 understand: why were you stating at this point that it 24 A. It was consistent, I think, with the conversations we 24 was caused by human error? What had led you to that 25 would have had previously. The BBA at one time had 25 conclusion?
5 7
1 a closer relationship with Government than its current 1 A. Well, as we discussed, the statement was open to 2 organisational status allows, and DCLG felt, I believe, 2 misinterpretation , and that was as a result of it being 3 that they had to treat the BBA impartially with other 3 poorly phrased. That I would describe as a human error. 4 certification schemes that exist. 4 Q. I see. So you had concluded, had you, that the person 5 Q. Yes, I understand that, but what was your reaction? Was 5 drafting this certificate had made an error when they 6 BBA disappointed at this point that DCLG felt unable to 6 were drafting it ; yes? 7 discuss this with them? 7 A. Yes. 8 A. Disappointed, perhaps not surprised. I think we did 8 Q. And we note at this stage, and I don’t think at all , 9 make a subsequent second offer that again was declined 9 you’d never mentioned the diagram 34 exception point 10 by DCLG. 10 that you mention in several places in your Inquiry 11 Q. Right. Can you help us, when did you make that second 11 statement. That’s correct, isn ’t it ? 12 offer , and was that also to Mr Martin? 12 A. Yes. 13 A. I think it was part of this correspondence, so it would 13 Q. And why not? 14 have been within a few days. 14 A. Well, the diagram 34 is the only scenario in which that 15 Q. I see. And that was also to Mr Martin, was it, 15 statement could have been accurate, but it does not 16 Mr Brian Martin? 16 change the fact that the statement itself is capable of 17 A. Yes, it was, I think. 17 misinterpretation . So in this context, I felt it was 18 Q. Did you have any further discussions with 18 irrelevant . 19 Ms Curtis−Thomas about this refusal? 19 Q. Right, yes, thank you. 20 A. I ’m sure I would have made her aware, yes. 20 Now, just focusing on that second sentence, you say: 21 Q. Right. 21 ”The Project Manager involved and their line manager 22 We can see, looking at the first part of Mr Martin’s 22 no longer work in the BBA’s operations department.” 23 email, that he asks the following . He says: 23 And you have told us in your witness statement −− 24 ”For completeness, I wonder if you could confirm 24 this is third statement, page 50 {BBA00010751/50}, 25 a couple of things for me. 25 paragraph 198 −− that the two individuals were
6 8
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 George Lee and Chris Hunt. 1 confirmed yesterday that the changes to that certificate 2 Now, were you meaning to suggest in this email that 2 were entirely unconnected with this issue and were to do 3 those two individuals had been moved to other parts of 3 with more substantive structural changes to the 4 the business, or had left , as in Mr Lee’s case, as 4 information contained in BBA certificates. 5 a direct result of this issue? 5 A. Perhaps that is slightly over−analysing what I’m 6 A. No, not at all . 6 attempting to say here. The point I was trying to make 7 Q. No. 7 is that we had replaced that wording with the then 8 A. Mr Lee left for his own reasons, and Mr Hunt had made 8 current certificate . 9 a career move to a different part of the organisation. 9 Q. Now, just to be clear, you’re representing to Mr Martin 10 It was entirely unconnected with this issue. 10 by these words, are you not, that you had already 11 Q. Yes, quite, so that would not have been correct, would 11 recognised this matter as an error prior to receipt of 12 it ? 12 this email and that the certificate had been revised in 13 A. In what way would it not have been correct? 13 December 2013 in order to correct that error? That’s 14 Q. Well, it wouldn’t have been correct to suggest that they 14 what you’re saying here in this email, isn ’t it ? 15 had left as a direct result of this mistake and this 15 A. That’s not the intention. The intention is that the 16 issue ; yes? 16 wording has been removed from the then current 17 A. No, it wouldn’t, but I don’t believe I ’m saying that. 17 certificate . 18 Q. I see. I ’m just seeking clarification of what you are 18 Q. I see. Well, that’s the point I ’m putting to you, that 19 saying. 19 representing that the error had already been corrected 20 You continue on in your email, in the second 20 prior to receipt of Mr Martin’s email and that the 21 paragraph, you say: 21 certificate had been revised in order to correct itwas 22 ”We are addressing the overall issue in three ways: 22 not true, was it? 23 ”We have introduced a new training programme for all 23 A. I can see how you would form that impression from the 24 staff , focussing on both technical and procedural 24 words that I chose, but that was not the intention at 25 matters. 25 the time. I was purely trying to say that: yes, this
9 11
1 ”An additional level of checking has been introduced 1 certificate was capable of misinterpretation, but the 2 via a new management structure. 2 current version does not include that wording and 3 ”We have placed more emphasis on Certificate 3 therefore that possibility no longer exists . 4 templates, which are commented on by internal and 4 Q. Yes, but you don’t say to him, ”You should be aware 5 external experts prior to finalising (as referenced in 5 that, due to reasons unconnected with this error, the 6 my earlier mail). 6 certificate has already been changed”. You don’t say 7 ”There would have been a dialogue with the 7 that, do you? 8 Certificate holder as part of the Reissue process and 8 A. No. 9 I would expect that this would have been pointed out. 9 Q. No. And you had only been alerted to this problem 10 The Certificate holder would not claim that the material 10 because of Mr Martin’s email in July 2014; that’s right , 11 is of limited combustibility and this has never been 11 isn ’t it ? 12 stated in the Certificate , which did correctly gave only 12 A. Yes. 13 a Class 0 rating . I think that the chances of anyone 13 Q. And you appear to be suggesting in this email −− is this 14 inferring limited combustibility to be extremely 14 right? −− that the new training programme, the 15 unlikely from the Certificate wording, and, while the 15 additional level of checking and the emphasis on 16 error is of course of concern, I am pleased that we 16 certificate templates had all been introduced at some 17 recognised and corrected it .” 17 earlier stage in response to or as a result of this 18 So just looking first at that very last sentence, 18 error ; do you agree that’s how it reads? 19 where you say, ”I am pleased that we recognised and 19 A. No, I don’t. I read it that these measures were put in 20 corrected it ”, why do you say that in this email, ”I am 20 place to minimise the possibilities of human errors 21 pleased that we recognised and corrected it”? 21 occurring, rather than in response to this specific 22 A. It ’s simply the fact that the certificate in question 22 issue . 23 was no longer current and had been replaced by the 2015 23 Q. Well, the question you were answering was Mr Martin’s 24 version. Sorry, the second issue. 24 question: ”What has the BBA put in place since the 25 Q. Yes, but you have told us in your statement and you have 25 original certificate was issued to make you so confident
10 12
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 this won’t happen again?” 1 Mr Martin. Is that right? 2 So I’d suggest to you that it does read in that way, 2 A. I don’t know. It’s possible . 3 that you’re suggesting that these measures have been put 3 Q. Let’s just look at Mr Hunt’s evidence, if we can go to 4 in place in response to the error that you’re saying or 4 the transcript , {Day109/63:4}. 5 representing in this email you had already recognised. 5 So Mr Hunt is being asked about this email chain and 6 A. No, I don’t agree. I say, ”We are addressing the 6 he is asked: 7 overall issue”, not this specific issue , and I think by 7 ”Question: Have you seen that email previously? 8 the overall issue , I meant the possibility of human 8 ”Answer: Yes, I think I ’ve seen the chain of 9 errors occurring in the wording in a general sense. 9 emails. 10 Q. Now, in terms of Mr Martin’s question about whether or 10 ”Question: When? 11 not the manufacturer had been alerted to the error, 11 ”Answer: It was −− I think it was shown me at the 12 isn ’t this right : you could not in truth answer that 12 time when John Albon was −− when he replied to it. 13 part of his question because you hadn’t known until you 13 ”Question: So do you mean in person, you and he had 14 heard from the DCLG a few days before this that there 14 a discussion , or are you talking about emails? 15 was anything to alert the manufacturer to? 15 ”Answer: Oh, I think in person, I think he told me 16 A. Yes. 16 that he’d had it and that he’d replied to it , and 17 Q. Was Kingspan ever told about the problem with that 17 I think he showed me the reply. I don’t think he 18 certificate , that re−issue of the first certificate ? 18 emailed it to me, I think it was just a hard copy. 19 Was Kingspan ever told that at any stage? 19 ”Question: I see. So just so that I ’m clear, the 20 A. No, we did not feel that was necessary. 20 first that you became aware of this intervention from 21 Q. Why not? 21 DCLG was through a face−to−face discussion with 22 A. Because we did not feel it was technically significant . 22 John Albon, by which time he had already replied to 23 We felt the possibility of someone inferring a limited 23 Brian Martin; is that correct? 24 combustibility classification was very low, given that 24 ”Answer: I think so, yes. I can’t be absolutely 25 nowhere in the certificate did it state that it wasof 25 sure of the precise sequence, but it was at this time of
13 15
1 limited combustibility . 1 the reply . Whether he showed it to me before he sent it 2 Q. So Mr Martin has drawn to your attention what he 2 or after , I can’t remember.” 3 considers to be a serious error in a BBA certificate, 3 So his evidence was not entirely clear , but does 4 and he’s asking the question, ”Has the manufacturer been 4 that help you? He thinks that you had a discussion with 5 contacted about this?”, and you’re saying they were 5 him, but it was likely to be after you had already sent 6 never told about this; is that right? 6 your responses to Mr Martin. 7 A. We made two offers to discuss this with Mr Martin, 7 A. I still don’t know, I’m afraid. Jon Denyer carried out 8 partly because we did not understand the basis for his 8 the investigation . It may be that he spoke to 9 concern. 9 Jon Denyer. It may well be that he and I did speak 10 Q. Wasn’t it important for Kingspan to be told that a human 10 about it afterwards, but I really don’t remember. 11 error had occurred with this certificate , that you had 11 Q. So just to be clear , you didn’t speak to Mr Hunt, who 12 recognised it was an error, that it had subsequently 12 was the head of approvals at the time that this 13 already been corrected, but in any event wasn’t it 13 certificate was issued, his name was on the certificate, 14 important that Kingspan were aware of that and knew that 14 you didn’t think to discuss the issue with him before 15 you considered that to be an error at this time? 15 you went back to Mr Martin? 16 A. It was one clause that had the potential to be 16 A. As I said, I may have done, but I don’t remember. 17 misinterpreted. We did not feel, and I still do not 17 Equally, Jon Denyer may have spoken to him as part of 18 feel , it was significant technically . 18 his investigation . I don’t know. 19 Q. Did you speak to Mr Hunt, who was still employed by the 19 Q. I see. 20 BBA at this time, about any aspect of this matter? 20 Going back to your email to Mr Martin, if we could 21 A. I don’t recall if I discussed it with him at the time. 21 bring that back up, so {BBA00000178/1}, you say in that 22 There is nothing on file I can see to suggest that 22 penultimate paragraph −− it’s the second line from the 23 I did, but I may have done. 23 bottom −− that you think it would be extremely unlikely 24 Q. His evidence was that you mentioned this matter to him, 24 that anyone would have inferred limited combustibility 25 but he thought that that was after you had replied to 25 from the reference to 12.7. How did you reach that
14 16
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 conclusion? 1 that that product was of limited combustibility . 2 A. From the fact that nowhere in the certificate is there 2 I think the certificate would have been read in its 3 any reference to that material achieving a limited 3 entirety and a suitably competent individual would 4 combustibility classification . 4 understand that, unless the BBA certificates states that 5 Q. So was that just your own thoughts on the matter or did 5 a material is of limited combustibility , they should not 6 you speak to any of your BBA colleagues about this 6 infer that from a single sentence. 7 before reaching that conclusion? 7 Q. I see. 8 A. I would have spoken to Jon Denyer about it. 8 Can I just look, finally on this subject, at 9 Q. I see. 9 something you say in your third witness statement, if we 10 Did being contacted by the DCLG in this way make you 10 can go to that, top of page 49 {BBA00010751/49}, 11 question the BBA’s practices and procedures around fire 11 paragraph 191. I want to pick this up about seven lines 12 performance certification and whether improvements 12 down. There is a sentence right in the middle of the 13 needed to be made? 13 page beginning, ”If the BBA considered”. So you say: 14 A. Yes, of course. There had been a significant number of 14 ”If the BBA considered that a product was a material 15 changes made to our processes and procedures since that 15 of limited combustibility , the Certificate would clearly 16 error was made, as I’ve described in this email to 16 state this .” 17 Mr Martin. It was an ongoing process, a process of 17 That’s what you have just said. 18 continual improvement, and we’re always looking for ways 18 ”The BBA Certificate did not state that the product 19 to improve the way that we work. 19 was of limited combustibility , therefore a reader with 20 Q. I see. So did you think that there were further changes 20 the necessary level of knowledge and experience would 21 that ought to be made after you had received Mr Martin’s 21 know that it could not satisfy clause 12.7 for 22 email in order to improve the way the BBA was certifying 22 a rainscreen construction above 18m (unless the specific 23 fire performance on its certificates ? 23 construction met the requirements of BR 135). The error 24 A. It ’s not specific to fire performance, it’s all aspects 24 lay in not making this point specifically within the 25 of our certification process, and yes, since this time, 25 Certificate , leaving it open to some interpretation. To
17 19
1 we have made further improvements to the way that we 1 be clear , I believe that the Certificate wording was 2 work, and we will seek to continue to do so moving 2 technically correct and that a suitably competent reader 3 forwards. 3 would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning; 4 Q. Was this recognised within the BBA as an important 4 this might not however be the case for a casual 5 moment when you came to be aware of a serious safety 5 examination (which is not the intended readership).” 6 issue arising from the fire performance wording in one 6 Now, I just want to ask you about whether that 7 of the BBA certificates? 7 remains your evidence. 8 A. Again, I don’t agree this was a serious safety issue . 8 Do you still believe that the certificate wording 9 I think we had addressed the issue that was raised. We 9 was technically correct , as you have said there in your 10 had explained to DCLG the measures that we had taken. 10 witness statement, or are you now accepting that in fact 11 We had made two offers of a meeting to further discuss 11 that was an error that was misleading? 12 the issue and perhaps understand the context of his 12 A. I think it was an error, I think it was capable of 13 initial enquiry. The fact that we received no further 13 misinterpretation , and in one specific scenario the 14 correspondence from Mr Martin and the fact that he 14 statement made was true. 15 declined to have these meetings suggested to me that he 15 Q. So I want to know: are you maintaining that part of your 16 was satisfied with our response. 16 witness statement where you say, ”I believe that the 17 Q. You said there, ”Again, I don’t agree this was a serious 17 Certificate was technically correct and that a suitably 18 safety issue”. Do you genuinely not consider that there 18 competent reader would have no difficulty in 19 was any risk in stating that K15 could be used in 19 understanding the meaning”? Does that remain your 20 accordance with 12.7 of ADB? Is that genuinely your 20 evidence? 21 view, that there was no risk in the BBA having stated 21 A. Yes. 22 that, in terms of safety? 22 Q. I want to move on now briefly to look at issue 2 of the 23 A. I think there was no risk of a suitably qualified and 23 BBA certificate, which was published on 24 experienced building professional inferring from one 24 17 December 2013, just five months after amended issue 1 25 number inserted in the certificate , one clause number, 25 had been published in July 2013.
18 20
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Now, going back to your third witness statement −− 1 technical file . 2 actually , we don’t need to go to it. I think I can 2 Q. But just to be clear , that information was not on the 3 summarise. What you tell us on page 33 {BBA00010751/33} 3 technical file , was it? There was no −BS 476 6 or 7 4 and paragraph 124 is you’re asked who was responsible 4 data? 5 for checking the wording of section 8, that’s the fire 5 A. No, it wasn’t. 6 section, of that second issue of the certificate , and 6 Q. Now, we’re nine years on from the request to Kingspan 7 you tell us that it was initially checked by the team 7 that we saw in 2004 for reaction to fire and surface 8 manager, Ms Ramkorun, work was first supervised by the 8 spread of flame data. We looked at that letter from 9 then head of approvals, Sean Moriarty, but you tell us 9 2 December 2004 from Mr Simon Lloyd. 10 Mr Moriarty left the BBA prior to the issue of the 10 Didn’t it occur to you at this later stage to 11 certificate and that you replaced him in that role,so 11 request some up−to−date data from Kingspan supporting 12 the final wording was approved by you. Is that correct? 12 that statement? 13 A. Yes. 13 A. No. As I said, the re−issue was to add specific 14 Q. We can see that from page 1 of the certificate, if we 14 sections to the certificate or specific changes to the 15 can bring this one up, it ’s at {BBA00000036}. We can 15 certificate . It would not involve are−assessment of 16 see there that your name appears in the pale blue box at 16 the data on which the original certificate was issued. 17 the beginning of this page as head of approvals, and 17 Q. Can you help us, then, in December 2013, when you came 18 that’s your signature; yes? 18 to approve the content of this certificate , what did you 19 A. Yes. 19 think the basis was for that classification as class 0? 20 Q. Do you accept that, in approving the final wording, you 20 A. The normal situation would have been for the BS 476−6 21 were ultimately responsible for the checks on and the 21 and 7 reports to be on file . 22 sign−off of all technical assertions made within this 22 Q. Yes, I understand that’s the normal situation, but 23 certificate ? 23 that’s not an answer to my question. 24 A. Yes. 24 Can you help us, when you came to approve the 25 Q. We’ll come back to it in a moment, but if we just note 25 content of this certificate , what did you think the
21 23
1 that under ”Behaviour in relation to fire ”, all it says 1 basis was for that classification of class 0? 2 there is : 2 A. I would have had no reason to consider that as part of 3 ”The product will not contribute to the development 3 the re−issue of this certificate which, as I say, were 4 stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard ... ” 4 for specific amendments as defined in the contract 5 Yes? 5 documents. It is not a re−assessment or a re−evaluation 6 A. Yes. 6 of the original certification . 7 Q. So that sentence, which both you and Mr Hunt couldn’t 7 Q. I see. 8 explain to us, stayed in this second issue of the 8 Can you help us, then, what was the exercise that 9 certificate ; yes? 9 you carried out? Your name appears on the certificate, 10 A. Yes. 10 you’ve signed it off , you’re responsible for the 11 Q. If we go now to the bottom of page 5 {BBA00000036/5}, 11 technical content of it . So can you talk us through 12 the fire section is now section 8. We can see it starts 12 what exercise you actually did when you reviewed this 13 right at the bottom of that page, and we can see that 13 certificate ? 14 this says at 8.1: 14 A. I would check that all of the contractual requirements 15 ”The product is classified as Class 0 or ’low risk ’, 15 had been met for this specific re−issue, and check that 16 as defined in the documents supporting the national 16 wording. I would of course re−read the whole 17 Building Regulations.” 17 certificate before signing it , and I made an error in 18 Now, can you help us, since the first version of 18 not recognising an inappropriate clause on the front 19 this certificate was published in 2008, had the BBA ever 19 page, which I regret . I would not go back and check 20 actually sought test data from tests to BS 476−6 and 7 20 that the statements made relating to the original 21 from Kingspan supporting that statement? 21 assessments were justified . 22 A. This was a re−issue for specific additions to the 22 Q. I see. So when you say, ”I would check that all of the 23 certificate , it was not a repeat of the original 23 contractual requirements had been met for this specific 24 technical assessment. So, no, we would not seek 24 re−issue”, what does that mean? Was it a contractual 25 information that should already have been on the 25 requirement for Kingspan to provide test data supporting
22 24
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 each of its claims in the certificate ? 1 Now, just pausing there, were you aware at the time 2 A. No, we would need to examine the contract documents. 2 you approved this certificate that this BS 8414 test was 3 They would be for specific amendments to be made to the 3 undertaken in 2005 and was therefore now eight years 4 existing certificate . I don’t remember, I’m afraid, 4 old? 5 what those specific requirements were. It was not 5 A. I don’t recall , but probably. 6 a re−evaluation of the whole certificate . 6 Q. If we can just look briefly at something you say in your 7 Q. I see. So you check some contract documents to 7 third witness statement about this, if we go to page 42, 8 ascertain , what, whether the amendments are covered by 8 paragraph 164, that’s {BBA00010751/42}. You say this: 9 those contract documents? 9 ”The BBA does have a policy of not normally 10 A. I would check that the contractual requirements have 10 accepting test reports for new assessments that are more 11 been met, that the changes we made in the contract had 11 than five years old, which is consistent with the above. 12 been made, the wording was correct, and that the 12 However, in this case, the BBA has had the production 13 statements we made −− the new statements we made were 13 under surveillance and can be assured that there have 14 justified . 14 been no changes to the formulation or specification of 15 Q. And how would you check that the wording was correct and 15 the product. In these circumstances, as the product is 16 that the statements you had made had been justified if 16 unchanged, it is reasonable to assume that the 17 all you’re doing is reading the certificate itself 17 performance in respect to fire testing will also be 18 without checking any of the underlying test data or any 18 unaltered.” 19 of the underlying information on the file ? 19 Now, can we take it from that, therefore, that 20 A. I ’m sorry, that’s not what I said. I would check the 20 in fact the BBA’s policy is to accept test reports which 21 underlying information on the file for the new parts of 21 are more than five years old unless the manufacturer has 22 the certificate . I would not go back and redo the 22 alerted the BBA to changes to the formulation or 23 original assessment. 23 specification of the product? 24 Q. I see. So you confine your review to only checking 24 A. No, I don’t think so. If it is a new assessment for 25 those bits that have changed, and anything that was in 25 a product we are not operating a process of
25 27
1 there originally , you don’t, for yourself , ascertain 1 surveillance , we would not accept a report that is more 2 that there is in fact evidence supporting those 2 than five years old. Once we have accepted a report, 3 statements? 3 certified the product, and then have the production 4 A. I would re−read the whole certificate and make changes 4 under surveillance , we continue to accept that data as 5 as appropriate given the current BBA wording for a given 5 being representative of the performance of the product 6 product type. Clearly I would read the whole 6 on the understanding that the formulation and 7 certificate , I ’m taking responsibility for it . I would 7 specifications are, from that point onwards, unchanged. 8 not go back, for example, and check that we had BS 476 8 Q. Yes, I follow . I think that is a longer version of what 9 reports on the file from 2008. 9 I put to you. 10 Q. I see. So does it follow that when you read that 10 Is it your understanding that Kingspan at no stage 11 class 0 statement, you would have just read it, noted 11 alerted the BBA to any such changes in relation to the 12 it , moved on, but not carried out any form of checking 12 formulation of the product? 13 in relation to that statement? 13 A. There may well have been changes during the surveillance 14 A. That checking would have been carried out by others as 14 of the product. I ’d have to look at the data on the 15 part of the original assessment of the product. I had 15 file . But that’s all I can say, I ’m afraid. There are 16 no reason to suppose that would not have been carried 16 always minor changes made during the course of 17 out. 17 production. 18 Q. I see. 18 Q. Yes. Would it be normal in your experience for no 19 If we go further down the certificate , we can see, 19 changes at all to the formulation or specification of 20 if we go to page 6 {BBA00000036/6}, section 8.2, the 20 an insulation product to take place over the course of 21 certificate says: 21 a decade? 22 ”When tested to BS 8414−1:2002, the following 22 A. No, that would not be normal. 23 specific cladding construction met the criteria as 23 Q. Did you actually check at the time whether there had 24 stated in BRE Report BR 135:2013.” 24 been any changes to the formulation or specification of 25 Then the construction is set out below that. 25 this particular product?
26 28
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. No, if any changes are made, they are addressed at the 1 materials.” 2 six−monthly surveillance audits that we carry out. 2 Now, do you remember noticing that? Because that 3 A technical assessment is made of any changes that may 3 was different , wasn’t it , from the previous version of 4 have been made and any additional technical work 4 the certificate ? 5 necessary is carried out at that point. If that had not 5 A. Yes, it is . 6 been the case and there had been issues that had not 6 Q. Can you help me: would you have the previous versions of 7 been addressed, then the certificate would be suspended. 7 the certificate in front of you when you came to 8 Q. I see. 8 sign off on a later version? 9 Now, in this instance, changes to the formulation 9 A. Yes, there would be a track changes Word document, so 10 are not particularly relevant to whether or not K15 10 you could identify the original text and the changes 11 could still achieve class 0, because a classification to 11 that had been made. 12 class 0 had never actually been established by evidence 12 Q. Now, in terms of that footnote there to section 8.2, are 13 for K15 in the first place, had it, back in 2008? 13 you aware that Kingspan saw the placement and the size 14 A. This is in reference to an 8414 report, I think we’re 14 of that text as something of a victory in terms of the 15 talking? 15 final version of this certificate ? 16 Q. Yes, sorry , I ’m now asking you about changes that are 16 A. I was not aware of that before it was identified in 17 relevant to class 0. I ’m going back to that. I want to 17 the Inquiry. 18 understand how changes in the formulation were relevant, 18 Q. Does it surprise you that Kingspan treated it as 19 given you had never got a baseline, you had never got 19 progress for them that requirements which limited the 20 the evidence in the first place of satisfaction of the 20 scope of the use of K15 were buried deep in the 21 class 0 tests . 21 certificate ? 22 A. That’s correct, we did not. However, as you know, 22 A. It does surprise me, though I would argue that the 23 achievement of class 0 would not in itself be sufficient 23 limitations are placed by the approved documents, not 24 to allow the use of the product above 18 metres. 24 this certificate . 25 Q. No, I do know that, thank you, Mr Albon, but I’m still 25 Q. Yes, but just sticking with this certificate , what we
29 31
1 trying to explore how that statement made its way onto 1 can see is , you see, if we go back to page 1 2 this certificate which you signed off on. 2 {BBA00000036/1}, and under ”Key factors assessed”, 3 Do you accept that it was a basic failure of 3 ”Behaviour in relation to fire ”, as we noted when we 4 due diligence on the part of the BBA to allow that 4 first looked at this , there is only one sentence there: 5 class 0 statement to appear on this certificate in 5 ”The product will not contribute to the development 6 circumstances where the BBA had never had proper 6 stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard ... ” 7 supporting test data? 7 A sentence has been removed from the previous 8 A. Yes, I think I acknowledged that yesterday. 8 version which had said in that position on the 9 Q. Do you accept that it was a basic failure of 9 certificate : 10 due diligence on your part, given that you signed off on 10 ”The product has been tested to BS 8414−1 for 11 that certificate ? 11 a specific construction on masonry walls (see 12 A. I think I followed the BBA’s procedures, which are 12 section 7).” 13 reasonable, and in doing so I perpetuated the original 13 Now, that sentence has been deleted on the front of 14 error . So, possibly . 14 this certificate , and that limitation is only expressed 15 Q. Oh, I see. 15 in the footnote on page 6 that we just looked at. 16 If we go back to the certificate at page 6 16 Now, did you notice that change when you came to 17 {BBA00000036/6}, we can see that there is a little 17 review the certificate ? 18 footnote in the section that I just read you about the 18 A. I would have done. I think you should have added, when 19 8414 test. Can you see it says at 8.2, ”When tested”, 19 you read the text under ”Behaviour in relation to fire ”, 20 and then there is a footnote number 1, and we can see 20 ”see section 8”, because this is only intended to 21 that that footnote number 1 refers to a section just 21 provide a brief summary and to direct the reader to the 22 underneath that detail about the construction. It says: 22 section of the certificate where the full information is 23 ”The test result relates only to this specific 23 given. 24 construction and a separate test would be required to 24 Similarly , in section 8, in bold text, it does say 25 establish the performance of any other combination of 25 this specific construction was tested, so it is not only
30 32
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 the footnote that makes that point. 1 qualification , isn ’t it , on the passage that precedes 2 Q. Yes, I understand that, but what I’m seeking to get to 2 it ? 3 the bottom of is why remove the sentence, ”The product 3 A. Yes. 4 has been tested to BS 8414−1 for specific construction 4 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: The footnote is printed in quite 5 on masonry walls”. You see, that was a sentence that, 5 small type, isn ’t it ? 6 in late 2008, the BBA had asked to be added in to this 6 A. Yes. 7 certificate to make it clearer to the readers whatthe 7 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Why is that? 8 limitations were of that 8414 test data. 8 A. It ’s standard BBA house style for any footnotes we 9 So can you explain to us why that sentence comes out 9 incorporate into certificates . It ’s not specific to 10 of this front page, and that sentiment is now only 10 this certificate or this clause. 11 expressed in a very small footnote on page 6? 11 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: You don’t think it was important for 12 A. Because it is not possible to give a full and accurate 12 a qualification of that type to stand out more? 13 representation of the detailed fire performance of the 13 A. With hindsight, possibly , but I would expect the reader 14 product in a one−line summary on the front page. For 14 of the certificate to understand the text, to read all 15 that reason, we refer the reader to the full text in 15 of the text, and it does say in the first line , 16 section 8, which relates not only to BS 8414, but also 16 I believe , that it was that specific construction that 17 class 0 and the fire resistance of the product. 17 had been tested. 18 I understand why you’re focusing on BS 8414, because 18 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Yes, all right. Thank you very 19 it is specific to this particular case, but the 19 much. 20 BBA certificate covers all aspects of fire , not merely 20 Yes, Ms Grange. 21 the 8414, and it didn’t warrant emphasising on the front 21 MS GRANGE: Yes, thank you. 22 page. 22 Mr Albon, I just want to come to some general 23 Q. Yes, but you see, Kingspan had very little fire test 23 questions now at the end. 24 data at this time, which is why the BS 8414 test was so 24 It ’s right , isn ’t it , that the BBA is held in very 25 critical . Did you understand that at the time? 25 high regard in the construction industry? Is that
33 35
1 A. I would argue the fire resistance of the product is 1 right? 2 equally critical , the class 0 performance is equally 2 A. Yes. 3 critical , and we cannot put all of that information on 3 Q. Can we just look at something that Paul Hyett, 4 the front page. 4 the Inquiry’s expert architect , has said in his report. 5 Q. Yes, and I see you say there the class 0 performance is 5 If we can go to {PHYR0000029/97}. At paragraph 4.4.56, 6 equally critical , and we’ve already been through that. 6 he says this : 7 Did you actually notice at the time that that 7 ”I believe that architects should be able to place 8 sentence had been taken off the front page and instead 8 reliance on a BBA certificate. In support of this view 9 a small footnote had been inserted? Do you remember 9 I quote from the BBA’s web site and add some exhibit 10 actually noticing that when you reviewed the 10 slogans as follows .” 11 certificate ? 11 If we read the quotes he has got there: 12 A. This is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of 12 ”Product Approval & Certification. 13 certificates that I have reviewed over that period. 13 ”BBA certification is recognised throughout the 14 I don’t remember looking specifically at that clause 14 construction industry as a symbol of quality and 15 now, no, but I would have read it. 15 reassurance. It ’s the vital ingredient in the provision 16 Q. Do you believe that you gave the technical content of 16 of assurance, quality and integrity to a plethora of 17 this certificate the attention it required before you 17 stakeholders in the construction industry. 18 approved it for publication, and that your own work on 18 ” Certification is an achievement that delivers the 19 it in terms of checks was competent and adequate? 19 power of product confidence, industry satisfaction and 20 A. I believe I gave it the attention it required. I made 20 market leadership. 21 a mistake on the front page by retaining a misleading 21 ”Recognised, respected and sought after by 22 statement. 22 specifiers , architects and contractors, reassures all 23 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Mr Albon, before we leave section 8 23 parties that you are an expert in your speciality who 24 of the certificate , can I just ask you this : you will 24 stays on top of the latest advances and best practices, 25 recall that the footnote is quite an important 25 so you can deliver the safest , most efficient and
34 36
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 highest quality product possible.” 1 a cassette fix ; yes? 2 Then if we go over the page {PHYR0000029/98}, you 2 A. It would have been fit for purpose in fire in certain 3 can see that he’s set out some extracts from the BBA 3 scenarios , but not in all scenarios . 4 website here, and under ”About Us” it says: 4 Q. No. And as a result, the certificate was materially 5 ”The BBA sets the standard for excellence in 5 misleading about the panel’s true performance in fire ; 6 construction products and systems. We offer technical 6 yes? 7 expertise , are independent with an unrivalled track 7 A. It was certainly capable of being misinterpreted, yes. 8 record and offer more than certification through our 8 Q. And there was also a serious failure in the review of 9 audit and inspection and test services .” 9 the certificate between 2013 and 2015, which resulted in 10 Then below that, it says: 10 the review being completed and the certificate remaining 11 ”We are the leading authority on building product 11 in circulation without Arconic confirming that there had 12 certification ; a position we’ve held for more than 12 been no changes to the product which invalidated the 13 50 years. With a technical integrity founded on our 13 certificate ? 14 independent approach and delivered by the industry’s 14 A. A decision was made, as the BBA procedures allowed, that 15 recognised experts, we can also leverage our unrivalled 15 the information available to the BBA gave sufficient 16 track record to accredit building systems using the same 16 reassurance to conclude that the product continued to 17 trusted, non−partisan approach.” 17 represent the actual performance of the system based on 18 So conveniently, Mr Hyett was summarised for us 18 the information provided by the certificate holder. 19 there what we see on the BBA’s website. 19 Q. So does it follow from that answer that you don’t accept 20 Now, looking back, and stepping back, at what 20 that was a serious failure in that review process? 21 occurred with the Reynobond and the K15 certificates, 21 A. The review failed to identify that there were additional 22 can we agree that, starting with the Reynobond 22 fire test reports available to the manufacturer thathad 23 certificate , there was a serious failure by the BBAto 23 not been provided to the BBA, yes. 24 obtain all relevant fire test data when the certificate 24 Q. Right. 25 was first issued, specifically failure to obtain any 25 Can we agree that, in respect of the K15
37 39
1 fire test data relating to the cassette−fix variant of 1 certificates now, fire performance statements were made 2 Reynobond 55? 2 in those certificates which were inaccurate and 3 A. I agree we did not have those documents in our 3 misleading and which had no proper evidential basis? 4 possession. I do believe it was the responsibility of 4 A. In terms of the class 0 performance, yes, I would agree. 5 the manufacturer to supply them to us and that they 5 Q. And in terms of fire , whether it contributes to the 6 deliberately withheld them. Our procedures are not 6 development stages of a fire? 7 designed to cope with that scenario. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So do I take it from that that you don’t accept there 8 Q. A particularly serious error was made when the revised 9 was a serious failure by the BBA to specifically obtain 9 issue 1 stated that K15 could be used in accordance with 10 that fire test data? 10 paragraph 12.7 of ADB, and that error was so serious 11 A. We were unable to obtain that fire data, yes. 11 that the Government had to intervene; do you agree? 12 Q. Yes, but do you accept that was a serious failure by the 12 A. No, I don’t agree with that statement, as −− for the 13 BBA? 13 reasons I ’ve described. 14 A. I would argue it was a serious failure by the 14 Q. And the BBA was also extremely slow to implement 15 manufacturer to properly declare the actual performance 15 important changes to the first issue of the certificate 16 of their product. 16 which were necessary to ensure that the fire performance 17 Q. Moving on, do you accept there was a serious failure by 17 sections of the certificate were accurate, a delay 18 the BBA to properly scrutinise such of Arconic’s 18 between December 2008 and July 2013; do you agree with 19 fire test data as Arconic had given you whenthe 19 that? 20 certificate was first issued? 20 A. Which specific amendments are you referring to, please? 21 A. Yes, we should have explained that the fire test data 21 Q. Yes, so that was the amendment actually we were just 22 was specific to the rivet product. 22 looking at, where you had inserted an additional 23 Q. Yes, and that led to the erroneous and misleading 23 sentence on the front page saying that it had met 8414 24 statement within the BBA certificate that the panel was 24 for one specific construction on a masonry wall. That 25 fit for its purpose in fire both as a rivet fixandas 25 change was suggested by the BBA in 2008, but it was not
38 40
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 implemented on the certificate until July 2013. 1 were additional fire test reports that had not been 2 A. It was a clarification , but the construction was given, 2 revealed to the BBA, the BBA withdrew that certificate. 3 I believe , in the first issue of the certificate , sothe 3 MS GRANGE: Mr Chairman, thank you, I have come to the end 4 reader would have been able to infer that from the 4 of my prepared questions. If we could have a short 5 information given in the certificate . I do agree that 5 break to see if there are any more questions. We 6 it was improved and clarified in the second issue. 6 haven’t had many coming in recently, so I don’t think we 7 Q. But the point I’m putting to you is that the BBA was 7 need to take very long. 8 extremely slow to implement that important change. 8 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Well, it might be sensible to 9 A. Yes, it took longer than I would have expected, I agree. 9 combine this break with the ordinary morning break 10 Q. In the light of all of that, do you accept that the work 10 anyway. 11 of the BBA fell a long way short of the standards of 11 MS GRANGE: Yes, actually, that’s −− yes. 12 excellence advertised by the BBA on its website? 12 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Mr Albon, as you heard, counsel 13 A. I agree that mistakes were made and I regret those 13 thinks she has got to the end of her questions, but we 14 mistakes, but I still believe that, from the information 14 always have a bit of a break at this stage just to 15 made available to us, a suitably experienced and 15 ensure that that is the case, and also to give other 16 knowledgeable individual could have drawn conclusions 16 people who are following the proceedings the chance to 17 from the contents of the certificates . 17 suggest additional questions. 18 Q. Can we agree that by failing to adhere to those 18 So we’ll take a break at this point. I think we’ ll 19 standards of excellence , what the BBA did was to give 19 treat it as our mid−morning break. We will resume at 20 a public stamp of authority and authenticity to false 20 11.15, please, and then we will see at that stage 21 and inaccurate statements by the product manufacturers? 21 whether or not there are any more questions for you. 22 A. I agree that the BBA certificates were inaccurate as 22 All right? 23 a result of the information not having been declared to 23 ”Question: Okay, thank you. 24 us and so, yes, we did support inaccurate claims made by 24 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: As before, please don’t talk to 25 the manufacturer. 25 anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it
41 43
1 Q. Given everything we have gone through, do you also 1 during the break. 2 accept that the BBA has been slow to recognise that it 2 Good, thank you. We will see you again at 11.15, 3 was lacking in competence in the area of fire 3 please. Thank you very much. 4 performance assessment? 4 (11.01 am) 5 A. No, I think I ’ve evidenced that we have put many 5 (A short break) 6 improvements in place since the original assessment of 6 (11.15 am) 7 that certificate and that our competence is higher now 7 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Welcome back, everyone. We are now 8 than it was then. We are continuing to do so. 8 going to see whether there are any more questions from 9 Q. Finally , do you also accept that the BBA has shown 9 Mr Albon. So I’ ll just check that Mr Albon can see me 10 itself to be toothless and weak in its dealings with 10 and hear me clearly. 11 product manufacturers? 11 Mr Albon, are you there? 12 A. No, I don’t agree with that. 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. 13 Q. Why not? 13 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much indeed. 14 A. In what way have we shown ourselves to be toothless and 14 So we’ll now find out if there are any more questions 15 weak? 15 for you. 16 Q. By allowing statements by product manufacturers which 16 Yes, Ms Grange. 17 are inaccurate to go into BBA certificates, and not 17 MS GRANGE: Yes, just one more question, Mr Chairman, 18 correcting inaccurate statements in a timely manner. 18 please. 19 A. In terms of being toothless, we have or we took steps to 19 Mr Albon, can you help us about this: why isn’t the 20 withdraw the Arconic certificate when it became clear to 20 review process for a BBA certificate a thorough and 21 us that these fire test reports had not been revealed to 21 complete review of all original data, given that the 22 the BBA. That is the ultimate sanction we can take, to 22 contractual sanction for not doing a review is expiry of 23 withdraw a certificate , and that’s what we did. 23 the contract and lapse of the certificate ? Can you help 24 Q. In 2017. 24 us with that? 25 A. When we became aware, through the Inquiry, that there 25 A. All of our processes have developed and evolved over the
42 44
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 years. The current review process is different to those 1 Mr Pargeter, good morning, can you hear me and see 2 that we have been examining as part of the Inquiry. We 2 me? 3 now do require that we receive a full and written 3 THE WITNESS: Good morning, I can hear and see you, yes. 4 response to every point requested as part of the review 4 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you very much. 5 process, and the default position should that not be the 5 Now, although you made the affirmation last time, 6 case, is that the certificate is suspended until such 6 I think we released you, so we had better ask you to 7 time as the information is provided. 7 make it again. You should have the words of the 8 Q. I see. My question was just slightly different : why 8 affirmation on the screen in front of you. Do youhave 9 isn ’t the review process a thorough and complete review 9 those? 10 of all the original data and all the underlying 10 THE WITNESS: I do. 11 assumptions that have been made in the certificate, 11 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Could I ask you, please, then, to 12 given that the sanction for not doing it is effectively 12 make the affirmation by reading them out. 13 termination and withdrawal of the certificate ? 13 (Witness affirmed) 14 A. Well, as I said, our processes have developed and 14 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Very good, thank you very much. 15 evolved and they are now significantly more robust than 15 There are one or two housekeeping matters we have to 16 they were at that time, and I would expect that all of 16 deal with. 17 the necessary information would both be placed on file, 17 Can I ask you to confirm that you’re alone in the 18 properly reviewed, documented and signed off prior to 18 room from which you’re giving evidence? 19 the issue of that certificate . Given that that is the 19 THE WITNESS: I am alone, yes. 20 case, there seems little point in repeating the exercise 20 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you. 21 as part of the review. 21 Can you also confirm that you have no documents or 22 MS GRANGE: I see. Thank you very much. 22 other materials with you? 23 Mr Chairman, I have no further questions, it’s just 23 THE WITNESS: I don’t. 24 to thank this witness for coming and assisting our 24 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Right. 25 investigations . 25 Finally , can I ask you to confirm that your mobile
45 47
1 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Yes, thank you, Ms Grange. 1 phone is in another room and that you don’t have any 2 Well, Mr Albon, as you have heard, those are all the 2 other electronic device with you which is capable of 3 questions we have for you. We are very grateful to you 3 receiving messages? 4 for coming to give your evidence, and I would like to 4 THE WITNESS: I don’t have any devices on me at all. 5 thank you on behalf of myself and the other members of 5 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Right, thank you very much. 6 the panel. It ’s been very useful to hear what you have 6 Now, you probably know this, but I just confirm that 7 told us, and that’s all we have for you and you’re now 7 your legal representatives are with us in the virtual 8 free to go on your way. Thank you very much indeed. 8 hearing room. They can, if they feel it necessary to do 9 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 9 so, intervene in the proceedings, but they know and we 10 (The witness withdrew) 10 know that there are other arrangements under which they 11 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Now, we have another witness who 11 can contact our counsel, so I ’m going to ask them to 12 will be giving evidence in a moment, but in order to 12 keep their microphones and cameras switched off in the 13 make the necessary arrangements, we will have to have 13 ordinary way. 14 a short break. So we will break now and resume as soon 14 If we have a problem with sound or vision, we will 15 as we can. 15 take a short break while our technical support people 16 (11.17 am) 16 sort it out. 17 (A short break) 17 I think you’ ll probably still be giving evidence 18 (11.40 am) 18 this afternoon. We will have a break during the 19 MR ADRIAN WESTLEY PARGETER (recalled) 19 afternoon. We have already had one during the morning 20 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Welcome back, everyone. Our next 20 so I think we probably won’t go for another one during 21 witness is Mr Adrian Pargeter, who has already given 21 the morning. But if you feel you need any additional 22 evidence to the Inquiry, but whom we are recalling to 22 breaks other than those already scheduled, just let me 23 deal with some additional questions. 23 know and we will do our best to accommodate you. 24 So my first step is to check that Mr Pargeter can 24 THE WITNESS: I will do. 25 see me and hear me clearly. 25 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Is there anything you would like to
46 48
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 ask me or raise before you start giving your evidence? 1 A. Preparations, how do you mean? 2 THE WITNESS: No, I’m fine, thank you. 2 Q. Well, have you made any refreshment of your memory, have 3 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much. 3 you spoken to anybody, have you looked at documents, 4 In that case, I ’m going to invite Mr Millett to put 4 have you looked at previous statements in order to give 5 some questions to you. 5 evidence today? 6 MR MILLETT: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. 6 A. Yes, I have. Around the fifth witness statement, yes, 7 Questions from COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY 7 I have. 8 MR MILLETT: Mr Pargeter, first, can I ask you whether you 8 Q. Around the fifth witness statement, what do you mean? 9 can see me and hear me clearly? 9 A. Around the subject that’s contained within the fifth 10 A. I can see you and hear you, yes. 10 witness statement and the exhibits that I ’ve attached to 11 Q. Thank you very much. 11 it . 12 I should begin by thanking you very much for 12 Q. Right. What preparations have you made around the fifth 13 returning to the Inquiry to give further evidence. 13 witness statement, as you put it? 14 If you have any difficulty understanding any of the 14 A. Just looking at emails that were around at the time and 15 questions that I ’m asking you, or you want me to put the 15 checking back on the evidence that I gave on that last 16 question in a different way so you can understand it 16 morning as well. 17 better, I ’m very happy to do that. 17 Q. I see. Did anybody assist you with those preparations? 18 Could I also ask you, please, to keep your voice up 18 A. Just in providing documents. 19 so that the transcriber who is on this call can take 19 Q. Did anybody discuss the evidence that you’re going to be 20 down clearly what it is you’re saying. Also, again, 20 giving today on those matters or any other matters with 21 don’t nod or shake your head; please say ”yes” or ”no” 21 you before you came here today? 22 as the case may be. 22 A. No. 23 Mr Chairman has already explained what we’re going 23 Q. Are you aware of three requests for further disclosure 24 to be doing in relation to breaks today, and if we go 24 made by the Inquiry of Kingspan? 25 into tomorrow then there will be, I imagine, a scheduled 25 A. I ’m aware there’s been more evidence requests, yes.
