Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Butler & Young Lift Consultants Ltd Evidence - Thursday 15th July 2021 (2/2)
00:00:30 yes mr clear no another witness yes may call ian morehouse thank you yes please
00:00:54 good afternoon mr morehouse good afternoon listen make yourself comfortable thank you now i gather you're going to make the affirmation and it's on the screen in front of you certainly thank you
00:01:08 certainly thank you i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and confirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much thank you yes mr claire thanks sir uh
00:01:19 thank you yes mr claire thanks sir uh would you please confirm your name for the record ian godfrey morehouse miss morehouse many thanks for attending today before we start three things i should remind you of first of all if at any time you feel you
00:01:32 first of all if at any time you feel you need a break please say so that's not a problem at all secondly if at any time my questions are unclear
00:01:38 unclear or too long please say your question is unclear and too long and can you break it up for me that's not a problem either thirdly and finally could i ask you to keep your voice up whilst giving evidence
00:01:50 whilst giving evidence that's so that the shorthand writer can capture everything you say and accurately and also if you could uh not nod but use yes or no as the case requires
00:02:01 but use yes or no as the case requires right
00:02:01 right again so the transcriber can capture your answer now you have given two statements to this inquiry um the first can be found at but quadruple zero
00:02:12 quadruple zero double zero two three and is dated the 23rd of september 2019. is that right that is correct yes the second statement is b-u-t quadruple
00:02:23 the second statement is b-u-t quadruple zero
00:02:24 zero double zero five four and is dated the eighth of june of this year is that right
00:02:28 right that is correct um have you read both of your statements recently i have and are their contents true that's correct thank you have you discussed your evidence with anyone else before coming here today
00:02:41 anyone else before coming here today on right at the very start on receipt of the initial letter advising me that i would be required to give oral evidence yes i did speak to
00:02:52 give oral evidence yes i did speak to people
00:02:53 people because it was many years since i had actually
00:02:57 actually been involved in the project somewhat 18 years in actual fact from the start and i had no re memory or recollection of the project at all so i found it
00:03:08 of the project at all so i found it necessary to speak to my former colleague steven ellis and other members of butler and young just to try and gain affirmation of what actually happened and get some uh
00:03:20 what actually happened and get some uh transcriptive paperwork thank you now i'd like to start by asking you some questions about your qualifications and your experience is it right that you started in the lifts industry in 1959
00:03:32 lifts industry in 1959 as an apprentice at the otis elevator company that is correct yes and you then worked in a range of roles for keith lee and evans lifts marit and scott gerald honey partnership and stanner lifts
00:03:43 and stanner lifts that is correct also between 1983 and 1989
00:03:47 1989 you were the managing director of leonard lifts is that right and from 1989 you worked independently setting up butler and young in april 1992 is that right
00:03:58