49 51
1 break in the morning. 1 Q. Are you aware of Kingspan’s responses to those requests 2 Can you confirm that you gave evidence to this 2 for disclosure? 3 Inquiry on 7, 8 and the morning of 9 December 2020? 3 A. No. 4 A. I can. 4 Q. Do I take it from that that you were not the ultimate 5 Q. In addition to the four witness statements that you have 5 decision−maker at Kingspan in respect of Kingspan’s 6 given to the Inquiry which you confirmed in your 6 responses to the Inquiry’s requests for further 7 evidence on the last occasion, you I think have now 7 disclosure? 8 provided a further fifth witness statement to 8 A. That’s correct. 9 the Inquiry dated 14 January 2021; is that correct? 9 Q. Right. 10 A. That’s correct. 10 Now, on the last occasion that you gave evidence, 11 Q. Let’s look at that, then, please. It ’s at 11 9 December 2020, you held the position at Kingspan of 12 {KIN00024975}. Can we please have that up. 12 director of technical , marketing and regulatory affairs 13 Is that the first page of your fifth statement? 13 (Great Britain), didn’t you? 14 A. It is . 14 A. I did. 15 Q. Can you please go to page 7. You will see a signature 15 Q. Do you still hold that role? 16 above your name and the date there. Is that your 16 A. I do. 17 signature? 17 Q. Are you under any kind of internal investigation at 18 A. It is . 18 Kingspan? 19 Q. Have you read this fifth witness statement of yours 19 A. No. 20 recently? 20 Q. Have you made or been subjected to any arrangements to 21 A. I have. 21 leave Kingspan? 22 Q. Do you say that the contents of it are true? 22 A. No. 23 A. I do. 23 Q. And you’re not under any kind of suspension? 24 Q. Have you carried out any preparations in order to give 24 A. No. 25 evidence today? 25 Q. Now, I would like to look back first , really by way of
50 52
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 refreshment, if I may, to your previous evidence about 1 combustibility ’ insulation and/or cladding systems have 2 the 2018 tests. Forgive me for going a little bit 2 failed to meet BR 135 criteria such as ... ” 3 slowly with this , but let ’s take it in stages. 3 Then you set out three tests. 4 You will remember, I think, that on 9 December 2020, 4 ”(i) FAILED Test 1 [and you identify that] ... 5 Day 85 of this phase of the Inquiry, you gave some 5 27th October 2016.” 6 evidence on the subject of Kingspan’s testing of 6 Then if we turn the page to 114 {KIN00020824/114} 7 non−combustible insulation products in a BS 8414 test in 7 you can see failed test 2, a test conducted in Australia 8 the spring and summer of 2018, didn’t you? 8 in March 2018. Then failed test 3, you say: 9 A. I did. 9 ”This test was commissioned by Kingspan and carried 10 Q. Am I right that that arose out of paragraph 12.3(e) of 10 out at Exova in Dubai on 2nd July 2018. The system 11 your second witness statement, which I’ll show you, it’s 11 comprised Rockwool DuoSlab (which is rated A1) and 12 at {KIN00020824/113} and over to {KIN00020824/114}. 12 Vitracore G2 (which was understood at the time by 13 There is your second witness statement on the screen. 13 Kingspan to be rated A2). The construction of the test 14 That’s the first page. If we go to page 113, let’s look 14 rig was a replica of the Ministry of Housing, 15 together −− we probably need 112 {KIN00020824/112} to 15 Communities and Local Government tests conducted 16 show you where it starts, actually . This sits within 16 immediately after the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. The 17 a section, as you can see on the screen, headed: 17 test failed on the basis of thermocouple data which is 18 ”12. Comments on issues 4 and 4A from the Inquiry’s 18 detailed in the enclosed BR 135 Classification Report 19 list of issues ( last updated 25 September 2019).” 19 from Exova [which you exhibit].” 20 Then you say in paragraph 12.1: 20 Now, I’ve read you that in full so that you can 21 ”12.1. As well as being asked a number of questions 21 understand the questions that now, I think, flow from 22 by the Inquiry, I have in mind the Inquiry’s List of 22 that. 23 Issues last updated on 25 September 2019. I would like 23 It ’s right , isn ’t it , that when you made that 24 to add these comments to deal with issues 4 ... and 4A 24 statement in October 2019, Kingspan hadn’t searched for 25 [and you describe them] ... I have previously 25 and given disclosure to the Inquiry of all relevant
53 55
1 contributed to submissions Kingspan made to the MHCLG on 1 documents relating to what I’ve just read to you from 2 14 August 2018 in the consultation on ’Banning the use 2 your second statement? 3 of combustible materials in the external walls of 3 A. Kingspan hadn’t −− sorry, can you repeat the question? 4 high−rise residential buildings ’ (the Inquiry already 4 Q. Had not searched for and given disclosure to the Inquiry 5 has a copy of Kingspan’s response to this consultation 5 of all relevant documents relating to those comments 6 but a further copy can be made available on request) and 6 that I ’ve read to you. 7 to an extent these comments reflect those submissions. 7 A. I ’m not sure. 8 ”12.2. Experience and reflection has lead us to the 8 Q. You’re not sure. 9 view that the most effective way of achieving the goal 9 The reason I ask you that is because, following 10 of improving the safety of building occupants in the 10 further requests from the Inquiry that I mentioned to 11 event of a fire , would be to ensure that all cladding 11 you at the start of your evidence, Kingspan made further 12 systems are tested as complete systems in their intended 12 disclosures in January of this year, 2021, relating to 13 configuration to BS 8414 standards so as to meet the 13 the 2018 testing. You know that, don’t you? Or do you 14 requirements set out in BR 135. Experience suggests 14 not know that? 15 this delivers better safety outcomes and in our view is 15 A. I wouldn’t have known the specifics around that. 16 best practice rather than simply banning of classes of 16 Q. Is it right that when you referred to documents here in 17 certain materials.” 17 your second statement dealing with these comments at 18 Then at 12.3 you explain the rationale behind this 18 part 12 of that statement, you were referring simply to 19 view, and if we go over the page {KIN00020824/113} to 19 those documents that you had selected or had been 20 (e) at the bottom of page 113, you say: 20 selected for you? 21 ”It is not correct to assume that any combination of 21 A. That I’d selected as part of what I was saying here. 22 ’non−combustible’ systems are safe irrespective of how 22 Q. But I’m right in thinking that you didn’t commission or 23 they are assembled in a holistic system. Permitted 23 cause to be commissioned a full search of all documents 24 product combinations can yield unsafe systems: systems 24 relating to the testing in the summer of 2018? 25 comprising so−called ’non−combustible’ and ’limited 25 A. No, I didn’t.
54 56
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Q. Do you know why that was? 1 room? 2 A. Why I didn’t? 2 A. Yes, they left immediately. 3 Q. Yes, why you didn’t. 3 Q. There’s nobody in the room with you? 4 A. No, I don’t. I don’t know. 4 A. No, no, there’s nobody in the room with me. 5 Q. Do you know why it was not done, regardless of whether 5 Q. Thank you. 6 it was you? 6 Let’s have the first of those email chains up, 7 A. No, I don’t. 7 please, {KIN00004637}. This was the email chain from 8 Q. Right. 8 early March 2018 entitled ”RE: Ulster Tests/MHCLG 9 Now, you can see from what I’ve shown you that you 9 Select Committee Lobbying”. Do you remember this email 10 made no reference in this statement or made any 10 chain? 11 disclosure of documents relating to a test conducted on 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 22 May 2018 in Dubai, did you? 12 Q. I don’t want to read it all to you again at this stage, 13 A. That’s correct. 13 but you remember that, and the second chain we looked at 14 Q. And you didn’t do that until after your examination had 14 was {KIN00004658}, if we can have that up, please, and 15 completed in December 2020, had you? 15 you will recall that this was the chain of emails in 16 A. That’s correct. 16 April 2018, also relating to the testing to come and 17 Q. Now, on the last occasion you gave evidence, 17 entitled ”Linear Route Action Plan”. Do you recall 18 9 December 2020, you gave evidence about a series of 18 those; yes? 19 emails that were generated internally within Kingspan in 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 March and April of 2018 about the testing done in that 20 Q. Do you recall giving evidence that the aim of those 21 year. Do you remember that? 21 tests that was discussed in those emails was to obtain 22 A. I do. 22 evidence to support the need for full −scale testing of 23 Q. I’ ll just put the email chains up in front of you one by 23 all systems and demonstrate that materials that are 24 one to refresh your memory of what you were examined 24 ”deemed to satisfy the linear route” don’t automatically 25 about. The first of those is at {KIN00004637}. 25 always meet the criteria under BR 135 when tested
57 59
1 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Mr Millett, before you go on, can 1 full scale to BS 8414? 2 I just ask Mr Pargeter: Mr Pargeter, is there a light in 2 A. That’s correct. 3 the room in which you’re sitting which has failed? 3 Q. Do you recall also that you were asked and confirmed 4 Because at the moment we can only see half of your face, 4 that the system, the proposed system to be tested as 5 I regret to say. 5 discussed in these March and April 2018 emails, was the 6 THE WITNESS: What’s happened is the main room lighting, I 6 system that was tested by Kingspan in Dubai on 7 think because there’s not enough movement, has gone into 7 2 July 2018? 8 dim mode, so I’ll switch this light on now. 8 A. Yes, that’s correct . 9 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: See if that’s any better. 9 Q. And you confirmed that; yes? 10 THE WITNESS: If I can, if I know how to do it. 10 A. We talked about two systems in that evidence: there was 11 (Pause) 11 the A2 system which was the earlier test, and then there 12 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: That’s definitely an improvement. 12 was the G2 system, which is the later test . So in 13 THE WITNESS: The main lighting has now come on, now I’ve 13 discussion we actually discussed both. 14 moved around. 14 Q. Well, not to my knowledge, Mr Pargeter. Let’s show you 15 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Well, if you start waving your arms 15 the transcript , because this is I think what you’re here 16 around, we’ll understand that you’re just trying to 16 to correct . 17 switch the light on. 17 A. Yes. 18 Well, thank you, that makes a lot of difference . 18 Q. Let’s go to {Day85/77:12}. I would like to pick it up 19 Thank you very much. 19 at line 12 where I say, ”Let’s move on”. 20 MR MILLETT: Thank you. 20 I ’d shown you the March and April emails, nothing 21 Mr Pargeter, you were speaking to somebody just 21 else , and I asked you at line 13: 22 then. Who was that? 22 ”Question: The test went ahead, didn’t it, and it 23 A. That was just somebody nipping in to try and get the 23 failed ? 24 lights to work. They have gone back out again now. 24 ”Answer: Yes. 25 Q. I see. Can you confirm that they have now left the 25 ”Question: And I think it went ahead in fact in
58 60
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 July 2018, 2 July, didn’t it ? 1 ”This witness statement is provided in addition to 2 ”Answer: I believe so. 2 the four earlier statements which I have provided to the 3 ”Question: Yes, just to be clear , we’ve got the 3 Inquiry and relates to two fire system tests carried out 4 test or the classification report at {KIN00000480}. 4 in accordance with BS 8414 Part 2, which Kingspan 5 Let’s have a look at that, please. It ’s report number 5 Insulation Limited (’Kingspan’) commissioned in 2018. 6 SR0894, ’Vitracore G2 Composite Panel with 180mm 6 This issue was addressed on 9 December 2020, my final 7 Rockwool Duo Slab Insulation’, and if we look down to 7 day of evidence, and I wish to deal with an error that 8 the next page {KIN00000480/2}, we can see, just working 8 has been made in the evidence heard by the Inquiry in 9 through it −− and this is an Exova test −− the test 9 relation to these tests .” 10 sample description with Siderise cavity barriers there, 10 Then you go on to say at paragraph 3.1, if we can 11 and then over the next page {KIN00000480/3}, the 11 just turn to that, please, which you will find on page 5 12 insulation , 180 millimetres of Rockwool, railing, and 12 {KIN00024975/5}: 13 the cladding panel there, Vitracore G2, and more details 13 ”I refer to the transcript of evidence that I gave 14 on the right−hand side. 14 to the Inquiry on 9 December 2020, and in particular, 15 ”If you go to the next page {KIN00000480/4}, you can 15 day 85 pages 71−77, when I was asked about some of the 16 see the drawings, the build−up. 16 emails exhibited to this witness statement as AP5/1. 17 ”Do you have any reason to think that what was 17 I was then referred to the letter from Richard Burnley 18 tested as per this classification report was different 18 to Clive Betts dated 6 July 2018 exhibited to this 19 from what was discussed in the April emails we have been 19 witness statement as AP5/3, and to the July test 20 looking at? 20 classification report. I was then asked ’Do you have 21 ”Answer: No, not that I can think of.” 21 any reason to think that what was tested as per this 22 Now, we’ve −− 22 classification report was different from what was 23 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Now, Mr Millett, I’m sorry that I’m 23 discussed in the April emails we have been looking at?’ 24 going to interrupt you again at this point, and I hope 24 (Day 85, page 78, lines 7−10 of the transcript). 25 that Mr Pargeter can remember the passages you have just 25 I replied , ’No, I think ... ’
61 63
1 shown him. 1 ”Although I had been asked by the Inquiry to reply 2 The reason I’m interrupting you is because, as 2 in writing, via witness statements, to several hundred 3 I think most of those watching us will know, a national 3 questions, no questions had previously been raised 4 one−minute silence is being held at noon today in 4 specifically about the April 2018 emails and so Ihad 5 remembrance of those who have died from COVID and the 5 not reviewed them in detail previously and, under oral 6 many others whose lives have been affected by it during 6 questioning, I could not recall that there had been two 7 the past year. 7 separate tests carried out in May and July 2018. I have 8 We will observe that one−minute silence, and we will 8 now had an opportunity to review the emails attached to 9 observe it now. 9 this witness statement and would like to correct my 10 (One−minute silence) 10 evidence. The emails exhibited to this witness 11 Thank you all very much. 11 statement as AP5/1 and AP5/2 are about the May test. 12 Well, I ’m sorry to interrupt the train of your 12 The information sent to Clive Betts in the letter dated 13 thought like that, Mr Pargeter, I hope you can remember 13 6 July 2018 is about the July test. The answer that 14 the passages that Mr Millett was trying to remind you 14 I gave while giving oral evidence in relation to the 15 of. 15 question set out in paragraph 3.1 of this witness 16 Mr Millett, would you like now to put your question? 16 statement is therefore incorrect .” 17 MR MILLETT: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you. 17 Now, to be clear, when you say here at 18 I ’ve shown you the passage which was your evidence 18 paragraph 3.2, ”The emails exhibited to this witness 19 last time. 19 statement as AP5/1 and AP5/2 are about the May test”, 20 Can we now look at your fifth witness statement, 20 are you saying that they are only about the May test and 21 please, which we looked at before, and to which you 21 have nothing whatever to do with the July test? 22 swore this morning. I would like to go to page 1, 22 A. I think the main thrust of those emails and discussions 23 paragraph 1.1, please, your fifth statement 23 was about the May test, the A2 test, rather than the G2 24 {KIN000024975}. 24 test . 25 Can we look down at paragraph 1.1. You say this: 25 Q. Well, we’ ll come to look at those emails again shortly.
62 64
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Can you confirm anyway for the purposes of clarity 1 submitted, and it was looking back at that where I could 2 that the two BS 8414 tests that we now know about, May 2 see there that it does clearly state it was the A2 one, 3 and July 2018, were the only tests that Kingspan had 3 but under −− on the day, I just couldn’t recall it as 4 undertaken using A1 and A2 cladding panels as part of 4 being a separate test . 5 its testing of the linear route to compliance? 5 Q. When you were reminded of the May test by your legal 6 A. With a non−combustible insulation, yes. 6 team, did they show you any documents? 7 Q. Yes. 7 (Pause) 8 You say that the May 2018 used Alucobond A2 panels 8 A. Just the ones that are attached to my witness statement. 9 as the cladding and the July 2018 test used Vitracore G2 9 Q. Those documents were documents that had not previously 10 panels; yes? 10 been disclosed to the Inquiry, were they? 11 A. That’s correct, yes. 11 A. I wasn’t aware of that. I thought certainly the one 12 Q. Do you say that not once during detailed examination of 12 with the red email writing on was one that had been 13 the topic when you gave evidence in December, you didn’t 13 previously submitted. 14 at all recall that the May 2018 test took place? 14 Q. Did they show you any documents which had not to that 15 A. No, it just didn’t come to me, unfortunately. 15 point been disclosed to the Inquiry? 16 Q. Right. 16 A. I don’t know whether they were disclosed or not, what 17 When did you first recall that the May test had been 17 their status were at that time. 18 carried out? 18 Q. So can we take it that although you had forgotten, you 19 A. I think probably when I got away from evidence and back 19 say, the fact that the May test had taken place, your 20 at work and I was told then that, you know, I’d missed 20 legal team were aware of it? 21 that May −− the May test, and so then I started to look 21 A. Yes, yes, they would have been aware of it. 22 back at it and we decided, you know, we needed to do 22 Q. Right. 23 another witness statement to correct that. 23 Now, I don’t want to ask you about communications 24 Q. Who told you that? 24 between you and your legal team, but can you explain to 25 A. It was colleagues or the team, the team that I’m working 25 us, to the best of your knowledge, why it was that
65 67
1 with. 1 Kingspan had not disclosed the documents about the May 2 Q. Colleagues or the team that you were working with? Can 2 test or which indicated in any way that a test in May 3 you tell me who reminded you of the May test when you 3 had gone ahead? 4 got back to −− 4 A. Well, they had, because they’d −− the documents you 5 A. It may have been our legal team, and said −− 5 showed me on that day actually were about that May test, 6 Q. Do you remember? 6 so certainly the one with the red email was really all 7 A. −− we need to correct this, we need to correct this 7 about the May test and not about the second test in 8 evidence. 8 June. So that had already been submitted. It was my 9 Q. You say it may have been your legal team? 9 failure to connect that at the time rather than the lack 10 A. Yeah, I think it was. 10 of evidence. 11 Q. You think it was your legal team, right. When you say 11 Q. Do you say that the March and April emails relate to the 12 your legal team, do you mean your independent solicitors 12 test done only in May 2018 and not at all to the July 13 or do you mean a lawyer in−house at Kingspan? 13 test? 14 A. I think it was the −− our independent legal team. 14 A. I can’t quite remember the end of them, but certainly at 15 Q. Right. 15 the beginning of them, at the early stages, certainly 16 When did this discussion take place, can you recall? 16 the big chunk in red, that was all about the A2 test, 17 A. It might have been a few −− a week or so after giving 17 and the discussions with Nick Jenkins I remember being 18 evidence. I had a few days off, and then I think it 18 brought to and the design of that test , all of that 19 might have been discussed then, and we needed to start 19 discussion was around the A2 test. We didn’t actually 20 to look into it , and that’s when we prepared the fifth 20 discuss at all anything around the design and 21 witness statement for January. 21 installation processes of the G2 test, the second test 22 Q. Right. Did they show you any documents as part of the 22 in June. 23 refreshment by them of your recollection at that time? 23 Q. You confirmed in your evidence last time that the March 24 A. The doc −− there was some documents already −− that one 24 and April emails we looked at, including the red 25 document with the red email chain on was one I’d already 25 writing, related to the July test . Are you now saying
66 68
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 that they related solely to the May test −− 1 ”10th May 2018. Exova. Kingspan Insulation ... 2 A. Yes. 2 Alpolic A2 ACM BML 400. K15.” 3 Q. −− or that they related to −− you are saying that? 3 And then there is the BS 8414 report number and 4 A. Yes, yes, they related to the May test. 4 date, and the classification report. 5 Q. I see. 5 Now, that is not, is it , the linear route test the 6 When you were reminded, when you got back to the 6 subject of the March and April emails, is it ? 7 office after giving evidence and spoke to your legal 7 A. I don’t think so. To be certain, I ’d need to look at 8 team, of the fact that the May test had gone ahead, did 8 that DLR1558, but I don’t think so. 9 you want to see any further documents about the May test 9 Q. Have you been able to locate or have you seen any 10 which showed when it had gone ahead and with what rig it 10 documents or correspondence that shows that the test 11 had gone ahead and what the results were? 11 planned for 10 May on the system the subject of the 12 A. Well, when I was reminded, when I got back, obviously 12 March and April emails was then moved to 22 May? 13 I started to recall exactly what happened, and in those 13 A. No, I don’t think so. 14 emails you can see the detail in that anyway. So that’s 14 Q. We’ve seen no records at all in Kingspan’s disclosure 15 the evidence that we’ve got. 15 showing how the May test was booked or paid for, or who 16 Q. Right. That’s not quite an answer to my question. My 16 the attendees were to be, or how the materials were 17 question was: did you want to see any further emails 17 shipped or any drawings of the test. Are you able to 18 that related to the May testing in the respects I ’ve 18 explain why we haven’t seen any such documents? 19 identified ? 19 A. No, no, I’m not. 20 A. I don’t think I requested anything extra. 20 Q. Have you seen any such documents? 21 Q. Right. 21 A. Into that detail about that, I don’t think I have, no. 22 Now, can we go to the April emails, {KIN00004658}. 22 Q. Have you asked to see any such documents? 23 Just to have them on the screen. 23 A. No. 24 Do you recall that the linear route test was 24 Q. Why is that? 25 originally planned for 10 May 2018? 25 A. I didn’t think I needed to.
69 71
1 A. I don’t specifically recall that. 1 Q. Right. Surely in correcting the evidence you gave last 2 Q. Well, let ’s go to page 3 within this email run 2 time, so as to correct the record and ensure that 3 {KIN00004658/3}, just to refresh your recollection once 3 the Inquiry knows about the May test as opposed to the 4 again. This is part of the way through Nick Jenkins’ 4 July test , did it not occur to you that the Inquiry 5 10 April email, which starts on page 3 halfway down and 5 might like to see all the documents showing how the test 6 then goes over the page. 6 was paid for, booked, who attended it, and what the 7 It ’s towards the foot of page 3, do you see there is 7 results were? 8 a heading, ”BS 8414 Test Proposal (Dubai)”: 8 A. I think we provided everything that we’ve got which 9 ”To utilise the test slot booked by KIL on 10th May 9 would come under the search term, so I don’t know what 10 available for a test on a system comprised of materials 10 else there is to show. 11 ’deemed to satisfy’ BR 135.” 11 Q. Right. I see. 12 So can you confirm that it’s right that, in fact , 12 Would you or would Kingspan normally arrange a test, 13 the linear route test was originally planned for 13 pay for a test , and organise people to attend it , 14 10 May 2018? 14 without any documents at all showing those matters? 15 A. Yes, that looks correct . 15 A. No, I’m sure those −− there will be documentation for 16 Q. Yes, and it’s right , isn ’t it , that in fact Kingspan 16 those tests . 17 tested a system containing K15 as the insulation product 17 Q. Yes. 18 on 10 May 2018 at Exova Dubai, which was not a linear 18 Now, you can see, as I’ve shown you from the 19 route system? 19 schedule to your second witness statement, box 15, on 20 A. Oh, I don’t recall what was tested as K15 at the time. 20 page 7, that the test that went ahead on 10 May in Dubai 21 Q. Let me help you. Can we go to {KIN00020869/7}. Now, 21 was for K15 and Alpolic A2. 22 this is page 7 of appendix A to your second witness 22 Can we go to {KIN00004658/1}. This is the April 23 statement, which we’ve looked at. I would like just to 23 email string we looked at a moment ago, and if we go to 24 show you box 15 at the very bottom of the screen you 24 page 1 of that, you can see that there is some 25 have in front of you. It says there: 25 discussion about an Alpolic test.
70 72
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 If you go down, please, to halfway down page 1 1 when you see it says at the bottom of page 3, ”To 2 there, you can see that Nick Jenkins writes on 13 April: 2 utilise the test slot booked by KIL on 10th May”? Was 3 ”A test slot for a part 1 test wall (Rig 2) at BRE 3 there a decision to keep the Alpolic and K15 test as per 4 Watford has become available for our use commencing 4 the original schedule for 10 May and then find another 5 23rd April. 5 test slot for the linear route action plan test? 6 ”This was reserved for Tower Eight who I have been 6 A. Which was in April, I think. 7 dealing with in connection with re−clad solutions for 7 Q. No, which was on 22 May, as you’ve told us. 8 a number of their clients properties . This was 8 A. There was a test in April , I think, wasn’t it? The A2 9 offer [ sic ] to us on the back of a meeting with themin 9 test was April. 10 London yesterday. 10 Q. No. 11 ”Any objections to taking advantage of this 11 A. Oh, was it May? 12 serendipitous opportunity? It would save a small 12 Q. Well, your evidence which you swore to this morning in 13 fortune in airfreight and air fares .” 13 your fifth witness statement said there were two linear 14 If you go up to the next email back, there is 14 route tests : one in May and one in July. 15 another email from Nick Jenkins, this time to you and 15 A. Yes, okay. Yes. 16 John Garbutt, dated 15 April, and he says −− and this is 16 Q. What I’m seeking to get to the bottom of is how the date 17 also subject ”Re: Linear Route Action Plan”, copied to 17 for the 22 May test came about. 18 Gene Murtagh and Gilbert McCarthy: 18 I ’ve shown you the emails, which show you that the 19 ”Tower Eight on behalf of Whitbread have now decided 19 10 May was in fact used for a K15 and Alpolic A2 test, 20 that they will be utilising their test slot after all . 20 which was not the linear route test . Here we see the 21 So we remain focused on Plan A... 21 proposal to use that slot for the linear route test , and 22 ”As a result of my presentation yesterday, the test 22 in the end the linear route test took place on 22 May. 23 that they will carry out using their pre booked slot 23 My question is: what arrangements were made to fix 24 will now be an assembly combining K15 and ALPOLIC A2. 24 that test or get the slot for 22 May? 25 This will be to justify the retention of K15 as part of 25 A. Oh, it would have been just with discussions with
73 75
1 the re−clad of multiple Premier Inns, changing the 1 Efectis and see what slots they’d got available . 2 existing PE panels to ALPOLIC A2.” 2 Q. Were you involved in those discussions? 3 Then at the very top of the email string , you can 3 A. I think our guy who was in Dubai at the time, 4 see that you respond −− or perhaps reflect internally, 4 Adrian Brazier, would have been liaising with 5 I think it ’s copied on, actually , to Adrian Brazier and 5 Nick Jenkins and with Efectis to see what slots they’d 6 Adam Heath within Kingspan, subject ”FW: Linear Route 6 got and I think that’s how that came about. 7 Action Plan”: 7 Q. Did those arrangements or communications happen in 8 ”Back to plan A!!” 8 writing? 9 Now, I show you that to prompt your recollection. 9 A. There would have been emails about that, I think, but 10 Is it right that you were at one stage going to use 10 I can’t quite recall right now, but I think there would 11 Tower Eight’s slot to do a linear route test , but then 11 have been some discussion with Adrian Brazier about it. 12 they took up their slot , hence back to plan A in Dubai? 12 Q. Right. Were you copied in on those emails or otherwise 13 A. That looks like what the proposal from Nick Jenkins was. 13 party to them? 14 Obviously he was in discussions with Tower Eight and it 14 A. I was certainly copied in on some of the correspondence 15 would be an opportunity to save doing it in Dubai. 15 between Nick Jenkins and Ade Brazier out there doing the 16 Q. I see. 16 sort of final setting up, making sure the materials had 17 Do you know why you proceeded yourselves then to do 17 arrived there and drawings were ready. I remember 18 a K15 and Alpolic A2 test in the 10 May slot instead of 18 discussions of that being on email. 19 the linear test that you had planned as plan A? 19 Q. Right. Have you or did you review those emails when 20 A. No, I think that was already on the programme to be done 20 preparing to give your fifth witness statement? 21 with the Alpolic systems, so I think we’d already 21 A. Yes, I think I saw some on that, yes. 22 committed to that. 22 Q. You didn’t exhibit any, did you? 23 Q. I see. 23 A. No. 24 If that is so, can you explain, going back to the 24 Q. Why is that? 25 bottom of page 3 {KIN00004658/3}, what then happened 25 A. I would assume they’d have been captured in the
74 76
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 evidence. 1 A. I think probably then I would have understood that and 2 Q. Now −− 2 recalled it , yes. 3 A. −− the main thing. 3 Q. Yes, and so therefore did you choose, when signing that 4 Q. −− I will check this, but as I stand here I am told that 4 second statement, to make no reference to the May test 5 Kingspan have not produced those emails. Are you able 5 but only to refer to the July test? 6 to explain why that is? 6 A. Yes, I think we probably did, yes, I think I probably 7 A. No, I can’t. 7 did, because the G2 test is what we’d got the report on 8 Q. Was Nick Jenkins already in Dubai on 10 May, do you 8 and the evidence on to submit. 9 know? 9 Q. So do I take it from that that you chose to refer to the 10 A. No, I don’t know. I don’t think he was, but I don’t 10 July test because it proved your point, but chose not to 11 know. 11 refer to the May test? 12 Q. Was he involved in the K15 testing that you undertook on 12 A. Yes, I think that’s correct . 13 10 May using the Alpolic A2 panel? 13 Q. And you chose not to refer to the May test because it 14 A. I can’t recall if Nick was there for that test or not. 14 didn’t prove your point; would that be fair? 15 Q. Right. He was involved, I think −− you have just told 15 A. That’s correct. 16 us, but do confirm −− in the testing that took place on 16 Q. Yes. 17 22 May, which was the linear route test; yes? 17 Now, in light of your new witness statement, we need 18 A. That’s correct, yes. 18 to look again, I think, at certain aspects of the March 19 Q. Now, to be clear, at no time during your evidence on 7, 19 and April emails and your evidence about it that you 20 8 or 9 December 2020 or in any of your four previous 20 gave on 9 December. I’m sorry for going back over old 21 witness statements to the Inquiry did you mention 21 ground, Mr Pargeter, but I think it ’s probably 22 a linear route test being undertaken by Kingspan in 22 necessary. 23 May 2018. Do you agree? 23 Can we start, please, by looking at your fifth 24 A. That’s correct. 24 witness statement at paragraph 1.2 on page 1 25 Q. Why is that? 25 {KIN00024975/1}. You say in paragraph 1.2:
77 79
1 A. Because it was the G2 test which proved the point that 1 ”Both tests were carried out by Exova at their test 2 we were trying to make about the relying on small−scale 2 facility at Al−Futtaim in Dubai. The first test took 3 testing , and it was that test that we then had a full 3 place on 22 May 2018 (’the May test’). The second took 4 report for and then used as evidence to the select 4 place on 2 July 2018 (’the July test ’ ). Both tests were 5 committee and other consultations, not the A2 test. 5 carried out with cladding systems including cladding 6 Q. Yes. Did you choose not to refer to the May test? 6 panels and insulation products rated either as limited 7 A. I can’t −− I don’t recall it being a conscious decision 7 combustibility (A2) or non−combustible (A1) and 8 to choose not to. 8 therefore deemed to be compliant with Approved 9 Q. In answer to my question why you didn’t refer to it in 9 Document B of the Building Regulations for use over 10 your previous four witness statements or in any of your 10 18 metres under the linear route. For the avoidance of 11 evidence before, you said, in answer to the question 11 doubt, neither of the systems tested in either the May 12 why, it was because it was the G2 test which proved the 12 test or the July test incorporated Kingspan K15 or any 13 point you were trying to make. My question, I’ ll put it 13 of the cladding or insulation materials used during the 14 again, is : does that tell us that Kingspan had made 14 Grenfell Tower refurbishment project.” 15 a conscious decision not to refer to or reveal the 15 Now, that’s what you say. 16 existence of the May test? 16 Let’s look at the March emails first . We saw them 17 A. I don’t recall it being conscious or not, but we −− it 17 before. They are at {KIN00004637}, please. You can see 18 wasn’t referred to. 18 that the title is ”Ulster Tests/MHCLG Select Committee 19 Q. Now, as I’ve shown you, you do mention the July 2018 19 Lobbying”. 20 test or what you call the G2 test in your second witness 20 Can we go to page 3 {KIN00004637/3}, and look in the 21 statement to the Inquiry at paragraph 12.3(c) 21 middle of page 3, and you will see there an email of 22 {KIN00020824/113} in October 2019. When you were 22 2 March 2018 from Mark Harris to you as well as others, 23 preparing that statement, casting your mind back, had 23 including Gilbert McCarthy as a copied party. It 24 you not recalled that there was also an earlier test in 24 starts : 25 Dubai on 22 May 2018? 25 ”Hi Adrian, John et al,
78 80
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 ”It ’s clear that Kevin Hollinrake is still pretty 1 ”The objective of the discussion was to look closely 2 lukewarm about our draft letter/arguments to address 2 at potential issues related to use of the linear route 3 MHCLG select committee and MP concerns.” 3 to compliance − in other words provide evidence to 4 Pausing there, do you agree that this email chain, 4 demonstrate that the linear route approach has 5 starting with this email from Mark Harris about 5 weaknesses and full scale testing is essential for all 6 Kevin Hollinrake MP’s concerns, is where the testing of 6 systems. We reviewed evidence currently available and 7 a linear route system is discussed? 7 discussed how we can generate evidence for use in both 8 A. It is discussed in this email, yes. 8 the political arena and with the Hackitt Review team.” 9 Q. Yes. The reference in the first line there to a draft 9 Just pausing there, do you remember that on 10 letter or arguments to be put to the select committee, 10 9 December 2020 I asked you what discussion was being 11 what was that draft letter? 11 referred to and you answered that you couldn’t recall 12 A. I think that was something that was being considered to 12 that discussion? Do you remember that? 13 submit to the select committee. 13 A. Yes, I do. 14 Q. Right. 14 Q. Yes, and just for your reference, that’s at 15 A. And Mark had had discussions with Kevin Hollinrake 15 {Day85/51:22}. 16 around this. 16 Now, on 10 March this year, so within this month, 17 Q. Right. Do you know whether that draft letter has been 17 the Inquiry received some 530−odd documents from 18 produced to the Inquiry? 18 Kingspan following the Inquiry’s request for disclosure . 19 A. I don’t. 19 Included in that disclosure was your diary entry for 20 Q. You don’t. 20 9 April 2018. Can we look at that, that’s 21 Did the draft letter go to Kevin Hollinrake as 21 {KIN00025428}. Can you confirm that this is your diary 22 a draft for his comments? 22 entry relating to 9 April 2018? 23 A. I don’t know. 23 A. Yes, that looks like a diary entry, yes. 24 Q. Was the draft letter an early draft or even an advanced 24 Q. If you look towards the bottom of the screen, you can 25 draft of the letter that ended up being sent to the 25 see:
81 83
1 select committee on 6 July 2018? 1 ”Required Attendees: John Garbutt; Cook Phil 2 A. I couldn’t confirm that. I would make that assumption 2 [Phil Cook] ... Adrian Pargeter; Roy Weghorst; 3 but I couldn’t confirm that. 3 Tony Ryan.” 4 Q. Now, do you remember whether or not this was the first 4 Does that tell us that there was a meeting on that 5 time that the linear route system testing was discussed 5 date? 6 within Kingspan? 6 A. Yes, I think there would have been a meeting on that 7 A. I wouldn’t have thought it was the first time, because 7 date, yes. 8 I ’m being brought in here to sort of I think try and 8 Q. And you can see at the top of the page: 9 make it happen, so I would assume that’s been talked 9 ”Subject: Conf call − Linear route compliance 10 about earlier . 10 discussion/testing programme. 11 Q. Right. We will come and look at some documents about 11 ”Location: KIP − RM EC Boardroom (Holywell).” 12 that perhaps shortly. 12 Is KIP Kingspan Pembridge? 13 Can we then go back to the April emails which we saw 13 A. No, it ’s Kingspan Panels. 14 earlier , {KIN00004658/4}. These are all entitled 14 Q. Then RM, is that ”room”? 15 ”Linear Route Action Plan”, as we’ve seen. The first 15 A. I would assume so, it’s their room location sequence in 16 email in this chain starts on page 4, and it’s the one 16 Holywell. 17 with the red text. Can we go to that, please. It 17 Q. I see. 18 starts at the bottom of that page, as you can see, and 18 A. −− in Holywell. 19 it ’s from Mark Harris, dated 9 April 2018, to 19 Q. I see. 20 John Garbutt, you, and a group of others, including 20 Now, let’s go back to Mark Harris’ email of 9 April 21 Nick Jenkins, copied to Gene Murtagh and 21 at {KIN00004658/4}. At the very, very bottom of the 22 Gilbert McCarthy. 22 screen, bottom of the page, he says: 23 The first paragraph in this email refers to 23 ”Notes and actions as follows ... ” 24 a meeting in red letters that’s taken place and it says: 24 And then if we turn to page 5 {KIN00004658/5}: 25 ”Hi all , 25 ”1. Data from failed BS 8414 tests. We are aware
82 84
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 of at least 2 BS 8414 tests comprising only non−/limited 1 Q. Yes. 2 combustible materials that have failed to meet BR135 2 Now, I’ve shown you that, we’ll come back to it. 3 criteria . Key reasons for the failures are believed to 3 I then read you the last paragraph of this email on 4 be associated with the A2 cassette 4 page 6 {KIN00004658/6}, if we can go to that, and I’ll 5 type/robustness/geometry and/or the combustibility of 5 read it to you again. At the top of the screen, it 6 the mineral fibre insulation system (binder 6 says: 7 content/presence of polyethylene adhered aluminium 7 ”I thought we had an extremely useful session this 8 foil ). However, we do not have access to the reports or 8 morning with actions that could deliver some very 9 any rights to make this information public. Actions − 9 valuable evidence to support the need for full scale 10 Test Alucopanel A2 material in bomb calorimeter to 10 testing of all systems and demonstrate that materials 11 determine heat release (NJ has sample). Also test 11 that are ’deemed to satisfy’ the linear route do not 12 Vitracore A2 honeycomb in bomb calorimeter. This 12 automatically meet BR135 criteria when tested full scale 13 testing is for information only at this stage.” 13 to BS 8414.” 14 Then under item 2, which is particularly important, 14 You agreed in your evidence last time that this was 15 we looked at this last time in detail , Mr Pargeter, 15 indeed the purpose of the testing ; do you recall that? 16 we’ ll look at it again: 16 A. That’s correct. 17 ”KIL has 3 upcoming slots at Exova in Dubai and has 17 Q. Yes, and that’s {Day85/58:2−4}. 18 agreed to make a slot on 10th May available for a test 18 We then went back to the middle of page 5 19 on a system comprised of materials ’deemed to satisfy’ 19 {KIN00004858/5} −− and I’m reminding you of what 20 BR 135. Discussion during the meeting identified the 20 happened last time in your evidence. If we go back to 21 following test proposal for a configuration that has the 21 the middle of page 5, we went through in detail the 22 potential to fail BR 135 criteria ... ” 22 weaknesses and the poor assembly that was being proposed 23 Note the words ”potential to fail ”: 23 for that test , and you call that test −− I’m summarising 24 ”a. BS 8414 Part 2. 24 your evidence, so please forgive me −− a worst−case 25 ”b. Mmmf duoslab insulation.” 25 scenario. Do you remember that?
85 87
1 Just pausing there, ”mmmf” is man−made mineral 1 A. Yes, that’s correct . 2 fibre , isn ’t it ? 2 Q. Yes, and do you still maintain that: it was a worst−case 3 A. Correct. 3 scenario kind of test? That’s correct? 4 Q. ”c. 38mm ventilated cavity. 4 A. −− the A2 test, the May test, yes. 5 ”d. Alucobond A2 ACM cassettes (with ’weak’ 5 Q. Yes. 6 structural specification ) 6 We then looked up at Mark Harris’ email of 10 April, 7 ”e. Cavity barriers included. 7 which one sees on page 3 {KIN00004658/3}. If we go from 8 ”Actions − NJ to create drawing of A2 cassette 8 page 5 to page 3 −− I’m sorry to do this in this order, 9 assembly that could perform poorly [note that]. Also 9 but this is how it went chronologically −− you can see 10 arrange fabrication . 10 that that set out the test programme under ”BS 8414 Test 11 ”Detailed test specification to be developed and 11 Proposal (Dubai)”. And that said −− and I’ve shown you 12 agreed by all . 12 this a little bit earlier this morning, let’s look at it 13 ”AP ...” 13 again: 14 Is that Adrian Pargeter? 14 ”To utilise the test slot booked by KIL on 10 May 15 A. Yes. 15 available for a test on a system comprised of materials 16 Q. ”NJ”, Nick Jenkins, yes? Yes. 16 ’deemed to satisfy’ BR 135. AP has advised that we need 17 ” ... to arrange materials for test on 10th May in 17 to get the full set of panels and components to 18 Dubai. 18 Pembridge to be packaged for air freight to Dubai by the 19 ”KIP/KIL to share costs.” 19 end of the day on Friday 13th April this week. This 20 Is that Kingspan Panels/Kingspan Limited? 20 represents a challenge but is not impossible.” 21 Kingspan Insulation? 21 Then if we go over the page {KIN00004658/4}, you can 22 A. Kingspan Insulation Limited, yes. 22 see there are various different things to be done, and 23 Q. I see. ”MH/AP”, and ”MH” is Mark Harris and ”AP” is 23 under item b: 24 you; yes? 24 ”We have some Alucobond A2 in stock from which we 25 A. Yes. 25 can fabricate the panels.”
86 88
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Then d: 1 A. Just simply because I just could not recollect it on the 2 ”Siderise have recommended we use the Envirograph 2 day. My powers of recollection −− 3 cavity barrier products. These meet regs requirements 3 Q. Right. Indeed you make that point −− 4 but their performance is expected to be poor. We will 4 A. Sorry? 5 not utilise panel inserts but attempt to cut the cavity 5 Q. I’m sorry, I interrupted you. I ’m so sorry, 6 barriers to suit the geometry of the panels this will 6 Mr Pargeter. You said, ”My powers of recollection”. 7 further weaken their performance. 7 Did you want to continue? 8 ”e. The panel system as drawn is expected to 8 A. Deserted me for that section of the −− 9 perform badly in spite of being A2 as it relies on 9 Q. Right. 10 bonded stiffeners and extrusions for its structural 10 A. −− evidence. 11 stability . The panel is not fixed on its vertical edges 11 Q. You say in your witness statement at paragraph 3.2 12 and the bonded connection are expected to deteriorate 12 {KIN00024975/5} that you couldn’t recall the May test. 13 and fail quickly in the BS8414 test. The way the 13 I have to ask you: is that really true? 14 internal corner is detailed will allow the flames to 14 A. Well, yes, it is absolutely true, because, I mean, it 15 bypass the vertical cavity barriers and attack the 15 was far more beneficial if I had have remembered it, 16 cavity of the wing wall. 16 because we could have cleared up the later accusation 17 ”f. The vertical joint is ventilated and the fire 17 around misleading the select committee, so −− 18 will enter the assembly through this baffled joint . 18 Q. How much −− 19 ”g. The horizontal joint is ventilated and the fire 19 A. −− just a genuine −− I just couldn’t recall it. 20 will enter the assembly through this baffled joint .” 20 Q. From recollection, how much had the May test cost in 21 As I said to you before, and you agreed that you 21 total , including freight , design, supply costs and 22 did, you confirmed that that was the proposed test that 22 things of that nature? 23 was the one that had gone ahead on 2 July, and I showed 23 A. I don’t recall exactly. 24 you the passage. 24 Q. Do you know which budget it came from? 25 Now −− 25 A. I think it would have been a shared budget between
89 91
1 A. That was incorrect. 1 ourselves and Mark Harris’ budget. 2 Q. You say now that that was incorrect. 2 Q. Yes, and we saw a bit of that in the email, didn’t we? 3 A. Yes, that was −− 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can we −− 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. That went ahead in May. 5 Who had authorised the spend on the May test? Was 6 Q. Right. 6 that a combination of you and Mark Harris? 7 Can we please look at paragraph 2.7 of your fifth 7 A. Yes, that’s correct . 8 witness statement, which I think expands on what you 8 Q. Do you know who had arranged the test to be moved from 9 have just said to us just now, page 4 of your statement 9 its 10 May slot to the 22 May slot? 10 {KIN00024975/4}, 2.7: 10 A. No, I don’t recall why that moved from the 10th. It may 11 ”The system was tested on 22 May 2018 in accordance 11 be because we were struggling to get the materials there 12 with BS 8414 by Exova and, in fact, it passed the 12 on time and we moved it to the 22nd to make it more 13 criteria set out in BR 135. I refer to the email which 13 feasible . I don’t recall the detail . 14 I sent at 06.07 on 22 May 2018 which sets out the 14 Q. Was there not a degree of surprise or perhaps 15 preliminary results of the test . Kingspan did not 15 disappointment within Kingspan that, after spending so 16 commission a test report. In this particular case the 16 much time and money on this test, it in fact passed? 17 limited design ’imperfections’ had not adversely 17 A. I think there was a little bit of surprise , yes, and 18 affected the overall performance of the system enough to 18 a bit of disappointment, I’d agree, yes, because from 19 mean that the system failed the test. We decided to 19 what we’d seen from other evidence of other tests, that 20 test a different system using the test slot booked on 20 was quite likely to really struggle in the test , but it 21 2 July 2018.” 21 passed, so ... 22 Now, just to ask the question again: why did you 22 Q. Yes. Was it not also very inconvenient that your 23 fail when giving evidence last time to mention that 23 attempt at poor performance, as is said in the April 24 in fact there had been two linear route systems tested, 24 emails, had failed so that, as we will see, you had to 25 first in May and then in July? 25 try again? Was that not very inconvenient?
90 92
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. Yes, it was, we wanted −− we’d have to try another route 1 it ? 2 that we’d identified as a potential . 2 A. No, I wouldn’t have thought −− I wouldn’t have thought 3 Q. Would I be right in thinking that the unexpectedly 3 that, no. 4 successful result of the May test, that dealt something 4 Q. What was your reaction when the May test passed, 5 of a blow to your case that 8414 system testing was the 5 Mr Pargeter? 6 only reliable way to ensure fire safety rather than 6 A. I think it was we’d got a plan B, which was the G2 test, 7 relying on the use of non−combustible products? 7 so it was on to plan B. 8 A. Sorry, what was the question there? 8 Q. Yes, and we will see an email shortly where that 9 Q. Well, the fact that the May test passed must have dealt 9 expression, ”plan B”, is used. 10 a blow to your case that 8414 system testing was the 10 Can you remember what the reaction of your team was? 11 only reliable way of ensuring fire safety? 11 A. They just phoned me, I think Adrian Brazier phoned me 12 A. It meant we didn’t have any empirical evidence we could 12 and said −− or may have sent me an email, I can’t quite 13 use. We knew of anecdotal evidence which we couldn’t 13 recall , but just said, looking at the early results on 14 use. 14 this , because we can tell before we get the official 15 Q. But now −− 15 details whether it’s passed or −− looking at the early 16 A. We wanted to generate and have empirical evidence to 16 results , this looks like it passed, and so, you know, it 17 prove the anecdotal, and it didn’t do that, so we didn’t 17 passed. 18 use it . 18 Q. I see. He told you that he had early results , did he? 19 Q. Yes, and I’m suggesting that was a bit of a blow because 19 A. Well, he was at the test, so he could tell if it had 20 you didn’t have empirical evidence to back up your 20 failed or if it passed. 21 argument? 21 Q. Tell from −− 22 A. It was −− yes, it was a disappointment, yeah. 22 A. His indication −− his thoughts were it would have 23 Q. Yes, a disappointment. 23 passed, because it didn’t −− it wasn’t terminated early 24 Does it remain your evidence that, despite your 24 or anything like that. 25 involvement in setting up the test, the money spent on 25 Q. Right.
93 95
1 it , in which you were involved, the surprise and 1 Did you have a meeting after the news was received 2 inconvenience of the test passing and the blow that it 2 of the test pass? 3 dealt to your case message, you’d never recalled the 3 A. I can’t specifically recall a meeting, but we certainly 4 successful May test when you were giving evidence on 4 exchanged emails. 5 9 December? 5 Q. Exchanged emails? Yes. You’re nodding. I think you 6 A. No, I didn’t. I didn’t recall it . 6 have to say yes. 7 Q. I have to suggest to you that that’s not really 7 A. Oh, sorry, yes, exchanged emails. 8 credible , is it ? 8 Q. Do you remember whether you discussed the result of this 9 A. Well, what other reason would I have for withholding 9 May test with Gene Murtagh? 10 that? It doesn’t make sense. I genuinely didn’t recall 10 A. I didn’t personally. 11 it . It would have been far better if I had have 11 Q. You didn’t personally; do you know whether anybody else 12 recalled it at the time. 12 involved in the test did? 13 Q. You ask a rhetorical −− 13 A. I couldn’t confirm. 14 A. There’s no −− 14 Q. Did you discuss the result with Gilbert McCarthy? 15 Q. Sorry, you started speaking again as I was about to ask 15 A. I didn’t, no. 16 my next question. Do you want to −− 16 Q. Again, do you remember whether anybody else in your team 17 A. I was going to say there’s no advantage to us, no 17 did? 18 purpose for us, for me forgetting about that at all . 18 A. No, I don’t know. 19 Q. You see, you ask a rhetorical question: what other 19 Q. Did you discuss the result of this successful test with 20 reason would I have for withholding it? One reason 20 Richard Burnley? 21 might be that you had never hitherto, to that point, 21 A. Yes, I think we −− I would have discussed that with 22 mentioned even the existence of the May test and the 22 Richard Burnley, yes. 23 blow that it dealt to your case, let alone disclosed any 23 Q. I see. Did you discuss it with him by telephone or in 24 documents about it. That would be a good reason for not 24 writing? 25 mentioning it when you were giving evidence, wouldn’t 25 A. Oh, I can’t recall . Certainly would have been via
94 96
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 a conversation on the phone, possibly by email, but 1 to them, but they −− I don’t think they needed it, so we 2 certainly would have been on the phone. 2 just decided not to pursue it . 3 Q. Right. What about John Garbutt, did you discuss it with 3 Q. When you say a Booth Muirie cladding system, do you mean 4 him? 4 one designed by Nick Jenkins? 5 A. Yes, John Garbutt would have been aware of it as well. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What, telephone, email, can you tell us what the medium 6 Q. Yes, I see. 7 of the communication was? 7 Is the reason why you commissioned no test report 8 A. Not specifically , but again, I mean, I think John would 8 for the successful May test that you were only 9 have been copied in on an email, I think there may have 9 interested in having a record of failure for this test , 10 been an email from me to say −− going out to that team 10 not a record of success? 11 that −− in that −− it’s John Garbutt and maybe 11 A. Well, we were only interested in a report −− a failure, 12 Mark Harris to say that the test has passed, we’ve got 12 because that’s what we needed to provide the empirical 13 to move on to plan B. 13 evidence, and so we didn’t need a pass report. 14 Q. Yes. We will come to that in just a moment. You’re 14 Q. I understand that, and is the not needing a pass report 15 right , there is an email to that effect and it’s 15 for that reason the reason why you didn’t commission 16 exhibited to your fifth statement. 16 one? 17 Do you remember discussing the failed fail, as it 17 A. Yes, there was no need for one. 18 were, the success, with Nick Jenkins? 18 Q. Is it right that a record of success would damage your 19 A. Not specifically . 19 argument that even systems containing non−combustible 20 Q. Did Nick Jenkins not share his thoughts with you on why 20 products could fail a BS 8414 test? 21 he thought the test had passed given the number of 21 A. I don’t think it would damage it, because there are 22 weaknesses that he’d introduced? 22 probably other systems out there that have been tested 23 A. No, not that I can recall , that he gave any detail on 23 and have been fine, so I don’t think it would have 24 that, no. 24 damaged it necessarily. 25 Q. Did you not want to know? 25 MR MILLETT: Mr Chairman, I’m four minutes away from
97 99
1 A. Not really , because, you know, we were aware of the 1 1 o’clock and I’m going to change topic. It’s unlikely 2 design, and it had passed. I think there was nothing 2 that I ’m going to get through the topic before 3 more to know, really. 3 a convenient moment. 4 Q. Right. Were you not curious to know why it was that, 4 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Well, it might be more sensible just 5 given the number of weaknesses that you had introduced 5 to stop now, then, mightn’t it, Mr Millett? 6 into the system so as to enhance its risk of failing or 6 MR MILLETT: I think it would. I’m hesitant to stop 7 poor performance, to use your words or the words at the 7 a little early . 8 time, in fact the test had passed? 8 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: I know you don’t like doing that, 9 A. No, it just did pass. I think it ’d be hard to know −− 9 I know that, but it can sometimes be the better course, 10 to analyse exactly why it did pass. Bit difficult to 10 and I don’t suppose Mr Pargeter is going to complain 11 analyse why something might pass. It may be a bit 11 about having an extra three minutes for lunch. 12 easier to analyse why something might fail, but because 12 Mr Pargeter, we’re going to stop there now so we can 13 it passed, it was just, it passed. 13 all get some lunch. We will resume, please, at 14 Q. I see. 14 2 o’clock. I ’m sure you remember this, but I’m going to 15 Now, we know there was no test report commissioned 15 say it to you again: please don’t talk to anyone about 16 for the May test. Was that a result of a decision not 16 your evidence or anything relating to it over the break. 17 to seek one? 17 All right? 18 A. Yes, I think so. We didn’t need it, it was not of any 18 THE WITNESS: Of course, yes. 19 value to us, so we didn’t commission a test report. 19 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you very much. We will see 20 Q. Do you know who made the decision not to commission such 20 you at 2 o’clock, then. Thank you. 21 a report? 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 22 A. No, no, I think because it was a BML system, 22 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you. 23 a Booth Muirie cladding system, we thought that maybe 23 (12.57 pm) 24 Booth Muirie might have some value in the test, so −− 24 (The short adjournment) 25 and a test report being a pass might have had some value 25 (2.00 pm)
98 100
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 . 1 he got the same information. 2 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome 2 Q. We saw from the March and the April emails that 3 back. We’re now going to continue hearing the evidence 3 Gene Murtagh and Gilbert McCarthy were included on 4 of Mr Pargeter. I’ ll just check that the communications 4 those, but they weren’t included on this one. Why was 5 have been established. 5 that? 6 Mr Pargeter, good afternoon, can you see me and hear 6 A. I would very infrequently −− very rarely copy in Gene 7 me all right? 7 particularly or Gilbert . I would probably leave that to 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, yes, I can. 8 Mark or Roy to make contact with them. I wouldn’t 9 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much. All 9 normally copy them in to things. 10 ready to go on, I take it ? 10 Q. Why did you copy them in to the March and April emails 11 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 if you only did so so very rarely ? 12 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you. 12 A. I didn’t copy them in. They would have been in from the 13 Then, Mr Millett, when you’re ready. 13 start of that email chain, which I believe Mark Harris 14 MR MILLETT: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. 14 generated. 15 Mr Pargeter, good afternoon. 15 Q. I see. Right. Why did Mark Harris, do you think, or to 16 I would like now to go to the email of 22 May 2018 16 the best of your knowledge and recollection, include 17 that you refer to in paragraph 2.7 of your statement we 17 them in the email chains? 18 saw before the break. That email is at {KIN00024929}. 18 A. I guess he’d had discussions with them before about the 19 It ’s from you to John Garbutt, Richard Burnley, 19 plan to do some testing and that’s why they were copied 20 Gwyn Davies, Peter Wilson, Roy Weghorst and Mark Harris, 20 in. 21 and the subject is ”Non com test”. 21 Q. I see. 22 Does the subject ”Non com test” refer to −− well, 22 From your own perspective, was this testing so 23 you tell me: what does that refer to? 23 important that Gene Murtagh and Gilbert McCarthy, who 24 A. It refers to the May test in Dubai, the 22nd. 24 were really at the very top of Kingspan Global, should 25 Q. What does ”Non com” mean? 25 know about the details?
101 103
1 A. Non−combustible. 1 A. I think they would have known about the details, but 2 Q. Non−combustible, right. You say: 2 I didn’t think that it was to me to pass that on. There 3 ”Guys 3 were other people on that list there who would have had 4 ”I have had confirmation from the guys in Dubai that 4 the direct communication, Peter Wilson particularly, and 5 the A2/RW test was a pass, peak temps around 400 and no 5 Mark, with anybody else who needed to know. 6 flaming from the ACM. 6 Q. Why did you include Richard Burnley in this email when 7 ”A new Plan B is to get the G2 out to [Dubai] where 7 he hadn’t been copied in on the March and April emails, 8 we can convert from Cassette to flat panel, similar 8 do you know? 9 sizes to DCLG testing, Nick has confirmed there is 9 A. I included him because obviously I reported to Richard, 10 enough material to do this. 10 so he was aware of what we were testing out in Dubai, so 11 ”The next test slot we can use is 24th June for 11 he was on my email out when we got the results. 12 start of build and burn 2nd of July. This is the 12 Q. You say, ”he was aware of what we were testing out in 13 fastest way we can get another test. 13 Dubai”, so was he aware of the 22 May test? 14 ”If all in agreement I recommend we proceed ASAP.” 14 A. I believe , so yes. 15 Now, was 22 May the date of the test itself? 15 Q. How soon before the 22 May test do you remember he was 16 A. I think so, yes. 16 aware of that? 17 Q. The recipient list here we can see is different from the 17 A. I couldn’t put a date on that. It would have been 18 recipient list on the April emails, isn ’t it ? 18 following those April emails, like you say, where he 19 A. Yes, it is . 19 wasn’t copied in, we’d have had discussions about what 20 Q. Why is that? 20 activities me and my team were doing. So it would have 21 A. Because I was just mainly copying in the people at my 21 been obviously between those two, but I couldn’t give 22 division and then ensuring Mark Harris, who was the 22 you a −− 23 sort of Panels contact, to ensure he knew as well. But 23 Q. Were those discussions held by telephone or in writing 24 he probably would have got the same information possibly 24 in some way? 25 from Nick anyway, but I just included him to make sure 25 A. Could be face−to−face, I couldn’t tell you precisely .
102 104
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Q. Do you remember whether you communicated with 1 A. So 10 o’clock. Yes, 10 o’clock. That would make sense 2 Richard Burnley before the 22 May test about the 22 May 2 then. I ’d have had a call off Adrian to say what the 3 test in writing? 3 results were. 4 A. Oh, I can’t recall . Possibly, but I can’t recall . 4 Q. Right. Would that call have come to you presumably −− 5 Q. Right. 5 is this right? −− in the morning of 22 July, but before 6 Were all the recipients of this email familiar with 6 6.07 am? 7 what the expression ”Non com test” meant? 7 A. Yes, just before, I would have thought. 8 A. I would have assumed so. 8 Q. Did it wake you up? 9 Q. Right. What about Richard Burnley, would he have heard 9 A. I can’t recall . I think we probably were waiting to see 10 it before or seen it? 10 what the result of the test was, so I ’m quite frequently 11 A. I would have assumed so, but I couldn’t categorically 11 awake at that time anyway, so ... 12 say it . 12 Q. Right. Had you left a message or sent a communication 13 Q. Do you remember before this email sending him an email 13 to either Adrian Brazier or Nick Jenkins to ring you as 14 or seeing an email in which he was copied which referred 14 soon as they knew the outcome of the test? 15 to ”Non com test”? 15 A. I think I would have done, yes. 16 A. Not specifically , no. 16 Q. Would you have done that in writing? 17 Q. By the time of this email −− I think you have told us 17 A. I don’t recall whether I did it in writing or not. 18 yes, but just confirm for me −− did Richard Burnley know 18 Q. You see, we can see no record in your disclosure of any 19 about the strategy to conduct linear tests? 19 communications between your guys in Dubai and you about 20 A. Yes. 20 the results of this test . 21 Q. Did he know that, as part of that strategy, the strategy 21 Is it right that there is absolutely nothing in 22 for the May test was to introduce design imperfections 22 writing? 23 that we saw in the 9 and 10 April emails? 23 A. I can’t recall . I don’t think there is , but 24 A. I couldn’t comment on the detailed knowledge that 24 I remember −− I recall it being a phone call, so I don’t 25 Richard would have had. 25 think there is .
105 107
1 Q. In general, then, leaving aside the detail , is it your 1 Q. Right. 2 recollection that Richard Burnley, by the time of this 2 Now, if you go to the second paragraph of this 3 test , would have known that the strategy was to test 3 email, you say: 4 a system which contained deliberate design 4 ”A new Plan B is to get the G2 out to [Dubai] where 5 imperfections? 5 we can convert from Cassette to flat panel ... ” 6 A. I couldn’t confirm. No, I couldn’t confirm. 6 I just want to ask you about that new plan B. 7 Q. Right. 7 The G2 that you refer to there, is that the 8 You say you have had confirmation from the guys in 8 Vitracore G2 honeycomb material? 9 Dubai; was that Exova, the guys in Dubai? 9 A. It is , yes. 10 A. No, I think it would have been my guys, so I think it 10 Q. That’s the material that in fact in the end you did use 11 might have been Adrian Brazier. 11 in the 2 July test ; yes? 12 Q. I see. Who else? Who else are your guys? 12 A. That’s correct. 13 A. Well, it would have been Adrian was the main one, and 13 Q. And the Nick that you refer to in the next line , that’s 14 then of course we’ve got Nick Jenkins who −− I can’t 14 Nick Jenkins, is it ? 15 recall if Nick was there specifically , but if he was, 15 A. Correct. 16 I ’d have been referring to Nick as well . 16 Q. Is he the person who had designed and built or helped 17 Q. I see, okay. 17 build the May test rig? 18 How did the confirmation that you refer to in this 18 A. Correct. 19 email come to you? 19 Q. Is it right he was also involved in building or 20 A. I think a telephone conversation. 20 designing the rigs for the DCLG tests that had taken 21 Q. We can see the time that you sent this email: 06.07.11. 21 place after the fire at Grenfell Tower in I think itwas 22 Is that right , just after 6.00 am on 22 May; yes? 22 July and August of 2017? 23 A. Yes. I ’m not sure what time that would have been in 23 A. I think Nick was involved in that, yes. 24 Dubai, so I think −− 24 Q. Did he also design and help to build the July test rig? 25 Q. They’re four hours ahead of Pembridge. 25 A. Yes, he did.
106 108
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Q. So after the May test had passed, is this right : the 1 A. The purpose as to −− to test a system that would be 2 plan was to move to plan B and test again in the 2 July 2 compliant by the linear route that could then fail , yes. 3 slot? 3 Q. Yes, thank you. 4 A. Correct, yes. 4 Now, the email starts ”Guys” and launches straight 5 Q. Is it right that you wanted to do a further test because 5 into its subject. Do you remember whether there was 6 your May test, having succeeded in meeting BR 135 6 a discussion with any of those email recipients before 7 criteria , had failed to provide you with the test 7 you sent it? 8 evidence that you needed to support Kingspan’s case and 8 A. No, I would doubt it. 9 arguments? 9 Q. Right. 10 A. That’s correct. 10 When you sent it, what assumptions did you make 11 Q. Did you already have the 2 July 2018 slot pre−booked 11 about those who were receiving it knew what you were 12 before 22 May? 12 talking about? 13 A. I can’t recall . We might have done, we were doing some 13 A. I just −− I knew they were aware that we were testing, 14 testing in Dubai anyway, but it might have been while 14 so I knew they’d understand what the email said. 15 they were there they’d booked that. 15 Q. And that includes Richard Burnley, does it? 16 Q. Right. Was it originally booked for some other kind of 16 A. Yes. 17 test and then the test was swapped out and the 2 July 17 Q. Yes. 18 test swapped in? 18 Now, you ask at the end of the email, let ’s look at 19 A. Oh, I can’t recall . 19 it : 20 Q. You say in the email, going back to it , if you would, 20 ”If all in agreement I recommend we proceed ASAP.” 21 just below halfway down: 21 Did you receive the agreement you were recommending? 22 ”The next test slot we can use is 24th June for 22 A. I think there was an email from Peter Wilson agreeing to 23 start of build and burn 2nd of July. This is the 23 proceed, and then I can’t recall if there’s any other 24 fastest way we can get another test.” 24 written confirmation, but there may be, but −− 25 Was the urgency here that you needed the failed or 25 Q. You recall an email, do you, from Peter Wilson saying
109 111
1 poor test data in order to advance your argument to the 1 ”Proceed”, do you? 2 select committee? 2 A. I think so. 3 A. I think certainly to advance the argument. 3 Q. Right. I ’m not sure the Inquiry has seen that email. 4 I wouldn’t −− I don’t think I’d have understood that it 4 A. Okay. 5 was specifically for the select committee, but itwas 5 Q. You didn’t exhibit it , did you? 6 certainly to advance the argument. 6 A. No, I didn’t. 7 Q. Right. 7 Q. When you were swearing your fifth witness statement, did 8 You say, ”This is the fastest way we can get another 8 you ask to see all email correspondence pertaining to 9 test”; what was the need for speed? 9 this arrangement to have the July test? 10 A. Well, because we were keen to get that evidence. 10 A. Not at the time of doing the statement, no. I ’ve seen 11 I think we’d got the consultation, Government 11 emails since obviously, and that’s why I think −− I’ve 12 consultation, we wanted to try and get the information 12 got this recollection of a response from Peter Wilson. 13 in for . So there was an urgency there. 13 Q. Did you have any involvement yourself in deciding what 14 Q. Right. Your deadline for that, do you remember what 14 documents you should see and consider for exhibiting to 15 that was, roughly? 15 your fifth witness statement? 16 A. I don’t. 16 A. Yes, I had some input into that, yes. 17 Q. At all events, is this right : you wanted another test, 17 Q. You did. Can you explain why −− well, did you ask to 18 a plan B test, as soon as possible so that you could get 18 see all email correspondence relating to the 19 your arguments in as part of what you call the 19 arrangements for the July test? 20 Government consultation; yes? 20 A. No, I just wanted the email chain, particularly the one 21 A. Yes. 21 that started in red, to be part of that evidence, 22 Q. Yes. 22 because that showed the track of the A2 and the G2 23 To be absolutely clear , is it right that the purpose 23 properly, and then I think we got the witness statement 24 of the July test was the same as the purpose of the May 24 in fairly swiftly and I know the document search has 25 test? 25 continued since then.
110 112
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Q. So can we take it that the documents you exhibited to 1 A. That’s correct. 2 your fifth statement were selected from a wider pool of 2 Q. Thank you. 3 documents which pertained both to the May test and to 3 Now, let’s go back to the April email again, and I’m 4 the July test? 4 sorry to keep going back to it, Mr Pargeter, 5 A. I think they were just researching the ones that we’d 5 {KIN00004658/5}. This is Mark Harris’ email from 6 discussed on 9 December. 6 9 April . At the very top of the page, it says: 7 Q. I see. 7 ”1. Data from failed BS 8414 tests.” 8 Do you remember who was responsible for the budget 8 Now, I read you this before. I ’m not going to read 9 for the July test? 9 it again. You will remember that it refers in the 10 A. I think it would have been, again, the same, it would 10 last−but−one sentence: 11 have been a split cost between us and Panels. 11 ”Also test Vitracore G2 honeycomb in bomb 12 Q. Right. 50/50? 12 calorimeter. This testing is for information only at 13 A. Yeah, I think so. 13 this stage.” 14 Q. So far as the ”us” in that answer is concerned, that’s 14 You have confirmed that Vitracore is the G2 product. 15 KIL, is it ? 15 A. That’s correct. 16 A. Yes, that’s Kingspan Insulation. 16 Q. Do you remember whether the testing of the Vitracore G2 17 Q. Were you the person at KIL responsible for that part of 17 product in the bomb calorimeter as proposed actually 18 the budget? 18 happened? 19 A. It would have come out of the technical budget, yes. 19 A. I don’t recall . I don’t recall seeing any results from 20 Q. But were you the person at KIL, Kingspan Insulation 20 that. 21 Limited, ultimately responsible , the ultimate 21 Q. Right. 22 decision−maker, for spending that money? 22 Now, given that the Alucobond A2 which had been used 23 A. No, it would have been agreement from the team to do the 23 in the May test had failed to produce a suitably poor 24 tests , and then it was agreed that it would come out of 24 performance at the May test, was it the default option, 25 the technical budget, which I was the budget holder. 25 plan B to use your own expression, then to try out the
113 115
1 Q. And as budget holder, did you have the final say on what 1 Vitracore G2 at the July test? 2 should be spent on what aspects of the test? 2 A. That’s correct. 3 A. I agreed we would do the test and then we’d split the 3 Q. Yes. Was that your decision? 4 costs. 4 A. No, that was −− would have been in those earlier 5 Q. Yes, that’s not quite an answer to my question. Did you 5 discussions . I ’m not sure when I became aware of 6 exercise any control in deciding how much should be 6 Vitracore or G2 or what it was, but it wasn’t my 7 spent on what aspects of the test? 7 decision , at this point, to test that. 8 A. No. No, it was just what the test cost we would pay. 8 Q. All right . 9 Q. Now, you say, going back to it, the new plan B was to 9 Let’s just look on at the same email. If we go 10 get the G2 out to Dubai. Was it thought at that time 10 a little bit lower down, if we go to the bottom of 11 that using Vitracore G2 in the July test would increase 11 page 5 {KIN00004658/5}, lower down the screen I think we 12 the chances of a poor test result ? 12 need to be, at the very bottom he says: 13 A. I think we understood that there’d been tests elsewhere 13 ”It is also worth noting ... ” 14 with the G2 product which had not performed well, so it 14 Do you see that? 15 was −− that was why we wanted to try and test that, to 15 A. Yes. 16 see if we would find the same. 16 Q. ”It is also worth noting that if we do not achieve our 17 Q. We will see some documents on this, but while we’re on 17 objective with the testing in Dubai, perhaps we could 18 the point, can you remember what those tests were? 18 provisionally book a later slot on the BS 8414 rig in 19 A. I think there were some tests out in Australia which 19 Ulster as a ’Plan B’ with an alternative system.” 20 I think Nick Jenkins had become aware of. 20 Now, am I right in thinking that Mark Harris was 21 Q. Right. 21 aware at the time of this email that there was a risk 22 So do I take it from that answer and the previous 22 that the objective of a poor performance might not be 23 one that you had deliberately selected G2 as a component 23 achieved and was recommending a plan B back−up with 24 of the proposed July test because it hadn’t performed 24 a later test with an alternative system at the time, in 25 well historically in a full system test? 25 that case in Ulster?
114 116
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. Yes, I would think that. 1 test ; yes? 2 Q. Was that the genesis of the plan B test that you were 2 A. Yes. 3 now pushing forward in your 22 May email? 3 Q. And you would therefore achieve that purpose by 4 A. Yes, I think so. 4 deliberately using Vitracore G2, a product you suspected 5 Q. Now, sticking with this chain and if we go back to 5 would cause even a robustly designed large−scale test to 6 page 3 {KIN00004658/3}, scroll up two pages to page 3, 6 fail ; yes? 7 again this is an email we’ve seen at least twice before, 7 A. Yes. 8 and this is the email of Nick Jenkins of Booth Muirie, 8 Q. So when you say here that, ”If anything the system was 9 10 April, at 20.54. You receive it as well as 9 more robust than that tested by the DCLG”, it wasn’t 10 Gene Murtagh and Gilbert McCarthy in copy. 10 intended to be more robust than the system tested by you 11 You can see in the first part he sets out the 11 in May, was it? 12 proposed test programme at Ulster University and then 12 A. It would have been more robust than the system in May, 13 the proposed testing for Dubai, and it includes the 13 but it just followed the DCLG design. So I think it 14 details of how the test will be weakened. 14 was −− in the one in May, as we explained, there were 15 If you go over the page {KIN00004658/4} you can see 15 sort of weaknesses in the design. There were no design 16 those, we saw them before, (a) at the bottom and then 16 weaknesses in this design for this test , the July −− 17 (b) at the top of the page down to (g). 17 Q. No, but what there was was the use of a panel which you 18 And then if you go to the last paragraph on page 4, 18 knew or at least suspected would enhance the chances of 19 underneath the five bullet points, he says: 19 that test failing ? 20 ”Also looking to source some Vitracore G2 via 20 A. Yeah, we understood that other tests with that product 21 a contact in Dubai. This would be another deemed to 21 had certainly struggled if not failed at large scale , 22 satisfy product that we feel would perform poorly as 22 and that it was an A2−rated product. 23 part of a system. Valcan refusing to supply this 23 Q. Yes. It ’s right , isn ’t it , that the July test was 24 product to be tested here in the UK.” 24 designed to maximise the chances of failing the BRE 135 25 Now, first question there: Valcan, were Valcan the 25 criteria in just the same way that the May test had; no?
117 119
1 manufacturers of Vitracore G2? 1 A. No, in the May test, as we explained, we’d designed 2 A. Yes, I believe so. 2 weaknesses sort of at the extreme of a compliant design, 3 Q. Did you yourself think at that stage, April 2018, that 3 whereas this was not at the extreme of a compliant 4 Vitracore G2 would perform badly? 4 design, it followed the exact system design that DCLG 5 A. Myself, I didn’t, no. 5 had done their comparative testing on, so −− 6 Q. Let’s go back to your fifth witness statement, please, 6 Q. I see. 7 {KIN00024975/4}. If we look at paragraph 2.8 you say: 7 A. −− it wasn’t designed with the same weaknesses. 8 ”The July test was carried out on a system 8 Q. Right. Let me ask the same question again, but instead 9 incorporating A2 rated limited combustibility 9 of using the word ”designed”, I’m going to use the word 10 Vitracore G2 flat cladding panels, A1 rated 10 ”intended” and let’s see what happens. 11 non−combustible Rockwool Duoslab synthetic fibre 11 Isn’t it right that the July test was intended to 12 insulation , and Siderise RH25 90/30 horizontal and 12 maximise the chances of failing the BRE 135 criteria in 13 Siderise RV 90/30 vertical cavity barriers . The system 13 just the same way that the May test had been so 14 tested in the July test closely replicated the DCLG 14 intended? 15 tests numbered 2, 4 and 6, with extra panel joints and 15 A. I think we suspected it would, and we were testing to 16 therefore gaps in the wing wall. If anything the system 16 see if it would. 17 was more robust than that tested by the DCLG because the 17 Q. Yes, and you agreed with me earlier that the purpose of 18 Vitracore panel edges were folded over, thus protecting 18 the July test was the same as the May test. 19 the core of the panels from the fire . We decided to 19 A. The same purpose, yes. 20 carry out this test because we suspected (no more) that 20 Q. Yes. 21 a system utilising the Vitracore G2 panels might not be 21 Now, you say in the paragraph you have just looked 22 able to pass a large−scale test even when part of 22 at, and look at it again, three lines up from the 23 a robust design.” 23 bottom: 24 Now, to be clear, you agreed earlier with me that 24 ”We decided to carry out this test because we 25 the purpose of the July test was the same as the May 25 suspected (no more) that a system utilising the
118 120
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Vitracore G2 panels might not be able to pass 1 sentence that I ’ve read to you I think at least twice 2 a large−scale test even when part of a robust design.” 2 now: 3 Did you really proceed to set this July test up, 3 ”We decided to carry out this test because we 4 your plan B, on the basis of a mere suspicion that such 4 suspected (no more) that a system utilising the 5 a system wouldn’t pass? 5 Vitracore G2 panels might not be able to pass 6 A. Yeah, we’d got −− yeah, I think that’s correct. 6 a large−scale test ... ” 7 Q. Surely you must have had a fair degree of confidence 7 How do you reconcile the first sentence of 8 that it wouldn’t pass, otherwise it wouldn’t be 8 paragraph 3.4, that the July test was not designed to 9 a reliable plan B for your purposes? 9 fail , with your statement in paragraph 2.8 that you 10 A. No, we just −− no, we suspected, as we suspected that 10 decided to carry out the July test because ”we suspected 11 the A2 test would struggle to pass that test , and it 11 (no more)” that a system utilising the G2 panels might 12 didn’t and we were proved wrong obviously, we just 12 not be able to pass? How do you reconcile those two 13 suspected this one −− and it was because of information 13 statements? 14 gained by −− in the industry that this A2 panel had 14 A. Because when I’m talking about the design there, I was 15 struggled in large scales that we thought: well, let ’s 15 talking about the system design. So the designed 16 test that one. 16 weaknesses in the first test weren’t related to the 17 Q. Yes, and I’m suggesting to you that instead of a mere 17 outer panel, they were related to the construction, 18 suspicion, it was more than that; it was a fair degree 18 whereas this one didn’t have those designed weaknesses. 19 of confidence that the July test , as your plan B, would 19 So it was just purely on the performance of the products 20 fail . 20 within that system on that test rig . 21 A. We could only have suspected it. We couldn’t have had, 21 Q. Yes. 22 you know, 100% confidence that it would, we just 22 A. That’s the difference I mean there. 23 suspected that it would. 23 Q. I follow . So does that mean that when we read the first 24 Q. Yes, I ’m not putting 100% confidence to you, what I’m 24 sentence of paragraph 3.4, should we read the word 25 suggesting to you is that when you say ”we suspected (no 25 ”designed” there as confined to the intended
121 123
1 more)”, that was actually an understatement, and that 1 construction? That’s what you mean by ”designed” there, 2 actually you had a fair degree of confidence that it 2 is it ? 3 wouldn’t pass. 3 A. That’s what I mean by ”designed”, yes. 4 A. No, I think −− I don’t think we had a fair degree of 4 Q. You’re not saying there, are you, that the July test was 5 confidence. I don’t think we were, you know, very 5 not intended to fail ? 6 confident about it at all . I think we suspected itand 6 A. No, I’m not saying that there, I ’m saying it was 7 that’s why we wanted to try it. 7 suspected to fail , but that what I was talking about 8 Q. If we go back to page 6 of your statement 8 there is the design of the construction rather than the 9 {KIN00024975/6} and paragraph 3.4, you see at 9 choice of products. 10 paragraph 3.4, in the first sentence, it says: 10 Q. Right. 11 ”I wish to clarify that the July test was not 11 So that I’ve got this right , instead of using 12 designed to fail . As described above, its design 12 a reliable A2 panel with a weak design, the May test, 13 closely replicated that used by the DCLG in the tests 13 your plan B was to go for a more robust design but with 14 which they commissioned after the Grenfell Tower fire 14 a dubious product as the panel? 15 and was made more robust by the folding of the 15 A. Yeah, with a product we had suspicions over, yes. 16 Vitracore G2 panels as explained above.” 16 Q. Yes. 17 Then you go on four lines down to say: 17 Was there any correspondence between you or indeed 18 ”It was not constructed with weaknesses in it in 18 anybody else at Kingspan on the one hand and 19 order to enhance its chance of performing poorly.” 19 Nick Jenkins on the other hand about the design or 20 Now, can we keep that up on the screen and go, then, 20 construction of the July rig other than the 22 May email 21 to page 4 of the same statement {KIN00024975/4}, 21 we’ve seen? 22 paragraph 2.8. 22 A. I can’t recall any. 23 I ’ve read to you the first sentence of paragraph 3.4 23 Q. Right. 24 and the other part of 3.4. Now look at paragraph 2.8 on 24 A. But we would have got the designs out to the team out 25 the right of the screen, where you say in the last 25 there installing it , so we’d have had communications
122 124
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 potentially with Adrian Brazier around getting the test 1 Q. And the context of this, I should also show you, is at 2 built −− the test rig built. 2 the foot of the page, the email from Gwyn Davies the 3 Q. Yes, I see. 3 same day, about 11 minutes before, and we will see the 4 Now, even if the July test rig or the system was not 4 context further , but it ’s about airfreighting G2 panels 5 designed, in the sense you mean it, with weaknesses in 5 to Dubai. The question that John Garbutt asks you in 6 it , why did you choose to use a panel, Vitracore G2, 6 the first line there is whether you’ve got the budget to 7 which you suspected would not perform robustly? 7 do the extra test . Then he says this: 8 A. Because it was an A2−rated product, so would have, under 8 ”Nick J is going to need to be brought into the loop 9 the linear route, been allowed in that combination with 9 so that he can interpret these [drawings] and draw up 10 non−combustible insulation. 10 the rest of the system. Would need to be as same as 11 Can I just say, I know the lights have gone off 11 poss to the NC test we are about to do. 12 again here. Shall I just press them on again, if that’s 12 ”Is there room for insulation behind these panels, 13 convenient, or are you happy with the lighting as it is? 13 they would normally test without in Oz?” 14 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Mr Pargeter, it’s not too bad, but 14 I just want to focus on the middle paragraph there. 15 how difficult is it for you to turn them on yourself? 15 The NC test that you were about to do was the 16 THE WITNESS: No problem at all, I’ll just turn round. 16 ”non com” test scheduled for 22 May, wasn’t it? 17 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Would you like to do that? Thank 17 A. Yes. 18 you. 18 Q. The one with the limited design imperfections, as you 19 Oh, very easy. Good. That is much better, thank 19 call them; yes? 20 you very much. 20 A. Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Sorry. 21 Q. So when he says, ”Would need to be same as poss to the 22 MR MILLETT: There is a difference, isn’t there, I think 22 NC test we are about to do”, is John Garbutt saying that 23 we’ve established, between designing a test rig and 23 the extra test would need to be intentionally weakened 24 choosing the products to use in that design? Do you 24 in the same way as the May test in some way? 25 agree with that? 25 A. Possibly, but I don’t know, but possibly.
125 127
1 A. Yes. 1 Q. Well, how did you understand it when you received this 2 Q. So does it come to this: that the design for the July 2 email? 3 test may have been as robust as you say, but do you 3 A. I think we were −− I think that was a cassette test and 4 accept that you deliberately chose Vitracore G2 as the 4 we were looking to do this as a cassette as well , so 5 panel, intending that the use of that product in the 5 I think it would have been −− yeah, it would have been 6 July test would or might well cause it to perform 6 to have tried to have kept it the same but just replaced 7 poorly? 7 the panel. So I agree, yes, that’s how I would have 8 A. Or could, yes. 8 interpreted it . 9 Q. Yes. 9 Q. To cut a long story short, I think you accepted that it 10 Can I show you an email very recently disclosed to 10 wasn’t the case that the original intention for the May 11 the Inquiry at {KIN00025127}. This is an email chain 11 test , namely that it would fail , or might well fail , so 12 disclosed on 10 March this year. We’re going to look at 12 as to be able to be deployed as empirical evidence to 13 this chain a bit later on, and at the moment I just want 13 support your case, changed in any way after the May 14 to look at page 2 {KIN00025127/2}. I would like on that 14 test . 15 page to look at the second email up from the bottom. 15 A. Sorry, repeat that question. 16 It ’s dated 15 May 2018, from John Garbutt to Gwyn Davies 16 Q. Yes. Do you accept that the original intention for the 17 and you. The subject is ”RE: Myth Busting Time”, can 17 May test, namely that it would fail or may well fail , 18 you see that? 18 never changed after the May test? 19 A. Yes, I do. 19 A. No, I don’t think it did. 20 Q. It says: 20 Q. No. 21 ”Adrian, do we have the budget to do the extra 21 Now, we’ve seen them, I don’t think we need to go 22 test?” 22 back to them yet again, but the March and April 2018 23 Of course, I should mention this is a week before 23 emails began with the subject heading ”Ulster 24 the successful May test. 24 Tests/MHCLG Select Committee Lobbying”, and the first of 25 A. Yes. 25 those emails was Mark Harris’ email to you of
126 128
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 2 March 2018. 1 ”That is earmarked for Dubai but had nothing 2 Is that the origin of the linear tests , and the idea 2 concrete from Janet yet on dates, I called her this 3 of weakening it came from? 3 morning for an update but no reply as yet. 4 A. That was the first email communication I’d seen about 4 ”Regards 5 that. 5 ”Adrian.” 6 Q. Right. Let’s just explore that a little bit further . 6 Just going back down to John Garbutt’s email to you 7 Can we go to {KIN00002379}. Now, this is a long 7 a little earlier that evening in the second paragraph, 8 email chain from September 2017, the year before, but 8 he says, ”When is the RW/honeycomb test scheduled in?” 9 after the Grenfell Tower fire, and the chain bears the 9 RW was Rockwool; yes? 10 title ”Demonstrating compliance”. 10 A. Yes, it was. 11 If we go down to page 5 {KIN00002379/5}, we can see 11 Q. And honeycomb was what? 12 where it starts . It starts with Adrian Brazier 12 A. It ’s a similar panel to the G2 product. 13 contacting the NHBC, Graham Perrior, on 13 Q. I see. You say a similar panel to it ; did you know what 14 4 September 2017. So that’s the context. 14 he meant by honeycomb? 15 If we scroll up to the first email at the top of 15 A. Well, I knew about an aluminium honeycomb design 16 page 2 {KIN00002379/2}, this is an email from you on 16 product. 17 11 September 2017, to Richard Burnley and also to 17 Q. Right. 18 John Garbutt, Richard Bromwich, Peter Wilson, and it 18 When you saw ”honeycomb test”, did you understand 19 says: 19 what particular product he was referring to? 20 ”All 20 A. No, I don’t think so at that time. 21 ”It seems NHBC are taking a very hardline over 21 Q. Right. 22 desktop studies leaving virtually no room for manoeuvre. 22 Janet that’s referred to in your email, was that 23 This will cause serious problems in current buildings 23 Janet Murrel? 24 getting approval and virtually demand a full scale test 24 A. Yes. 25 on even minor variations, making anything insured 25 Q. She is Exova Dubai, isn’t she?
129 131
1 through them practically impossible to get combustible 1 A. Yes. 2 insulation on. We have requested a face to face meeting 2 Q. Yes, and I think she may now be in the UK, but she was 3 but they are not interested . 3 of that organisation −− 4 ”Not heard if any other insurers are taking the same 4 A. Oh, sorry, no, she’s UK, but she’s of that organisation. 5 stance. 5 Q. Right, I see, forgive me. 6 ”Regards 6 Now, it’s clear from this email chain, is it not, 7 ”Adrian.” 7 that there had been a plan to test a linear route system 8 If we go up in the chain to page 1 {KIN00002379/1}, 8 already in motion back in September 2017? 9 and go to the bottom of that page, please, we can see 9 A. Yes, it does seem that way. 10 that Peter Wilson asks you the question: 10 Q. Right. You sound a little surprised to see that. 11 ”Adrian, 11 A. I didn’t recall . I didn’t recall that. 12 ”Have they any position on the grade of cladding?” 12 Q. Do you know, me showing you this now, whose idea was it 13 You respond just above that: 13 originally to test a linear route system? 14 ”They are saying limited combustibility for 14 A. No, I don’t know originally whose idea it was. 15 insulation and cladding or tested solution .” 15 Q. On the face of what I’m showing you, but you help me, 16 Then John Garbutt responds to you the same day, 16 was the plan always to test a linear route system 17 a little bit later in the evening and he says: 17 comprising mineral wool and honeycomb like Vitracore G2? 18 ”We need to show them that that could also fail and 18 A. From that, yeah, there was an idea there to −− that must 19 force them to a position of everything must be tested. 19 have been the start of the idea to test a system that 20 They might compromise then. 20 could be the linear route but not pass a BR 135 21 ”When is the RW/honeycomb test scheduled in?” 21 compliance test. 22 I ’ ll come back to that in just a moment. 22 Q. Was the May test originally intended to have 23 Just to see how this finishes off , you go backto 23 Vitracore G2, but Kingspan couldn’t get hold of it in 24 him by way of response and you say: 24 time and therefore had to use Alucobond A2 but with 25 ”Hi John 25 design imperfections? Is that how it went?
130 132
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. No, I don’t think so. I think the −− from the April 1 was required to fail in order to supply you with the 2 emails, the original intention was to do the A2 ACM and 2 evidence you needed to take part in the Government’s 3 then have the G2 product then, the G2 test as a back−up, 3 consultation? 4 a second option. 4 A. It was needed to give empirical evidence of a fail with 5 Q. Yes. 5 that combination of materials. Obviously we were aware 6 I would like to show you some further emails 6 of other evidence out there, but obviously we couldn’t 7 disclosed to the Inquiry by Kingspan. This time these 7 submit that, it wasn’t ours. So it was needed to prove 8 emails came to us last Friday, 19 March. The first one 8 that point, yes. 9 I want to look at, please, is {KIN00025145}. This is 9 Q. Yes, and it was needed to fail and was intended to fail 10 an email from John Garbutt to Siobhan O’Dwyer, 10 because Kingspan’s plan was to use that fail in the July 11 Mark Harris, Tony Ryan and you, and the subject is 11 test in order to damage the credibility of the 12 ”Positioning with government”. This is about a week or 12 Government’s new proposal of using only A1 and A2 13 so after the May test in Dubai, and if we go down page 1 13 materials over 18 metres? 14 to point 3, it says, ”Vitracore G2”. Mr Garbutt says: 14 A. It was certainly to challenge that proposal. 15 ”If we get a fail , then we can show that they would 15 Q. Yes, all right . And in doing so, that would in turn 16 [be] allowing systems through that will fail BS8414. 16 support what we see from this email, namely Kingspan’s 17 This would be incredibly politically damaging (headline: 17 narrative or case for using 8414 tests only as the 18 cladding system deemed safe under the government’s new 18 benchmark for cladding systems on high−rise buildings 19 proposal for Building Regulations is found to fail 19 and thus or thereby keep K15 in the market? 20 a large−scale system test).” 20 A. It was to allow a tested system, so regardless of the 21 Then at the foot of page 1, under the heading ”Our 21 materials, and it wouldn’t have just kept K15 in the 22 Bottom Line”, you can see: 22 market, it could have kept a lot of other products in 23 ”1. Kingspan would be accepting of an outright ban 23 the market that would ordinarily be caught up in the ban 24 on combustible rainscreens on all buildings . 24 but weren’t necessarily unsafe when combined in certain 25 ”2. An outright ban on combustible insulation would 25 systems.
133 135
1 be robustly opposed by Kingspan because it is not 1 Q. Now, let’s go to {KIN00025854}, another email that was 2 supported by evidence. 2 recently disclosed . 3 ”3. Kingspan supports all façade systems being 3 If you go to the bottom of page 1 on the screen in 4 subject to and passing the BS 8414 test.” 4 front of you, you can see an email of 30 May 2018, so 5 Then underneath that it says: 5 the day before the email we’ve just been looking at, and 6 ”Evidence to Support our Bottom Line: 6 this is from John Garbutt to Gilbert McCarthy and 7 ”1. Government and our 13785 tests show that 7 Gene Murtagh and others, and you can see that 8 Grenfell was all about the ACM and that same would have 8 John Garbutt writes: 9 happened even if RW had been insulant.” 9 ”That could end up being counterproductive. 10 Then if you go over the page {KIN00025145/2} you can 10 Pointing out to MHCLG that G2 is being used to reclad 11 see item 2: 11 buildings and that it is dangerous will probably lead to 12 ”2. Government tests ... thermosets are very hard 12 it coming out that G2 has failed an 8414 with Xtratherm, 13 to distinguish from mineral fibre in system tests. 13 because that is the only available evidence out there at 14 ”3. Systems that are based on non−combustible 14 the moment, that we know of. That in turn has the 15 insulation and limited combustibility ACMs can fail 8414 15 potential to dent any confidence we try to give MHCLG 16 tests − we have on video, which is here−say[sic] 16 about using K15 with A2/1 rainscreens. 17 evidentially , and the fibre is foil faced, which 17 ”To get out of this we will need to pin the issue on 18 probably makes the product Euroclass B (Mark checking) − 18 G2, and to do that we need to have the RW/G2 fail in the 19 need our July 2 test to fail − the Vitracore G2 that is 19 bag from next month’s test. So, we can’t move on G2 20 being tested, according to Nick, is being used as 20 until we have that test fail to support our case. 21 a product of choice in all the recladding jobs − Mark 21 ”NB, G2 is probably being installed on as much K15 22 was to dig with Nick to get every scrap of evidence he 22 on ’ failed ’ buildings as any other insulation .” 23 can.” 23 Now, again, I suggest to you that this shows very 24 Now, that’s what is said there. 24 clearly that Kingspan’s intention was that, by using G2, 25 In fact , it ’s right , isn ’t it , that the 2 July test 25 the 2 July test would fail?
134 136
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. It certainly had that potential, yes. 1 you know, if we test that G2 on a non−combustible 2 Q. Yes, and more than the potential, in fact it was 2 system, then it would −− that would come out exactly as 3 essential that G2 did its work and duly caused that test 3 that if it failed , so that would be what would come out. 4 to fail , otherwise the Kingspan strategy wouldn’t work? 4 Q. Yes, and that would, in turn, as Mr Garbutt says, dent 5 A. Yes, if that test had have passed, we wouldn’t have had 5 the confidence that you tried to give MHCLG about using 6 that empirical evidence. But that’s the nature of 6 K15 with A2/A1 rainscreen? 7 testing it , you know, we didn’t know it would fail, it 7 A. I think maybe it’s because that Xtratherm is 8 could have passed, but we had to test it to provide that 8 a combustible insulation. 9 empirical evidence. 9 Q. Well, Mr Pargeter, I’m suggesting to you that it was 10 Q. Yes, and when Mr Garbutt says, ”we need to have the 10 essential to Kingspan’s case that Kingspan concealed 11 RW/G2 fail in the bag” and ”can’t move on G2 until we 11 from the MHCLG what it knew about the dangers of G2. 12 have that test fail to support our case”, it ’s quite 12 That’s what this email is saying, isn ’t it ? 13 clear that the use of G2 was part of Kingspan’s strategy 13 A. No, we didn’t −− I don’t believe we concealed it at all . 14 to have a failed test in your hands, in the bag as it ’s 14 Q. You say, ”I don’t believe we concealed it at all ”; what 15 put, in order to advance your case with the Government. 15 you were planning to conceal from the MHCLG is that it 16 A. That’s correct, because G2 was an A2−rated product. 16 had failed an 8414 with Xtratherm? 17 Q. Yes. It was vital , as we can see, do you accept, as 17 A. Well, we didn’t have empirical evidence to show that, so 18 part of the strategy, that you kept the impression that 18 that would have been hearsay. We wouldn’t be talking 19 Vitracore G2 was a reliably A2 product, while at the 19 about hearsay. 20 same time ensuring, as far as you could, that it failed 20 Q. What you were actually doing was seeking to keep from 21 a BS 8414 test? 21 the MHCLG what you knew about the dangers of 22 A. I ’m not sure what you mean by −− I’m not sure that it 22 Vitracore G2; no? 23 mentions being a reliably A2 product. 23 A. No, we −− if we tested it and it failed , that’s exactly 24 Q. Well, it was an A2 product, wasn’t it? 24 what we’re showing them. 25 A. Yes. 25 Q. Yes, but −−
137 139
1 Q. But −− and we’ll come to this −− it’s clear from this 1 A. There’s a potential issue with G2. 2 that it had a track record of having previously failed 2 Q. Yes. You’re keeping from them the fact that you knew 3 8414 tests when used in a full system test? 3 that. 4 A. Well, the system containing that product, yes. 4 A. I don’t think we’re keeping information from them, no. 5 Q. Yes, and that fact was something that the Government 5 Q. Let’s then go to another email also disclosed to 6 shouldn’t know, isn’t it ? 6 the Inquiry last week, {KIN00025856}, also from late 7 A. No, I don’t think so. 7 May, this time 31 May. So same date as the penultimate 8 Q. Otherwise, if you had told the Government that you were 8 email we just looked at and the day after the email we 9 using G2 because, although it was A2, it had previously 9 have just looked at. 10 failed when tested under 8414, they would look at your 10 This is from Gilbert McCarthy, second email down on 11 test and go, ”Well, that doesn’t tell us anything, does 11 the page. Now, it’s not very clear who it’s sent to, 12 it ”? 12 but if we scroll up to the top of the page, we can see 13 A. No, because if the test we were doing failed the test , 13 that it looks as if it ’s circulated a little bit more 14 then that’s exactly the point it proves. So we would 14 widely by Mark Harris. See if you can help me with it. 15 have been telling Government that. 15 Go back down to the bottom of the screen, please. 16 Q. Can we go back to the email. You will have to explain 16 It looks as if it ’s coming from Gilbert McCarthy. We 17 something to me. {KIN00025854}. You see, Mr Garbutt 17 think it goes to Mark Harris: 18 says in the second line: 18 ”Spoke to Gene and explained the latest view that 19 ”Pointing out to MHCLG that G2 is being used to 19 Gov has made up its mind already and he was very clear 20 reclad buildings and that it is dangerous will probably 20 that we need to pull out All the stops to convince the 21 lead to it coming out that G2 has failed an 8414 with 21 Gov and anyone who wants to listen, as many independent 22 Xtratherm ...” 22 experts and trade associations as possible , that Large 23 What was the problem then with it coming out that G2 23 Scale Testing for everything above 18 metres is the 24 had failed an 8414? 24 ’Right and only’ solution to ensuring maximum future 25 A. I ’m not quite sure what he means there. I think −− 25 public safety . He is adamant that our video footage of
138 140
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 DTS Non C is on the Ministers desk asap and if needs be 1 A. Not generally familiar , but I ’m familiar with the fact 2 and at the appropriate time it is also on 2 that he was the contact being used to supply the G2 3 Jeremy Corbyn’s desk. We also need to do [everything 3 product. 4 possible ] to bring forward that Vitribond[sic ] G2 test. 4 Q. Do you agree from that familiarity that he is a man 5 ”In parallel we will ensure we have full product 5 called Daron Hodder, and was the director of ACLAD, 6 offer available in the event we fail to get our message 6 an Australian firm which designs and manufactures 7 across but prioritise the above with everything we’ve 7 architectural façades? 8 got to ensure we succeed in convincing Gov that taking 8 A. I don’t know his position or title there. 9 their Consultation a step further by ensuring ALL 9 Q. Is ACLAD or Daron personally where you sourced the 10 systems above 18 metres is Large Scale Performance 10 Vitracore G2 from for the July test? 11 tested.” 11 A. I believe so, yes. 12 Did you see this email at the time, do you think? 12 Q. Do you know why you didn’t buy it here in the UK? 13 A. No. 13 A. I think we couldn’t get hold of it . 14 Q. Do you know what footage Gilbert McCarthy is referring 14 Q. Right. 15 to there when he says ”footage of DTS Non C”? 15 Now, let’s go to the third paragraph. Gwyn Davies 16 A. Not specifically , no. 16 says: 17 Q. It ’s clear from this, isn ’t it , that the priority above 17 ”I have copied also Adrian Brazier who is organising 18 all else was to have the G2 fail in the bag in order to 18 a lot of testing for us in Exova Dubai and is the focal 19 convince the Government to keep BS 8414 as the standard 19 point for designs etc etc. 20 test , indeed perhaps the sole test , for high−rise 20 ”Currently sweating it out in the desert at Exova on 21 buildings? 21 our latest round of testing − he’s been chasing down the 22 A. Yeah, I think it was important to get that empirical 22 elusive Vitracore G2 for nearly 10 months now!” 23 evidence, yes, that’s clear . 23 Why had Adrian Brazier been chasing Vitracore G2 for 24 Q. And this instruction was coming from the very top of 24 nearly ten months as at mid−May 2018? 25 Kingspan, wasn’t it, Gene Murtagh, Gilbert McCarthy? 25 A. I think because we were looking for that honeycomb and
141 143
1 A. It would appear from that email, yes. 1 that was one we possibly knew of. 2 Q. Yes. 2 Q. For the test to provide evidence for your case to the 3 Now, let’s go back to your fifth witness statement, 3 Government? 4 please, {KIN00024975/4}, paragraph 2.8 again. I’ve 4 A. Yes. Yes. 5 shown you this sentence before and we’ve discussed it, 5 Q. So ten months or so, that takes one back to about August 6 Mr Pargeter, so I’m sorry to go back over it again. 6 or so 2017. Does that accord with your recollection? 7 It ’s the third line up from the end of the paragraph: 7 A. I ’m not sure it was that long back, but I know that 8 ”We decided to carry out this test because we 8 Adrian was −− been trying for a while to get hold of G2. 9 suspected (no more) that a system utilising the 9 Q. Right. 10 Vitracore G2 panels might not be able to pass 10 Let’s go to {KIN00025484}. This is an email the day 11 a large−scale test even when part of a robust design.” 11 before, 14 May 2018, from Gwyn Davies to Adrian Brazier 12 I want to show you an email at {KIN00025128}. This 12 and you, and also to John Garbutt, subject 13 is an email chain from a little bit earlier in May 2018, 13 ”Vitracore G2”. He says: 14 15 May, and I think we looked at the head of that chain, 14 ”Hello − I have made contact with Daron Hodder [and 15 in other words the tail of it as exhibited, a little bit 15 there is a contact at LinkedIn for him] overnight asking 16 earlier and I said I ’d come back to it. 16 if he could source some Vitracore G2 for [testing] in 17 Can we go to the bottom of page 5 {KIN00025128/5}. 17 Dubai − this is the reply I got from him overnight. 18 This is an email from Gwyn Davies to someone called 18 ”’Hi Gwyn! We can certainly assist you! You may be 19 Daron, copied to Adrian Brazier, and Gwyn Davies was 19 aware of the battle I am having here in doing the same 20 I think the divisional technical director at Kingspan at 20 test at the public CSIRO facility. If you google my 21 the time, wasn’t he? 21 name Daron Hodder, you can read the two newspaper 22 A. Yes, I think so. 22 articles on the same. The CSIRO is not getting the 23 Q. Yes. 23 suppliers permission, Fairview/Valcan, a poor argument 24 Now, he is writing to someone called Daron at 24 indeed! We did do the BS8414 at a private facility in 25 aclad.com.au. Are you familiar with Daron at ACLAD? 25 Canberra, in which it failed under propagation. I was
142 144
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 wanting to do the test at the CSIRO in the attempt to 1 Melbourne, may be best for you to photo graph the same 2 make it ’more public’. To that end, I can supply you 2 with the G2 film on it , then remove it, in case they 3 with the G2 I bought from a contractor for $5000 AUD. It 3 both go to the same Exclusive church....you know what 4 is here in my factory, your staff know me and are 4 I mean...” 5 welcome to come and view the same. Collectively we need 5 Can you explain what he means by that? 6 to rid our industry of these ’dodgy’ suppliers [smiley 6 A. No, I don’t know what he means by ”exclusive church”. 7 face ]. ” 7 Q. Then if you go to the last paragraph, he says: 8 And then Gwyn Davies goes back to his own words: 8 ”Anyhow, let us know what you would like.” 9 ”Do you want me to progress this? I need to confirm 9 Now, we do I think see that you saw this email at 10 how many m2 it is and what sizes are the panels.” 10 the time from emails higher up the chain. When you saw 11 You got that email at that time. Did you understand 11 that, did you think that Daron Hodder clearly thought 12 from this message that G2 had failed an 8414 test 12 that the test would be a failure with these panels and 13 already? 13 he wanted to see the result? 14 A. Yes. 14 A. Yes, he definitely thought that the G2 product would be 15 Q. And at least Mr Hodder’s view was that its manufacturers 15 challenged by that test , definitely . 16 were still selling it on dubious claims about its fire 16 Q. Right, and that he wanted to know that for his own 17 performance? 17 purposes? 18 A. It was his view, yes. 18 A. Yes, I believe so. 19 Q. Yes, at least his view that its manufacturers were still 19 Q. If we go to the next email up in the chain, still on 20 selling G2 on dubious claims about its fire performance. 20 page 4, top of page 4 I think −− we probably need the 21 A. Yes. 21 bottom of page 3 just to see the start of the email: 22 Q. Yes. 22 Gwyn Davies, 15 May 2018. Then back to the top of 23 Just to confirm, was Daron Hodder the source of the 23 page 4, it comes to you and John Garbutt, ”Myth Busting 24 G2 panels, now I’ve shown you this email? 24 Time”: 25 A. Yes. 25 ”Hello both,
145 147
1 Q. Those would arrive, looking at the date, 14 May, too 1 ”As mentioned by Daron below − panels were 2 late for the 22 May test, wouldn’t they? 2 prefabricated so we have to go with what we have. 3 A. Yes, yes. 3 ”Please advise if I should request the entire stock 4 Q. Does it follow from that that you were seeking these 4 of panels should be airfreighted to Dubai?” 5 panels for delivery for the fallback test , or plan B, in 5 Then if we go up the chain to page 3 6 case the May test did not fail ? 6 {KIN00025128/3}, we can see the email we looked at 7 A. Yes, I think so, yeah. 7 earlier on: 8 Q. Let’s go back to {KIN00025128/4}, please. This is the 8 ”Adrian, do we have the budget to do the extra 9 email string we looked at a little bit earlier , and 9 test?” 10 I would like to go to page 4. We were on page 5 before, 10 Et cetera. 11 now I would like to look at page 4. 11 If we go back a page to page 2 {KIN00025128/2}, we 12 This is 15 May 2018, and this is Daron Hodder’s 12 can see you say, in the email halfway down the screen, 13 email on that date, 15 May 2018, to Gwyn Davies and 13 also on 15 May 2018, ”FYI”. This appears to be an email 14 Adrian Brazier, also entitled ”Myth Busting Time”, and 14 to Adrian Brazier only: 15 he says: 15 ”FYI. 16 ”Hi Gwyn and Adrian! 16 ”I have sent the drawings to NJ to see how quickly 17 ”Ok, Gwyn, found out, we have already routed the 17 he could knock up a design using the already cut panels, 18 sheets, as were booked in with the CSIRO to test the 18 this would make a good back up if current non com test 19 same one week after our A2 test. 19 does not perform as expected.” 20 ”Please find attached our shop drawing ofthe 20 Now, the NJ there is Nick Jenkins, isn’t it ? 21 same ...” 21 A. That’s correct. 22 Then in the third paragraph, he says: 22 Q. And this was the origin of plan B, wasn’t it? 23 ”These are ready to go, can be flat packed on 23 A. Yes. 24 a timber skid in an instant. 24 Q. Using G2? 25 ”Not sure if Exova in Dubai, talks to Exova here in 25 A. Yes.
146 148
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 Q. That you now knew from Daron Hodder would be very likely 1 (3.30 pm) 2 to fail in an 8414 test? 2 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Welcome back, everyone. We’re ready 3 A. That’s correct. 3 to continue taking evidence from Mr Pargeter. 4 Q. Then if we go further up the chain now to the bottom of 4 Mr Pargeter, just to check you can see me and hear 5 page 1 of this email string {KIN00025128/1}, we can see 5 me, I hope? 6 an email also of 15 May from Adrian Brazier to you. He 6 THE WITNESS: I can, yes. 7 says: 7 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Good, thank you very much. 8 ”Also from a test performance they go up like PE 8 Then, Mr Millett, when you’re ready, on you go. 9 panels and will perform worse than Alucobond A2.” 9 MR MILLETT: Yes, thank you very much. 10 By PE, did you understand that he meant PE−cored ACM 10 Mr Pargeter, can you please be shown the email we 11 panels? 11 had just been looking at when we stopped for the break. 12 A. Yes, I would have done. 12 This is at {KIN00025128/1}. I was showing you your 13 Q. Do you know what test performance Adrian Brazier is 13 email of 15 May 2018 to Adrian Brazier when you say: 14 talking about here? 14 ”When the email comes through you will see an image 15 A. No, not specifically . 15 of a test which lasted 4mins or something.” 16 Q. Do you know how he knows that Vitracore G2 would ”go up 16 Had you in your hands at that stage an image of 17 like PE panel”? 17 a test? 18 A. No, not unless he’d heard something from the industry. 18 A. Looking at that, yes, I must have done. 19 But, no, I don’t think he would have seen one. 19 Q. What was it? Was it a video or a still photograph? 20 Q. I see. 20 What was it? 21 Your response to him, I think a minute later, if you 21 A. I think as an image it would be a still photograph. 22 possibly allow for the time difference , it ’s hard to 22 Q. Right. We haven’t seen it in disclosure , I don’t 23 tell , is : 23 believe , and again I’ ll be corrected if I ’m wrong, it 24 ”When the email comes through you will see an image 24 may have come through recently, but is it something that 25 of a test which lasted 4mins or something.” 25 is actually a physical or an electronic document, is it?
149 151
1 What test was that? 1 A. I would think from that, yes, I would think it would be 2 A. I can’t recall . 2 an attachment or an embed in the email. 3 Q. You were sending him something. What was it? 3 Q. Right. 4 (Pause) 4 A. But I haven’t seen that in my pack either. 5 A. I can’t recall what that one was. 5 Q. Right, I see. 6 Q. Right. Do you know where you got the image of the test 6 When you say, ”When the email comes through”, whose 7 from? 7 email, coming through to whom? 8 A. No, unless it was −− no, I can’t think where that was. 8 A. I would suspect from me to Adrian. 9 MR MILLETT: Mr Chairman, it’s now just before 3.15, and 9 Q. I see. So you were going to send him this image. 10 I hesitate to get into a habit of stopping early , but 10 I see. And where did you get the image from, the image 11 I might be able to clarify this particular question with 11 of a test which lasted four minutes? 12 a document, and I think I need the break to do it. 12 A. I don’t recall . 13 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Right. Well, let’s take the break 13 Q. Was it Daron Hodder? 14 now, then. It ’s not particularly early . 14 A. No, not from Daron Hodder. 15 I said we’d have a break during the afternoon, 15 Q. You don’t know −− 16 Mr Pargeter. It ’s come slightly earlier than we might 16 A. Not directly from Daron to me, no. 17 have expected, but that doesn’t matter. 17 Q. Right. 18 So we’ll stop now. We’ll resume, please, at 3.30. 18 Now, in the light of these emails that we have been 19 Again, I must ask you not to talk about your evidence or 19 looking at, do you agree that when you said in your 20 anything to do with it to anyone over the break. 20 fifth witness statement at the end of paragraph 2.8that 21 THE WITNESS: I understand. 21 you had suspicions but no more about the performance of 22 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you very much. 22 Vitracore G2, that was something of an understatement? 23 3.30, then, please. Thank you. 23 A. No, I think it ’s correct . We had suspicions, we’d 24 (3.15 pm) 24 obviously been told by Daron for one that −− and 25 (A short break) 25 certainly that it was a product that was struggling to
150 152
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 pass 8414 tests, but until we tested it ourselves , we 1 A. I wouldn’t say it was impartial, he is not saying that, 2 wouldn’t really know. 2 he is just saying it would be a good idea to have 3 Q. The fact is that you were aware of evidence that the G2 3 someone else test and get a result as well . 4 panel would go up like or perform in a fire like a PE 4 Q. Was Daron Hodder or anybody else ever approached with 5 panel and would be likely to fail an 8414 test. 5 that proposition? 6 A. Well, that’s what was said, but I don’t actually −− 6 A. Not as far as I ’m aware. 7 I wouldn’t have thought that that was correct. At the 7 Q. Do you know why that is? 8 time I wouldn’t have thought it correct and it’s not 8 A. Maybe we just didn’t take it forward as an idea. 9 correct now. 9 Q. Right. Yes. 10 Q. If we go up the email chain a little bit further , you 10 Now, I want to turn to the subject of the letter to 11 see that he comes back to you and says: 11 the select committee of 6 July 2018 next. 12 ”My thought was it may be worth doing the test [at] 12 On the last occasion, to cut a longish passage 13 the BRE with the correct audience in attendance but not 13 short, you agreed, I think, with the Chairman that the 14 sure on the logistics .” 14 testing that was done in July 2018 was not done for 15 Who did you understand the correct audience to be 15 entirely altruistic purposes. That’s {Day85/62:15−16}. 16 there? 16 That’s right, isn ’t it ? 17 A. I ’d have thought MHCLG, potentially, or some of the 17 A. That’s correct. 18 people on the select committee, that type of audience. 18 Q. It was undertaken to lobby Government, wasn’t it? 19 Q. Right, I see. 19 A. Correct. 20 Your response, as we can see at the top of the page, 20 Q. And in fact, as we’ve seen, to use John Garbutt’s words 21 is : 21 in his email of 11 September 2017, the testing was part 22 ”That’s not a bad call Braz, I have floated it to 22 of Kingspan’s strategy to force the Government into 23 the team. I guess timing may be an issue here with 2019 23 a position that everything must be tested. 24 test dates?” 24 A. Yes. 25 When you say, ”I have floated it to the team”, to 25 Q. We saw that the July 2018 test report was included in
153 155
1 whom did you float it? 1 Richard Burnley’s letter , Kingspan via Richard Burnley 2 A. It would have probably been John Garbutt and Gwyn, maybe 2 as the signature, to Clive Betts, the Chair of the 3 others, I can’t directly recall , but that’s who I would 3 select committee on 6 July. 4 have floated that to, maybe to Mark Harris. 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Right. In writing, do you think, you sent them 5 Q. Yes. 6 an email? 6 Let’s go to that letter , it ’s {INQ00014076/5}. If 7 A. Possibly, but I could have called them as well. 7 we go to page 5 in the letter , we can see the tests that 8 Q. Right. 8 are set out. Test 3 is the July test , it ’s the third of 9 Now, I want to show you another email chain which 9 three tests . 10 branches off this one, {KIN00025129}, please. This is 10 If we go back one page {INQ00014076/4}, we can see 11 an email, also 15 May 2018, from Adrian Brazier to you 11 the two other tests . This is underneath the heading 12 bearing the same title ”Myth Busting Time”, and you say: 12 ”Failed A1/A2 Large Scale Fire Tests”: 13 ”Maybe fund Darren to do the test so it’s not KIL vs 13 ”Kingspan has evidence of three failed large scale 14 Rockwool but more industry view??” 14 fire tests where the cladding system was made upofA1 15 The Darren referred to here was Daron Hodder from 15 and A2 products. The tests are detailed below and 16 ACLAD, wasn’t it? 16 supporting documentation is enclosed.” 17 A. Yeah, I would suspect so, yes. 17 Then test 1 is underneath that, and you can see that 18 Q. The spelling is different , but do you know a Darren with 18 you describe a test at the BRE on 27 October 2016 19 R−R−E−N as opposed to Daron R−O−N in this context? 19 comprising Alucopanel solid core A2 ACM along with 20 A. No, I suspect that would have been Daron Hodder. 20 Fujairah Rockwool foil faced mineral fibre /stone wool 21 Q. Yes. 21 insulation , rated as A1. 22 Is it right that what Adrian Brazier is suggesting 22 To be clear, that report didn’t actually have a test 23 here is passing the Vitracore test off as an independent 23 report, did it ? 24 test undertaken by an impartial cladding company in 24 A. No, I believe so. 25 another country? 25 Q. No. It says in the last sentence:
154 156
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 ”We understand that no test report was produced for 1 the linear route, so that was the objective. 2 this test .” 2 ”Question: All the weaknesses that were introduced 3 In fact , the letter says at the end of that 3 into the system that we saw in the April email run, 4 paragraph: 4 which were designed to make the system perform poorly, 5 ”The system tested in this test is not typical in UK 5 were not clearly identified as such in this document, 6 construction as the insulation is foil faced.” 6 were they? 7 Test 2, another failed test , was also expressly not 7 ”Answer: No. 8 typical of construction in the UK, partly because it 8 ”Question: And therefore anybody reading it would 9 didn’t have cavity barriers in it . 9 think that the system was designed not as a worst−case 10 A. Yes. 10 scenario or as designed to perform poorly, but just as 11 Q. Therefore although it’s right , isn ’t it , that the first 11 a system. 12 two of these three tests were genuine, as you call them, 12 ”Answer: Correct, as a system. 13 they were done on systems which were not representative 13 ”Question: And therefore anybody reading this 14 of systems built in the United Kingdom at the time? 14 letter would be misled, wouldn’t they, into thinking 15 A. That’s correct. 15 that the test had not been set up to fail but was 16 Q. Now, shall we just go back, please, to paragraph 3.4 of 16 a fairly representative test? 17 your witness statement {KIN00024975/6}. We have already 17 ”Answer: No, they wouldn’t have been misled. It 18 seen this , but if we go to the middle of the paragraph, 18 was a system designed which would comply with the linear 19 you say: 19 route. So that’s not misleading anybody, that’s what it 20 ”It was not constructed with weaknesses in it in 20 was. 21 order to enhance its chance of performing poorly.” 21 ”Sir Martin Moore−Bick: But if I may say so, the key 22 A. Yes, I see that. 22 point that counsel is inviting you to consider is 23 Q. Yes. Then you say this: 23 whether the system that was actually tested was designed 24 ”We therefore considered it an entirely appropriate 24 so as to be fairly representative of what one might 25 test to draw to Mr Betts’ attention as an example of the 25 expect to be built . Is that your point, Mr Millett?
157 159
1 wider point we were seeking to explain − namely that 1 ”Mr Millett: Yes, Mr Chairman. 2 just because cladding panels and insulation products 2 ”Answer: Then it was designed to be the most 3 which are certified as meeting an A1/A2 standard when 3 challenging for that test . 4 tested separately on a small scale , does not, in itself , 4 ”Sir Martin Moore−Bick: So I think it follows that 5 mean that any system incorporating them will necessarily 5 it was not intended to be fairly representative of what 6 meet an appropriate standard in terms of fire 6 one might expect to see built. 7 performance when subjected to the more exacting 7 ”Answer: I think I ’d agree with that, yes. 8 requirements of a large scale test .” 8 ”Sir Martin Moore−Bick: Thank you. 9 Now, I’d asked you a number of questions about this 9 ”Mr Millett: Therefore anybody reading this letter 10 topic in your examination, and I just want to show you 10 would be misled by the results of that test into 11 a passage in that examination. It ’s quite long, but 11 thinking that tests involving mineral fibre were just as 12 it ’s worth looking at, if we can. 12 likely to fail as tests involving Kingspan K15, when 13 {Day85/84:19}, please. I want to read you three 13 that was −− 14 pages or so of your evidence last time, Mr Pargeter, so 14 ”Answer: I think it −− 15 bear with me and follow along. 15 ”Question: −− not true and known by Kingspan not to 16 Question at 19: 16 be true? 17 ”Question: Why did you not −− or did Kingspan 17 ”Answer: No, I think if the letter had said this 18 not −− tell Clive Betts, Chair of the select committee, 18 was built as a typical standard system then that would 19 that the test done in Dubai was deliberately designed to 19 be true, but it doesn’t say that, it just says what the 20 perform poorly? 20 system was. 21 ”Answer: Because it was designed as a potential 21 ”Question: Do you accept this much: that Kingspan 22 system on a building. 22 deliberately concealed from the select committee the 23 ”Question: How would Mr Betts know that from this 23 fact that this test was deliberately designed to perform 24 letter ? 24 poorly? 25 ”Answer: Well, he wouldn’t, but it was built along 25 ”Answer: No.
158 160
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 ”Question: You don’t accept that it was deliberate? 1 to the select committee that although Vitracore G2 had 2 ”Answer: Deliberate −− 2 an A2 rating in England and Wales, it was known to 3 ”Question: You thought it was an accident, did you? 3 perform like a PE panel? 4 (Pause) 4 A. No. 5 ”Answer: No, I think −− I don’t think it was 5 Q. You don’t accept that you didn’t reveal that fact to 6 an accident. There was no deliberate attempt to 6 them? 7 mislead, it just was a system which complied with the 7 A. Well, it didn’t perform like the PE panel. 8 linear route. 8 Q. You had been told, and we’ve seen this, that it had been 9 ”Question: Why not tell Mr Betts, as part of your 9 known to perform like a PE panel. We saw the email 10 response to the Hackitt consultation, that the Dubai 10 earlier , ”it goes up like a PE panel”. 11 test was deliberately constructed with weaknesses in it 11 A. But it doesn’t, and it didn’t. 12 in order to enhance its chance of performing poorly? 12 Q. Well, it may not have done in the event, but do you 13 Why not say that? 13 accept that you did not reveal to the select committee 14 ”Answer: Well, we could have done, but we didn’t.” 14 that although Vitracore G2 had an A2 rating, it was 15 I have read you that in full because there are 15 known before the test or, to use your words, suspected 16 questions that then flow from that entire passage. 16 before the test that it would perform like a PE panel? 17 Your statement in your fifth statement that I’ve 17 A. No, I don’t think we did suspect it would actually 18 just read to you is inconsistent , isn ’t it , with your 18 perform like a PE panel, just shipped(?) in because of 19 previous evidence that the Dubai test was designed to be 19 the make−up of it. So we knew it was challenging and −− 20 the most challenging for an 8414 test? 20 but we didn’t know it was like a PE−cored panel and it 21 A. Which Dubai test are you talking about? 21 didn’t perform like a PE−cored panel. 22 Q. The July test. 22 Q. Do you accept that you didn’t tell the select committee 23 A. No, I think −− on that passage there, I was still 23 that you were aware of a test where Vitracore G2 had 24 thinking about the design weaknesses of the A2 test, and 24 failed within four minutes? 25 that’s where I think the conversation continued around 25 A. No, we didn’t.
161 163
1 those design weaknesses which you’d highlighted, and 1 Q. Nor did you reveal to the select committee that you had 2 because I hadn’t picked up on the G2 test difference , 2 deliberately selected Vitracore G2 because it had 3 then that’s why I answered it in the way I did. But the 3 already failed a full system 8414 test? 4 G2 product has been used on buildings in the UK. 4 A. No, but we did tell the select committee that it was 5 Q. Your statement in your fifth statement at paragraph 3.4 5 an A2−rated product. 6 I read to you was inconsistent with your acceptance in 6 Q. That’s not quite the same thing, is it ? 7 December that the system tested in July 2018 had been 7 A. No. 8 deliberately weakened? 8 Q. No. And you didn’t even tell the select committee, did 9 A. I was talking about the earlier test . 9 you, Mr Pargeter, that you had chosen G2 because, even 10 Q. Well, I ’ve just read you the passage which relates to −− 10 on your own evidence today, you suspected that it might 11 A. Yes, I understand that, but I was talking about the 11 fail , your own words in your fifth witness statement? 12 design weaknesses which −− they weren’t in the G2 test, 12 A. No, we didn’t. 13 they were in the earlier Dubai test. 13 Q. Why did you not disclose any of those matters to the 14 Q. Yes, but do you accept, as you told us in December, 14 select committee? 15 sitting there now, that the Dubai July test was 15 A. Because we didn’t need to. It was a rated product, it 16 designed −− or intended, let me use a clearer word for 16 had got a certificate to say that it was A2, and we 17 you, intended to be the most challenging for an 8414 17 tested it in an A1 system, A2/A1 system, and it failed. 18 test? 18 We gave all the information we could on that test. 19 A. It wasn’t the most challenging, no, I think the design 19 Q. By not mentioning any of these matters to the 20 or the intent was a direct copy of the DCLG test, so we 20 select committee, do you accept that Kingspan were not 21 didn’t design in any weaknesses above that, and the 21 being entirely transparent with the select committee? 22 standard product used on it was a G2 A2−rated product, 22 A. No, I think we were being transparent with them. 23 so I think that was more fairly representative . 23 Q. Did you deliberately choose not to tell them that 24 Q. When you presented the July test to the 24 Kingspan had selected the Vitracore G2 panel for 25 select committee, do you accept that you did not reveal 25 inclusion in the full system test on 2 July because you
162 164
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 suspected it might fail? 1 selected the one which may not in order to make your 2 A. I don’t think we deliberately omitted anything. 2 point? Why not just tell them that? 3 Q. So are you telling us −− 3 A. Because you’re referring to it there as a product test, 4 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: I’m sorry to interrupt you, 4 and it’s not, it ’s a system test, isn ’t it ? So what 5 Mr Millett, but I would quite like to clarify some of 5 we’re proving there is a system combining that product 6 this . 6 with non−combustible insulation can fail an 8414 test. 7 Mr Pargeter, when you chose the G2 Vitracore panel, 7 Q. I will repeat my question: why not just tell the 8 did you think that its performance was likely to be 8 select committee the very fact that there are different 9 typical of an A2 panel or worse than one might expect 9 kinds of A2 panels, some of which will, when included in 10 from an A2 panel? 10 a full system test, not cause that test to fail , and 11 A. I think we would have expected it to be worse at a 11 some of which, when included in such a test, will or 12 large−scale fire , yes. 12 might? 13 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: And therefore not really typical of 13 A. Because I think that’s kind of implicit in the way the 14 an A2 panel? 14 legislation was moving towards, and as −− making that 15 A. Well, A2 panels come in all different types, but I think 15 assumption. But what we were saying was that’s not 16 it would probably be −− we would have thought it was at 16 always the case. 17 the bottom end, if you like , of the performance of an A2 17 Q. Isn’t the reality , Mr Pargeter, that the July test was 18 product, yes. 18 set up to fail in just the same way as the May test had 19 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: All right, thank you very much. 19 been set up to fail , and you kept that fact from the 20 Yes, Mr Millett. 20 select committee? 21 MR MILLETT: Do you accept that you not only did not tell 21 A. No, it wasn’t. We were very open about the design of 22 the select committee that you thought or suspected that 22 the test . The design of the test was copied from DCLG, 23 Vitracore G2 would not behave like a typical A2 panel, 23 and we gave full disclosure on the products that we 24 you did not tell them that deliberately? 24 used. 25 A. Well, we didn’t tell them that because it wasn’t 25 Q. Can you identify −−
165 167
1 relevant . The test speaks for itself and we’ve −− full 1 A. −− anything from them. 2 disclosure on the test , the way the test was designed, 2 Q. I’m so sorry. 3 the product data, I think we even provided the product 3 Can you identify anywhere in that 6 July letter 4 datasheet with that, so I think, you know, we gave them 4 which spells out to the select committee that you had 5 everything that they needed to make a judgment on it. 5 deliberately selected G2 Vitracore as the panel because 6 Q. Why didn’t you tell the select committee that you had 6 you knew or suspected that it would cause the test to 7 deliberately selected the G2 Vitracore panel because you 7 fail ? 8 either knew or at least strongly suspected that a full 8 A. No, that’s not there. 9 system test with it in it would fail? 9 Q. Now, you also, do you accept, did not tell the 10 A. Because we didn’t need to, we just told them what we’d 10 select committee that the July Dubai test was a plan B 11 found. 11 that was only necessary because your plan A test back in 12 Q. Why didn’t you tell the select committee that 12 May, with all its design imperfections that we’d seen in 13 Vitracore G2 would not behave in a full system test like 13 the March and April emails, had passed? 14 a typical A2 panel and that therefore they should read 14 A. That’s correct. 15 the results of the July test in that light ? 15 Q. Surely by referring to the July test but making no 16 A. Because it’s an A2 panel, and that’s −− you know, it’s 16 mention of the successful May test, you were giving 17 proving the point, that a system with limited and 17 an unfairly incomplete picture to the select committee 18 non−combustibility doesn’t always perform the way you 18 about linear route systems? 19 think it does, or you may think it does. So whether it 19 A. No, I think because there was already an assumption that 20 was suspected as being at the bottom end of an A2 20 that route would provide, you know, on all tests to be 21 compared to other A2s is not really the point. 21 safe, and we were just challenging that against the 22 Q. Wasn’t the point precisely to get across to the 22 BR 135 against that one product. So I don’t think it 23 select committee the very fact that there are different 23 was unfair, no. 24 kinds of A2 panels, some which will pass or may pass 24 Q. Was it not relevant for the select committee to know 25 an 8414 test and some which may not, and that you had 25 that even a system containing linear route compliant
166 168
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 products but with in−built design flaws deliberately 1 A. It didn’t support the case, and, you know, we were 2 included to enhance the chances of failure had in fact 2 trying to make the case that not all systems would 3 passed? 3 perform the same. So, you know, that wasn’t the case we 4 A. No, I don’t think that was considered, no. 4 were trying to make, so it wasn’t necessary. 5 Q. Why was that irrelevant? 5 Q. Well, you have almost accepted my point. Is the reason 6 A. I don’t know, I just don’t think it was considered. 6 why the fact of and results of the May test were 7 Q. It may not have supported your case, Mr Pargeter, but 7 deliberately withheld from the select committee because 8 surely it was relevant for the select committee to 8 they didn’t support Kingspan’s case? 9 understand both tests and the flaws in both tests soas 9 A. I couldn’t say whether that was the thought process or 10 to be able to have the full picture , so as to be able to 10 not. 11 understand what the empirical evidence truly shows; no? 11 Q. Right. 12 A. No, I just don’t think we considered that. 12 We have seen that you did decide to tell them about 13 Q. You don’t think you considered it? 13 the July test , and in presenting the failed July test 14 A. No. 14 evidence in support of your case, but not revealing the 15 Q. When you say you don’t think you considered it, did you 15 successful May test, do you accept that you were only 16 mean that the question of whether you should tell them 16 giving the select committee half the picture? 17 about the May test simply formed no part of Kingspan’s 17 (Pause) 18 thinking about whether to tell the select committee 18 A. No, I think we were just −− we were giving them the 19 about it? 19 evidence of the point we were trying to prove. 20 A. Yeah, I don’t know whether it did, I didn’t write that 20 Q. And not evidence of any empirical evidence which might, 21 letter , so I don’t know what the thinking was of those 21 fairly read, undermine that case or point that you were 22 who were drafting it precisely , but I don’t imagine it 22 trying to prove? 23 was to deliberately leave anything out, it was just that 23 A. Well, it doesn’t undermine it really , it just −− it’s 24 was the point we were trying to prove. 24 another system test that did pass, and there are 25 Q. Do you accept that the non−disclosure of the May test, 25 probably plenty of others that do pass under that, but
169 171
1 the fact of the May test and its successful result , was 1 what we’re saying is that it ’s not all systems, and so, 2 not the result of an oversight but the result of 2 you know, we were just using that evidence to prove that 3 a deliberate decision? 3 not all systems would. 4 A. No, I can’t say that. 4 Q. I have to put it to you that in not revealing the 5 Q. You can’t say that. 5 successful May test to the select committee, Kingspan 6 You do realise, don’t you, that that is what 6 was attempting to mislead the select committee? 7 Kingspan told Brian Martin of the MHCLG and Clive Betts 7 A. No, I disagree. 8 in separate letters dated 19 January this year, that the 8 Q. And the reason you didn’t mention the May test in your 9 May test was considered to be irrelevant? 9 second witness statement in October 2019 but only the 10 A. I don’t recall that, no. 10 July test was for exactly the same reason; your plan was 11 Q. Right. Well, we will come to it later . 11 always to conceal the fact of and result of the May test 12 For the time being, were you party to or privy to 12 from both the Inquiry and the public. 13 any decision to omit any reference to the May test from 13 A. No, that’s not true. 14 the 6 July letter to the select committee? 14 Q. And it was only once it had been put to you in evidence 15 A. No, not that I’m aware of, no. 15 that the July test was similarly part of an attempt to 16 Q. Even if you were not party to or privy to that decision , 16 mislead the select committee that you chose to come 17 do you know when it was taken? 17 clean, as you would have it, about the May test and 18 A. No. 18 sought to put the record straight . 19 Q. Do you know who took it? 19 A. No, that’s not true. 20 A. No. 20 Q. Right. 21 Q. Do you accept the truth of the overall position that 21 It ’s right , isn ’t it , that Nick Jenkins was the very 22 Kingspan concealed the fact and result of the May test 22 designer of the DCLG’s own BS 8414 fire testing? 23 from the select committee because it seriously 23 A. I think he was involved. 24 undermined Kingspan’s case that combustible materials 24 Q. Why didn’t you mention that fact to the 25 should not be banned? 25 select committee?
170 172
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. I don’t know whether it was ever thought about. 1 indeed in any of the underlying material, where 2 Q. Did it not occur to you or anybody at Kingspan to your 2 Mr Burnley or anybody else at Kingspan tells the 3 knowledge that Mr Jenkins’ involvement in setting out 3 select committee that the test was designed to perform 4 poor performance options for Kingspan’s linear route 4 poorly, do we? 5 tests , both May and July, might have involved a conflict 5 ”Answer: No. 6 of interest for him? 6 ”Question: We don’t see anywhere where they are 7 A. No, I don’t know whether that had been discussed or not. 7 told that it was set up to fail or a worst−case 8 Q. Right. 8 scenario, do we? 9 Now, I want to examine another topic, please, 9 ”Answer: No. 10 arising out of Kingspan’s recent disclosure , and this is 10 ”Question: Now, Mr Burnley was one of those senior 11 about Richard Burnley and his knowledge. 11 individuals at Kingspan who was not on the email string 12 Can we go, please, to the transcript of your 12 from April. Did he know that the test was designed to 13 evidence on {Day85/81}, please. If we pick it up at 13 perform poorly when he wrote this letter to the best of 14 line 2, we go to page 4 of what is the letter of the 14 your knowledge? 15 select committee of 6 July 2018 at {INQ00014076/4}, and 15 ”Answer: I don’t know, to the best of my knowledge, 16 I say to you at line 3: 16 whether he knew that. 17 ”Question: ... we can see that this is part of what 17 ”Question: Did you not have a discussion with 18 is in fact a 94−page submission, isn’t it, to the 18 Mr Burnley about this test before he wrote this letter ? 19 department, or to Clive Betts −− 19 ”Answer: I can’t recall . 20 ”Answer: Yes. 20 ”Question: It ’s unlikely −− and I’m not asking you 21 ”Question: −− as Chair of the select committee. 21 to speculate, but just to accept what is common sense −− 22 ”Halfway down the page he identifies: 22 that you, as head of technical and marketing and engaged 23 ”’Failed A1/A2 Large Scale Fire Tests.’ 23 in the campaign as we have seen for some months, would 24 ”Just in general −− and I’ve dived rather into the 24 have been bound to have had a discussion of some kind 25 middle of this −− were you involved in drafting this 25 with him about these failed tests ; no?
173 175
1 94−page submission? 1 ”Answer: Well, we would have done, yes. 2 ”Answer: I don’t recall . Possibly. 2 ”Question: It ’s important, you see, because I don’t 3 ”Question: Who else, or who would have been? 3 want to ask Mr Burnley something which is unfair. 4 ”Answer: I think Richard Burnley, obviously, and 4 ”Did Mr Burnley, to the best of your knowledge, know 5 the team at Kingspan, so that would be John Garbutt. 5 that the July test was designed to perform poorly? 6 ”Question: Right. You were head of technical −− 6 ”Answer: I couldn’t confirm whether he did or not. 7 ”Answer: Yes. 7 ”Question: Was there a plan to keep Mr Burnley in 8 ”Question: −− and marketing. 8 the dark about the test being designed to perform poorly 9 ”Answer: I think I was involved. 9 so that he would write this letter in all innocence? 10 ”Question: You were involved, you think? 10 ”Answer: No, I don’t think there was a plan to keep 11 ”Answer: Yes. 11 him in the dark.” 12 ”Question: Yes.” 12 Now, I’ve read you again a lengthy section of your 13 Now, just pausing there, we can see that you agreed 13 transcript from your evidence on 9 December, and against 14 with the question I put to you that you were involved in 14 that background, I now want to look at a document, 15 putting the submission together. Can you confirm that? 15 {KIN00025512}. 16 A. Yes, that’s what I said there, yes. 16 This is an email chain that was again disclosed to 17 Q. Yes. Then I go on to ask you about Richard Burnley’s 17 us within this month, March 2021, and it’s a chain from 18 knowledge of the July test on the basis, of course, at 18 12 and 13 June 2018, and relates to this 19 that stage, that you had said that it was the subject of 19 select committee hearing. 20 the March and April emails that discussed weakening the 20 Can we go to page 2 {KIN00025512/2} and look at the 21 system, design imperfections, so against that 21 bottom of the page, please. You can see at the bottom 22 background. It’s important you bear that in mind. 22 of page 2, it ’s an email from Tony Ryan of 12 June to 23 If I can then ask you to go to {Day85/83:10}, two 23 John Garbutt. 24 pages on in the transcript , I ask you the question: 24 Just help me, what was Tony Ryan’s role at this 25 ”Question: We don’t see anywhere in this letter, or 25 time.
174 176
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 A. So Tony Ryan works for the Panels division. 1 there. 2 Q. I see. In what capacity, in what position does he work? 2 Q. Was it a reference about the intention to use the 3 A. He’s technical director , or a similar position . 3 Vitracore G2 panel and all that that involved as 4 Q. Right. So you say of a similar position ; you mean 4 a plan B in case the May test failed? 5 similar position to you? 5 A. No, I don’t know. 6 A. No, to that title . He works alongside Mark Harris. 6 Q. Do you know what it is that Mr Burnley didn’t know? 7 Q. Yes, I see. 7 A. No, I don’t know what Richard didn’t know. 8 Now, let’s just look at what he says: 8 Q. Do you know why his not knowing too much would be 9 ”Subject: Select committee hearing. 9 helpful? 10 ”John, 10 A. No. 11 ”I know Richard was subjected to media training 11 Q. Was he being put forward as Kingspan’s spokesman before 12 today and is preparing for the select committee hearing. 12 the select committee because he had plausible 13 Richard’s name was bounced around a number of times as 13 deniability ? 14 we anticipated that a MD or CEO would be called but as 14 A. No, I don’t really −− I don’t understand what that 15 we now know it’s a Kingspan representative that is 15 phrase means and I don’t understand −− I don’t know if 16 required to attend. 16 that was ever discussed or thought about. 17 ”Personally, I think this is so important that we 17 Q. Plausible deniability means that he could credibly say 18 need someone who’s been very close to the various issues 18 he knew nothing when asked about the weakened tests in 19 over the last few months and who’s on point with all the 19 May and the deliberate use of Vitracore G2 in July. 20 evidence we have. This person needs to be technically 20 That’s what plausible deniability means. 21 excellent and demonstrate their knowledge of testing in 21 A. No, I don’t know. 22 a way that portrays Kingspan as absolute leaders in fire 22 Q. You don’t know. 23 testing etc. Therefore I think you’d be more suited to 23 The reason I ask you that question is because we 24 represent Kingspan. 24 don’t see his name on the March and April emails. Are 25 ”This is a chance that we cannot risk. I ’m sure 25 you saying or do you know that he didn’t know or know
177 179
1 Richard could deliver but I think you are better 1 enough about the plan to introduce weaknesses into both 2 positioned to do this .” 2 tests in order to maximise their chances of failure ? 3 Now, let’s look at the response from John Garbutt 3 A. I don’t know what detail he knew. I know he knew of the 4 the next day, back to Tony Ryan. If we just scroll up, 4 tests and that they were happening, but I don’t know if 5 John Garbutt tells Tony Ryan on 13 June 2018: 5 he knew the detail of the design elements of it . 6 ”Hi Tony 6 Q. My question really is whether Richard Burnley was set up 7 ”Richard is going to be very good. He knows enough, 7 as Kingspan’s useful idiot ; in other words knew enough 8 but not too much, which is helpful. The worst thing he 8 to argue Kingspan’s case convincingly, but not enough to 9 could do is a deep dive on detail . He needs to talk to 9 compromise his integrity in the process? 10 the MPs at their level of understanding.” 10 A. I can’t comment. I don’t know. 11 What was meant −− well, first of all I should ask 11 Q. Let’s move to a different topic, another email. This is 12 you: did you see this email chain? 12 about what happened after the July test, and the email 13 A. No. 13 I want to show you is {KIN00025168}. 14 Q. You didn’t. 14 This is an email chain between Gwyn Davies and 15 Did you find yourself involved at this stage in 15 Mike Stenson on 3 July 2018, which is the day after the 16 discussing who should attend the select committee 16 test . 17 hearing and give evidence? 17 Can you help me, who is Mike Stenson? 18 A. I don’t recall being involved in those discussions . 18 A. I don’t know his full title , but it ’s something like 19 Q. Right. 19 group innovation director. So he runs the Innovation 20 When Mr Garbutt says he knows enough but not too 20 Centre called IKON. 21 much, can you help us about what he meant there? 21 Q. IKON? 22 A. No. 22 A. IKON, I think it’s called , yeah, it ’s our group 23 Q. Is it a reference to Richard Burnley not knowing about 23 Innovation Centre. 24 the intentionally weakened May test? 24 Q. Now, if you go to the second email down, you can see 25 A. No. I don’t know. I don’t know what he’s talking about 25 that there is an email from Gwyn Davies on that day,
178 180
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 3 July, to Mike Stenson, ”Re: Dubai fire test”: 1 Q. In essence, that’s because there was more adhesive in 2 ”Hello Mike, 2 the bonding. 3 ”Burnt yesterday morning they have to review the 3 A. Yes. Potentially , yes. 4 [thermocouple] data as several were over 600 very close 4 Q. Now, let’s look at another document, also disclosed to 5 to 30 seconds and flames reached top of the rig they 5 the Inquiry within this month, March 2021, 6 need to look if it was sustained flaming. 6 {KIN00025285}. This is an email chain from 7 ”We are chasing the results currently but there is 7 September 2018, so two months or so after the July test 8 a danger it could have passed.” 8 which was done using the Vitracore G2 panel. 9 ”A danger it could have passed”. Do you agree that 9 If we go to page 1 there on the screen, you can see 10 that pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it, that Kingspan’s 10 that there is an email of 19 September 2018, second one 11 intention and hope was that the test would fail? 11 down, where John Garbutt writes to Mark Harris, copies 12 A. We were certainly expecting it to fail , but −− 12 you in, subject ”RE: Janet Murrel”, and we’ve 13 Q. Right. 13 established that she worked for Exova, and he writes 14 A. −− we didn’t know until we tested. 14 this : 15 Q. After the test failed , as we know it did, is it right , 15 ”We are trying to get hold of Janet Murrel, but 16 do you know, that Kingspan then disseminated the test 16 Adrian is struggling to get a response.” 17 widely? They sent it to Government, select committee, 17 This is 19 September, as I say: 18 BBC. 18 ”It is about A1/A2 8414 test fails.” 19 A. Yes, I was aware of that, yes. 19 Was the Adrian that he is referring to there you? 20 Q. Not the May test though? 20 A. I think so, yes. 21 A. No. 21 Q. As opposed to Adrian Brazier? 22 Q. No. It ’s right that Kingspan, as we know, commissioned 22 A. No, I think it was me. 23 no test report for the May test and told no one of its 23 Q. Yes. 24 existence. 24 If you go over the page to page 2 {KIN00025285/2}, 25 A. That’s correct. 25 at the top of the screen, top of the page, he says:
181 183
1 Q. Do you remember that this widespread dissemination of 1 ”MHCLG announced that they tested Vitracore G2 and 2 the July test actually led to a legal dispute with 2 that the spec of what is on the UK market is not what 3 Valcan who made Vitracore G2? 3 was tested when they got the A2 from BRE.” 4 A. I believe something was started, yes. 4 Then he goes on: 5 Q. Now, do you remember, we went through this when you gave 5 ”They haven’t tested it to see if it gets A2, it 6 evidence in December, after notifying the 6 appears, but they have contacted Trading Standards to 7 select committee of the July test, the Government, the 7 get Trading Standards to get G2 withdrawn. 8 MHCLG, was keen to test Vitracore G2 itself, and they 8 ”That being the case they have killed [our] failed 9 asked Kingspan for some panels with which to do it? Do 9 8414 on G2, which was our most powerful test.” 10 you remember that? 10 By ”killed [our] failed 8414 on G2”, was 11 A. I do, yes. 11 John Garbutt saying that your July test was now useless 12 Q. In fact , after the July test , the Government indeed did 12 for Kingspan’s lobbying purposes? 13 test some Vitracore G2. Do you remember that? 13 A. I ’m not sure. I think that might be what he’s saying, 14 A. I don’t know whether they tested it, but they definitely 14 but I ’m not sure. 15 had some sample. 15 Q. Well, when you received this email, how did you 16 Q. Right. Did you know whether you actually did send them 16 understand what he was saying there? 17 the Vitracore G2 you had or did they get that from 17 A. Was this one to me, did you say? 18 somewhere else? 18 Q. It was certainly copied to you, yes. If we go back to 19 A. No, I think we sent them the −− from what we’d used in 19 the bottom of page 1, it was copied to you, so it would 20 our test . 20 have come into your inbox, I’m assuming you would have 21 Q. It ’s right , isn ’t it , that they were able to confirm 21 read it . 22 that the Vitracore G2 that was being sold on the market 22 So go back to page 2. 23 differed from the Vitracore G2 tested to classification 23 A. Okay. 24 to A2? 24 Q. Third paragraph down: 25 A. I believe that’s what they said, yes. 25 ”That being the case they have killed [our] failed
182 184
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 8414 on G2, which was our most powerful test.” 1 A. I can’t recall specifically , but I do know we were 2 How did you understand what John Garbutt was saying 2 frustrated by the fact that there were test fails on 3 there? 3 sort of linear route systems that were just not in the 4 A. Yeah, I think that probably is what he’s trying to say 4 public domain. 5 there. 5 Q. Yes, my question was whether you recall actually having 6 Q. Yes, that the July test was now useless for Kingspan’s 6 a conversation with Janet Murrel on that topic? 7 lobbying purposes? 7 A. I don’t recall specifically . 8 A. Potentially . 8 Q. Right. 9 Q. Yes, and useless because it had been revealed that you 9 How did you think at the time that Janet Murrel of 10 had used a panel that had an unreliable A2 10 Exova was going to get confidential information such as 11 classification and was self−evidently dangerous and 11 those fails , the test results from those failed tests , 12 shouldn’t be used in the real world in a real system? 12 into the public domain? 13 Yes? 13 A. I don’t know how she would have done that. Unless she’d 14 A. Well, what they said was it’s a different −− appears to 14 have got permission from the test sponsor to do it , she 15 be a different product. They didn’t say what 15 wouldn’t. 16 performance it was. They didn’t say it failed to 16 Q. Was John Garbutt implying here that she might somehow be 17 achieve A2, they just said it was different from that 17 persuaded to leak these reports to Kingspan in some way? 18 that was tested. 18 A. I don’t think so. That’s not something, certainly with 19 Q. Then in the next paragraph he says: 19 my experience of Janet, she would even contemplate. So 20 ”Janet let it slip in a mail to Adrian that she has 20 I think −− I don’t think so. 21 another A2/A2 test fail, and we are, of course, aware of 21 Q. Right. 22 an A1/2 test that was being done in Dubai by 22 How would that be done in practice? I mean, how 23 [Wandsworth] Council than failed (it was burned whilst 23 could Janet find a way of getting these fails into the 24 we were building one of our rigs ). Nick Jenkins also 24 public domain, unless her clients were willing to put 25 refers to a Stackbond A2 (Spanish brand of ACM) with 25 them into the public domain?
185 187
1 Rockwool insulation that failed in Dubai.” 1 A. That’s the only route I can see, that the clients are 2 Are you the Adrian that Mr Garbutt refers to in that 2 willing to share it . 3 paragraph? 3 Q. I see. 4 A. I think so, but I don’t recall exactly the mail from 4 While we’re on the same topic, I would like to ask 5 Janet where she said that. 5 you about a similar request from the April of 2018. Can 6 Q. I don’t believe we’ve seen an email to you from 6 we go to {KIN00025426}, please. 7 Janet Murrel on this topic. Do you recall that there 7 I ’m so sorry, I ’m being reminded to go back to the 8 was one? 8 document we were on, quite rightly {KIN00025285/2}. 9 A. No, that’s what I was just thinking, I haven’t seen one 9 Before we leave it , there is a further question actually 10 either , and −− but it may have been a telephone 10 I should have asked you. 11 conversation with her, but I −− 11 In the penultimate paragraph, you can see in this 12 Q. Well, it says ”let it slip in a mail”, so it ’s −− 12 email: 13 A. Yes, yeah, I haven’t −− I don’t think I’ve seen that 13 ”The reason for her to do this is that her UK 14 recently . 14 derived 8414 testing revenue will drop off a cliff if we 15 Q. Right. Is that another document that we’re going to 15 don’t get 8414 included in ADB either as an alternative 16 have to ask Kingspan for? 16 R2C [which I think is ’route to compliance’] or as an 17 A. Possibly, if you haven’t seen it , yeah, if it ’s there. 17 additional requirement for A1/2 systems.” 18 Q. Right. 18 It ’s said as the reason for her to do that. 19 Can we go back to the document, please, and look at 19 Was the idea that there would be some commercial 20 the next paragraph. In the paragraph below the one I’ve 20 advantage to Exova in ensuring that 8414 tests kept 21 just read to you it says: 21 coming in for them to do? 22 ”We need a conversation with Janet to ask her to 22 A. I don’t know what he’s thinking there, but they do do 23 find a way to get these fails into the public domain.” 23 8414 testing, amongst others. But I don’t think, 24 Do you remember whether you had such a conversation 24 you know, the revenue stream from it would be something 25 with Janet Murrel? 25 that I ’d talk to Janet about particularly , she was not
186 188
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 a commercial person, so I don’t think it measures up −− 1 to do anything, because there was evidence there. 2 matches up. 2 Q. What kind of relationship did you or did Kingspan, 3 Q. It appears that the way of persuading Janet Murrel to 3 rather, have with Brian Martin that you thought he might 4 find a way of putting these test fails into the public 4 work with you and share that kind of information with 5 domain was the alignment of your respective commercial 5 you? 6 interests : Exova’s in keeping on doing 8414 tests, and 6 A. I don’t know whether we thought he would share it with 7 indeed doing more of them, and yours in using 8414 as 7 us, but he would then at least be in possession of it , 8 the way of having combustible insulation used above 8 and if you look there, there must have been a request 9 18 metres. Is that a fair way of looking at it ? 9 from Brian −− I can’t quite recall, but a request from 10 A. It ’s one way of looking at it . I mean, I didn’t write 10 Brian Martin for us to provide evidence to him of what 11 that, so ... 11 we’d got. 12 Q. Now, let’s go to the document I wanted to go to 12 Q. Right. Did Kingspan ever consider whether a request 13 {KIN00025426} from April 2018. This is an email with 13 such as this would have been ethical for Brian Martin to 14 the subject ”Test proposal at Ulster”. It ’s another 14 make? 15 email from the March and April emails that we examined 15 A. I don’t know. I don’t know if it even went any further. 16 back in December when you last gave evidence, but this 16 MR MILLETT: Mr Chairman, I haven’t quite come to the end of 17 particular email only came to us on 10 March this year. 17 my questions, but I’m not far away, but I think this 18 If you go to page 1 and the email dated 5 April 2018 18 might be a convenient moment. 19 from Mark Harris to John Garbutt and to you, and also 19 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Yes. Well, you have got on pretty 20 copied to Roy Weghorst, we can see that he says this: 20 quickly, but you don’t need to worry that you haven’t 21 ”I was interested to hear that KIL has an 8414 test 21 finished . 22 coming up at BRE shortly. The discussion we had about 22 I ’m sorry to have to ask you to come back tomorrow, 23 inviting the Select Committee to witness the test could 23 Mr Pargeter. It sounds as though it won’t take too 24 be very impactful. Another thought could be to 24 long, but I can’t guarantee. Anyway, we’re going to 25 substitute the planned test with a test to demonstrate 25 stop there for this evening and resume at 10 o’clock
189 191
1 the linear route system can fail . 1 tomorrow, please. 2 ”What do you think about this and my message from 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 earlier today?” 3 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: As before, please don’t discuss your 4 Then if you go down to the email below that, the 4 evidence or anything to do with it over the break. 5 email I ’ve just shown you follows on from an email from 5 All right? 6 Mark Harris to John Garbutt and to you, also copied to 6 THE WITNESS: I understand. 7 Roy Weghorst, and in the third paragraph of that he 7 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you very much. We look 8 says: 8 forward to seeing you tomorrow. 9 ”I’m hoping that Phil can come up with the 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 10 information that we discussed last week − that would be 10 SIR MARTIN MOORE−BICK: Thank you. 11 ideal but I doubt that he’ ll be able to get the 11 That’s all as far as the proceedings are concerned 12 information in the form needed. Roy had an idea of 12 for today. 13 getting [Brian] Martin to request test data from 13 10 o’clock tomorrow, thank you. 14 Alucobond on passed and failed tests (similar to the 14 (4.30 pm) 15 request he made to us?).” 15 (The hearing adjourned until 10 am 16 Now, we know that Brian Martin was a senior official 16 on Wednesday, 24 March 2021) 17 at what was then the DCLG. Do you know who the Phil is 17 18 who is referred to there? 18 19 A. No, I don’t know what information ... what it could have 19 20 been either discussed last week. 20 21 Q. Was the plan that if Brian Martin could get hold of the 21 22 data you were asking for or were suggesting then he 22 23 might be able to share it with you? 23 24 A. Well, I think if Brian Martin was able to get hold of 24 25 the failed test data, then theoretically we didn’t need 25
190 192
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 MR JOHN ALBON (continued) ...... 1 4 5 Questions from COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY ...... 2 6 (continued) 7 8 MR ADRIAN WESTLEY PARGETER ...... 46 9 ( recalled ) 10 11 Questions from COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY ...... 49 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
193
194
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
activities (1) 104:20 agreed (10) 85:18 86:12 140:5 154:9,25 157:7 177:13 31:13,16 42:25 51:23,25 became (4) 15:20 42:20,25 A actual (2) 38:15 39:17 87:14 89:21 113:24 114:3 171:24 173:9 180:11 183:4 arrange (3) 72:12 86:10,17 52:1 67:11,20,21 84:25 116:5
a1 (8) 55:11 65:4 80:7 actually (27) 21:2 22:20 118:24 120:17 155:13 185:21 186:15 189:14,24 arranged (1) 92:8 97:5 98:1 104:10,12,13,16 become (2) 73:4 114:20 118:10 135:12 156:14,21 24:12 28:23 29:12 34:7,10 174:13 answer (43) 13:12 arrangement (1) 112:9 111:13 114:20 116:5,21 before (47) 1:18 2:16 13:14 164:17 40:21 43:11 53:16 60:13 agreeing (1) 111:22 15:8,11,15,24 23:23 39:19 arrangements (6) 46:13 135:5 144:19 153:3 155:6 16:1,14 17:7 24:17 31:16 a12 (2) 185:22 188:17 68:5,19 74:5 115:17 agreement (4) 102:14 60:24 61:2,21 64:13 69:16 48:10 52:20 75:23 76:7 163:23 170:15 181:19 34:17,23 43:24 49:1 51:21 a1a2 (4) 156:12 158:3 122:1,2 139:20 151:25 111:20,21 113:23 78:9,11 113:14 114:5,22 112:19 185:21 58:1 62:21 78:11 80:17 173:23 183:18 153:6 156:22 159:23 ahead (10) 60:22,25 68:3 158:21,25 159:7,12,17 arrive (1) 146:1 away (3) 65:19 99:25 191:17 89:21 95:14 100:2 101:18 a2 (64) 55:13 60:11 64:23 163:17 182:2,16 187:5 69:8,10,11 72:20 89:23 160:2,7,14,17,25 arrived (1) 76:17 103:18 104:15 105:2,10,13 B 65:4,8 67:2 68:16,19 71:2 188:9 90:5 106:25 161:2,5,14 173:20 articles (1) 144:22 107:5,7 109:12 111:6 72:21 73:24 74:2,18 adam (1) 74:6 aim (1) 59:20 174:2,4,7,9,11 asap (3) 102:14 111:20 141:1 b (27) 80:9 85:25 88:23 115:8 117:7,16 126:23 75:8,19 77:13 78:5 80:7 adamant (1) 140:25 air (2) 73:13 88:18 175:5,9,15,19 176:1,6,10 ascertain (2) 25:8 26:1 95:6,7,9 97:13 102:7 127:3 129:8 136:5 142:5 85:4,10,12 86:5,8 88:4,24 adb (3) 18:20 40:10 188:15 airfreight (1) 73:13 answered (2) 83:11 162:3 aside (1) 106:1 108:4,6 109:2 110:18 144:11 146:10 150:9 89:9 112:22 115:22 118:9 add (3) 23:13 36:9 53:24 airfreighted (1) 148:4 answering (1) 12:23 ask (36) 1:20 2:16 20:6 114:9 115:25 116:19,23 163:15,16 175:18 179:11 121:11,14 124:12 132:24 added (2) 32:18 33:6 airfreighting (1) 127:4 anticipated (1) 177:14 34:24 47:6,11,17,25 48:11 117:2,17 121:4,9,19 188:9 192:3 133:2 135:12 137:19,23,24 addition (2) 50:5 63:1 akbor (2) 1:7,9 anybody (14) 51:3,17,19 49:1,8,18 56:9 58:2 67:23 124:13 134:18 146:5 began (1) 128:23 138:9 146:19 149:9 additional (10) 10:1 12:15 al (1) 80:25 96:11,16 104:5 124:18 90:22 91:13 94:13,15,19 148:22 168:10 179:4 begin (1) 49:12 156:15,19 161:24 163:2,14 29:4 39:21 40:22 43:1,17 albon (17) 1:3,11,12,14 2:23 155:4 159:8,13,19 160:9 108:6 111:18 112:8,17 back (78) 1:18 2:24 3:2 beginning (3) 19:13 21:17 164:16 46:23 48:21 188:17 15:12,22 29:25 34:23 173:2 175:2 120:8 150:19 174:17,23,24 16:15,20,21 21:1,25 24:19 68:15 165:9,10,14,15,17,23 additions (1) 22:22 35:22 43:12 44:9,9,11,19 anyhow (1) 147:8 176:3 178:11 179:23 25:22 26:8 29:13,17 30:16 behalf (2) 46:5 73:19 166:14,16,20,24 167:9 address (1) 81:2 46:2 193:3 anyone (6) 10:13 16:24 186:16,22 188:4 191:22 32:1 37:20,20 44:7 46:20 behave (2) 165:23 166:13 182:24 184:3,5 addressed (5) 7:21 18:9 alert (1) 13:15 43:25 100:15 140:21 asked (17) 3:5 15:5,6 21:4 51:15 52:25 58:24 behaviour (3) 22:1 32:3,19 185:10,17,25 29:1,7 63:6 alerted (4) 12:9 13:11 27:22 150:20 33:6 53:21 60:3,21 65:19,22 66:4 67:1 69:6,12 behind (2) 54:18 127:12 a21 (1) 136:16 addressing (2) 9:22 13:6 28:11 anything (19) 2:15 13:15 63:15,20 64:1 71:22 83:10 73:9,14 74:8,12,24 78:23 being (44) 8:2 15:5 17:10 a2a1 (2) 139:6 164:17 ade (1) 76:15 alfuttaim (1) 80:2 25:25 43:25 48:25 68:20 158:9 179:18 182:9 188:10 79:20 82:13 84:20 28:5 39:7,10 42:19 53:21 a2a2 (1) 185:21 adequate (1) 34:19 ali (1) 1:7 69:20 95:24 100:16 118:16 asking (6) 14:4 29:16 49:15 87:2,18,20 93:20 101:3 62:4 67:4 68:17 76:18 a2rated (5) 119:22 125:8 adhere (1) 41:18 alignment (1) 189:5 119:8 129:25 138:11 144:15 175:20 190:22 109:20 114:9 115:3,4 77:22 78:7,17 81:12,25 137:16 162:22 164:5 adhered (1) 85:7 allow (5) 29:24 30:4 89:14 150:20 165:2 168:1 169:23 asks (3) 6:23 127:5 130:10 117:5 118:6 122:8 128:22 82:8 83:10 87:22 89:9 a2rw (1) 102:5 adhesive (1) 183:1 135:20 149:22 191:1 192:4 aspect (1) 14:20 130:22,23 131:6 132:8 98:25 107:24 134:3,20,20 a2s (1) 166:21 adjourned (1) 192:15 allowed (2) 39:14 125:9 anyway (7) 43:10 65:1 69:14 aspects (6) 4:13 17:24 33:20 138:16 140:15 142:3,6,16 136:9,10,21 137:23 138:19 able (22) 3:15,18 4:15 5:2 adjournment (1) 100:24 allowing (2) 42:16 133:16 102:25 107:11 109:14 79:18 114:2,7 144:5,7 145:8 146:8 143:2 164:21,22 166:20 36:7 41:4 71:9,17 77:5 adrian (40) 46:19,21 74:5 allows (1) 6:2 191:24 assembled (1) 54:23 147:22 148:11,18 151:2 170:12 176:8 178:18 118:22 121:1 123:5,12 76:4,11 80:25 84:2 86:14 almost (1) 171:5 anywhere (3) 168:3 174:25 assembly (5) 73:24 86:9 153:11 156:10 157:16 179:11 182:22 184:8,25 128:12 142:10 150:11 95:11 106:11,13 107:2,13 alone (4) 1:21 47:17,19 175:6 87:22 89:18,20 168:11 178:4 184:18,22 185:22 188:7 169:10,10 182:21 125:1 126:21 129:12 94:23 ap (3) 86:13,23 88:16 assertions (1) 21:22 186:19 188:7 189:16 believe (27) 3:16 5:6 6:2 190:11,23,24 130:7,11 131:5 142:19 along (3) 156:19 158:15,25 ap51 (3) 63:16 64:11,19 assessed (1) 32:2 191:22 9:17 20:1,8,16 34:16,20 above (13) 19:22 27:11 143:17,23 144:8,11 alongside (1) 177:6 ap52 (2) 64:11,19 assessment (7) 22:24 25:23 background (2) 174:22 35:16 36:7 38:4 41:3,14 29:24 50:16 122:12,16 146:14,16 148:8,14 alpolic (10) 71:2 72:21,25 ap53 (1) 63:19 26:15 27:24 29:3 42:4,6 176:14 61:2 103:13 104:14 118:2 130:13 140:23 141:7,10,17 149:6,13 151:13 152:8 73:24 74:2,18,21 75:3,19 appear (3) 12:13 30:5 142:1 assessments (2) 24:21 27:10 backup (2) 116:23 133:3 139:13,14 143:11 147:18 162:21 189:8 154:11,22 183:16,19,21 77:13 appears (6) 21:16 24:9 assist (2) 51:17 144:18 bad (2) 125:14 153:22 151:23 156:24 182:4,25 absolute (1) 177:22 185:20 186:2 193:8 already (29) 11:10,19 12:6 148:13 184:6 185:14 189:3 assisting (1) 45:24 badly (2) 89:9 118:4 186:6 absolutely (4) 15:24 91:14 advance (4) 110:1,3,6 137:15 13:5 14:13 15:22 16:5 appendix (1) 70:22 associated (1) 85:4 baffled (2) 89:18,20 believed (1) 85:3 107:21 110:23 advanced (1) 81:24 22:25 34:6 46:21 48:19,22 approach (4) 4:7 37:14,17 associations (1) 140:22 bag (4) 136:19 137:11,14 below (7) 26:25 37:10 accept (30) 21:20 27:20 advances (1) 36:24 49:23 54:4 66:24,25 68:8 83:4 assume (5) 27:16 54:21 141:18 109:21 148:1 156:15 28:1,4 30:3,9 38:8,12,17 advantage (3) 73:11 94:17 74:20,21 77:8 109:11 approached (1) 155:4 76:25 82:9 84:15 ban (3) 133:23,25 135:23 186:20 190:4 39:19 41:10 42:2,9 126:4 188:20 132:8 140:19 145:13 appropriate (5) 7:19 26:5 assumed (2) 105:8,11 banned (1) 170:25 benchmark (1) 135:18 128:16 137:17 160:21 adversely (1) 90:17 146:17 148:17 157:17 141:2 157:24 158:6 assuming (1) 184:20 banning (2) 54:2,16 beneficial (1) 91:15 161:1 162:14,25 advertised (1) 41:12 164:3 168:19 approval (2) 36:12 129:24 assumption (3) 82:2 167:15 barrier (1) 89:3 benefit (1) 3:17 163:5,13,22 164:20 165:21 advise (1) 148:3 also (46) 6:12,15 27:17 approvals (3) 16:12 21:9,17 168:19 barriers (6) 61:10 86:7 best (9) 36:24 48:23 54:16 168:9 169:25 170:21 advised (3) 3:15 5:1 88:16 33:16 37:15 39:8 40:14 approve (2) 23:18,24 assumptions (2) 45:11 89:6,15 118:13 157:9 67:25 103:16 147:1 171:15 175:21 affairs (1) 52:12 42:1,9 43:15 47:21 approved (6) 4:20 21:12 111:10 based (2) 39:17 134:14 175:13,15 176:4 acceptance (1) 162:6 affected (2) 62:6 90:18 49:18,20 59:16 60:3 73:17 27:2 31:23 34:18 80:8 assurance (1) 36:16 baseline (1) 29:19 better (8) 47:6 49:17 54:15 accepted (3) 28:2 128:9 affirmation (3) 47:5,8,12 78:24 85:11 86:9 92:22 approving (1) 21:20 assured (1) 27:13 basic (2) 30:3,9 58:9 94:11 100:9 125:19 171:5 affirmed (1) 47:13 108:19,24 115:11 april (50) 57:20 59:16 attached (4) 51:10 64:8 67:8 basically (1) 7:9 178:1 accepting (3) 20:10 27:10 afraid (3) 16:7 25:4 28:15 116:13,16 117:20 127:1 60:5,20 61:19 63:23 64:4 146:20 basis (8) 4:7 14:8 23:19 24:1 betts (9) 63:18 64:12 156:2 133:23 after (30) 5:4 14:25 16:2,5 129:17 130:18 140:5,6 68:11,24 69:22 70:5 attachment (1) 152:2 40:3 55:17 121:4 174:18 157:25 158:18,23 161:9 access (1) 85:8 17:21 20:24 36:21 55:16 141:2,3 143:17 144:12 71:6,12 72:22 73:2,5,16 attack (1) 89:15 battle (1) 144:19 170:7 173:19 accident (2) 161:3,6 57:14 66:17 69:7 73:20 146:14 148:13 149:6,8 75:6,8,9 79:19 82:13,19 attempt (5) 89:5 92:23 bba (65) 1:11 3:1,8,9,23 between (12) 3:23 39:9 accommodate (1) 48:23 92:15 96:1 106:22 108:21 154:11 157:7 168:9 183:4 83:20,22 84:20 88:6,19 145:1 161:6 172:15 4:12 5:3,18,25 6:3,6 7:1 40:18 67:24 76:15 91:25 accord (1) 144:6 109:1 122:14 128:13,18 185:24 189:19 190:6 92:23 102:18 103:2,10 attempting (2) 11:6 172:6 11:4 12:24 14:3,20 17:6,22 104:21 107:19 113:11 accordance (4) 18:20 40:9 129:9 133:13 140:8 146:19 alternative (3) 116:19,24 104:7,18 105:23 115:3,6 attend (3) 72:13 177:16 18:4,7,21 19:4,13,14,18 124:17 125:23 180:14 63:4 90:11 180:12,15 181:15 182:6,12 188:15 117:9 118:3 128:22 133:1 178:16 20:23 21:10 22:19 26:5 big (1) 68:16 according (1) 134:20 183:7 although (7) 47:5 64:1 67:18 159:3 168:13 174:20 attendance (1) 153:13 27:9,12,22 28:11 30:4,6 binder (1) 85:6 accredit (1) 37:16 afternoon (6) 48:18,19 138:9 157:11 163:1,14 175:12 179:24 188:5 attended (1) 72:6 33:6,20 35:8,24 36:8,13 bit (19) 4:2 43:14 53:2 88:12 accuracy (2) 5:3,6 101:2,6,15 150:15 altruistic (1) 155:15 189:13,15,18 attendees (2) 71:16 84:1 37:3,5,23 38:9,13,18,24 92:2,17,18 93:19 98:10,11 accurate (3) 8:15 33:12 afterwards (1) 16:10 alucobond (7) 65:8 86:5 architect (1) 36:4 attention (4) 14:2 34:17,20 39:14,15,23 40:14,25 116:10 126:13 129:6 40:17 again (41) 6:9 7:3 13:1 88:24 115:22 132:24 149:9 architects (2) 36:7,22 157:25 41:7,11,12,19,22 130:17 140:13 142:13,15 accusation (1) 91:16 18:8,17 44:2 47:7 49:20 190:14 architectural (1) 143:7 aud (1) 145:3 42:2,9,17,22 43:2,2 44:20 146:9 153:10 achieve (4) 29:11 116:16 58:24 59:12 61:24 64:25 alucopanel (2) 85:10 156:19 arconic (3) 38:19 39:11 audience (3) 153:13,15,18 bba00000036 (1) 21:15 bits (1) 25:25 119:3 185:17 70:4 78:14 79:18 85:16 aluminium (2) 85:7 131:15 42:20 audit (1) 37:9 bba000000361 (1) 32:2 blow (5) 93:5,10,19 94:2,23 achieved (1) 116:23 87:5 88:13 90:22 92:25 always (9) 1:6 17:18 28:16 arconics (1) 38:18 audits (1) 29:2 bba000000365 (1) 22:11 blue (1) 21:16 achievement (2) 29:23 36:18 94:15 96:16 97:8 100:15 43:14 59:25 132:16 166:18 area (1) 42:3 august (3) 54:2 108:22 144:5 bba000000366 (2) 26:20 bml (2) 71:2 98:22 achieving (2) 17:3 54:9 109:2 113:10 115:3,9 167:16 172:11 arena (1) 83:8 australia (2) 55:7 114:19 30:17 boardroom (1) 84:11 acknowledged (1) 30:8 117:7 120:8,22 125:12,12 amended (2) 3:1 20:24 argue (4) 31:22 34:1 38:14 australian (1) 143:6 bba000001781 (2) 7:6 16:21 bold (1) 32:24 aclad (4) 142:25 143:5,9 128:22 136:23 142:4,6 amendment (1) 40:21 180:8 authenticity (1) 41:20 bba000001782 (2) 3:2 5:12 bomb (4) 85:10,12 115:11,17 154:16 150:19 151:23 176:12,16 amendments (4) 24:4 25:3,8 argument (6) 93:21 99:19 authorised (1) 92:5 bba0001075133 (1) 21:3 bonded (2) 89:10,12 acladcomau (1) 142:25 against (4) 168:21,22 174:21 40:20 110:1,3,6 144:23 authority (2) 37:11 41:20 bba0001075142 (1) 27:8 bonding (1) 183:2 acm (8) 71:2 86:5 102:6 176:13 amongst (1) 188:23 arguments (3) 81:10 109:9 automatically (2) 59:24 bba0001075149 (1) 19:10 book (1) 116:18 133:2 134:8 149:10 156:19 ago (3) 3:15 5:2 72:23 analyse (3) 98:10,11,12 110:19 87:12 bba0001075150 (1) 8:24 booked (10) 70:9 71:15 72:6 185:25 agree (26) 12:18 13:6 andor (2) 55:1 85:5 arising (2) 18:6 173:10 available (12) 39:15,22 41:15 bbas (11) 3:20 4:3,8,14 7:11 73:23 75:2 88:14 90:20 acms (1) 134:15 18:8,17 37:22 38:3 39:25 anecdotal (2) 93:13,17 arms (1) 58:15 54:6 70:10 73:4 76:1 83:6 8:22 17:11 27:20 30:12 109:15,16 146:18 across (2) 141:7 166:22 40:4,11,12,18 announced (1) 184:1 arose (1) 53:10 85:18 88:15 136:13 141:6 36:9 37:19 booth (4) 98:23,24 99:3 action (5) 59:17 73:17 74:7 41:5,9,13,18,22 42:12 another (26) 2:4 46:11 around (17) 17:11 avoidance (1) 80:10 bbc (1) 181:18 117:8 75:5 82:15 77:23 81:4 92:18 125:25 48:1,20 65:23 73:15 75:4 51:6,8,9,12,14 56:15 awake (1) 107:11 bear (2) 158:15 174:22 both (17) 3:17 9:24 22:7 actions (5) 7:19 84:23 85:9 128:7 143:4 152:19 160:7 93:1 102:13 109:24 58:14,16 68:19,20 81:16 aware (35) 4:6 6:20 12:4 bearing (1) 154:12 38:25 45:17 60:13 80:1,4 86:8 87:8 181:9 110:8,17 117:21 136:1 91:17 102:5 125:1 161:25 14:14 15:20 18:5 27:1 bears (1) 129:9 83:7 113:3 147:3,25
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
169:9,9 172:12 173:5 burnt (1) 181:3 certification (11) 4:14 5:20 33:17 34:2,5 40:4 166:6,12,23 167:8,20 considers (1) 14:3 152:23 153:7,8,9,13,15 180:1 business (1) 9:4 6:4 17:12,25 24:6 classes (1) 54:16 168:4,10,17,24 169:8,18 consistent (2) 5:24 27:11 155:17,19 156:4 157:15 bottom (33) 3:4 4:5 16:23 busting (4) 126:17 146:14 36:12,13,18 37:8,12 classification (13) 13:24 17:4 170:14,23 171:7,16 constructed (3) 122:18 159:12 168:14 181:25 22:11,13 33:3 54:20 70:24 147:23 154:12 certified (2) 28:3 158:3 23:19 24:1 29:11 55:18 172:5,6,16,25 173:15,21 157:20 161:11 corrected (6) 10:17,20,21 74:25 75:1,16 82:18 83:24 buy (1) 143:12 certifying (1) 17:22 61:4,18 63:20,22 71:4 175:3 176:19 177:9,12 construction (23) 19:22,23 11:19 14:13 151:23 84:21,22 116:10,12 117:16 bypass (1) 89:15 cetera (1) 148:10 182:23 185:11 178:16 179:12 181:17 26:23,25 30:22,24 correcting (2) 42:18 72:1 120:23 126:15 130:9 chain (32) 3:3 15:5,8 classified (1) 22:15 182:7 189:23 32:11,25 33:4 35:16,25 corrective (1) 7:19 C 133:22 134:6 136:3 140:15 59:7,10,13,15 66:25 81:4 clause (6) 14:16 18:25 19:21 common (1) 175:21 36:14,17 37:6 40:24 41:2 correctly (1) 10:12
142:17 147:21 149:4 c (3) 86:4 141:1,15 82:16 103:13 112:20 117:5 24:18 34:14 35:10 communicated (1) 105:1 55:13 123:17 124:1,8,20 correspondence (7) 6:13 165:17 166:20 176:21,21 call (11) 49:19 78:20 84:9 126:11,13 129:8,9 130:8 clean (1) 172:17 communication (4) 97:7 157:6,8 18:14 71:10 76:14 184:19 87:23 107:2,4,24 110:19 132:6 142:13,14 147:10,19 clear (22) 7:12 11:9 15:19 104:4 107:12 129:4 consultation (8) 54:2,5 112:8,18 124:17 bought (1) 145:3 127:19 153:22 157:12 148:5 149:4 153:10 154:9 16:3,11 20:1 23:2 42:20 communications (5) 67:23 110:11,12,20 135:3 141:9 cost (3) 91:20 113:11 114:8 bounced (1) 177:13 called (8) 131:2 142:18,24 176:16,17 178:12 180:14 61:3 64:17 77:19 81:1 76:7 101:4 107:19 124:25 161:10 costs (3) 86:19 91:21 114:4 bound (1) 175:24 143:5 154:7 177:14 183:6 110:23 118:24 132:6 communities (1) 55:15 consultations (1) 78:5 couldnt (22) 22:7 67:3 box (3) 21:16 70:24 72:19 180:20,22 chains (3) 57:23 59:6 103:17 137:13 138:1 140:11,19 company (1) 154:24 contact (7) 48:11 102:23 82:2,3 83:11 91:12,19 br (14) 19:23 26:24 54:14 calorimeter (4) 85:10,12 chair (3) 156:2 158:18 141:17,23 156:22 comparative (1) 120:5 103:8 117:21 143:2 93:13 96:13 104:17,21,25 55:2,18 59:25 70:11 115:12,17 173:21 cleared (1) 91:16 compared (1) 166:21 144:14,15 105:11,24 106:6,6 121:21 85:20,22 88:16 90:13 came (12) 18:5 23:17,24 chairman (12) 43:3 44:17 clearer (2) 33:7 162:16 competence (2) 42:3,7 contacted (3) 14:5 17:10 132:23 135:6 143:13 171:9 109:6 132:20 168:22 31:7 32:16 51:21 75:17 45:23 49:6,23 62:17 99:25 clearly (12) 1:13 4:20 19:15 competent (4) 19:3 20:2,18 184:6 176:6 br135 (2) 85:2 87:12 76:6 91:24 129:3 133:8 101:14 150:9 155:13 160:1 26:6 44:10 46:25 49:9,20 34:19 contacting (1) 129:13 council (1) 185:23 branches (1) 154:10 189:17 191:16 67:2 136:24 147:11 159:5 complain (1) 100:10 contained (3) 11:4 51:9 counsel (7) 2:22 43:12 48:11 brand (1) 185:25 cameras (1) 48:12 challenge (2) 88:20 135:14 clients (3) 73:8 187:24 188:1 complete (3) 44:21 45:9 106:4 49:7 159:22 193:5,11 braz (1) 153:22 campaign (1) 175:23 challenged (1) 147:15 cliff (1) 188:14 54:12 containing (4) 70:17 99:19 counterproductive (1) 136:9 brazier (21) 74:5 76:4,11,15 canberra (1) 144:25 challenging (6) 160:3 161:20 clive (6) 63:18 64:12 156:2 completed (2) 39:10 57:15 138:4 168:25 country (1) 154:25 95:11 106:11 107:13 125:1 cannot (2) 34:3 177:25 162:17,19 163:19 168:21 158:18 170:7 173:19 completeness (1) 6:24 contemplate (1) 187:19 couple (1) 6:25 129:12 142:19 143:17,23 cant (32) 15:24 16:2 68:14 chance (5) 43:16 122:19 close (2) 177:18 181:4 compliance (6) 65:5 83:3 content (6) 4:19 5:7 course (11) 10:16 17:14 144:11 146:14 148:14 76:10 77:7,14 78:7 95:12 157:21 161:12 177:25 closely (4) 3:24 83:1 118:14 84:9 129:10 132:21 188:16 23:18,25 24:11 34:16 24:16 28:16,20 100:9,18 149:6,13 151:13 154:11,22 96:3,25 105:4,4 106:14 chances (7) 10:13 114:12 122:13 compliant (5) 80:8 111:2 contentpresence (1) 85:7 106:14 126:23 174:18 183:21 107:9,23 109:13,19 111:23 119:18,24 120:12 169:2 closer (1) 6:1 120:2,3 168:25 contents (2) 41:17 50:22 185:21 bre (8) 26:24 73:3 119:24 124:22 136:19 137:11 180:2 colleagues (3) 17:6 65:25 complied (1) 161:7 context (8) 7:18,21 8:17 covered (1) 25:8 120:12 153:13 156:18 150:2,5,8 154:3 170:4,5 change (5) 8:16 32:16 40:25 66:2 comply (1) 159:18 18:12 127:1,4 129:14 covers (1) 33:20 184:3 189:22 175:19 180:10 187:1 41:8 100:1 collectively (1) 145:5 component (1) 114:23 154:19 covid (1) 62:5 break (24) 2:12 191:9,24 changed (5) 5:18 12:6 25:25 com (7) 101:21,22,25 components (1) 88:17 continual (1) 17:18 create (1) 86:8 43:5,9,9,14,18,19 44:1,5 capable (6) 2:6 8:16 12:1 128:13,18 105:7,15 127:16 148:18 composite (1) 61:6 continue (9) 1:10 2:19 4:17 credibility (1) 135:11 46:14,14,17 48:15,18 50:1 20:12 39:7 48:2 changes (24) 3:12 11:1,3 combination (5) 30:25 54:21 comprised (4) 55:11 70:10 9:20 18:2 28:4 91:7 101:3 credible (1) 94:8 100:16 101:18 capacity (1) 177:2 17:15,20 23:14 25:11 26:4 92:6 125:9 135:5 85:19 88:15 151:3 credibly (1) 179:17 150:12,13,15,20,25 151:11 captured (1) 76:25 27:14,22 combinations (1) 54:24 comprising (4) 54:25 85:1 continued (7) 1:3 2:22 39:16 criteria (10) 26:23 55:2 192:4 career (1) 9:9 28:11,13,16,19,24 combine (1) 43:9 132:17 156:19 112:25 161:25 193:3,6 59:25 85:3,22 87:12 90:13 breaks (2) 48:22 49:24 carried (14) 16:7 24:9 29:1,3,9,16,18 31:9,10 combined (1) 135:24 compromise (2) 130:20 continuing (1) 42:8 109:7 119:25 120:12 brian (13) 2:25 5:13 6:16 26:12,14,16 29:5 50:24 39:12 40:15 combining (2) 73:24 167:5 180:9 contract (6) 24:4 25:2,7,9,11 critical (4) 33:25 34:2,3,6 15:23 170:7 55:9 63:3 64:7 65:18 changing (1) 74:1 combustibility (16) 10:11,14 conceal (2) 139:15 172:11 44:23 csiro (4) 144:20,22 145:1 190:13,16,21,24 80:1,5 118:8 chasing (3) 143:21,23 181:7 13:24 14:1 16:24 17:4 concealed (5) 139:10,13,14 contractor (1) 145:3 146:18 191:3,9,10,13 carry (7) 29:2 73:23 118:20 check (16) 1:12 19:1,5,15,19 55:1 80:7 160:22 170:22 contractors (1) 36:22 curious (1) 98:4 brief (1) 32:21 120:24 123:3,10 142:8 24:14,15,19,22 85:5 118:9 130:14 134:15 concern (2) 10:16 14:9 contractual (5) 24:14,23,24 current (9) 6:1 10:23 11:8,16 briefly (2) 20:22 27:6 cassette (7) 39:1 85:4 86:8 25:7,10,15,20 26:8 28:23 combustible (8) 54:3 85:2 concerned (2) 113:14 192:11 25:10 44:22 12:2 26:5 45:1 129:23 bring (3) 16:21 21:15 141:4 102:8 108:5 128:3,4 44:9 46:24 77:4 101:4 130:1 133:24,25 139:8 concerning (1) 3:21 contribute (2) 22:3 32:5 148:18 britain (1) 52:13 cassettefix (1) 38:1 151:4 170:24 189:8 concerns (2) 81:3,6 contributed (1) 54:1 currently (3) 83:6 143:20 bromwich (1) 129:18 cassettes (1) 86:5 checked (1) 21:7 come (31) 21:25 35:22 43:3 conclude (1) 39:16 contributes (1) 40:5 181:7 brought (3) 68:18 82:8 127:8 casting (1) 78:23 checking (9) 10:1 12:15 21:5 58:13 59:16 64:25 65:15 concluded (1) 8:4 control (1) 114:6 curtis (1) 3:21 bs (31) 22:20 23:3,20 casual (1) 20:4 25:18,24 26:12,14 51:15 72:9 82:11 87:2 97:14 conclusion (3) 7:25 17:1,7 convenient (3) 100:3 125:13 curtisthomas (3) 4:4,6 6:19 26:8,22 27:2 32:10 categorically (1) 105:11 134:18 106:19 107:4 113:19,24 conclusions (1) 41:16 191:18 cut (4) 89:5 128:9 148:17 33:4,16,18,24 53:7 54:13 caught (1) 135:23 checks (2) 21:21 34:19 126:2 130:22 138:1 concrete (1) 131:2 conveniently (1) 37:18 155:12 60:1 63:4 65:2 70:8 71:3 cause (6) 56:23 119:5 126:6 chief (2) 3:20 4:3 139:2,3 142:16 145:5 conduct (1) 105:19 conversation (8) 4:1 97:1 D 84:25 85:1,24 87:13 88:10 129:23 167:10 168:6 choice (2) 124:9 134:21 150:16 151:24 165:15 conducted (3) 55:7,15 57:11 106:20 161:25 90:12 99:20 115:7 116:18 caused (4) 7:9,14,24 137:3 choose (5) 78:6,8 79:3 125:6 170:11 172:16 184:20 conf (1) 84:9 186:11,22,24 187:6 d (2) 86:5 89:1 134:4 137:21 141:19 cavity (9) 61:10 86:4,7 164:23 190:9 191:16,22 confidence (10) 5:7 36:19 conversations (1) 5:24 damage (3) 99:18,21 135:11 172:22 89:3,5,15,16 118:13 157:9 choosing (1) 125:24 comes (6) 33:9 147:23 121:7,19,22,24 122:2,5 convert (2) 102:8 108:5 damaged (1) 99:24 bs8414 (3) 89:13 133:16 centre (2) 180:20,23 chose (7) 11:24 79:9,10,13 149:24 151:14 152:6 136:15 139:5 convince (2) 140:20 141:19 damaging (1) 133:17 144:24 ceo (1) 177:14 126:4 165:7 172:16 153:11 confident (3) 7:2 12:25 convincing (1) 141:8 danger (2) 181:8,9 budget (12) 91:24,25 92:1 certain (5) 39:2 54:17 71:7 chosen (1) 164:9 coming (11) 43:6 45:24 46:4 122:6 convincingly (1) 180:8 dangerous (3) 136:11 138:20 113:8,18,19,25,25 114:1 79:18 135:24 chris (1) 9:1 136:12 138:21,23 140:16 confidential (1) 187:10 cook (2) 84:1,2 185:11 126:21 127:6 148:8 certificate (111) 3:1,11 4:23 chronologically (1) 88:9 141:24 152:7 188:21 configuration (2) 54:13 cope (1) 38:7 dangers (2) 139:11,21 build (4) 102:12 108:17,24 7:2 8:5 10:3,8,10,12,15,22 chunk (1) 68:16 189:22 85:21 copied (18) 73:17 74:5 dark (2) 176:8,11 109:23 11:1,8,12,17,21 church (1) 147:6 commencing (1) 73:4 confine (1) 25:24 76:12,14 80:23 82:21 97:9 daron (20) 142:19,24,25 building (14) 3:12 4:14 5:4,8 12:1,6,16,25 13:18,18,25 churchyou (1) 147:3 comment (6) 4:9,18,22 5:17 confined (1) 123:25 103:19 104:7,19 105:14 143:5,9 144:14,21 145:23 18:24 22:17 37:11,16 14:3,11 16:13,13 17:2 circulated (1) 140:13 105:24 180:10 confirm (25) 1:20,25 2:3 142:19 143:17 167:22 146:12 147:11 148:1 149:1 54:10 80:9 108:19 133:19 18:25 19:2,15,18,25 circulation (1) 39:11 commented (1) 10:4 6:24 47:17,21,25 48:6 50:2 184:18,19 189:20 190:6 152:13,14,16,24 158:22 185:24 20:1,8,17,23 21:6,11,14,23 circumstances (3) 4:16 commenting (1) 5:5 58:25 65:1 70:12 77:16 copies (1) 183:11 154:15,19,20 155:4 buildings (9) 54:4 129:23 22:9,19,23 27:15 30:6 comments (9) 3:10,13 5:1 82:2,3 83:21 96:13 105:18 copy (9) 15:18 54:5,6 darren (3) 154:13,15,18 133:24 135:18 136:11,22 23:14,15,16,18,25 cladding (19) 26:23 54:11 53:18,24 54:7 56:5,17 106:6,6 145:9,23 174:15 103:6,9,10,12 117:10 data (29) 22:20 23:4,8,11,16 138:20 141:21 162:4 24:3,9,13,17 55:1 61:13 65:4,9 81:22 176:6 182:21 162:20 24:25 25:18 28:4,14 30:7 buildup (1) 61:16 25:1,4,6,17,22 80:5,5,13 98:23 99:3 commercial (3) 188:19 confirmation (4) 102:4 copying (1) 102:21 33:8,24 37:24 built (8) 108:16 125:2,2 26:4,7,19,21 27:2 29:7 118:10 130:12,15 133:18 189:1,5 106:8,18 111:24 corbyns (1) 141:3 38:1,10,11,19,21 44:21 157:14 158:25 159:25 30:2,5,11,16 135:18 154:24 156:14 commission (5) 56:22 90:16 confirmed (8) 11:1 50:6 core (2) 118:19 156:19 45:10 55:17 84:25 110:1 160:6,18 31:4,7,15,21,24,25 158:2 98:19,20 99:15 60:3,9 68:23 89:22 102:9 corner (1) 89:14 115:7 166:3 181:4 bullet (1) 117:19 32:9,14,17,22 33:7,20 claims (4) 25:1 41:24 commissioned (7) 55:9 56:23 115:14 correct (65) 4:23 8:11 190:13,22,25 buried (1) 31:20 34:11,17,24 35:10,14 36:8 145:16,20 63:5 98:15 99:7 122:14 confirming (1) 39:11 9:11,13,14 11:13,21 15:23 datasheet (1) 166:4 burn (2) 102:12 109:23 37:23,24 38:20,24 claire (2) 3:21 4:4 181:22 conflict (1) 173:5 20:2,9,17 21:12 25:12,15 date (10) 50:16 71:4 75:16 burned (1) 185:23 39:4,9,10,13,18 40:15,17 clarification (2) 9:18 41:2 committed (1) 74:22 connect (1) 68:9 29:22 50:9,10 52:8 54:21 84:5,7 102:15 104:17 burnley (23) 63:17 96:20,22 41:1,3,5 42:7,20,23 43:2 clarified (1) 41:6 committee (57) 59:9 78:5 connection (2) 73:7 89:12 57:13,16 60:2,8,16 64:9 140:7 146:1,13 101:19 104:6 105:2,9,18 44:20,23 45:6,11,13,19 clarify (3) 122:11 150:11 80:18 81:3,10,13 82:1 conscious (3) 78:7,15,17 65:11,23 66:7,7 70:15 72:2 dated (8) 50:9 63:18 64:12 106:2 111:15 129:17 156:1 164:16 165:5 91:17 110:2,5 128:24 consider (6) 4:12 18:18 24:2 77:18,24 79:12,15 86:3 73:16 82:19 126:16 170:8 173:11 174:4 175:2,10,18 certificates (17) 3:9 4:10,19 clarity (1) 65:1 153:18 155:11 156:3 112:14 159:22 191:12 87:16 88:1,3 92:7 189:18 176:3,4,7 178:23 179:6 5:3,7 11:4 17:23 18:7 19:4 class (15) 10:13 22:15 23:19 158:18 160:22 162:25 considered (11) 14:15 108:12,15,18 109:4,10 dates (2) 131:2 153:24 180:6 34:13 35:9 37:21 40:1,2 24:1 26:11 163:1,13,22 19:13,14 81:12 157:24 115:1,15 116:2 121:6 davies (12) 101:20 126:16 burnleys (2) 156:1 174:17 41:17,22 42:17 29:11,12,17,21,23 30:5 164:1,4,8,14,20,21 165:22 169:4,6,12,13,15 170:9 137:16 148:21 149:3 127:2 142:18,19 143:15
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
144:11 145:8 146:13 described (3) 17:16 40:13 disagree (1) 172:7 dont (155) 2:2,4,7 5:6 8:8 easy (1) 125:19 enhance (6) 98:6 119:18 exacting (1) 158:7 147:22 180:14,25 122:12 disappointed (2) 6:6,8 9:17 12:4,6,19 13:6 14:21 ec (1) 84:11 122:19 157:21 161:12 exactly (9) 2:13 69:13 91:23 day (17) 5:14 53:5 description (1) 61:10 disappointment (4) 92:15,18 15:2,17 16:7,10,16,18 edges (2) 89:11 118:18 169:2 98:10 138:14 139:2,23 63:7,15,24 67:3 68:5 88:19 desert (1) 143:20 93:22,23 18:8,17 21:2 25:4 26:1 efectis (2) 76:1,5 enough (8) 58:7 90:18 172:10 186:4 91:2 127:3 130:16 136:5 deserted (1) 91:8 disclose (1) 164:13 27:5,24 34:14 35:11 38:8 effect (1) 97:15 102:10 178:7,20 180:1,7,8 examination (5) 20:5 57:14 140:8 144:10 178:4 design (42) 68:18,20 90:17 disclosed (12) 67:10,15,16 39:19 40:12 42:12 43:6,24 effective (1) 54:9 enquiry (3) 3:21 4:4 18:13 65:12 158:10,11 180:15,25 91:21 98:2 105:22 106:4 68:1 94:23 126:10,12 47:23 48:1,4 49:21 56:13 effectively (1) 45:12 ensure (8) 40:16 43:15 54:11 examine (2) 25:2 173:9 day109634 (1) 15:4 108:24 118:23 133:7 136:2 140:5 176:16 57:4,4,7 59:12,24 67:16,23 efficient (1) 36:25 72:2 93:6 102:23 141:5,8 examined (2) 57:24 189:15 day855122 (1) 83:15 119:13,15,15,16 120:2,4,4 183:4 69:20 70:1,20 71:7,8,13,21 eight (4) 27:3 73:6,19 74:14 ensuring (6) 93:11 102:22 examining (1) 45:2 day855824 (1) 87:17 121:2 122:12 123:14,15 disclosure (14) 51:23 52:2,7 72:9 77:10,10,10 78:7,17 eights (1) 74:11 137:20 140:24 141:9 example (3) 3:12 26:8 day85621516 (1) 155:15 124:8,12,13,19 125:24 55:25 56:4 57:11 71:14 81:19,20,23 91:23 either (8) 80:6,11 107:13 188:20 157:25 day857712 (1) 60:18 126:2 127:18 131:15 83:18,19 107:18 151:22 92:10,13 96:18 99:1,21,23 152:4 166:8 186:10 188:15 enter (2) 89:18,20 excellence (3) 37:5 41:12,19 day8581 (1) 173:13 132:25 142:11 148:17 166:2 167:23 173:10 100:8,10,15 107:17,23,24 190:20 entire (2) 148:3 161:16 excellent (1) 177:21 day858310 (1) 174:23 161:24 162:1,12,19,21 disclosures (1) 56:12 110:4,16 115:19,19 electronic (3) 2:5 48:2 entirely (6) 9:10 11:2 16:3 exception (1) 8:9 day858419 (1) 158:13 167:21,22 168:12 169:1 discuss (12) 3:23 6:7 14:7 122:4,5 127:25 128:19,21 151:25 155:15 157:24 164:21 exchanged (3) 96:4,5,7 days (4) 6:14 7:7 13:14 66:18 174:21 180:5 16:14 18:11 51:19 68:20 131:20 132:14 133:1 138:7 elements (1) 180:5 entirety (1) 19:3 exchanges (1) 2:25 dclg (26) 3:23 4:7,13,23 designed (32) 38:7 99:4 96:14,19,23 97:3 192:3 139:13,14 140:4 143:8 else (14) 60:21 72:10 entitled (4) 59:8,17 82:14 exclusive (2) 147:3,6 5:2,5,13,18 6:2,6,10 13:14 108:16 119:5,24 120:1,7,9 discussed (23) 4:3,7 8:1 147:6 149:19 151:22 96:11,16 104:5 106:12,12 146:14 executive (2) 3:20 4:3 15:21 17:10 18:10 102:9 122:12 123:8,15,18,25 14:21 59:21 60:5,13 61:19 152:12,15 153:6 161:1,5 124:18 141:18 155:3,4 entry (3) 83:19,22,23 exercise (4) 24:8,12 45:20 108:20 118:14,17 119:9,13 124:1,3 125:5 158:19,21 63:23 66:19 81:7,8 82:5 163:5,17 165:2 168:22 174:3 175:2 182:18 envirograph (1) 89:2 114:6 120:4 122:13 162:20 159:4,9,10,18,23 160:2,23 83:7 96:8,21 113:6 142:5 169:4,6,6,12,13,15,20,21,22 elsewhere (1) 114:13 equally (4) 16:17 34:2,2,6 exhibit (4) 36:9 55:19 76:22 167:22 190:17 161:19 162:16 166:2 173:7 174:20 179:16 170:6,10 173:1,7 174:2,25 elusive (1) 143:22 erroneous (1) 38:23 112:5 dclgs (2) 3:14 172:22 175:3,12 176:5,8 190:10,20 175:6,15 176:2,10 email (165) 2:24 3:3,4,7 4:5 error (27) 7:9,14,18,24 8:3,5 exhibited (7) 63:16,18 deadline (1) 110:14 designer (1) 172:22 discussing (2) 97:17 178:16 178:18,25,25 5:11,16 6:23 7:22 9:2,20 10:16 11:11,13,19 12:5,18 64:10,18 97:16 113:1 deal (4) 46:23 47:16 53:24 designing (2) 108:20 125:23 discussion (16) 15:14,21 179:5,7,14,14,15,15,21,22,24 10:20 11:12,14,20 13:4,11 14:3,11,12,15 142:15 63:7 designs (3) 124:24 143:6,19 16:4 60:13 66:16 68:19 180:3,4,10,18 182:14 12:10,13 13:5 15:5,7 16:20 17:16 19:23 20:11,12 exhibiting (1) 112:14 dealing (2) 56:17 73:7 desk (2) 141:1,3 72:25 76:11 83:1,10,12 186:4,6,13 187:7,13,18,20 17:16,22 57:23 59:6,7,9 24:17 30:14 40:8,10 63:7 exhibits (1) 51:10 dealings (1) 42:10 desktop (1) 129:22 85:20 111:6 175:17,24 188:15,22,23 189:1 190:19 66:25 67:12 68:6 70:2,5 errors (2) 12:20 13:9 exist (1) 6:4 dealt (4) 93:4,9 94:3,23 despite (1) 93:24 189:22 191:6,15,15,20 192:3 72:23 73:14,15 74:3 76:18 essence (1) 183:1 existence (3) 78:16 94:22 decade (1) 28:21 detail (12) 30:22 64:5 69:14 discussions (13) 6:18 64:22 doubt (4) 5:21 80:11 111:8 80:21 81:4,5,8 82:16,23 essential (3) 83:5 137:3 181:24 december (23) 11:13 20:24 71:21 85:15 87:21 92:13 68:17 74:14 75:25 76:2,18 190:11 84:20 87:3 88:6 90:13 92:2 139:10 existing (2) 25:4 74:2 23:9,17 40:18 50:3 52:11 97:23 106:1 178:9 180:3,5 81:15 103:18 104:19,23 down (25) 19:12 26:19 49:20 95:8,12 97:1,6,9,10,15 establish (1) 30:25 exists (1) 12:3 53:4 57:15,18 63:6,14 detailed (7) 33:13 55:18 116:5 178:18 61:7 62:25 70:5 73:1,1 101:16,18 103:13,17 established (4) 29:12 101:5 exova (17) 55:10,19 61:9 65:13 77:20 79:20 83:10 65:12 86:11 89:14 105:24 discussiontesting (1) 84:10 109:21 116:10,11 117:17 104:6,11 125:23 183:13 70:18 71:1 80:1 85:17 94:5 113:6 162:7,14 156:15 dispute (1) 182:2 122:17 129:11 131:6 105:6,13,13,14,17 et (2) 80:25 148:10 90:12 106:9 131:25 176:13 182:6 189:16 details (5) 61:13 95:15 disseminated (1) 181:16 133:13 140:10,15 143:21 106:19,21 108:3 109:20 etc (3) 143:19,19 177:23 143:18,20 146:25,25 decide (1) 171:12 103:25 104:1 117:14 dissemination (1) 182:1 148:12 173:22 180:24 111:4,6,14,18,22,25 ethical (1) 191:13 183:13 187:10 188:20 decided (9) 65:22 73:19 deteriorate (1) 89:12 distinguish (1) 134:13 183:11 184:24 190:4 112:3,8,18,20 115:3,5 euroclass (1) 134:18 exovas (1) 189:6 90:19 99:2 118:19 120:24 determine (1) 85:11 dive (1) 178:9 draft (10) 3:11 116:9,21 117:3,7,8 124:20 even (17) 81:24 94:22 99:19 expands (1) 90:8 123:3,10 142:8 developed (3) 44:25 45:14 dived (1) 173:24 81:2,9,11,17,21,22,24,24,25 126:10,11,15 127:2 118:22 119:5 121:2 125:4 expect (6) 10:9 35:13 45:16 deciding (2) 112:13 114:6 86:11 division (2) 102:22 177:1 drafting (4) 8:5,6 169:22 128:2,25 129:4,8,15,16 129:25 134:9 142:11 159:25 160:6 165:9 decision (12) 3:19 39:14 development (3) 22:3 32:5 divisional (1) 142:20 173:25 131:6,22 132:6 133:10 164:8,9 166:3 168:25 expected (7) 41:9 89:4,8,12 75:3 78:7,15 98:16,20 40:6 dlr1558 (1) 71:8 draw (2) 127:9 157:25 135:16 136:1,4,5 138:16 170:16 187:19 191:15 148:19 150:17 165:11 116:3,7 170:3,13,16 device (2) 2:5 48:2 doc (1) 66:24 drawing (2) 86:8 146:20 139:12 140:5,8,8,10 evening (3) 130:17 131:7 expecting (1) 181:12 decisionmaker (2) 52:5 devices (1) 48:4 document (13) 31:9 66:25 drawings (5) 61:16 71:17 141:12 142:1,12,13,18 191:25 experience (5) 19:20 28:18 113:22 diagram (2) 8:9,14 80:9 112:24 150:12 151:25 76:17 127:9 148:16 144:10 145:11,24 146:9,13 event (4) 14:13 54:11 141:6 54:8,14 187:19 declare (1) 38:15 dialogue (1) 10:7 159:5 176:14 183:4 drawn (3) 14:2 41:16 89:8 147:9,19,21 148:6,12,13 163:12 experienced (2) 18:24 41:15 declared (1) 41:23 diary (3) 83:19,21,23 186:15,19 188:8 189:12 drop (1) 188:14 149:5,6,24 151:10,13,14 events (1) 110:17 expert (2) 36:4,23 declined (3) 5:13 6:9 18:15 didnt (82) 16:11,14 23:10 documentation (2) 72:15 dts (2) 141:1,15 152:2,6,7 153:10 ever (7) 13:17,19 22:19 expertise (1) 37:7 deemed (8) 59:24 70:11 80:8 33:21 52:13 53:8 56:22,25 156:16 dubai (49) 55:10 57:12 60:6 154:6,9,11 155:21 159:3 155:4 173:1 179:16 191:12 experts (4) 3:11 10:5 37:15 85:19 87:11 88:16 117:21 57:2,3,14 60:22 61:1 documented (1) 45:18 70:8,18 72:20 74:12,15 163:9 175:11 176:16,22 every (2) 45:4 134:22 140:22 133:18 65:13,15 68:19 71:25 documents (40) 1:25 4:20 76:3 77:8 78:25 80:2 85:17 178:12 180:11,12,14,24,25 everyone (5) 1:4 44:7 46:20 expiry (1) 44:22 deep (2) 31:20 178:9 76:22 78:9 79:14 92:2 22:16 24:5 25:2,7,9 31:23 86:18 88:11,18 101:24 183:6,10 184:15 186:6 101:2 151:2 explain (11) 22:8 33:9 54:18 default (2) 45:5 115:24 93:12,17,17,20 94:6,6,10 38:3 47:21 51:3,18 102:4,7 104:10,13 188:12 189:13,15,17,18 everything (8) 42:1 72:8 67:24 71:18 74:24 77:6 defined (2) 22:16 24:4 95:23 96:10,11,15 56:1,5,16,19,23 57:11 106:9,9,24 107:19 108:4 190:4,5,5 130:19 140:23 141:3,7 112:17 138:16 147:5 158:1 definitely (4) 58:12 98:18,19 99:13,15 103:12 66:22,24 67:6,9,9,14 109:14 114:10 116:17 emailed (1) 15:18 155:23 166:5 explained (8) 7:16 18:10 147:14,15 182:14 104:2 112:5,6 118:5 68:1,4 69:9 71:10,18,20,22 117:13,21 127:5 131:1,25 emails (54) 15:9,14 51:14 evidence (118) 1:11,19,22 38:21 49:23 119:14 120:1 degree (5) 92:14 121:7,18 121:12 123:18 132:11,11 72:5,14 82:11 83:17 94:24 133:13 143:18 144:17 57:19 59:15,21 60:5,20 2:11,11 14:24 15:3 16:3 122:16 140:18 122:2,4 137:7 139:13,17 143:12 112:14 113:1,3 114:17 146:25 148:4 158:19 61:19 63:16,23 20:7,20 26:2 29:12,20 explanation (1) 7:13 delay (1) 40:17 155:8 156:22 157:9 161:14 dodgy (1) 145:6 161:10,19,21 162:13,15 64:4,8,10,18,22,25 43:25 46:4,12,22 47:18 explore (2) 30:1 129:6 deleted (1) 32:13 162:21 does (32) 8:15 12:2 13:2 168:10 181:1 185:22 186:1 68:11,24 69:14,17,22 48:17 49:1,13 50:2,7,25 expressed (2) 32:14 33:11 deliberate (6) 106:4 163:5,7,11,20,21,22,25 16:3 20:19 24:24 26:10 dubious (3) 124:14 71:6,12 75:18 76:9,12,19 51:5,15,19,25 52:10 53:1,6 expression (3) 95:9 105:7 161:1,2,6 170:3 179:19 164:8,12,15 165:25 27:9 31:18,22 32:24 35:15 145:16,20 77:5 79:19 80:16 82:13 56:11 57:17,18 59:20,22 115:25 deliberately (18) 38:6 166:6,10,12 169:20 39:19 67:2 78:14 84:4 due (3) 12:5 30:4,10 92:24 96:4,5,7 102:18 60:10 62:18 63:7,8,13 expressly (1) 157:7 114:23 119:4 126:4 158:19 171:1,8 172:8,24 178:14 93:24 101:22,23,25 111:15 duly (1) 137:3 103:2,10 104:7,18 105:23 64:10,14 65:13,19 66:8,18 extent (1) 54:7 160:22,23 161:11 162:8 179:6,7,25 181:14 123:23 126:2 132:9 138:11 duo (1) 61:7 112:11 128:23,25 68:10,23 69:7,15 72:1 external (2) 10:5 54:3 164:2,23 165:2,24 166:7 185:15,16 189:10 190:25 144:6 146:4 148:19 158:4 duoslab (3) 55:11 85:25 133:2,6,8 147:10 152:18 75:12 77:1,19 78:4,11 extra (7) 69:20 100:11 168:5 169:1,23 171:7 died (1) 62:5 166:19,19 177:2 118:11 168:13 174:20 179:24 79:8,19 83:3,6,7 118:15 126:21 127:7,23 deliver (3) 36:25 87:8 178:1 differed (1) 182:23 doesnt (8) 94:10 138:11 during (13) 2:11 28:13,16 189:15 87:9,14,20,24 90:23 91:10 148:8 delivered (1) 37:14 difference (5) 58:18 123:22 150:17 160:19 163:11 44:1 48:18,19,20 62:6 embed (1) 152:2 92:19 93:12,13,16,20,24 extracts (1) 37:3 delivers (2) 36:18 54:15 125:22 149:22 162:2 166:18 171:23 181:10 65:12 77:19 80:13 85:20 emphasis (2) 10:3 12:15 94:4,25 99:13 100:16 extreme (2) 120:2,3 delivery (1) 146:5 different (18) 9:9 31:3 doing (18) 25:17 30:13 44:22 150:15 emphasising (1) 33:21 101:3 109:8 110:10 112:21 extremely (5) 10:14 16:23 demand (1) 129:24 45:1,8 49:16 61:18 63:22 45:12 49:24 74:15 76:15 empirical (12) 93:12,16,20 128:12 134:2,6,22 40:14 41:8 87:7 E demonstrate (5) 59:23 83:4 88:22 90:20 102:17 154:18 100:8 104:20 109:13 99:12 128:12 135:4 135:2,4,6 136:13 137:6,9 extrusions (1) 89:10
87:10 177:21 189:25 165:15 166:23 167:8 112:10 135:15 138:13 e (3) 54:20 86:7 89:8 137:6,9 139:17 141:22 139:17 141:23 144:2 F demonstrating (1) 129:10 180:11 185:14,15,17 139:20 144:19 153:12 earlier (21) 10:6 12:17 60:11 169:11 171:20 150:19 151:3 153:3 156:13 deniability (3) 179:13,17,20 difficult (2) 98:10 125:15 189:6,7 63:2 78:24 82:10,14 88:12 employed (1) 14:19 158:14 161:19 164:10 f (1) 89:17 dent (2) 136:15 139:4 difficulty (3) 20:3,18 49:14 domain (6) 186:23 116:4 118:24 120:17 131:7 enclosed (2) 55:18 156:16 169:11 171:14,19,20,20 faade (1) 134:3 denyer (4) 16:7,9,17 17:8 dig (1) 134:22 187:4,12,24,25 189:5 142:13,16 146:9 148:7 end (16) 35:23 43:3,13 68:14 172:2,14 173:13 176:13 faades (1) 143:7 department (3) 7:11 8:22 diligence (2) 30:4,10 done (25) 14:23 16:16 32:18 150:16 162:9,13 163:10 75:22 88:19 108:10 111:18 177:20 178:17 182:6 fabricate (1) 88:25 173:19 dim (1) 58:8 57:5,20 68:12 74:20 88:22 190:3 136:9 142:7 145:2 152:20 189:16 191:1,10 192:4 fabrication (1) 86:10 depending (1) 2:13 direct (5) 9:5,15 32:21 104:4 107:15,16 109:13 120:5 early (10) 59:8 68:15 81:24 157:3 165:17 166:20 evidenced (1) 42:5 face (5) 58:4 130:2,2 132:15 deployed (1) 128:12 162:20 149:12 151:18 155:14,14 95:13,15,18,23 100:7 191:16 evidential (1) 40:3 145:7 derived (1) 188:14 directly (2) 152:16 154:3 157:13 158:19 161:14 150:10,14 ended (1) 81:25 evidentially (1) 134:17 faced (3) 134:17 156:20 describe (3) 8:3 53:25 director (5) 52:12 142:20 163:12 176:1 183:8 185:22 earmarked (1) 131:1 engaged (1) 175:22 evolved (2) 44:25 45:15 157:6 156:18 143:5 177:3 180:19 187:13,22 easier (1) 98:12 england (1) 163:2 exact (1) 120:4 facetoface (2) 15:21 104:25
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
facility (3) 80:2 144:20,24 21:5 22:1,4,12 23:7 27:17 40:23 47:8 57:23 70:25 108:4 109:24 habit (1) 150:10 141:20 implement (2) 40:14 41:8 factors (1) 32:2 32:3,6,19 33:13,17,20,23 136:4 110:8,10,12,18 114:10 hackitt (2) 83:8 161:10 hindsight (1) 35:13 implemented (1) 41:1 factory (1) 145:4 34:1 37:24 frustrated (1) 187:2 130:1 132:23 133:15 hadnt (6) 13:13 55:24 56:3 historically (1) 114:25 implicit (1) 167:13 fail (56) 85:22,23 89:13 38:1,10,11,19,21,25 fujairah (1) 156:20 134:22 136:17 141:6,22 104:7 114:24 162:2 hitherto (1) 94:21 implying (1) 187:16 90:23 97:17 98:12 99:20 39:2,5,22 40:1,5,6,16 full (26) 32:22 33:12,15 45:3 143:13 144:8 150:10 half (3) 3:7 58:4 171:16 hodder (11) 143:5 144:14,21 important (13) 14:10,14 111:2 119:6 121:20 122:12 42:3,21 43:1 54:11 63:3 55:20 56:23 60:1 78:3 83:5 152:10 155:3 166:22 halfway (5) 70:5 73:1 109:21 145:23 147:11 149:1 18:4 34:25 35:11 40:15 123:9 124:5,7 89:17,19 93:6,11 108:21 87:9,12 88:17 114:25 182:17 183:15,16 184:7,7 148:12 173:22 152:13,14 154:15,20 155:4 41:8 85:14 103:23 141:22 128:11,11,17,17 130:18 118:19 122:14 129:9 129:24 138:3 141:5 161:15 186:23 187:10 188:15 hand (3) 2:9 124:18,19 hodders (2) 145:15 146:12 174:22 176:2 177:17 133:15,16,19 134:15,19 145:16,20 153:4 156:12,14 164:3,25 166:1,8,13 190:11,21,24 hands (2) 137:14 151:16 hold (7) 52:15 132:23 143:13 impossible (2) 88:20 130:1 135:1,4,9,9,10 158:6 165:12 172:22 167:10,23 169:10 180:18 gets (1) 184:5 happen (4) 7:3 13:1 76:7 144:8 183:15 190:21,24 impression (2) 11:23 137:18 136:18,20,25 173:23 177:22 181:1 fullscale (1) 59:22 getting (5) 125:1 129:24 82:9 holder (6) 7:5 10:8,10 39:18 improve (2) 17:19,22 137:4,7,11,12 141:6,18 firm (1) 143:6 fund (1) 154:13 144:22 187:23 190:13 happened (7) 58:6 69:13 113:25 114:1 improved (1) 41:6 146:6 149:2 153:5 159:15 first (46) 3:5 6:22 7:8 10:18 further (27) 6:18 7:13 17:20 gilbert (13) 73:18 80:23 74:25 87:20 115:18 134:9 holistic (1) 54:23 improvement (3) 4:21 17:18 160:12 164:11 165:1 166:9 13:18 15:20 21:8 22:18 18:1,11,13 26:19 45:23 82:22 96:14 103:3,7,23 180:12 hollinrake (4) 81:1,6,15,21 58:12 167:6,10,18,19 168:7 29:13,20 32:4 35:15 37:25 49:13 50:8 51:23 52:6 54:6 117:10 136:6 140:10,16 happening (1) 180:4 holywell (3) 84:11,16,18 improvements (3) 17:12 175:7 181:11,12 185:21 38:20 40:15 41:3 46:24 56:10,11 69:9,17 89:7 141:14,25 happens (1) 120:10 honeycomb (9) 85:12 108:8 18:1 42:6 190:1 49:8 50:13 52:25 53:14 109:5 127:4 129:6 133:6 give (14) 7:13 33:12 41:19 happy (2) 49:17 125:13 115:11 131:11,14,15,18 improving (1) 54:10 failed (53) 39:21 57:25 59:6 65:17 80:2,16 141:9 149:4 153:10 188:9 43:15 46:4 49:13 50:24 hard (4) 15:18 98:9 134:12 132:17 143:25 inaccurate (6) 40:2 55:2,4,7,8,17 58:3 60:23 81:9 82:4,7,15,23 90:25 191:15 51:4 76:20 104:21 135:4 149:22 hope (4) 61:24 62:13 151:5 41:21,22,24 42:17,18 84:25 85:2 90:19 92:24 117:11,25 122:10,23 future (1) 140:24 136:15 139:5 178:17 hardline (1) 129:21 181:11 inappropriate (1) 24:18 95:20 97:17 109:7,25 123:7,16,23 127:6 128:24 fw (1) 74:6 given (21) 2:11 13:24 26:5,5 harris (24) 80:22 81:5 82:19 hoping (1) 190:9 inbox (1) 184:20 115:7,23 119:21 136:12,22 129:4,15 133:8 157:11 fyi (2) 148:13,15 29:19 30:10 32:23 38:19 84:20 86:23 88:6 92:1,6 horizontal (2) 89:19 118:12 inbuilt (1) 169:1 137:14,20 178:11 41:2,5 42:1 44:21 45:12,19 97:12 101:20 102:22 hours (1) 106:25 include (3) 12:2 103:16 G 138:2,10,13,21,24 fit (2) 38:25 39:2 46:21 50:6 55:25 56:4 103:13,15 115:5 116:20 house (1) 35:8 104:6
139:3,16,23 144:25 145:12 five (5) 20:24 27:11,21 28:2 g (2) 89:19 117:17 97:21 98:5 115:22 128:25 133:11 140:14,17 housekeeping (2) 1:18 47:15 included (11) 83:19 86:7 156:12,13 157:7 163:24 117:19 g2 (114) 55:12 60:12 61:6,13 giving (17) 1:21 2:11 46:12 154:4 177:6 183:11 189:19 housing (1) 55:14 102:25 103:3,4 104:9 164:3,17 171:13 173:23 fix (3) 38:25 39:1 75:23 64:23 65:9 68:21 47:18 48:17 49:1 51:20 190:6 however (4) 20:4 27:12 155:25 167:9,11 169:2 175:25 179:4 181:15 fixed (1) 89:11 78:1,12,20 79:7 95:6 102:7 59:20 64:14 66:17 69:7 havent (10) 43:6 71:18 29:22 85:8 188:15 184:8,10,25 185:16,23 flame (1) 23:8 108:4,7,8 112:22 90:23 94:4,25 168:16 151:22 152:4 184:5 human (7) 7:9,14,24 8:3 includes (2) 111:15 117:13 186:1 187:11 190:14,25 flames (2) 89:14 181:5 114:10,11,14,23 171:16,18 186:9,13,17 191:16,20 12:20 13:8 14:10 including (5) 68:24 80:5,23 failing (5) 41:18 98:6 flaming (2) 102:6 181:6 115:11,14,16 116:1,6 global (1) 103:24 having (10) 2:25 18:21 41:23 hundred (1) 64:2 82:20 91:21 119:19,24 120:12 flat (4) 102:8 108:5 118:10 117:20 118:1,4,10,21 goal (1) 54:9 99:9 100:11 109:6 138:2 hundreds (1) 34:12 inclusion (1) 164:25 fails (6) 183:18 186:23 146:23 119:4 121:1 122:16 goes (5) 70:6 140:17 145:8 144:19 187:5 189:8 hunt (6) 9:1,8 14:19 15:5 incomplete (1) 168:17 187:2,11,23 189:4 flaws (2) 169:1,9 123:5,11 125:6 126:4 163:10 184:4 hazard (2) 22:4 32:6 16:11 22:7 inconsistent (2) 161:18 failure (16) 30:3,9 37:23,25 float (1) 154:1 127:4 131:12 132:17,23 going (36) 1:10,20 16:20 head (7) 16:12 21:9,17 49:21 hunts (1) 15:3 162:6 38:9,12,14,17 39:8,20 68:9 floated (3) 153:22,25 154:4 133:3,3,14 134:19 21:1 29:17 44:8 48:11 142:14 174:6 175:22 hyett (2) 36:3 37:18 inconvenience (1) 94:2 99:9,11 147:12 169:2 flow (2) 55:21 161:16 136:10,12,18,19,21,24 49:4,23 51:19 53:2 61:24 headed (1) 53:17 inconvenient (2) 92:22,25 I 180:2 focal (1) 143:18 137:3,11,13,16,19 74:10,24 79:20 94:17 heading (4) 70:8 128:23 incorporate (1) 35:9 failures (1) 85:3 focus (1) 127:14 138:9,19,21,23 97:10 100:1,2,10,12,14 133:21 156:11 id (18) 3:5 13:2 28:14 56:21 incorporated (1) 80:12 fair (6) 79:14 121:7,18 focused (1) 73:21 139:1,11,22 140:1 101:3 109:20 114:9 headline (1) 133:17 60:20 65:20 66:25 71:7 incorporating (2) 118:9 122:2,4 189:9 focusing (3) 5:15 8:20 33:18 141:4,18 142:10 115:4,8 120:9 126:12 hear (11) 1:13 44:10 46:6,25 92:18 106:16 107:2 110:4 158:5 fairly (6) 112:24 159:16,24 focussing (1) 9:24 143:2,10,22,23 127:8 131:6 152:9 178:7 47:1,3 49:9,10 101:6 151:4 129:4 142:16 153:17 158:9 incorrect (3) 64:16 90:1,2 160:5 162:23 171:21 foil (4) 85:8 134:17 156:20 144:8,13,16 186:15 187:10 191:24 189:21 160:7 188:25 increase (1) 114:11 fairviewvalcan (1) 144:23 157:6 145:3,12,20,24 147:2,14 gone (9) 42:1 58:7,24 68:3 heard (7) 13:14 43:12 46:2 idea (9) 129:2 incredibly (1) 133:17 fallback (1) 146:5 folded (1) 118:18 148:24 149:16 152:22 69:8,10,11 89:23 125:11 63:8 105:9 130:4 149:18 132:12,14,18,19 155:2,8 independent (6) 37:7,14 false (1) 41:20 folding (1) 122:15 153:3 162:2,4,12,22 good (25) 1:4,8,9,14,15,16 hearing (9) 1:5,11 48:8 188:19 190:12 66:12,14 140:21 154:23 familiar (4) 105:6 142:25 follow (6) 26:10 28:8 39:19 163:1,14,23 164:2,9,24 2:8,18,23 44:2,13 101:3 176:19 177:9,12 ideal (1) 190:11 index (1) 193:1 143:1,1 123:23 146:4 158:15 165:7,23 166:7,13 168:5 47:1,3,14 49:3 94:24 178:17 192:15 identified (5) 31:16 69:19 indicated (1) 68:2 familiarity (1) 143:4 followed (3) 30:12 119:13 179:3,19 101:2,6,9,15 125:19 hearsay (2) 139:18,19 85:20 93:2 159:5 indication (1) 95:22 far (7) 91:15 94:11 113:14 120:4 182:3,8,13,17,22,23 183:8 148:18 151:7 155:2 178:7 heat (1) 85:11 identifies (1) 173:22 individual (3) 4:15 19:3 137:20 155:6 191:17 following (8) 6:23 7:22 26:22 184:1,7,9,10 185:1 google (1) 144:20 heath (1) 74:6 identify (5) 31:10 39:21 55:4 41:16 192:11 43:16 56:9 83:18 85:21 gain (1) 4:18 gov (3) 140:19,21 141:8 hed (5) 15:16,16 97:22 167:25 168:3 individuals (3) 8:25 9:3 fares (1) 73:13 104:18 gained (1) 121:14 government (19) 6:1 40:11 103:18 149:18 idiot (1) 180:7 175:11 fastest (3) 102:13 109:24 follows (4) 36:10 84:23 gaps (1) 118:16 55:15 110:11,20 133:12 held (5) 35:24 37:12 52:11 ikon (3) 180:20,21,22 industry (10) 3:10,18 35:25 110:8 160:4 190:5 garbutt (34) 73:16 82:20 134:7,12 137:15 62:4 104:23 ill (11) 2:19 44:9 53:11 57:23 36:14,17,19 121:14 145:6 feasible (1) 92:13 foot (3) 70:7 127:2 133:21 84:1 97:3,5,11 101:19 138:5,8,15 141:19 144:3 hell (1) 190:11 58:8 78:13 87:4 101:4 149:18 154:14 feel (7) 13:20,22 14:17,18 footage (3) 140:25 126:16 127:5,22 129:18 155:18,22 181:17 182:7,12 hello (3) 144:14 147:25 125:16 130:22 151:23 industrys (1) 37:14 48:8,21 117:22 141:14,15 130:16 133:10,14 136:6,8 governments (3) 133:18 181:2 im (84) 1:6,20 6:20 9:17,18 infer (2) 19:6 41:4 fell (1) 41:11 footnote (10) 30:18,20,21 137:10 138:17 139:4 135:2,12 help (16) 6:11 16:4 22:18 11:5,18 15:19 16:7 25:4,20 inferred (1) 16:24 fellow (1) 1:6 31:12 32:15 33:1,11 144:12 147:23 154:2 174:5 grade (1) 130:12 23:17,24 24:8 31:6 26:7 28:15 29:16,17,25 inferring (3) 10:14 13:23 felt (4) 6:2,6 8:17 13:23 34:9,25 35:4 176:23 178:3,5,20 183:11 graham (1) 129:13 44:19,23 70:21 108:24 33:2 41:7 48:11 18:24 few (6) 6:14 7:7 13:14 footnotes (1) 35:8 184:11 185:2 186:2 187:16 grange (11) 2:19,21,23 132:15 140:14 176:24 49:2,4,15,17 51:25 56:7,22 information (29) 11:4 22:25 66:17,18 177:19 force (2) 130:19 155:22 189:19 190:6 35:20,21 43:3,11 44:16,17 178:21 180:17 61:23,23 62:2,12 65:25 23:2 25:19,21 32:22 34:3 fibre (6) 85:6 86:2 118:11 forgetting (1) 94:18 garbutts (2) 131:6 155:20 45:22 46:1 helped (1) 108:16 71:19 72:15 75:16 79:20 39:15,18 41:5,14,23 134:13,17 160:11 forgive (3) 53:2 87:24 132:5 gave (21) 10:12 34:16,20 graph (1) 147:1 helpful (2) 178:8 179:9 82:8 87:19,23 88:8 91:5,5 45:7,17 64:12 85:9,13 fibrestone (1) 156:20 forgotten (1) 67:18 39:15 50:2 51:15 52:10 grateful (1) 46:3 hence (1) 74:12 93:19 99:25 102:24 103:1 110:12 fifth (24) 50:8,13,19 form (3) 11:23 26:12 190:12 53:5 57:17,18 63:13 64:14 great (1) 52:13 here (25) 11:6,14 37:4 51:21 100:1,2,6,14,14 106:23 115:12 121:13 140:4 51:6,8,9,12 62:20,23 66:20 formed (1) 169:17 65:13 72:1 79:20 97:23 greater (1) 5:7 56:16,21 60:15 64:17 107:10 112:3 115:3,8 164:18 187:10 75:13 76:20 79:23 90:7 formulation (8) 27:14,22 164:18 166:4 167:23 182:5 grenfell (6) 55:16 80:14 75:20 77:4 82:8 102:17 116:5 120:9 121:17,24,24 190:10,12,19 191:4 97:16 112:7,15 113:2 28:6,12,19,24 29:9,18 189:16 108:21 122:14 129:9 134:8 109:25 117:24 119:8 123:14 124:6,6 132:15 infrequently (1) 103:6 118:6 142:3 152:20 161:17 fortune (1) 73:13 gene (10) 73:18 82:21 96:9 ground (1) 79:21 125:12 143:12 144:19 137:22,22 138:25 139:9 ingredient (1) 36:15 162:5 164:11 forward (5) 117:3 141:4 103:3,6,23 117:10 136:7 group (3) 82:20 180:19,22 145:4 146:25 149:14 142:6 143:1 144:7 151:23 inhouse (1) 66:13 file (9) 14:22 23:1,3,21 155:8 179:11 192:8 140:18 141:25 guarantee (1) 191:24 153:23 154:15,23 187:16 155:6 165:4 168:2 170:15 initial (2) 3:11 18:13 25:19,21 26:9 28:15 45:17 forwards (1) 18:3 general (4) 13:9 35:22 106:1 guess (2) 103:18 153:23 heresaysic (1) 134:16 175:20 177:25 initially (1) 21:7 film (1) 147:2 found (3) 133:19 146:17 173:24 guidance (2) 4:13,15 hes (8) 14:4 37:3 143:21 184:13,14,20 188:7,7 innocence (1) 176:9 final (7) 5:15 21:12,20 31:15 166:11 generally (1) 143:1 guy (1) 76:3 177:3 178:25 184:13 185:4 190:9 191:17,22 innovation (3) 180:19,19,23 63:6 76:16 114:1 founded (1) 37:13 generate (2) 83:7 93:16 guys (8) 102:3,4 188:22 image (8) 149:24 150:6 inns (1) 74:1 finalising (1) 10:5 four (9) 50:5 63:2 77:20 generated (2) 57:19 103:14 106:8,9,10,12 107:19 hesitant (1) 100:6 151:14,16,21 152:9,10,10 input (1) 112:16 finally (3) 19:8 42:9 47:25 78:10 99:25 106:25 122:17 genesis (1) 117:2 111:4 hesitate (1) 150:10 imagine (2) 49:25 169:22 inq000140764 (2) 156:10 find (9) 44:14 63:11 75:4 152:11 163:24 genuine (2) 91:19 157:12 gwyn (16) 101:20 126:16 hi (6) 80:25 82:25 130:25 immediately (2) 55:16 59:2 173:15 114:16 146:20 178:15 free (1) 46:8 genuinely (3) 18:18,20 94:10 127:2 142:18,19 143:15 144:18 146:16 178:6 impactful (1) 189:24 inq000140765 (1) 156:6 186:23 187:23 189:4 freight (2) 88:18 91:21 geometry (1) 89:6 144:11,18 145:8 high (1) 35:25 impartial (2) 154:24 155:1 inquiry (38) 2:22 8:10 31:17 fine (3) 7:3 49:2 99:23 frequently (1) 107:10 george (1) 9:1 146:13,16,17 147:22 154:2 higher (2) 42:7 147:10 impartially (1) 6:3 42:25 45:2 46:22 49:7,13 finished (1) 191:21 friday (2) 88:19 133:8 get (43) 1:18 33:2 58:23 180:14,25 highest (1) 37:1 imperfections (7) 90:17 50:3,6,9 51:24 53:5,22 finishes (1) 130:23 front (14) 24:18 31:7 32:13 75:16,24 88:17 92:11 highlighted (1) 162:1 105:22 106:5 127:18 54:4 55:25 56:4,10 fire (56) 17:11,23,24 18:6 33:10,14,21 34:4,8,21 95:14 100:2,13 102:7,13 H highrise (3) 54:4 135:18 132:25 168:12 174:21 63:3,8,14 64:1 67:10,15
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
72:3,4 77:21 78:21 81:18 55:23 70:16 86:2 102:18 july (106) 3:5 5:14 7:7 12:10 kin00025127 (1) 126:11 171:1,3 172:2 173:1,7 155:10 156:1,6,7 157:3 178:3 181:6 183:4 186:19 83:17 112:3 126:11 133:7 119:23 120:11 125:22 20:25 40:18 41:1 55:10 kin000251272 (1) 126:14 175:12,15 176:4 177:11,15 158:24 159:14 160:9,17 191:8 192:7 140:6 172:12 183:5 131:25 134:25 138:6 60:7 61:1,1 63:18,19 kin00025128 (1) 142:12 178:25,25 168:3 169:21 170:14 looked (18) 23:8 32:4,15 193:5,11 139:12 141:17 148:20 64:7,13,13,21 65:3,9 kin000251281 (2) 149:5 179:5,6,6,7,7,8,15,21,22,25,25,25 173:14 174:25 175:13,18 51:3,4 59:13 62:21 68:24 inquirys (5) 36:4 52:6 155:16 157:11 161:18 68:12,25 72:4 75:14 78:19 151:12 180:3,3,4,10,18 176:9 70:23 72:23 85:15 88:6 53:18,22 83:18 167:4,17 172:21 173:18 79:5,10 80:4,4,12 82:1 kin000251282 (1) 148:11 181:14,15,16,22 182:14,16 letterarguments (1) 81:2 120:21 140:8,9 142:14 inserted (3) 18:25 34:9 40:22 182:21 89:23 90:21,25 102:12 kin000251283 (1) 148:6 187:1,13 188:22,24 letters (2) 82:24 170:8 146:9 148:6 inserts (1) 89:5 issued (6) 7:2 12:25 16:13 107:5 108:11,22,24 kin000251284 (1) 146:8 190:16,17,19 191:6,15,15 level (4) 10:1 12:15 19:20 looking (25) 3:4 6:22 10:18 inspection (1) 37:9 23:16 37:25 38:20 109:2,11,17,23 110:24 kin000251285 (1) 142:17 knowing (2) 178:23 179:8 178:10 17:18 34:14 37:20 40:22 installation (1) 68:21 issues (7) 29:6 112:9,19 113:4,9 kin00025129 (1) 154:10 knowledge (12) 19:20 60:14 leverage (1) 37:15 51:14 61:20 63:23 67:1 installed (1) 136:21 53:18,19,23,24 83:2 114:11,24 116:1 kin00025145 (1) 133:9 67:25 103:16 105:24 liaising (1) 76:4 79:23 95:13,15 117:20 installing (1) 124:25 177:18 118:8,14,25 119:16,23 kin000251452 (1) 134:10 173:3,11 174:18 175:14,15 light (7) 41:10 58:2,8,17 128:4 136:5 143:25 146:1 instance (1) 29:9 istephan (2) 1:7,8 120:11,18 121:3,19 122:11 kin00025168 (1) 180:13 176:4 177:21 79:17 152:18 166:15 151:11,18 152:19 158:12 instant (1) 146:24 itd (1) 98:9 123:8,10 124:4,20 125:4 kin00025285 (1) 183:6 knowledgeable (1) 41:16 lighting (3) 58:6,13 125:13 189:9,10 instead (5) 34:8 74:18 120:8 item (3) 85:14 88:23 134:11 126:2,6 134:19,25 135:10 kin000252852 (2) 183:24 known (8) 13:13 56:15 104:1 lights (2) 58:24 125:11 looks (6) 70:15 74:13 83:23 121:17 124:11 its (112) 6:1 10:22 15:2 136:25 143:10 188:8 106:3 160:15 163:2,9,15 like (44) 2:15 46:4 48:25 95:16 140:13,16 instruction (1) 141:24 16:22 17:23,24,24 19:2 155:11,14,25 156:3,8 kin00025426 (2) 188:6 knows (4) 72:3 149:16 52:25 53:23 60:18 loop (1) 127:8 insulant (1) 134:9 21:15 25:1 30:1 35:8,9,24 161:22 162:7,15,24 164:25 189:13 178:7,20 62:13,16,22 64:9 70:23 loss (1) 5:5 insulation (32) 28:20 53:7 36:15 38:25 41:12 42:10 166:15 167:17 168:3,10,15 kin00025428 (1) 83:21 72:5 74:13 83:23 95:16,24 lot (3) 58:18 135:22 143:18 L 55:1 61:7,12 63:5 65:6 45:23 46:6 50:11 53:11 170:14 171:13,13 kin00025484 (1) 144:10 100:8 101:16 104:18 low (2) 13:24 22:15
70:17 71:1 80:6,13 85:6,25 55:23 61:5 65:5 70:7,12,16 172:10,15 173:5,15 174:18 kin00025512 (1) 176:15 lack (1) 68:9 125:17 126:14 132:17 lower (2) 116:10,11 86:21,22 113:16,20 118:12 74:5 79:21 81:1 82:16,19 176:5 179:19 180:12,15 kin000255122 (1) 176:20 lacking (1) 42:3 133:6 146:10,11 147:8 lukewarm (1) 81:2 125:10 127:12 130:2,15 84:13,15 89:10,11 92:9 181:1 182:2,7,12 183:7 kin00025854 (2) 136:1 lapse (1) 44:23 149:8,17 153:4,4 lunch (2) 100:11,13 133:25 134:15 136:22 95:15 97:11,15 98:6 100:1 184:11 185:6 138:17 large (8) 119:21 121:15 163:3,7,9,10,16,18,20,21 M 139:8 156:21 157:6 158:2 101:19 111:5 119:23 june (7) 68:8,22 102:11 kin00025856 (1) 140:6 140:22 141:10 156:12,13 165:5,17,23 166:13 180:18 167:6 186:1 189:8 122:12,19 125:14 126:16 109:22 176:18,22 178:5 kind (8) 52:17,23 88:3 158:8 173:23 188:4 m2 (1) 145:10 insured (1) 129:25 127:4 131:12 132:6 134:25 justified (3) 24:21 25:14,16 109:16 167:13 175:24 largescale (7) 118:22 119:5 likely (6) 16:5 92:20 149:1 mail (4) 10:6 185:20 insurers (1) 130:4 137:3,12,14 138:1 139:7 justify (1) 73:25 191:2,4 121:2 123:6 133:20 142:11 153:5 160:12 165:8 186:4,12 integrity (3) 36:16 37:13 140:11,11,13,16,19 141:17 kinds (2) 166:24 167:9 165:12 limitation (1) 32:14 main (6) 3:6 58:6,13 64:22 K 180:9 142:7 145:15,16,19,20 kingdom (1) 157:14 last (28) 10:18 47:5 50:7 limitations (2) 31:23 33:8 77:3 106:13 intended (14) 20:5 32:20 149:22 150:9,14,16 152:23 k15 (25) 3:1 18:19 29:10,13 kingspan (86) 3:2 13:17,19 51:15 52:10 53:19,23 limited (23) 10:11,14 13:23 mainly (1) 102:21 54:12 119:10 120:10,11,14 153:8 154:13 156:6,8 31:20 37:21 39:25 40:9 14:10,14 22:21 23:6,11 57:17 62:19 68:23 72:1 14:1 16:24 17:3 maintain (1) 88:2 123:25 124:5 132:22 135:9 157:11,21 158:11,12 70:17,20 71:2 72:21 24:25 28:10 31:13,18 85:15 87:3,14,20 90:23 19:1,5,15,19 31:19 54:25 maintaining (1) 20:15 160:5 162:16,17 161:12 165:8 166:16,16 73:24,25 74:18 75:3,19 33:23 51:24 52:5,11,18,21 117:18 122:25 133:8 140:6 63:5 80:6 86:20,22 90:17 makes (3) 33:1 58:18 134:18 intending (1) 126:5 167:4,4 168:12 170:1 77:12 80:12 135:19,21 54:1 55:9,13,24 56:3,11 147:7 155:12 156:25 113:21 118:9 127:18 makeup (1) 163:19 intent (1) 162:20 171:23 172:1,21 174:22 136:16,21 139:6 160:12 57:19 60:6 63:4,5 65:3 158:14 177:19 189:16 130:14 134:15 166:17 making (5) 19:24 76:16 intention (9) 11:15,15,24 175:20 176:2,17,22 177:15 keen (2) 110:10 182:8 66:13 68:1 70:16 71:1 190:10,20 line (15) 7:10 8:21 16:22 129:25 167:14 168:15 128:10,16 133:2 136:24 180:18,22,22 181:22,23 keep (10) 48:12 49:18 75:3 72:12 74:6 77:5,22 78:14 lastbutone (1) 115:10 35:15 60:19,21 81:9 man (1) 143:4 179:2 181:11 182:21 185:14 186:12,17 115:4 122:20 135:19 80:12 82:6 83:18 84:12,13 lasted (3) 149:25 151:15 108:13 127:6 133:22 134:6 management (1) 10:2 intentionally (2) 127:23 188:18 189:10,14 139:20 141:19 176:7,10 86:20,21,22 90:15 92:15 152:11 138:18 142:7 173:14,16 manager (5) 7:10,10 8:21,21 178:24 itself (8) 8:16 25:17 29:23 keeping (3) 140:2,4 189:6 103:24 113:16,20 124:18 late (3) 33:6 140:6 146:2 linear (43) 59:17,24 65:5 21:8 interest (1) 173:6 42:10 102:15 158:4 166:1 kept (6) 128:6 135:21,22 132:23 133:7,23 134:1,3 later (11) 7:7 23:10 31:8 69:24 70:13,18 71:5 73:17 manmade (1) 86:1 interested (5) 3:25 99:9,11 182:8 137:18 167:19 188:20 137:4 139:10 141:25 60:12 91:16 116:18,24 74:6,11,19 manner (1) 42:18 130:3 189:21 ive (31) 15:8 17:16 40:13 kevin (4) 81:1,6,15,21 142:20 156:1,13 158:17 126:13 130:17 149:21 75:5,13,20,21,22 77:17,22 manoeuvre (1) 129:22 interests (1) 189:6 42:5 51:10 55:20 56:1,6 key (3) 32:2 85:3 159:21 160:12,15,21 164:20,24 170:11 80:10 81:7 82:5,15 83:2,4 manufacturer (8) 13:11,15 internal (3) 10:4 52:17 89:14 57:9 58:13 62:18 69:18 kil (9) 70:9 75:2 85:17 88:14 170:7,22 172:5 173:2 latest (3) 36:24 140:18 84:9 87:11 90:24 105:19 14:4 27:21 38:5,15 39:22 internally (2) 57:19 74:4 72:18 75:18 78:19 87:2 113:15,17,20 154:13 174:5 175:2,11 143:21 111:2 125:9 129:2 41:25 interpret (1) 127:9 88:11 112:10,11 122:23 189:21 177:15,22,24 181:16,22 launches (1) 111:4 132:7,13,16,20 159:1,18 manufacturercertificate (1) interpretation (1) 19:25 123:1 124:11 142:4 145:24 killed (3) 184:8,10,25 182:9 186:16 187:17 lawyer (1) 66:13 161:8 168:18,25 173:4 7:5 interpreted (1) 128:8 161:17 162:10 173:24 kin00000480 (1) 61:4 191:2,12 lay (1) 19:24 187:3 190:1 manufacturers (6) 41:21 interrupt (3) 61:24 62:12 176:12 186:13,20 190:5 kin000004802 (1) 61:8 kingspans (23) 52:1,5 53:6 lead (3) 54:8 136:11 138:21 lines (4) 19:11 63:24 120:22 42:11,16 118:1 145:15,19 165:4 kin000004803 (1) 61:11 54:5 71:14 109:8 leader (2) 3:9 4:23 122:17 manufactures (1) 143:6 interrupted (1) 91:5 J kin000004804 (1) 61:15 135:10,16 136:24 137:13 leaders (1) 177:22 linkedin (1) 144:15 many (7) 3:13 4:25 42:5 interrupting (1) 62:2 kin00002379 (1) 129:7 139:10 155:22 169:17 leadership (1) 36:20 list (5) 53:19,22 102:17,18 43:6 62:6 140:21 145:10 intervene (2) 40:11 48:9 j (1) 127:8 kin000023791 (1) 130:8 170:24 171:8 173:4,10 leading (1) 37:11 104:3 march (29) 1:1 55:8 57:20 intervention (1) 15:20 janet (16) 131:2,22,23 kin000023792 (1) 129:16 179:11 180:7,8 181:10 leak (1) 187:17 listen (1) 140:21 59:8 60:5,20 68:11,23 into (23) 35:9 42:17 49:25 183:12,15 185:20 kin000023795 (1) 129:11 184:12 185:6 least (8) 85:1 117:7 119:18 little (18) 4:2 30:17 33:23 71:6,12 79:18 80:16,22 58:7 66:20 71:21 98:6 186:5,7,22,25 kin000024975 (1) 62:24 kip (2) 84:11,12 123:1 145:15,19 166:8 45:20 53:2 88:12 92:17 83:16 103:2,10 104:7 111:5 112:16 127:8 150:10 187:6,9,19,23 188:25 kin00004637 (3) 57:25 59:7 kipkil (1) 86:19 191:7 100:7 116:10 129:6 130:17 126:12 128:22 129:1 133:8 155:22 159:3,14 160:10 189:3 80:17 knew (23) 14:14 93:13 leave (5) 34:23 52:21 103:7 131:7 132:10 140:13 168:13 174:20 176:17 173:24 180:1 184:20 january (4) 50:9 56:12 66:21 kin000046373 (1) 80:20 102:23 107:14 169:23 188:9 142:13,15 146:9 153:10 179:24 183:5 189:15,17 186:23 187:12,23,25 189:4 170:8 kin00004658 (2) 59:14 69:22 111:11,13,14 119:18 leaving (3) 19:25 106:1 lives (1) 62:6 192:16 introduce (2) 105:22 180:1 jenkins (23) 68:17 70:4 kin000046581 (1) 72:22 131:15 139:11,21 140:2 129:22 lloyd (1) 23:9 mark (29) 80:22 81:5,15 introduced (6) 9:23 10:1 73:2,15 74:13 76:5,15 77:8 kin000046583 (4) 70:3 74:25 144:1 149:1 163:19 166:8 led (4) 7:13,24 38:23 182:2 lobby (1) 155:18 82:19 84:20 86:23 88:6 12:16 97:22 98:5 159:2 82:21 86:16 97:18,20 99:4 88:7 117:6 168:6 175:16 179:18 lee (2) 9:1,8 lobbying (5) 59:9 80:19 92:1,6 97:12 101:20 introduction (1) 7:15 106:14 107:13 108:14 kin000046584 (4) 82:14 180:3,3,5,7 lees (1) 9:4 128:24 184:12 185:7 102:22 103:8,13,15 104:5 invalidated (1) 39:12 114:20 117:8 124:19 84:21 88:21 117:15 knock (1) 148:17 left (7) 9:4,8,15 21:10 58:25 local (1) 55:15 115:5 116:20 128:25 investigation (3) 16:8,18 148:20 172:21 173:3 kin000046585 (3) 84:24 know (134) 3:25 15:2 59:2 107:12 locate (1) 71:9 133:11 134:18,21 52:17 185:24 115:5 116:11 16:7,18 19:21 20:15 legal (11) 48:7 location (2) 84:11,15 140:14,17 154:4 177:6 investigations (1) 45:25 jeremy (1) 141:3 kin000046586 (1) 87:4 29:22,25 48:6,9,10,23 66:5,9,11,12,14 67:5,20,24 logistics (1) 153:14 183:11 189:19 190:6 invite (3) 2:19 3:10 49:4 jobs (1) 134:21 kin000048585 (1) 87:19 56:13,14 57:1,4,5 58:10 69:7 182:2 london (1) 73:10 market (6) 36:20 inviting (2) 159:22 189:23 john (39) 1:3,11 15:12,22 kin00020824112 (1) 53:15 62:3 65:2,20,22 67:16 72:9 legislation (1) 167:14 long (7) 41:11 43:7 128:9 135:19,22,23 182:22 184:2 involve (1) 23:15 73:16 80:25 82:20 84:1 kin00020824113 (3) 53:12 74:17 77:9,10,11 81:17,23 lengthy (1) 176:12 129:7 144:7 158:11 191:24 marketing (3) 52:12 174:8 involved (18) 7:10 8:21 76:2 97:3,5,8,11 101:19 126:16 54:19 78:22 91:24 92:8 95:16 96:11,18 let (9) 3:25 48:22 70:21 longer (8) 3:15 5:2 7:11 8:22 175:22 77:12,15 94:1 96:12 127:5,22 129:18 130:16,25 kin00020824114 (2) 53:12 97:25 98:1,3,4,9,15,20 94:23 120:8 147:8 162:16 10:23 12:3 28:8 41:9 martin (80) 1:4,10,16,24 108:19,23 172:23 173:5,25 131:6 133:10 136:6,8 55:6 100:8,9 103:25 104:5,8 185:20 186:12 longish (1) 155:12 2:3,8,18,25 5:13 174:9,10,14 178:15,18 144:12 147:23 154:2 kin000208697 (1) 70:21 105:18,21 112:24 121:22 lets (33) 15:3 50:11 53:3,14 look (48) 3:6 15:3 19:8 6:12,15,16 7:17 11:9 179:3 155:20 174:5 176:23 kin00024929 (1) 101:18 122:5 125:11 127:25 59:6 60:14,18,19 61:5 70:2 20:22 27:6 28:14 36:3 14:2,7 15:1,23 16:6,15,20 involvement (3) 93:25 177:10 178:3,5 183:11 kin00024975 (1) 50:12 131:13 132:12,14 136:14 80:16 84:20 88:12 111:18 50:11 52:25 53:14 61:5,7 17:17 18:14 34:23 112:13 173:3 184:11 185:2 187:16 kin000249751 (1) 79:25 137:7,7 138:6 139:1 115:3 116:9 118:6 120:10 62:20,25 64:25 65:21 35:4,7,11,18 43:8,12,24 involving (2) 160:11,12 189:19 190:6 193:3 kin000249754 (4) 90:10 141:14 143:8,12 144:7 121:15 129:6 136:1 140:5 66:20 71:7 79:18 80:16,20 44:7,13 46:1,11,20 irrelevant (3) 8:18 169:5 joined (1) 1:6 118:7 122:21 142:4 145:4 147:3,6,8,16 142:3 143:15 144:10 146:8 82:11 83:1,20,24 85:16 47:4,11,14,20,24 48:5,25 170:9 joint (4) 89:17,18,19,20 kin000249755 (2) 63:12 149:13,16 150:6 152:15 150:13 156:6 177:8 178:3 88:12 90:7 111:18 116:9 49:3 58:1,9,12,15 61:23 irrespective (1) 54:22 joints (1) 118:15 91:12 153:2 154:18 155:7 158:23 180:11 183:4 189:12 118:7 120:22 122:24 100:4,8,19,22 101:2,9,12 isnt (30) 8:11 11:14 12:11 jon (4) 16:7,9,17 17:8 kin000249756 (2) 122:9 163:20 166:4,16 168:20,24 letter (26) 23:8 63:17 64:12 126:12,14,15 133:9 138:10 125:14,17 150:13,22 13:12 35:1,5,24 44:19 45:9 judgment (1) 166:5 157:17 169:6,20,21 170:17,19 81:10,11,17,21,24,25 146:11 176:14,20 177:8 151:2,7 159:21 160:4,8
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
165:4,13,19 170:7 66:17,19 72:5 94:21 160:2 161:20 162:17,19 nhbc (2) 129:13,21 old (6) 2:9 27:4,11,21 28:2 124:12,14 125:6 126:5 pe (11) 74:2 149:8,10,17 190:13,16,21,24 98:11,12,24,25 100:4 184:9 185:1 nick (32) 68:17 70:4 73:2,15 79:20 128:7 131:12,13 149:17 153:4 163:3,7,9,10,16,18 191:3,10,13,19 192:3,7,10 106:11 109:13,14 116:22 motion (1) 132:8 74:13 76:5,15 77:8,14 omit (1) 170:13 153:4,5 peak (1) 102:5 martins (7) 4:4 6:22 11:20 118:21 121:1 123:5,11 move (8) 9:9 20:22 60:19 82:21 86:16 97:18,20 99:4 omitted (1) 165:2 163:3,7,9,10,16,18,20,21 pecored (3) 149:10 12:10,23 13:10 17:21 126:6 128:11 130:20 97:13 109:2 136:19 137:11 102:9,25 106:14,15,16 once (4) 28:2 65:12 70:3 164:24 165:7,9,10,14,23 163:20,21 masonry (3) 32:11 33:5 142:10 150:11,16 159:24 180:11 107:13 108:13,14,23 172:14 166:7,14,16 168:5 179:3 pembridge (3) 84:12 88:18 40:24 160:6 164:10 165:1,9 moved (7) 9:3 26:12 58:14 114:20 117:8 124:19 127:8 oneline (1) 33:14 183:8 185:10 106:25 matches (1) 189:2 167:12 171:20 173:5 71:12 92:8,10,12 134:20,22 148:20 172:21 oneminute (3) 62:4,8,10 panels (37) 39:5 65:4,8,10 penultimate (3) 16:22 140:7 material (9) 10:10 17:3 184:13 187:16 190:23 movement (1) 58:7 185:24 ones (2) 67:8 113:5 74:2 80:6 84:13 88:17,25 188:11 19:5,14 85:10 102:10 191:3,18 moving (3) 18:2 38:17 nine (1) 23:6 ongoing (1) 17:17 89:6 102:23 113:11 people (6) 43:16 48:15 72:13 108:8,10 175:1 mightnt (1) 100:5 167:14 nipping (1) 58:23 onto (1) 30:1 118:10,19,21 121:1 122:16 102:21 104:3 153:18 materially (1) 39:4 mike (4) 180:15,17 181:1,2 mp (1) 81:3 nj (5) 85:11 86:8,16 onwards (1) 28:7 123:5,11 127:4,12 142:10 per (3) 61:18 63:21 75:3 materials (20) 2:1 31:1 millett (25) 49:4,6,8 58:1,20 mps (2) 81:6 178:10 148:16,20 open (3) 8:1 19:25 167:21 145:10,24 146:5 147:12 perform (25) 86:9 89:9 47:22 54:3,17 59:23 70:10 61:23 62:14,16,17 99:25 ms (16) 1:7,8 2:19,21,23 4:4 nobody (2) 59:3,4 operates (2) 3:8,9 148:1,4,17 149:9,11 158:2 117:22 118:4 125:7 126:6 71:16 76:16 80:13 85:2,19 100:5,6 101:13,14 125:22 6:19 21:8 35:20,21 43:3,11 nod (1) 49:21 operating (1) 27:25 165:15 166:24 167:9 177:1 148:19 149:9 153:4 158:20 86:17 87:10 88:15 92:11 150:9 151:8,9 159:25 44:16,17 45:22 46:1 nodding (1) 96:5 operations (2) 7:11 8:22 182:9 159:4,10 160:23 135:5,13,21 170:24 160:1,9 165:5,20,21 much (38) 1:16 2:8,18 5:21 non (9) 101:21,22,25 opportunity (3) 64:8 73:12 panelskingspan (1) 86:20 163:3,7,9,16,18,21 166:18 matter (5) 11:11 14:20,24 191:16 35:19 44:3,13 45:22 46:8 105:7,15 127:16 141:1,15 74:15 paragraph (56) 5:15 7:8 8:25 171:3 175:3,13 176:5,8 17:5 150:17 millimetres (1) 61:12 47:4,14 48:5 49:3,6,11,12 148:18 opposed (4) 72:3 134:1 9:21 16:22 19:11 21:4 27:8 performance (36) matters (7) 9:25 47:15 mind (4) 53:22 78:23 140:19 58:19 62:11 91:18,20 noncombustibility (1) 166:18 154:19 183:21 36:5 40:10 53:10,20 17:12,23,24 18:6 27:17 51:20,20 72:14 164:13,19 174:22 92:16 100:19 101:9,14 noncombustible (14) 53:7 option (2) 115:24 133:4 62:23,25 63:10 64:15,18 28:5 30:25 33:13 34:2,5 maximise (3) 119:24 120:12 mineral (6) 85:6 86:1 132:17 114:6 125:19,20 136:21 54:22,25 65:6 80:7 93:7 options (1) 173:4 78:21 79:24,25 82:23 87:3 38:15 39:5,17 40:1,4,16 180:2 134:13 156:20 160:11 150:22 151:7,9 160:21 99:19 102:1,2 118:11 oral (2) 64:5,14 90:7 91:11 101:17 108:2 42:4 89:4,7 90:18 92:23 maximum (1) 140:24 minimise (1) 12:20 165:19 178:8,21 179:8 125:10 134:14 139:1 167:6 order (17) 11:13,21 17:22 117:18 118:7 120:21 98:7 115:24 116:22 123:19 maybe (7) 97:11 98:23 139:7 ministers (1) 141:1 181:10 192:7 nondisclosure (1) 169:25 46:12 50:24 51:4 88:8 122:9,10,22,23,24 141:10 145:17,20 149:8,13 154:2,4,13 155:8 ministry (1) 55:14 muirie (4) 98:23,24 99:3 nonlimited (1) 85:1 110:1 122:19 135:1,11 123:8,9,24 127:14 131:7 152:21 158:7 165:8,17 mccarthy (12) 73:18 80:23 minor (2) 28:16 129:25 117:8 nonpartisan (1) 37:17 137:15 141:18 157:21 142:4,7 143:15 146:22 173:4 185:16 82:22 96:14 103:3,23 minute (1) 149:21 multiple (1) 74:1 noon (1) 62:4 161:12 167:1 180:2 147:7 152:20 157:4,16,18 performed (2) 114:14,24 117:10 136:6 140:10,16 minutes (5) 99:25 100:11 murrel (8) 131:23 183:12,15 nor (1) 164:1 ordinarily (1) 135:23 162:5 184:24 185:19 performing (3) 122:19 141:14,25 127:3 152:11 163:24 186:7,25 187:6,9 189:3 normal (4) 23:20,22 28:18,22 ordinary (2) 43:9 48:13 186:3,20,20 188:11 190:7 157:21 161:12 md (1) 177:14 misinterpretation (4) 8:2,17 murtagh (8) 73:18 82:21 normally (4) 27:9 72:12 organisation (3) 9:9 132:3,4 paragraphs (2) 3:6 7:16 perhaps (8) 6:8 11:5 18:12 mean (23) 15:13 24:24 12:1 20:13 96:9 103:3,23 117:10 103:9 127:13 organisational (1) 6:2 parallel (1) 141:5 74:4 82:12 92:14 116:17 51:1,8 66:12,13 90:19 misinterpreted (2) 14:17 136:7 141:25 note (5) 5:17 8:8 21:25 organisations (1) 3:17 pargeter (37) 46:19,21,24 141:20 91:14 97:8 99:3 101:25 39:7 must (8) 93:9 121:7 130:19 85:23 86:9 organise (1) 72:13 47:1 49:8 58:2,2,21 60:14 period (1) 34:13 123:22,23 124:1,3 125:5 mislead (3) 161:7 172:6,16 132:18 150:19 151:18 noted (2) 26:11 32:3 organising (1) 143:17 61:25 62:13 79:21 84:2 permission (2) 144:23 137:22 147:4 158:5 169:16 misleading (7) 20:11 34:21 155:23 191:8 notes (1) 84:23 origin (2) 129:2 148:22 85:15 86:14 91:6 95:5 187:14 177:4 187:22 189:10 38:23 39:5 40:3 91:17 myself (2) 46:5 118:5 nothing (7) 14:22 60:20 original (17) 7:1 12:25 22:23 100:10,12 101:4,6,15 permitted (1) 54:23 meaning (3) 9:2 20:3,19 159:19 myth (4) 126:17 146:14 64:21 98:2 107:21 131:1 23:16 24:6,20 25:23 26:15 115:4 125:14 139:9 142:6 perpetuated (1) 30:13 means (6) 138:25 147:5,6 misled (3) 159:14,17 160:10 147:23 154:12 179:18 30:13 31:10 42:6 44:21 150:16 151:3,4,10 158:14 perrior (1) 129:13 179:15,17,20 missed (1) 65:20 notice (2) 32:16 34:7 45:10 75:4 128:10,16 164:9 165:7 167:17 169:7 person (8) 8:4 15:13,15 N meant (7) 13:8 93:12 105:7 mistake (4) 7:9,14 9:15 noticing (2) 31:2 34:10 133:2 191:23 193:8 108:16 113:17,20 177:20
131:14 149:10 178:11,21 34:21 name (7) 16:13 21:16 24:9 notifying (2) 7:4 182:6 originally (7) 26:1 69:25 part (43) 6:13,22 7:20,22 9:9 189:1 measures (4) 12:19 13:3 mistakes (2) 41:13,14 50:16 144:21 177:13 noting (2) 116:13,16 70:13 109:16 132:13,14,22 10:8 13:13 16:17 20:15 personally (4) 96:10,11 18:10 189:1 mmmf (2) 85:25 86:1 179:24 nowhere (2) 13:25 17:2 others (8) 26:14 62:6 80:22 24:2 26:15 30:4,10 143:9 177:17 media (1) 177:11 mobile (2) 2:3 47:25 namely (4) 128:11,17 135:16 number (13) 17:14 18:25,25 82:20 136:7 154:3 171:25 45:2,4,21 56:18,21 63:4 perspective (1) 103:22 medium (1) 97:6 mode (1) 58:8 158:1 30:20,21 53:21 61:5 71:3 188:23 65:4 66:22 70:4 73:3,25 persuaded (1) 187:17 meet (8) 3:22 54:13 55:2 moment (12) 5:15 18:5 narrative (1) 135:17 73:8 97:21 98:5 158:9 otherwise (4) 76:12 121:8 85:24 105:21 110:19 persuading (1) 189:3 59:25 85:2 87:12 89:3 21:25 46:12 58:4 72:23 national (2) 22:16 62:3 177:13 137:4 138:8 112:21 113:17 117:11,23 pertained (1) 113:3 158:6 97:14 100:3 126:13 130:22 nature (2) 91:22 137:6 numbered (1) 118:15 ought (2) 1:17 17:21 118:22 121:2 122:24 135:2 pertaining (1) 112:8 meeting (11) 18:11 73:9 136:14 191:18 nb (1) 136:21 ours (1) 135:7 137:13,18 142:11 155:21 peter (7) 101:20 104:4 82:24 84:4,6 85:20 96:1,3 money (3) 92:16 93:25 nc (3) 127:11,15,22 O ourselves (3) 42:14 92:1 161:9 169:17 172:15 111:22,25 112:12 129:18 109:6 130:2 158:3 113:22 nearly (2) 143:22,24 153:1 173:17 130:10 meetings (1) 18:15 month (3) 83:16 176:17 necessarily (3) 99:24 135:24 objections (1) 73:11 outcome (1) 107:14 particular (8) 4:8 28:25 phase (1) 53:5 melbourne (1) 147:1 183:5 158:5 objective (4) 83:1 116:17,22 outcomes (1) 54:15 33:19 63:14 90:16 131:19 phil (4) 84:1,2 190:9,17 members (2) 1:7 46:5 months (8) 20:24 136:19 necessary (10) 13:20 19:20 159:1 outer (1) 123:17 150:11 189:17 phone (5) 2:4 48:1 97:1,2 memory (2) 51:2 57:24 143:22,24 144:5 175:23 29:5 40:16 45:17 46:13 observe (2) 62:8,9 outright (2) 133:23,25 particularly (8) 29:10 40:8 107:24 mention (8) 8:10 77:21 177:19 183:7 48:8 79:22 168:11 171:4 obtain (5) 37:24,25 38:9,11 over (25) 5:19 28:20 34:13 85:14 103:7 104:4 112:20 phoned (2) 95:11,11 78:19 90:23 126:23 168:16 moorebick (56) 1:4,10,16,24 need (41) 4:13 21:2 25:2 59:21 37:2 44:25 53:12 54:19 150:14 188:25 photo (1) 147:1 172:8,24 2:3,8,18 34:23 43:7 48:21 53:15 59:22 obviously (10) 69:12 74:14 61:11 70:6 79:20 80:9 parties (1) 36:23 photograph (2) 151:19,21 mentioned (5) 8:9 14:24 35:4,7,11,18 43:8,12,24 66:7,7 71:7 79:17 87:9 104:9,21 112:11 121:12 88:21 100:16 117:15 partly (2) 14:8 157:8 phrase (1) 179:15 56:10 94:22 148:1 44:7,13 46:1,11,20 88:16 98:18 99:13,17 135:5,6 152:24 174:4 118:18 124:15 129:21 parts (2) 9:3 25:21 phrased (1) 8:3 mentioning (2) 94:25 164:19 47:4,11,14,20,24 48:5,25 110:9 116:12 occasion (4) 50:7 52:10 134:10 135:13 142:6 party (4) 76:13 80:23 phyr000002997 (1) 36:5 mentions (1) 137:23 49:3 58:1,9,12,15 61:23 127:8,10,21,23 128:21 57:17 155:12 150:20 177:19 181:4 170:12,16 phyr000002998 (1) 37:2 mere (2) 121:4,17 100:4,8,19,22 101:2,9,12 130:18 134:19 136:17,18 occasions (1) 2:10 183:24 192:4 pass (24) 96:2 98:9,10,11,25 physical (1) 151:25 merely (1) 33:20 125:14,17 150:13,22 137:10 140:20 141:3 occupants (1) 54:10 overall (5) 9:22 13:7,8 90:18 99:13,14 102:5 104:2 pick (3) 19:11 60:18 173:13 message (5) 94:3 107:12 151:2,7 159:21 160:4,8 145:5,9 147:20 150:12 occur (3) 23:10 72:4 173:2 170:21 118:22 121:1,5,8,11 122:3 picked (1) 162:2 141:6 145:12 190:2 165:4,13,19 191:19 164:15 166:10 177:18 occurred (2) 14:11 37:21 overanalysing (1) 11:5 123:5,12 132:20 142:10 picking (1) 3:8 messages (2) 2:6 48:3 192:3,7,10 181:6 186:22 190:25 occurring (2) 12:21 13:9 overnight (2) 144:15,17 153:1 166:24,24 171:24,25 picture (3) 168:17 169:10 met (6) 19:23 24:15,23 more (46) 3:24 4:2,17 10:3 191:20 oclock (7) 100:1,14,20 oversight (1) 170:2 passage (8) 35:1 62:18 89:24 171:16 25:11 26:23 40:23 11:3 27:10,21 28:1 35:12 needed (15) 17:13 65:22 107:1,1 191:25 192:13 own (10) 9:8 17:5 34:18 155:12 158:11 161:16,23 pin (1) 136:17 metres (6) 29:24 80:10 37:8,12 43:5,21 44:8,14,17 66:19 71:25 99:1,12 104:5 october (5) 55:5,24 78:22 103:22 115:25 145:8 162:10 place (18) 7:1 12:20,24 13:4 135:13 140:23 141:10 45:15 51:25 61:13 91:15 109:8,25 135:2,4,7,9 166:5 156:18 172:9 147:16 164:10,11 172:22 passages (2) 61:25 62:14 28:20 29:13,20 36:7 42:6 189:9 92:12 98:3 100:4 190:12 odwyer (1) 133:10 oz (1) 127:13 passed (24) 90:12 92:16,21 65:14 66:16 67:19 75:22 mh (1) 86:23 118:17,20 119:9,10,12 needing (1) 99:14 offer (7) 3:16 5:2 6:9,12 93:9 95:4,15,16,17,20,23 77:16 80:3,4 82:24 108:21 P mhap (1) 86:23 120:25 121:18 122:1,15 needs (3) 141:1 177:20 178:9 37:6,8 141:6 97:12,21 98:2,8,13,13 placed (3) 10:3 31:23 45:17 mhclg (13) 54:1 81:3 123:4,11 124:13 137:2 neither (1) 80:11 offers (2) 14:7 18:11 pack (1) 152:4 109:1 137:5,8 168:13 placement (1) 31:13 136:10,15 138:19 140:13 142:9 145:2 152:21 never (10) 8:9 10:11 14:6 offersic (1) 73:9 packaged (1) 88:18 169:3 181:8,9 190:14 places (1) 8:10 139:5,11,15,21 153:17 154:14 158:7 162:23 29:12,19,19 30:6 94:3,21 office (1) 69:7 packed (1) 146:23 passing (3) 94:2 134:4 plan (42) 59:17 73:17,21 170:7 182:8 184:1 177:23 183:1 189:7 128:18 offices (1) 3:22 pages (4) 63:15 117:6 154:23 74:7,8,12,19 75:5 82:15 microphones (1) 48:12 moriarty (2) 21:9,10 news (1) 96:1 official (2) 95:14 190:16 158:14 174:24 past (1) 62:7 95:6,7,9 97:13 102:7 middle (8) 2:12 19:12 80:21 morning (22) 1:4,8,9,14,15 newspaper (1) 144:21 oh (11) 15:15 30:15 70:20 paid (2) 71:15 72:6 paul (1) 36:3 103:19 108:4,6 109:2,2 87:18,21 127:14 157:18 2:12,23 43:9 47:1,3 next (18) 1:11 5:11,14 46:20 75:11,25 96:7,25 105:4 pale (1) 21:16 pause (5) 58:11 67:7 150:4 110:18 114:9 115:25 173:25 48:19,21 50:1,3 51:16 61:8,11,15 73:14 94:16 109:19 125:19 132:4 panel (47) 1:6 38:24 46:6 161:4 171:17 116:19,23 117:2 midmay (1) 143:24 62:22 75:12 87:8 88:12 102:11 108:13 109:22 ok (1) 146:17 61:6,13 77:13 89:5,8,11 pausing (6) 7:12 27:1 81:4 121:4,9,19 124:13 midmorning (1) 43:19 107:5 131:3 181:3 136:19 147:19 155:11 okay (6) 43:23 46:9 75:15 102:8 108:5 118:15,18 83:9 86:1 174:13 132:7,16 135:10 146:5 might (39) 7:20 20:4 43:8 most (9) 36:25 54:9 62:3 178:4 185:19 186:20 106:17 112:4 184:23 119:17 121:14 123:17 pay (2) 72:13 114:8 148:22 168:10,11 172:10
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
176:7,10 179:4 180:1 pretty (3) 81:1 181:10 proves (1) 138:14 113:1,7,12,14,17,20 rainscreens (2) 133:24 recipient (2) 102:17,18 relies (1) 89:9 190:21 191:19 provide (9) 24:25 32:21 83:3 114:1,5,9,17,21 136:16 recipients (2) 105:6 111:6 relying (2) 78:2 93:7 planned (5) 69:25 70:13 previous (10) 2:10 31:3,6 99:12 109:7 137:8 144:2 115:2,16,21 116:3,8,16 raise (2) 2:15 49:1 reclad (4) 73:7 74:1 136:10 remain (3) 20:19 73:21 93:24 71:11 74:19 189:25 32:7 51:4 53:1 77:20 78:10 168:20 191:10 117:2,5 118:3,6 raised (2) 18:9 64:3 138:20 remaining (1) 39:10 planning (1) 139:15 114:22 161:19 provided (8) 39:18,23 45:7 119:3,8,17,23 ramkorun (1) 21:8 recladding (1) 134:21 remains (1) 20:7 plausible (3) 179:12,17,20 previously (9) 5:25 15:7 50:8 63:1,2 72:8 166:3 120:6,8,17,20 121:7,17,24 range (1) 3:10 recognise (1) 42:2 remember (41) 16:2,10,16 please (49) 1:20 3:24 40:20 53:25 64:3,5 67:9,13 providing (1) 51:18 122:8 123:21,23 rarely (2) 103:6,11 recognised (10) 10:17,19,21 25:4 31:2 34:9,14 53:4 43:20,24 44:3,18 47:11 138:2,9 proving (2) 166:17 167:5 124:4,10,16,23 125:3 rated (7) 55:11,13 80:6 11:11 13:5 14:12 18:4 57:21 59:9,13 61:25 62:13 49:18,21 50:11,12,15 printed (1) 35:4 provision (1) 36:15 126:2,9,20 127:1,18,21 118:9,10 156:21 164:15 36:13,21 37:15 66:6 68:14,17 76:17 82:4 59:7,14 61:5 62:21,23 prior (5) 10:5 11:11,20 21:10 provisionally (1) 116:18 128:1,9,16,20 129:6 rather (8) 12:21 54:16 64:23 recognising (1) 24:18 83:9,12 87:25 95:10 63:11 73:1 79:23 80:17 45:18 public (12) 41:20 85:9 131:11,13,17,21,25 68:9 93:6 124:8 173:24 recollect (1) 91:1 96:8,16 97:17 100:14 82:17 87:24 90:7 prioritise (1) 141:7 140:25 144:20 145:2 132:2,5,10,12,15,22 133:5 191:3 recollection (10) 66:23 70:3 104:15 105:1,13 107:24 100:13,15 118:6 130:9 priority (1) 141:17 172:12 186:23 135:9,15 136:1 rating (3) 10:13 163:2,14 74:9 91:2,6,20 103:16 110:14 111:5 113:8 114:18 133:9 140:15 142:4 private (1) 144:24 187:4,12,24,25 189:4 137:2,10,17,24 rationale (1) 54:18 106:2 112:12 144:6 115:9,16 182:1,5,10,13 146:8,20 148:3 150:18,23 privy (2) 170:12,16 publication (1) 34:18 138:1,5,8,16 re (5) 59:8 73:17 126:17 recommend (2) 102:14 186:24 151:10 154:10 157:16 probably (24) 2:12 27:5 published (3) 20:23,25 22:19 139:4,9,14,20,25 140:2,5 181:1 183:12 111:20 remembered (1) 91:15 158:13 173:9,12,13 176:21 48:6,17,20 53:15 65:19 pull (1) 140:20 141:14,17,24 142:2,23 reach (1) 16:25 recommended (1) 89:2 remembrance (1) 62:5 186:19 188:6 192:1,3 79:1,6,6,21 99:22 102:24 purely (2) 11:25 123:19 143:4,9,12,14 144:2,5,9 reached (2) 2:14 181:5 recommending (2) 111:21 remind (1) 62:14 pleased (3) 10:16,19,21 103:7 107:9 134:18 purpose (11) 38:25 39:2 145:15,19,22 146:1,4,8 reaching (1) 17:7 116:23 reminded (5) 66:3 67:5 plenty (1) 171:25 136:11,21 138:20 147:20 87:15 94:18 110:23,24 147:7,16,19 148:22,24 reaction (5) 5:23 6:5 23:7 reconcile (2) 123:7,12 69:6,12 188:7 plethora (1) 36:16 154:2 165:16 171:25 185:4 111:1 118:25 119:3 149:1,4,13,16,20 150:3,6 95:4,10 reconsider (1) 3:18 reminding (1) 87:19 pm (5) 100:23,25 150:24 problem (5) 12:9 13:17 120:17,19 151:19,22 read (35) 12:19 13:2 19:2 record (9) 37:8,16 72:2 remove (2) 33:3 147:2 151:1 192:14 48:14 125:16 138:23 purposes (6) 65:1 121:9 152:3,5,9,13,15,17 26:6,10,11 30:18 32:19 99:9,10,18 107:18 138:2 removed (2) 11:16 32:7 pointed (1) 10:9 problems (1) 129:23 147:17 155:15 184:12 153:3,10,19 154:5,8,18,21 34:15 35:14 36:11 50:19 172:18 repeat (4) 22:23 56:3 128:15 pointing (2) 136:10 138:19 procedural (2) 4:18 9:24 185:7 155:4,7,9,18,20,25 55:20 56:1,6 59:12 87:3,5 records (1) 71:14 167:7 points (1) 117:19 procedure (1) 2:9 pursue (1) 99:2 156:5,25 157:11,16,23 115:8,8 122:23 recreate (1) 4:9 repeating (1) 45:20 policy (2) 27:9,20 procedures (5) 17:11,15 pushing (1) 117:3 161:22 162:5,10,14,24 123:1,23,24 144:21 158:13 red (8) 66:25 67:12 replaced (4) 10:23 11:7 political (1) 83:8 30:12 38:6 39:14 putting (6) 2:20 11:18 41:7 163:5,8,12,22 161:15,18 162:6,10 166:14 68:6,16,24 82:17,24 21:11 128:6 politically (1) 133:17 proceed (5) 102:14 121:24 174:15 189:4 164:1,6,8,13,19,23 165:3 171:21 176:12 184:21 112:21 replica (1) 55:14 polyethylene (1) 85:7 111:20,23 112:1 121:3 166:6,12,22 167:7,17,25 186:21 redo (1) 25:22 replicated (2) 118:14 122:13 Q pool (1) 113:2 proceeded (1) 74:17 168:2,9,15,24 reader (7) 19:19 20:2,18 reevaluation (2) 24:5 25:6 replied (5) 14:25 15:12,16,22 poor (10) 87:22 89:4 92:23 proceedings (3) 43:16 48:9 q (554) 4:11,22,25 5:10 169:5,7,13,15,25 32:21 33:15 35:13 41:4 refer (17) 4:5 33:15 63:13 63:25 98:7 110:1 114:12 115:23 192:11 6:5,11,15,18,21 7:20 170:5,11,16,19,21 readers (1) 33:7 78:6,9,15 79:5,9,11,13 reply (5) 15:17 16:1 64:1 116:22 144:23 173:4 process (15) 4:14,21 5:5 10:8 8:4,8,13,19 9:7,11,14,18 171:5,11,20 readership (1) 20:5 90:13 101:17,22,23 106:18 131:3 144:17 poorly (15) 8:3 86:9 117:22 17:17,17,25 27:25 39:20 10:25 11:9,18 12:4,9,13,23 172:4,8,14,20,24 173:2,8 reading (5) 25:17 47:12 108:7,13 report (29) 26:24 28:1,2 122:19 126:7 157:21 44:20 45:1,5,9 171:9 180:9 13:10,17,21 14:2,10,19,24 174:17 177:2,4,7 159:8,13 160:9 reference (10) 16:25 17:3 29:14 36:4 55:18 61:4,5,18 158:20 159:4,10 160:24 processes (4) 17:15 44:25 15:3 16:11,19 17:5,9,20 178:14,19,23 reads (1) 12:18 29:14 57:10 79:4 81:9 63:20,22 71:3,4 78:4 79:7 161:12 175:4,13 176:5,8 45:14 68:21 18:4,17 19:7 20:15,22 179:2,6,8,11,17,22 ready (7) 2:21 76:17 83:14 170:13 178:23 179:2 90:16 98:15,19,21,25 portrays (1) 177:22 produce (1) 115:23 21:14,20,25 22:7,11 180:6,11,21,24 101:10,13 146:23 151:2,8 referenced (1) 10:5 99:7,11,13,14 155:25 position (13) 32:8 37:12 45:5 produced (3) 77:5 81:18 23:2,6,17,22 24:7,22 181:13,15,20,22 real (2) 185:12,12 referred (8) 56:16 63:17 156:22,23 157:1 181:23 52:11 130:12,19 143:8 157:1 25:7,15,24 26:10,18 27:6 182:1,5,12,16,21 realise (1) 170:6 78:18 83:11 105:14 131:22 reported (1) 104:9 155:23 170:21 177:2,3,4,5 product (77) 3:2 19:1,14,18 28:8,18,23 29:8,16,25 183:1,4,21,23 reality (1) 167:17 154:15 190:18 reports (9) 23:21 26:9 positioned (1) 178:2 22:3,15 26:6,15 30:9,15 31:6,12,18,25 184:15,18,24 185:6,9,19 really (16) 16:10 52:25 68:6 referring (8) 40:20 56:18 27:10,20 39:22 42:21 43:1 positioning (1) 133:12 27:15,15,23,25 33:2,23 34:5,16 36:3 186:6,12,15,18 91:13 92:20 94:7 98:1,3 106:16 131:19 141:14 85:8 187:17 poss (2) 127:11,21 28:3,5,12,14,20,25 29:24 38:8,12,17,23 39:4,8,19,24 187:5,8,16,21 188:3 103:24 121:3 153:2 165:13 167:3 168:15 183:19 represent (2) 39:17 177:24 possession (2) 38:4 191:7 32:5,10 33:3,14,17 34:1 40:5,8,14,21 41:7,10,18 189:3,12 190:21 191:2,12 166:21 171:23 179:14 refers (6) 30:21 82:23 representation (1) 33:13 possibilities (1) 12:20 36:12,19 37:1,11 38:16,22 42:1,9,13,16,24 45:8 49:11 qualification (2) 35:1,12 180:6 101:24 115:9 185:25 186:2 representative (7) 28:5 possibility (3) 12:3 13:8,23 39:12,16 41:21 42:11,16 50:5,11,15,19,22,24 qualified (1) 18:23 reason (21) 7:17 24:2 26:16 reflect (2) 54:7 74:4 157:13 159:16,24 160:5 possible (6) 15:2 33:12 37:1 54:24 70:17 114:14 51:2,8,12,17,19,23 quality (3) 36:14,16 37:1 33:15 56:9 61:17 62:2 reflection (1) 54:8 162:23 177:15 110:18 140:22 141:4 115:14,17 117:22,24 52:1,4,9,15,17,20,23,25 question (72) 10:22 12:23,24 63:21 94:9,20,20,24 refresh (2) 57:24 70:3 representatives (1) 48:7 possibly (12) 30:14 35:13 119:4,20,22 124:14,15 53:10 56:4,8,16,22 13:10,13 14:4 99:7,15,15 171:5 172:8,10 refreshment (3) 51:2 53:1 representing (3) 11:9,19 13:5 97:1 102:24 105:4 125:8 126:5 131:12,16,19 57:1,3,5,8,14,17,23 58:25 15:7,10,13,19 17:11 23:23 179:23 188:13,18 66:23 represents (1) 88:20 127:25,25 144:1 149:22 133:3 134:18,21 59:3,5,12,20 60:3,9,14,18 43:23 44:17 45:8 49:16 reasonable (2) 27:16 30:13 refurbishment (1) 80:14 request (12) 5:12 23:6,11 154:7 174:2 186:17 137:16,19,23,24 138:4 64:25 65:7,12,16,24 56:3 60:22,25 61:3 62:16 reasons (4) 9:8 12:5 40:13 refusal (1) 6:19 54:6 83:18 148:3 188:5 potential (10) 14:16 83:2 141:5 143:3 147:14 152:25 66:2,6,9,11,15,22 64:15 69:16,17 75:23 85:3 refusing (1) 117:23 190:13,15 191:8,9,12 85:22,23 93:2 136:15 162:4,22,22 164:5,15 67:5,9,14,18,22 68:11,23 78:9,11,13 90:22 93:8 reassessment (2) 23:15 24:5 regard (2) 5:4 35:25 requested (3) 45:4 69:20 137:1,2 140:1 158:21 165:18 166:3,3 167:3,5 69:3,5,16,21 70:2,16,21 94:16,19 114:5 117:25 reassurance (2) 36:15 39:16 regardless (2) 57:5 135:20 130:2 potentially (4) 125:1 153:17 168:22 185:15 71:9,14,20,22,24 120:8 127:5 128:15 130:10 reassures (1) 36:22 regards (2) 130:6 131:4 requests (5) 51:23,25 52:1,6 183:3 185:8 production (3) 27:12 28:3,17 72:1,11,17 74:16,23 150:11 158:16,17,23 recall (63) 14:21 27:5 34:25 regret (3) 24:19 41:13 58:5 56:10 power (1) 36:19 products (14) 37:6 53:7 80:6 75:7,10,12,16 159:2,8,13 160:15,21 59:15,17,20 60:3 64:6 regs (1) 89:3 require (1) 45:3 powerful (2) 184:9 185:1 89:3 93:7 99:20 123:19 76:2,7,12,19,22,24 161:1,3,9 167:7 169:16 65:14,17 66:16 67:3 regulations (7) 3:13 4:14 required (6) 30:24 34:17,20 powers (2) 91:2,6 124:9 125:24 135:22 77:2,4,8,12,15,19,25 173:17,21 69:13,24 70:1,20 76:10 5:4,8 22:17 80:9 133:19 84:1 135:1 177:16 practically (1) 130:1 156:15 158:2 167:23 169:1 78:6,9,19 79:3,9,13,16 174:3,6,8,10,12,14,24,25 77:14 78:7,17 83:11 87:15 regulatory (1) 52:12 requirement (2) 24:25 practice (2) 54:16 187:22 professional (1) 18:24 81:9,14,17,20,24 82:4,11 175:6,10,17,20 176:2,7 91:12,19,23 92:10,13 reissue (7) 10:8 13:18 22:22 188:17 practices (2) 17:11 36:24 programme (6) 9:23 12:14 83:14,24 84:8,14,17,19 179:23 180:6 187:5 188:9 94:6,10 95:13 96:3,25 23:13 24:3,15,24 requirements (9) 19:23 pre (1) 73:23 74:20 84:10 88:10 117:12 86:4,16,23 87:1,17 88:2,5 questioning (1) 64:6 97:23 105:4,4 106:15 relate (1) 68:11 24:14,23 25:5,10 31:19 prebooked (1) 109:11 progress (2) 31:19 145:9 90:2,4,6 questions (26) 1:18 2:20,22 107:9,17,23,24 109:13,19 related (8) 68:25 69:1,3,4,18 54:14 89:3 158:8 precedes (1) 35:1 project (3) 7:10 8:21 80:14 91:3,5,9,11,18,20,24 35:23 43:4,5,13,17,21 111:23,25 115:19,19 83:2 123:16,17 reread (2) 24:16 26:4 precise (1) 15:25 prompt (1) 74:9 92:2,4,8,14,22 44:8,14 45:23 46:3,23 124:22 132:11,11 150:2,5 relates (5) 30:23 33:16 63:3 researching (1) 113:5 precisely (3) 104:25 166:22 propagation (1) 144:25 93:3,9,15,19,23 49:5,7,15 53:21 55:21 152:12 154:3 170:10 174:2 162:10 176:18 reserved (1) 73:6 169:22 proper (2) 30:6 40:3 94:7,13,15,19 64:3,3 158:9 161:16 175:19 178:18 186:4,7 relating (12) 24:20 38:1 residential (1) 54:4 predecessors (1) 3:14 properly (4) 38:15,18 45:18 95:4,8,18,21,25 191:17 193:5,11 187:1,5,7 191:9 43:25 56:1,5,12,24 57:11 resistance (2) 33:17 34:1 prefabricated (1) 148:2 112:23 96:5,8,11,14,16,19,23 quickly (3) 89:13 148:16 recalled (6) 46:19 78:24 79:2 59:16 83:22 100:16 112:18 respect (3) 27:17 39:25 52:5 preliminary (1) 90:15 properties (1) 73:8 97:3,6,14,20,25 98:4,14,20 191:20 94:3,12 193:9 relation (8) 22:1 26:13 28:11 respected (1) 36:21 premier (1) 74:1 proposal (9) 70:8 74:13 99:3,6,14,18 101:25 quite (18) 9:11 34:25 35:4 recalling (1) 46:22 32:3,19 49:24 63:9 64:14 respective (1) 189:5 preparations (4) 50:24 75:21 85:21 88:11 133:19 102:2,17,20 68:14 69:16 76:10 92:20 receipt (2) 11:11,20 relationship (5) 3:23 4:9 respects (1) 69:18 51:1,12,17 135:12,14 189:14 103:2,10,15,21 95:12 107:10 114:5 137:12 receive (3) 45:3 111:21 5:17 6:1 191:2 respond (2) 74:4 130:13 prepared (2) 43:4 66:20 proposed (7) 60:4 87:22 104:6,12,15,23 138:25 158:11 164:6 165:5 117:9 release (1) 85:11 responds (2) 5:14 130:16 preparing (3) 76:20 78:23 89:22 114:24 115:17 105:1,5,9,13,17,21 188:8 191:9,16 received (8) 3:13 4:25 17:21 released (1) 47:6 response (16) 4:8 5:23 7:7 177:12 117:12,13 106:1,7,12,17,21,25 quote (1) 36:9 18:13 83:17 96:1 128:1 relevant (9) 29:10,17,18 12:17,21 13:4 18:16 45:4 present (2) 22:4 32:6 proposition (1) 155:5 107:4,8,12,16,18 quotes (1) 36:11 184:15 37:24 55:25 56:5 166:1 54:5 112:12 130:24 149:21 presentation (1) 73:22 protecting (1) 118:18 108:1,10,13,16,19,24 receiving (3) 2:6 48:3 111:11 168:24 169:8 153:20 161:10 178:3 R presented (1) 162:24 prove (7) 79:14 93:17 135:7 109:1,5,11,16,20 recent (1) 173:10 reliable (4) 93:6,11 121:9 183:16 presenting (1) 171:13 169:24 171:19,22 172:2 110:7,14,17,22 r2c (1) 188:16 recently (6) 43:6 50:20 124:12 responses (3) 16:6 52:1,6 press (1) 125:12 proved (4) 78:1,12 79:10 111:3,9,15,17,25 railing (1) 61:12 126:10 136:2 151:24 reliably (2) 137:19,23 responsibility (2) 26:7 38:4 presumably (1) 107:4 121:12 112:3,5,7,13,17 rainscreen (2) 19:22 139:6 186:14 reliance (1) 36:8 responsible (8) 4:19 5:8
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
21:4,21 24:10 113:8,17,21 rwhoneycomb (2) 130:21 15:19 16:19 17:9,20 19:7 separate (4) 30:24 64:7 67:4 sir (57) 1:4,10,16,24 2:3,8,18 specifications (1) 28:7 52:15 81:1 88:2 145:16,19 rest (1) 127:10 131:8 21:14,16 22:12,13 24:7,22 170:8 34:23 35:4,7,11,18 specifics (1) 56:15 147:19 151:19,21 161:23 result (22) 8:2 9:5,15 12:17 ryan (6) 84:3 133:11 176:22 25:7,24 26:10,18,19 29:8 separately (1) 158:4 43:8,12,24 44:7,13 specifiers (1) 36:22 stock (2) 88:24 148:3 30:23 39:4 41:23 73:22 177:1 178:4,5 30:15,17,19,20 september (10) 53:19,23 46:1,11,20 speculate (1) 175:21 stop (5) 100:5,6,12 150:18 93:4 96:8,14,19 98:16 ryans (1) 176:24 32:1,1,11,20 33:5,23 34:5 129:8,14,17 132:8 155:21 47:4,11,14,20,24 48:5,25 speed (1) 110:9 191:25 107:10 114:12 147:13 37:3,19 43:5,20 44:2,8,9 183:7,10,17 49:3 58:1,9,12,15 61:23 spelling (1) 154:18 stopped (1) 151:11 155:3 170:1,2,2,22 172:11 S 45:8,22 46:25 47:1,3 sequence (2) 15:25 84:15 100:4,8,19,22 101:2,8,9,12 spells (1) 168:4 stopping (1) 150:10 resulted (1) 39:9 49:9,10 50:15 51:17 53:17 serendipitous (1) 73:12 125:14,17 150:13,22 spend (1) 92:5 stops (1) 140:20
results (15) 69:11 72:7 90:15 safe (3) 54:22 133:18 168:21 55:7 57:9 58:4,9,25 series (1) 57:18 151:2,7 159:21 160:4,8 spending (2) 92:15 113:22 story (1) 128:9 95:13,16,18 104:11 safest (1) 36:25 61:8,16 67:2 69:5,9,14,17 serious (14) 14:3 18:5,8,17 165:4,13,19 191:19 spent (3) 93:25 114:2,7 straight (2) 111:4 172:18 107:3,20 115:19 160:10 safety (9) 18:5,8,18,22 70:7 71:22 72:5,11,18,24 37:23 38:9,12,14,17 192:3,7,10 spite (1) 89:9 strategy (8) 105:19,21,21 166:15 171:6 181:7 187:11 54:10,15 93:6,11 140:25 73:2 74:4,16,23 75:1,20 39:8,20 40:8,10 129:23 site (1) 36:9 split (2) 113:11 114:3 106:3 137:4,13,18 155:22 resume (5) 43:19 46:14 same (38) 37:16 102:24 76:1,5 80:17,21 82:18 seriously (1) 170:23 sits (1) 53:16 spoke (3) 16:8 69:7 140:18 stream (1) 188:24 100:13 150:18 191:25 103:1 110:24 113:10 83:25 84:8,17,19 86:23 service (2) 3:16 5:2 sitting (2) 58:3 162:15 spoken (4) 3:20 16:17 17:8 string (5) 72:23 74:3 146:9 retaining (1) 34:21 114:16 116:9 118:25 88:9,22 92:24 94:19 services (1) 37:9 situation (4) 4:16,18 51:3 149:5 175:11 retention (1) 73:25 119:25 120:7,8,13,18,19 95:8,18 96:23 98:14 99:6 session (1) 87:7 23:20,22 spokesman (1) 179:11 strongly (1) 166:8 returning (1) 49:13 122:21 127:3,10,21,24 100:19 101:6 102:17 set (15) 26:25 37:3 54:14 sixmonthly (1) 29:2 sponsor (1) 187:14 structural (3) 11:3 86:6 reveal (5) 78:15 162:25 128:6 130:4,16 134:8 103:15,21 106:12,17,21 55:3 64:15 88:10,17 90:13 size (1) 31:13 spread (1) 23:8 89:10 163:5,13 164:1 137:20 140:7 144:19,22 107:9,18,18 112:8,14,18 121:3 156:8 159:15 sizes (2) 102:9 145:10 spring (1) 53:8 structure (1) 10:2 revealed (3) 42:21 43:2 145:5 146:19,21 147:1,3 113:7 114:16,17 116:14 167:18,19 175:7 180:6 skid (1) 146:24 sr0894 (1) 61:6 struggle (2) 92:20 121:11 185:9 154:12 164:6 167:18 171:3 117:11,15 120:6,10,16 sets (3) 37:5 90:14 117:11 slab (1) 61:7 stability (1) 89:11 struggled (2) 119:21 121:15 revealing (2) 171:14 172:4 172:10 188:4 122:9 125:3 126:18 127:3 setting (3) 76:16 93:25 173:3 slightly (3) 11:5 45:8 150:16 stackbond (1) 185:25 struggling (3) 92:11 152:25 revenue (2) 188:14,24 sample (3) 61:10 85:11 129:11 130:9,23 131:13 seven (1) 19:11 slip (2) 185:20 186:12 staff (2) 9:24 145:4 183:16 review (18) 25:24 32:17 182:15 132:5,10 133:22 134:11 several (3) 8:10 64:2 181:4 slogans (1) 36:10 stage (15) 8:8 12:17 13:19 studies (1) 129:22 39:8,10,20,21 44:20,21,22 sanction (3) 42:22 44:22 135:16 136:4,7 137:17 shake (1) 49:21 slot (21) 70:9 73:3,20,23 23:10 28:10 43:14,20 style (1) 35:8 45:1,4,9,9,21 64:8 76:19 45:12 138:17 140:12,14 141:12 shall (2) 125:12 157:16 74:11,12,18 75:2,5,21,24 59:12 74:10 85:13 115:13 subject (21) 19:8 51:9 53:6 83:8 181:3 satisfaction (2) 29:20 36:19 147:9,13,21 148:6,12,16 share (6) 86:19 97:20 188:2 85:18 88:14 90:20 92:9,9 118:3 151:16 174:19 71:6,11 73:17 74:6 84:9 reviewed (7) 5:9 24:12 satisfied (1) 18:16 149:5,20,24 151:4,14 190:23 191:4,6 102:11 109:3,11,22 116:18 178:15 101:21,22 111:5 126:17 34:10,13 45:18 64:5 83:6 satisfy (7) 19:21 59:24 70:11 152:5,9,10 153:11,19,20 shared (1) 91:25 slots (3) 76:1,5 85:17 stages (5) 22:4 32:6 40:6 128:23 133:11 134:4 revised (3) 11:12,21 40:8 85:19 87:11 88:16 117:22 156:7,10,17 157:22 160:6 shed (1) 187:13 slow (3) 40:14 41:8 42:2 53:3 68:15 144:12 155:10 174:19 reynobond (3) 37:21,22 38:2 save (2) 73:12 74:15 173:17 174:13,25 175:6 sheets (1) 146:18 slowly (1) 53:3 stakeholders (1) 36:17 177:9 183:12 189:14 rh25 (1) 118:12 saw (16) 23:7 31:13 76:21 176:2,21 177:2,7 178:12 shes (2) 132:4,4 small (5) 33:11 34:9 35:5 stamp (1) 41:20 subjected (3) 52:20 158:7 rhetorical (2) 94:13,19 80:16 82:13 92:2 101:18 179:24 180:24 183:9 184:5 shipped (2) 71:17 163:18 73:12 158:4 stance (1) 130:5 177:11 richard (25) 63:17 96:20,22 103:2 105:23 117:16 188:1,3,11 189:20 shop (1) 146:20 smallscale (1) 78:2 stand (2) 35:12 77:4 submit (3) 79:8 81:13 135:7 101:19 104:6,9 131:18 147:9,10 155:25 seeing (3) 105:14 115:19 short (10) 41:11 43:4 44:5 smiley (1) 145:6 standard (7) 35:8 37:5 submitted (3) 67:1,13 68:8 105:2,9,18,25 106:2 159:3 163:9 192:8 46:14,17 48:15 100:24 smoke (2) 22:4 32:6 141:19 158:3,6 160:18 subsequent (2) 6:9 7:16 111:15 129:17,18 156:1,1 saying (28) 4:25 9:17,19 seek (4) 4:15 18:2 22:24 128:9 150:25 155:13 socalled (1) 54:25 162:22 subsequently (1) 14:12 173:11 174:4,17 177:11 11:14 13:4 14:5 40:23 98:17 shortly (4) 64:25 82:12 95:8 sold (1) 182:22 standards (5) 41:11,19 54:13 substantive (1) 11:3 178:1,7,23 179:7 180:6 49:20 56:21 64:20 68:25 seeking (6) 9:18 33:2 75:16 189:22 sole (1) 141:20 184:6,7 substitute (1) 189:25 richards (1) 177:13 69:3 111:25 124:4,6,6 139:20 146:4 158:1 should (24) 12:4 19:5 22:25 solely (1) 69:1 start (12) 2:16,24 49:1 56:11 succeed (1) 141:8 rid (1) 145:6 127:22 130:14 139:12 seem (1) 132:9 32:18 36:7 38:21 45:5 47:7 solicitors (1) 66:12 58:15 66:19 79:23 102:12 succeeded (1) 109:6 rig (12) 55:14 69:10 73:3 155:1,2 167:15 172:1 seems (2) 45:20 129:21 49:12 103:24 112:14 solid (1) 156:19 103:13 109:23 132:19 success (3) 97:18 99:10,18 108:17,24 116:18 123:20 179:25 184:11,13,16 185:2 seen (28) 15:7,8 114:2,6 123:24 126:23 solution (2) 130:15 140:24 147:21 successful (9) 93:4 94:4 124:20 125:2,4,23 181:5 scale (13) 60:1 83:5 87:9,12 71:9,14,18,20 82:15 92:19 127:1 148:3,4 166:14 solutions (1) 73:7 started (5) 65:21 69:13 96:19 99:8 126:24 168:16 righthand (1) 61:14 119:21 129:24 140:23 105:10 112:3,10 117:7 169:16 170:25 178:11,16 somebody (2) 58:21,23 94:15 112:21 182:4 170:1 171:15 172:5 rightly (1) 188:8 141:10 156:12,13 158:4,8 124:21 128:21 129:4 188:10 somehow (1) 187:16 starting (2) 37:22 81:5 sufficient (2) 29:23 39:15 rights (1) 85:9 173:23 149:19 151:22 152:4 shouldnt (2) 138:6 185:12 someone (5) 13:23 starts (9) 22:12 53:16 70:5 suggest (8) 5:22 9:2,14 13:2 rigs (2) 108:20 185:24 scales (1) 121:15 155:20 157:18 163:8 show (21) 53:11,16 60:14 142:18,24 155:3 177:18 80:24 82:16,18 111:4 14:22 43:17 94:7 136:23 ring (1) 107:13 scenario (7) 8:14 20:13 38:7 168:12 171:12 175:23 66:22 67:6,14 70:24 72:10 something (21) 19:9 27:6 129:12,12 suggested (2) 18:15 40:25 risk (7) 18:19,21,23 22:15 87:25 88:3 159:10 175:8 186:6,9,13,17 74:9 75:18 126:10 127:1 31:14 36:3 81:12 93:4 stated (4) 10:12 18:21 26:24 suggesting (8) 12:13 13:3 98:6 116:21 177:25 scenarios (2) 39:3,3 sees (1) 88:7 130:18 133:6,15 134:7 98:11,12 138:5,17 40:9 93:19 121:17,25 139:9 rivet (2) 38:22,25 schedule (2) 72:19 75:4 select (57) 59:9 78:4 80:18 139:17 142:12 154:9 149:18,25 150:3 151:15,24 statement (81) 7:15 154:22 190:22 rm (2) 84:11,14 scheduled (5) 48:22 49:25 81:3,10,13 82:1 91:17 158:10 180:13 152:22 176:3 180:18 182:4 8:1,11,15,16,23,24 10:25 suggests (1) 54:14 robust (11) 45:15 118:17,23 127:16 130:21 131:8 110:2,5 128:24 153:18 showed (6) 15:17 16:1 68:5 187:18 188:24 19:9 20:10,14,16 21:1 suit (1) 89:6 119:9,10,12 121:2 122:15 scheme (1) 5:20 155:11 156:3 158:18 69:10 89:23 112:22 sometimes (1) 100:9 22:21 23:12 26:11,13 27:7 suitably (6) 18:23 19:3 124:13 126:3 142:11 schemes (2) 5:21 6:4 160:22 162:25 163:1,13,22 showing (7) 71:15 72:5,14 somewhere (1) 182:18 30:1,5 34:22 38:24 40:12 20:2,17 41:15 115:23 robustly (3) 119:5 125:7 scope (1) 31:20 164:1,4,8,14,20,21 165:22 132:12,15 139:24 151:12 soon (4) 46:14 104:15 50:8,13,19 51:6,8,10,13 suited (1) 177:23 134:1 scrap (1) 134:22 166:6,12,23 167:8,20 shown (16) 15:11 42:9,14 107:14 110:18 53:11,13 55:24 56:2,17,18 summarise (1) 21:3 rockwool (8) 55:11 61:7,12 screen (16) 47:8 53:13,17 168:4,10,17,24 169:8,18 57:9 60:20 62:1,18 72:18 sort (7) 48:16 76:16 82:8 57:10 62:20,23 63:1,16,19 summarised (1) 37:18 118:11 131:9 154:14 69:23 70:24 83:24 84:22 170:14,23 171:7,16 75:18 78:19 87:2 88:11 102:23 119:15 120:2 187:3 64:9,11,16,19 65:23 66:21 summarising (1) 87:23 156:20 186:1 87:5 116:11 122:20,25 172:5,6,16,25 173:15,21 142:5 145:24 151:10 190:5 sought (3) 22:20 36:21 67:8 70:23 72:19 75:13 summary (3) 7:3 32:21 33:14 role (3) 21:11 52:15 176:24 136:3 140:15 148:12 175:3 176:19 177:9,12 shows (3) 71:10 136:23 172:18 76:20 78:21,23 79:4,17,24 summer (2) 53:8 56:24 ron (1) 154:19 183:9,25 178:16 179:12 181:17 169:11 sound (2) 48:14 132:10 90:8,9 91:11 97:16 101:17 sums (1) 181:10 room (15) 1:21 2:4,5 47:18 scroll (4) 117:6 129:15 182:7 189:23 side (1) 61:14 sounds (1) 191:23 112:7,10,15,23 113:2 supervised (1) 21:8 48:1,8 58:3,6 59:1,3,4 140:12 178:4 selected (10) 56:19,20,21 siderise (4) 61:10 89:2 source (3) 117:20 144:16 118:6 122:8,21 123:9 suppliers (2) 144:23 145:6 84:14,15 127:12 129:22 scrutinise (1) 38:18 113:2 114:23 164:2,24 118:12,13 145:23 142:3 152:20 157:17 supply (6) 38:5 91:21 117:23 roughly (1) 110:15 sean (1) 21:9 166:7 167:1 168:5 sign (1) 31:8 sourced (1) 143:9 161:17,17 162:5,5 164:11 135:1 143:2 145:2 round (2) 125:16 143:21 search (3) 56:23 72:9 112:24 selfevidently (1) 185:11 signature (4) 21:18 50:15,17 spanish (1) 185:25 172:9 support (15) 5:21 36:8 41:24 route (44) 59:17,24 65:5 searched (2) 55:24 56:4 selling (2) 145:16,20 156:2 speak (4) 14:19 16:9,11 17:6 statements (16) 24:20 48:15 59:22 87:9 109:8 69:24 70:13,19 71:5 73:17 second (31) 3:7 6:9,11 8:20 send (2) 152:9 182:16 signed (4) 24:10 30:2,10 speaking (2) 58:21 94:15 25:13,13,16 26:3 40:1 128:13 134:6 135:16 74:6,11 75:5,14,20,21,22 9:20 10:24 16:22 21:6 22:8 sending (2) 105:13 150:3 45:18 speaks (1) 166:1 41:21 42:16,18 50:5 51:4 136:20 137:12 171:1,8,14 77:17,22 80:10 81:7 41:6 53:11,13 56:2,17 senior (2) 175:10 190:16 significant (3) 13:22 14:18 spec (1) 184:2 63:2 64:2 77:21 78:10 supported (2) 134:2 169:7 82:5,15 83:2,4 84:9 87:11 59:13 68:7,21 70:22 72:19 sense (5) 13:9 94:10 107:1 17:14 speciality (1) 36:23 123:13 supporting (7) 22:16,21 90:24 93:1 111:2 125:9 78:20 79:4 80:3 108:2 125:5 175:21 significantly (2) 5:18 45:15 specific (24) 12:21 13:7 states (1) 19:4 23:11 24:25 26:2 30:7 132:7,13,16,20 159:1,19 126:15 131:7 133:4 138:18 sensible (2) 43:8 100:4 signing (2) 24:17 79:3 17:24 19:22 20:13 22:22 stating (2) 7:23 18:19 156:16 161:8 168:18,20,25 173:4 140:10 172:9 180:24 sent (16) 7:7 16:1,5 64:12 signoff (1) 21:22 23:13,14 24:4,15,23 25:3,5 status (3) 5:19 6:2 67:17 supports (1) 134:3 187:3 188:1,16 190:1 183:10 81:25 90:14 95:12 106:21 silence (3) 62:4,8,10 26:23 30:23 32:11,25 stayed (1) 22:8 suppose (2) 26:16 100:10 routed (1) 146:17 seconds (1) 181:5 107:12 111:7,10 140:11 similar (9) 5:20 102:8 33:4,19 35:9,16 38:22 stays (1) 36:24 sure (20) 6:20 15:25 56:7,8 roy (6) 84:2 101:20 103:8 section (17) 21:5,6 22:12,12 148:16 154:5 181:17 131:12,13 177:3,4,5 188:5 40:20,24 stenson (3) 180:15,17 181:1 72:15 76:16 100:14 102:25 189:20 190:7,12 26:20 30:18,21 31:12 182:19 190:14 specifically (17) 4:22 19:24 step (2) 46:24 141:9 106:23 112:3 116:5 rren (1) 154:19 32:12,20,22,24 33:16 sentence (21) 8:20 10:18 similarly (2) 32:24 172:15 34:14 37:25 38:9 64:4 70:1 stepping (1) 37:20 137:22,22 138:25 144:7 run (3) 1:17 70:2 159:3 34:23 53:17 91:8 176:12 19:6,12 22:7 32:4,7,13 simon (1) 23:9 96:3 97:8,19 105:16 steps (2) 7:16 42:19 146:25 153:14 177:25 runs (1) 180:19 sections (2) 23:14 40:17 33:3,5,9 34:8 40:23 115:10 since (8) 7:1 12:24 17:15,25 106:15 110:5 141:16 sticking (2) 31:25 117:5 184:13,14 rv (1) 118:13 see (184) 1:13 4:11 122:10,23 123:1,7,24 22:18 42:6 112:11,25 149:15 187:1,7 stiffeners (1) 89:10 surely (4) 72:1 121:7 168:15 rw (2) 131:9 134:9 5:10,12,14 6:15,22 7:7,8 142:5 156:25 single (1) 19:6 specification (6) 27:14,23 still (18) 2:11 14:17,19 16:7 169:8 rwg2 (2) 136:18 137:11 8:4 9:18 11:18,23 14:22 sentiment (1) 33:10 siobhan (1) 133:10 28:19,24 86:6,11 20:8 29:11,25 41:14 48:17 surface (1) 23:7
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
surprise (5) 31:18,22 telephone (5) 96:23 97:6 174:18 175:3,12,18 183:1 186:9 187:18 188:1 46:7 65:20,24 75:7 77:4,15 underneath (5) 30:22 117:19 vital (2) 36:15 137:17 92:14,17 94:1 104:23 106:20 186:10 176:5,8 178:24 179:4 192:11 95:18 105:17 138:8 152:24 134:5 156:11,17 vitracore (59) 55:12 61:6,13 surprised (2) 6:8 132:10 telling (2) 138:15 165:3 180:12,16 theoretically (1) 190:25 162:14 163:8 166:10 170:7 understand (32) 6:5 7:20,23 65:9 85:12 108:8 114:11 surveillance (5) 27:13 tells (2) 175:2 178:5 181:1,11,15,16,20,23,23 thereby (1) 135:19 175:7 181:23 14:8 18:12 19:4 23:22 115:11,14,16 116:1,6 28:1,4,13 29:2 templates (2) 10:4 12:16 182:2,7,8,12,13,20 thered (1) 114:13 tomorrow (5) 49:25 191:22 29:18 33:2,18,25 35:14 117:20 118:1,4,10,18,21 suspect (4) 152:8 154:17,20 temps (1) 102:5 183:7,18 184:9,11 therefore (18) 12:3 19:19 192:1,8,13 49:16 55:21 58:16 99:14 119:4 121:1 122:16 123:5 163:17 ten (2) 143:24 144:5 185:1,6,21,22 187:2,11,14 27:3,19 64:16 79:3 80:8 tony (8) 84:3 133:11 111:14 128:1 131:18 125:6 126:4 132:17,23 suspected (24) 118:20 term (1) 72:9 189:4,14,21,23,25,25 118:16 119:3 132:24 176:22,24 177:1 178:4,5,6 145:11 149:10 150:21 133:14 134:19 137:19 119:4,18 120:15,25 terminated (1) 95:23 190:13,25 157:11,24 159:8,13 160:9 too (6) 125:14 146:1 153:15 157:1 162:11 139:22 142:10 121:10,10,13,21,23,25 termination (1) 45:13 tested (45) 26:22 30:19 165:13 166:14 177:23 178:8,20 179:8 191:23 169:9,11 179:14,15 184:16 143:10,22,23 144:13,16 122:6 123:4,10 124:7 terms (9) 13:10 18:22 32:10,25 33:4 35:17 54:12 theres (8) 51:25 58:7 59:3,4 took (9) 41:9 42:19 65:14 185:2 192:6 149:16 152:22 154:23 125:7 142:9 163:15 164:10 31:12,14 34:19 40:4,5 59:25 60:4,6 61:18 63:21 94:14,17 111:23 140:1 74:12 75:22 77:16 80:2,3 understanding (7) 5:19 163:1,14,23 164:2,24 165:1,22 166:8,20 168:6 42:19 158:6 70:17,20 80:11 87:12 thermocouple (2) 55:17 170:19 20:3,19 28:6,10 49:14 165:7,23 166:7,13 168:5 suspended (2) 29:7 45:6 test (484) 22:20 24:25 25:18 90:11,24 99:22 117:24 181:4 toothless (3) 42:10,14,19 178:10 179:3,19 suspension (1) 52:23 27:2,10,20 30:7,19,23,24 118:14,17 119:9,10 thermosets (1) 134:12 topic (9) 65:13 100:1,2 understatement (2) 122:1 182:3,8,13,17,22,23 183:8 suspicion (2) 121:4,18 33:8,23,24 37:9,24 130:15,19 134:20 135:20 theyd (6) 68:4 76:1,5,25 158:10 173:9 180:11 186:7 152:22 184:1 suspicions (3) 124:15 38:1,10,19,21 39:22 42:21 138:10 139:23 141:11 109:15 111:14 187:6 188:4 understood (6) 7:17 55:12 vitribondsic (1) 141:4 152:21,23 43:1 53:7 153:1 155:23 157:5 158:4 theyre (1) 106:25 total (1) 91:21 79:1 110:4 114:13 119:20 voice (1) 49:18 sustained (1) 181:6 55:4,7,7,8,9,13,17 57:11 159:23 162:7 164:17 thing (3) 77:3 164:6 178:8 towards (3) 70:7 83:24 undertaken (5) 27:3 65:4 vs (1) 154:13 swapped (2) 109:17,18 60:11,12,22 61:4,9,9 63:19 181:14 182:14,23 thinking (10) 56:22 93:3 167:14 77:22 154:24 155:18 swearing (1) 112:7 64:11,13,19,20,21,23,23,24 184:1,3,5 185:18 116:20 159:14 160:11 tower (9) 55:16 73:6,19 undertook (1) 77:12 W sweating (1) 143:20 65:9,14,17,21 66:3 testing (45) 27:17 53:6 161:24 169:18,21 186:9 74:11,14 80:14 108:21 unexpectedly (1) 93:3 swiftly (1) 112:24 67:4,5,19 56:13,24 57:20 59:16,22 188:22 122:14 129:9 unfair (2) 168:23 176:3 waiting (1) 107:9 switch (2) 58:8,17 68:2,2,5,7,7,12,13,16,18,19,21,21,2565:5 69:18 77:12,16 78:3 thinks (2) 16:4 43:13 toxic (2) 22:4 32:6 unfairly (1) 168:17 wake (1) 107:8 switched (1) 48:12 69:1,4,8,9,24 70:8,9,10,13 81:6 82:5 83:5 85:13 third (10) 8:24 19:9 21:1 track (5) 31:9 37:7,16 unfortunately (3) 3:14 5:1 wales (1) 163:2 swore (2) 62:22 75:12 71:5,10,15,17 87:10,15 93:5,10 102:9 27:7 142:7 143:15 146:22 112:22 138:2 65:15 wall (4) 40:24 73:3 89:16 symbol (1) 36:14 72:3,4,5,12,13,20,25 103:19,22 104:10,12 156:8 184:24 190:7 trade (1) 140:22 united (1) 157:14 118:16 synthetic (1) 118:11 73:3,3,20,22 74:11,18,19 109:14 111:13 115:12,16 thomas (1) 3:21 trading (2) 184:6,7 university (1) 117:12 walls (3) 32:11 33:5 54:3 system (94) 3:9 39:17 54:23 75:2,3,5,5,8,9,17,19,20,21,22,24 116:17 117:13 120:5,15 thorough (2) 44:20 45:9 tragedy (1) 55:16 unless (8) 7:17 19:4,22 27:21 wandsworth (1) 185:23 55:10 60:4,4,6,11,12 63:3 77:14,17,22 137:7 140:23 143:18,21 though (3) 31:22 181:20 train (1) 62:12 149:18 150:8 187:13,24 wanting (2) 4:22 145:1 70:10,17,19 71:11 81:7 78:1,3,5,6,12,16,20,20,24 144:16 155:14,21 172:22 191:23 training (3) 9:23 12:14 unlikely (4) 10:15 16:23 wants (1) 140:21 82:5 85:6,19 88:15 89:8 79:4,5,7,10,11,13 177:21,23 188:14,23 thought (27) 14:25 62:13 177:11 100:1 175:20 warrant (1) 33:21 90:11,18,19,20 93:5,10 80:1,2,3,4,12,12 tests (58) 22:20 29:21 53:2 67:11 82:7 87:7 95:2,2 transcriber (1) 49:19 unreliable (1) 185:10 wasnt (27) 14:10,13 23:5 98:6,22,23 99:3 106:4 85:10,11,18,21 86:11,17 55:3,15 59:21 63:3,9 64:7 97:21 98:23 107:7 114:10 transcript (7) 15:4 60:15 unrivalled (2) 37:7,15 31:3 67:11 75:8 78:18 111:1 114:25 116:19,24 87:23,23 65:2,3 72:16 75:14 80:1,4 121:15 147:11,14 63:13,24 173:12 174:24 unsafe (2) 54:24 135:24 95:23 104:19 116:6 119:9 117:23 118:8,13,16,21 88:3,4,4,10,10,14,15 84:25 85:1 92:19 105:19 153:7,8,12,17 161:3 176:13 until (9) 13:13 41:1 45:6 120:7 127:16 128:10 135:7 119:8,10,12 120:4,25 89:13,22 108:20 113:24 165:16,22 171:9 173:1 transparent (2) 164:21,22 57:14 136:20 137:11 153:1 137:24 141:25 142:21 121:5 123:4,11,15,20 90:15,16,19,20,20 114:13,18,19 115:7 118:15 179:16 189:24 191:3,6 treat (2) 6:3 43:19 181:14 192:15 148:22 154:16 155:18 125:4 127:10 91:12,20 92:5,8,16,20 119:20 122:13 129:2 thoughts (3) 17:5 95:22 treated (1) 31:18 upcoming (1) 85:17 162:19 165:25 166:22 132:7,13,16,19 133:18,20 93:4,9,25 94:2,4,22 134:7,12,13,16 135:17 97:20 tried (2) 128:6 139:5 update (1) 131:3 167:21 171:3,4 134:13 135:20 138:3,4 95:4,6,19 96:2,9,12,19 138:3 153:1 thouria (1) 1:7 true (11) 11:22 20:14 39:5 updated (2) 53:19,23 watching (1) 62:3 139:2 142:9 156:14 157:5 97:12,21 156:7,9,11,12,14,15 thousands (1) 34:12 50:22 91:13,14 uptodate (1) 23:11 watford (1) 73:4 158:5,22 98:8,15,16,19,24,25 157:12 160:11,12 168:20 three (9) 9:22 51:23 55:3 160:15,16,19 172:13,19 urgency (2) 109:25 110:13 waving (1) 58:15 159:3,4,9,11,12,18,23 99:7,8,9,20 101:21,22,24 169:9,9 173:5,23 175:25 100:11 120:22 156:9,13 truly (1) 169:11 used (22) 18:19 40:9 65:8,9 way (45) 5:22 9:13 13:2 160:18,20 161:7 162:7 102:5,11,13,15 104:13,15 179:18 180:2,4 187:11 157:12 158:13 trusted (1) 37:17 75:19 78:4 80:13 95:9 17:10,19,22 18:1 30:1 164:3,17,17,25 105:2,3,7,15,22 106:3,3 188:20 189:6 190:14 through (21) 1:17 15:21 truth (2) 13:12 170:21 115:22 122:13 134:20 41:11 42:14 46:8 48:13 166:9,13,17 167:4,5,10 107:10,14,20 108:11,17,24 testsmhclg (3) 59:8 80:18 24:11 34:6 37:8 42:1,25 try (9) 58:23 82:8 92:25 93:1 136:10 138:3,19 143:2 49:16 52:25 54:9 68:2 70:4 168:25 171:24 174:21 109:1,2,5,6,7,17,17,18,22,24 128:24 61:9 70:4 87:21 89:18,20 110:12 114:15 115:25 162:4,22 167:24 182:19 89:13 93:6,11 102:13 185:12 190:1 110:1,9,17,18,24,25 111:1 text (8) 31:10,14 32:19,24 100:2 130:1 133:16 149:24 122:7 136:15 185:10,12 189:8 104:24 109:24 110:8 systems (32) 37:6,16 112:9,19 113:3,4,9 33:15 35:14,15 82:17 151:14,24 152:6,7 182:5 trying (15) 11:6,25 30:1 useful (3) 46:6 87:7 180:7 119:25 120:13 127:24,24 54:12,12,22,24,24 55:1 114:2,3,7,8,11,12,15,24,25 thank (56) 1:16,24 2:8,17,18 throughout (1) 36:13 58:16 62:14 78:2,13 144:8 useless (3) 184:11 185:6,9 128:13 130:24 132:9 162:3 59:23 60:10 74:21 80:5,11 115:11,23,24 116:1,7,24 8:19 29:25 35:18,21 thrust (1) 64:22 169:24 171:2,4,19,22 using (20) 37:16 65:4 73:23 166:2,18 167:13,18 177:22 83:6 87:10 90:24 99:19,22 117:2,12,14 43:3,23 44:2,3,13 45:22,24 thus (2) 118:18 135:19 183:15 185:4 77:13 90:20 114:11 119:4 186:23 187:17,23 133:16 134:3,14 135:18,25 118:8,14,20,22,25 46:1,5,8,9 47:4,14,20 48:5 timber (1) 146:24 tuesday (1) 1:1 120:9 124:11 135:12,17 189:3,4,8,9,10 141:10 157:13,14 168:18 119:1,5,16,19,23,25 49:2,3,6,11 58:18,19,20 time (73) 3:15 4:12 5:1,25 turn (9) 55:6 63:11 84:24 136:16,24 138:9 139:5 ways (3) 7:21 9:22 17:18 171:2 172:1,3 187:3 120:1,11,13,18,18,24 59:5 62:11,17 11:25 14:15,20,21 125:15,16 135:15 136:14 148:17,24 172:2 183:8 weak (4) 42:10,15 86:5 188:17 121:2,3,11,11,16,19 100:19,20,21,22 15:12,22,25 16:12 17:25 139:4 155:10 189:7 124:12 122:11 123:3,6,8,10,16,20 101:9,12,14 111:3 115:2 27:1 28:23 33:24,25 34:7 twice (2) 117:7 123:1 usual (1) 1:17 weaken (1) 89:7 T 124:4,12 125:1,2,4,23 125:17,19,21 150:22,23 45:7,16 47:5 51:14 55:12 type (5) 3:11 26:6 35:5,12 utilise (4) 70:9 75:2 88:14 weakened (5) 117:14 127:23 tail (1) 142:15 126:3,6,22,24 151:7,9 160:8 165:19 62:19 66:23 67:17 68:9,23 153:18 89:5 162:8 178:24 179:18 taken (7) 7:17 18:10 34:8 127:7,11,13,15,16,22,23,24 192:7,9,10,13 70:20 72:2 73:15 76:3 typerobustnessgeometry (1) utilising (6) 73:20 118:21 weakening (2) 129:3 174:20 67:19 82:24 108:20 170:17 128:3,11,14,17,18 129:24 thanking (1) 49:12 77:19 82:5,7 85:15 85:5 120:25 123:4,11 142:9 weaknesses (20) 83:5 87:22 takes (1) 144:5 130:21 131:8,18 thats (107) 8:11 11:13,15,18 87:14,20 90:23 92:12,16 types (1) 165:15 97:22 98:5 119:15,16 V taking (6) 26:7 73:11 129:21 132:7,13,16,19,21,22 12:10,18 19:17 21:5,18 94:12 98:8 105:17 typical (7) 157:5,8 160:18 120:2,7 122:18 123:16,18 130:4 141:8 151:3 133:3,13,20 134:4,19,25 23:22,23 25:20 27:8 28:15 106:2,21,23 107:11 112:10 165:9,13,23 166:14 valcan (4) 117:23,25,25 125:5 157:20 159:2 talk (6) 24:11 43:24 100:15 135:11 136:19,20,25 29:22 42:23 43:11 46:7 114:10 116:21,24 126:17 182:3 161:11,24 162:1,12,21 U 150:19 178:9 188:25 137:3,5,8,12,14,21 50:10 51:9 52:8 53:14 131:20 132:24 133:7 valuable (1) 87:9 180:1 talked (2) 60:10 82:9 138:3,11,13,13 139:1 57:13,16 58:9,12 60:2,8 137:20 140:7 141:2,12 uk (9) 117:24 132:2,4 143:12 value (3) 98:19,24,25 web (1) 36:9 talking (12) 15:14 29:15 141:4,20,20 142:8,11 65:11 66:20 69:14,16 76:6 142:21 145:11 146:14 157:5,8 162:4 184:2 variant (1) 38:1 website (3) 37:4,19 41:12 111:12 123:14,15 124:7 143:10 144:2,20 145:1,12 77:18,24 79:12,15 80:15 147:10,24 149:22 153:8 188:13 variations (1) 129:25 wed (19) 74:21 79:7 92:19 139:18 149:14 161:21 146:2,5,6,18,19 147:12,15 82:9,24 83:14,20 87:16,17 154:12 157:14 158:14 ulster (7) 59:8 80:18 various (3) 5:21 88:22 93:1,2 95:6 104:19 110:11 162:9,11 178:25 148:9,18 149:2,8,13,25 88:1,3 92:7 94:7 99:12 170:12 176:25 187:9 116:19,25 117:12 128:23 177:18 113:5 114:3 120:1 121:6 talks (1) 146:25 150:1,6 151:15,17 152:11 103:19 108:10,12,13 timely (1) 42:18 189:14 ventilated (3) 86:4 89:17,19 124:25 150:15 152:23 task (1) 1:12 153:5,12,24 154:13,23,24 109:10 112:11 113:14,16 times (1) 177:13 ultimate (3) 42:22 52:4 version (8) 10:24 12:2 22:18 166:10 168:12 182:19 team (23) 21:7 65:25,25 155:3,25 156:8,8,17,18,22 114:5 115:1,15 116:2 timing (1) 153:23 113:21 28:8 31:3,8,15 32:8 191:11 66:2,5,9,11,12,14 157:1,2,5,7,7,25 158:8,19 121:6 122:7 123:22 title (6) 80:18 129:10 143:8 ultimately (2) 21:21 113:21 versions (1) 31:6 wednesday (1) 192:16 67:6,20,24 69:8 83:8 95:10 159:15,16 160:3,10,23 124:1,3 125:12 128:7 154:12 177:6 180:18 unable (2) 6:6 38:11 vertical (4) 89:11,15,17 week (8) 66:17 88:19 126:23 96:16 97:10 104:20 113:23 161:11,19,20,21,22,24 129:14 131:22 134:24 today (12) 1:6,10 49:24 unaltered (1) 27:18 118:13 133:12 140:6 146:19 124:24 153:23,25 174:5 162:2,9,12,13,15,18,20,24 137:6,16 138:14 139:12,23 50:25 51:5,20,21 62:4 unchanged (2) 27:16 28:7 via (5) 10:2 64:2 96:25 190:10,20 technical (19) 9:24 21:22 163:15,16,23 164:3,18,25 141:23 148:21 149:3 164:10 177:12 190:3 unclear (1) 4:17 117:20 156:1 weghorst (4) 84:2 101:20 22:24 23:1,3 24:11 29:3,4 166:1,2,2,9,13,15,25 153:6,22 154:3 192:12 unconnected (3) 9:10 11:2 victory (1) 31:14 189:20 190:7 34:16 37:6,13 48:15 52:12 167:3,4,6,10,10,11,17,18,22,22 155:15,16,17 157:15 todays (1) 1:5 12:5 video (3) 134:16 140:25 welcome (6) 1:4 44:7 46:20 113:19,25 142:20 174:6 168:6,10,11,15,16 159:19,19 161:25 162:3 together (3) 3:24 53:15 underlying (5) 25:18,19,21 151:19 101:2 145:5 151:2 175:22 177:3 169:17,25 170:1,9,13,22 164:6 166:16 167:13,15 174:15 45:10 175:1 virtual (1) 48:7 went (11) 16:15 60:22,25 technically (6) 13:22 14:18 171:6,13,13,15,24 168:8,14 172:13,19 174:16 told (23) 8:23 10:25 undermine (2) 171:21,23 virtually (2) 129:22,24 72:20 87:18,21 88:9 90:5 20:2,9,17 177:20 172:5,8,10,11,15,17 179:20 181:25 182:25 13:17,19 14:6,10 15:15 undermined (1) 170:24 vision (1) 48:14 132:25 182:5 191:15
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900 March 23, 2021 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Day 111
werent (4) 103:4 123:16 189:10 12 (7) 53:18 56:18 60:19 2021 (6) 1:1 50:9 56:12 8 (8) 21:5 22:12 32:20,24 135:24 162:12 writes (4) 73:2 136:8 79:24,25 176:18,22 176:17 183:5 192:16 33:16 34:23 50:3 77:20 westley (2) 46:19 193:8 183:11,13 121 (2) 53:20,21 2054 (1) 117:9 81 (1) 22:14 weve (24) 2:13 34:6 37:12 writing (12) 64:2 67:12 1214 (1) 3:5 22 (25) 57:12 71:12 82 (3) 26:20 30:19 31:12 61:3,22 69:15 70:23 71:14 68:25 76:8 96:24 104:23 122 (1) 54:8 75:7,17,22,24 77:17 78:25 8414 (59) 27:2 29:14 30:19 72:8 82:15 97:12 106:14 105:3 107:16,17,22 142:24 123 (1) 54:18 80:3 90:11,14 92:9 101:16 33:8,16,18,21,24 40:23 117:7 124:21 125:23 154:5 123c (1) 78:21 102:15 104:13,15 105:2,2 53:7 54:13 60:1 63:4 65:2 128:21 136:5 141:7 142:5 written (2) 45:3 111:24 123e (1) 53:10 106:22 107:5 109:12 117:3 70:8 71:3 84:25 85:1,24 155:20 163:8 166:1 183:12 wrong (2) 121:12 151:23 124 (1) 21:4 124:20 127:16 146:2 87:13 88:10 90:12 93:5,10 186:6 wrote (2) 175:13,18 1257 (1) 100:23 22nd (2) 92:12 101:24 99:20 115:7 116:18 whatever (1) 64:21 127 (4) 16:25 18:20 19:21 23 (2) 1:1 7:7 134:4,15 135:17 136:12 whats (1) 58:6 X 40:10 23rd (1) 73:5 137:21 138:3,10,21,24 whereas (2) 120:3 123:18 13 (4) 60:21 73:2 176:18 24 (1) 192:16 139:16 141:19 145:12 whereby (2) 4:9,18 xtratherm (4) 136:12 138:22 178:5 24th (2) 102:11 109:22 149:2 153:1,5 161:20 whilst (1) 185:23 139:7,16 135 (15) 19:23 54:14 55:2,18 25 (2) 53:19,23 162:17 164:3 166:25 167:6 whitbread (1) 73:19 59:25 70:11 85:20,22 27 (4) 90:7,10 101:17 156:18 172:22 183:18 184:9,10 whole (5) 3:18 24:16 25:6 Y 88:16 90:13 109:6 119:24 27th (1) 55:5 185:1 188:14,15,20,23 26:4,6 120:12 132:20 168:22 28 (6) 118:7 122:22,24 123:9 189:6,7,21 yeah (17) 66:10 93:22 whom (3) 46:22 152:7 154:1 1352013 (1) 26:24 142:4 152:20 84141 (2) 32:10 33:4 113:13 119:20 121:6,6 whos (2) 177:18,19 13785 (1) 134:7 2nd (3) 55:10 102:12 109:23 841412002 (1) 26:22 124:15 128:5 132:18 whose (4) 62:6 132:12,14 13th (1) 88:19 85 (3) 53:5 63:15,24 141:22 146:7 154:17 152:6 14 (4) 50:9 54:2 144:11 3 169:20 180:22 185:4 widely (2) 140:14 181:17 146:1 9 186:13,17 wider (2) 113:2 158:1 15 (12) 70:24 72:19 73:16 3 (22) 55:8 70:2,5,7 74:25 year (8) 56:12 57:21 62:7 widespread (1) 182:1 126:16 142:14 146:12,13 75:1 80:20,21 85:17 88:7,8 9 (18) 50:3 52:11 53:4 57:18 83:16 126:12 129:8 170:8 willing (3) 3:22 187:24 188:2 147:22 148:13 149:6 117:6,6 133:14 134:3,14 63:6,14 77:20 79:20 82:19 189:17 wilson (7) 101:20 104:4 151:13 154:11 147:21 148:5 156:8 173:16 83:10,20,22 84:20 94:5 years (10) 3:13 4:25 5:19 111:22,25 112:12 129:18 16 (1) 3:5 180:15 181:1 105:23 113:6 115:6 176:13 23:6 27:3,11,21 28:2 37:13 130:10 164 (1) 27:8 30 (2) 136:4 181:5 9030 (2) 118:12,13 45:1 wing (2) 89:16 118:16 17 (2) 5:14 20:24 31 (3) 63:10 64:15 140:7 94page (2) 173:18 174:1 yesterday (5) 11:1 30:8 wish (2) 63:7 122:11 18 (6) 29:24 80:10 135:13 315 (2) 150:9,24 73:10,22 181:3 withdraw (2) 42:20,23 140:23 141:10 189:9 32 (2) 64:18 91:11 yet (3) 128:22 131:2,3 withdrawal (1) 45:13 180 (1) 61:12 33 (1) 21:3 yield (1) 54:24 withdrawn (1) 184:7 180mm (1) 61:6 330 (3) 150:18,23 151:1 youd (4) 8:9 94:3 162:1 withdrew (2) 43:2 46:10 18m (1) 19:22 34 (10) 8:9,14 177:23 withheld (2) 38:6 171:7 19 (5) 133:8 158:16 170:8 122:9,10,23,24 123:8,24 youll (1) 48:17 withholding (2) 94:9,20 183:10,17 157:16 162:5 youre (32) 1:21,21 2:9,11,21 witness (81) 1:15,23 191 (1) 19:11 38mm (1) 86:4 4:25 11:9,14 13:3,4 14:5 2:2,7,17 8:23 19:9 198 (1) 8:25 21:4 24:10 25:17 33:18 20:10,16 21:1 27:7 44:12 4 46:7 47:17,18 49:20 51:19 45:24 46:9,10,11,21 2 52:23 56:8 58:3,16 60:15 47:3,10,13,19,23 48:4,24 4 (14) 53:18,24 82:16 90:9 96:5 97:14 101:13 124:4 49:2 50:5,8,19 2 (41) 3:3 5:12 20:22 23:9 117:18 118:15 122:21 140:2 151:8 167:3 51:6,8,10,13 53:11,13 55:7 60:7 61:1 63:4 73:3 129:14 146:10,11 yours (2) 50:19 189:7 58:6,10,13 62:20 80:4,22 85:1,14,24 89:23 147:20,20,23 173:14 yourself (5) 26:1 112:13 63:1,16,19 64:2,9,10,15,18 90:21 100:14,20 108:11 400 (2) 71:2 102:5 118:3 125:15 178:15 65:23 66:21 67:8 70:22 109:2,11,17 118:15 126:14 42 (1) 27:7 yourselves (1) 74:17 72:19 75:13 76:20 77:21 129:1,16 133:25 430 (1) 192:14 youve (3) 24:10 75:7 127:6 78:10,20 79:17,24 90:8 134:11,12,19,25 136:25 4456 (1) 36:5 91:11 100:18,21 101:8,11 46 (1) 193:8 0 148:11 157:7 164:25 112:7,15,23 118:6 173:14 176:20,22 183:24 476 (1) 26:8 125:16,21 142:3 150:21 4766 (3) 22:20 23:3,20 0 (15) 10:13 22:15 23:19 184:22 193:5 151:6 152:20 157:17 49 (2) 19:10 193:11 24:1 26:11 200 (1) 100:25 164:11 172:9 189:23 4a (2) 53:18,24 29:11,12,17,21,23 30:5 2004 (2) 23:7,9 192:2,6,9 4mins (2) 149:25 151:15 33:17 34:2,5 40:4 2005 (1) 27:3 wonder (1) 6:24 0607 (1) 90:14 2008 (6) 22:19 26:9 29:13 wont (4) 7:3 13:1 48:20 5 060711 (1) 106:21 33:6 40:18,25 191:23 2013 (7) 11:13 20:24,25 wool (2) 132:17 156:20 5 (12) 22:11 63:11 84:24 1 23:17 39:9 40:18 41:1 wording (15) 10:15 11:7,16 2014 (2) 3:5 12:10 87:18,21 88:8 116:11 12:2 13:9 18:6 20:1,8 1 (29) 3:1 7:6 20:24 21:14 2015 (2) 10:23 39:9 129:11 142:17 146:10 21:5,12,20 24:16 25:12,15 30:20,21 32:1 40:9 55:4 2016 (2) 55:5 156:18 156:7 189:18 26:5 62:22 72:24 73:1,3 79:24 2017 (8) 42:24 108:22 50 (2) 8:24 37:13 work (15) 3:24 7:11 8:22 84:25 100:1 115:7 130:8 129:8,14,17 132:8 144:6 5000 (1) 145:3 17:19 18:2 21:8 29:4 34:18 133:13,21,23 134:7 136:3 155:21 5050 (1) 113:12 41:10 58:24 65:20 137:3,4 149:5 156:17 183:9 184:19 2018 (70) 53:2,8 54:2 530odd (1) 83:17 177:2 191:4 189:18 193:3 55:8,10 56:13,24 57:12,20 55 (1) 38:2 worked (1) 183:13 10 (25) 69:25 70:5,14,18 59:8,16 60:5,7 61:1 working (3) 61:8 65:25 66:2 71:11 72:20 74:18 75:4,19 63:5,18 64:4,7,13 6 works (2) 177:1,6 77:8,13 83:16 88:6,14 92:9 65:3,8,9,14 68:12 69:25 world (1) 185:12 105:23 107:1,1 117:9 70:14,18 71:1 77:23 6 (15) 26:20 30:16 32:15 worry (1) 191:20 126:12 143:22 189:17 78:19,25 80:3,4,22 82:1,19 33:11 63:18 64:13 82:1 worse (3) 149:9 165:9,11 191:25 192:13,15 83:20,22 90:11,14,21 87:4 118:15 122:8 155:11 worsened (2) 5:4,6 100 (2) 121:22,24 101:16 109:11 118:3 156:3 168:3 170:14 173:15 worst (1) 178:8 1000 (1) 1:2 126:16 128:22 129:1 136:4 600 (2) 106:22 181:4 worstcase (4) 87:24 88:2 10th (6) 70:9 71:1 75:2 142:13 143:24 144:11 607 (1) 107:6 159:9 175:7 85:18 86:17 92:10 146:12,13 147:22 148:13 worth (4) 116:13,16 153:12 11 (5) 62:23,25 127:3 129:17 151:13 154:11 7 158:12 155:21 155:11,14,25 162:7 173:15 wouldnt (26) 9:14,17 56:15 1101 (1) 44:4 176:18 178:5 180:15 7 (9) 22:20 23:3,21 32:12 82:7 94:25 95:2,2 103:8 1115 (3) 43:20 44:2,6 183:7,10 188:5 189:13,18 50:3,15 70:22 72:20 77:19 110:4 121:5,8,8 122:3 1117 (1) 46:16 2019 (6) 53:19,23 55:24 710 (1) 63:24 135:21 137:4,5 139:18 112 (1) 53:15 78:22 153:23 172:9 7177 (1) 63:15 146:2 153:2,7,8 155:1 113 (2) 53:14 54:20 2020 (9) 50:3 52:11 53:4 78 (1) 63:24 158:25 159:14,17 187:15 114 (1) 55:6 57:15,18 63:6,14 77:20 write (3) 169:20 176:9 1140 (1) 46:18 83:10 8
Opus 2 [email protected] Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900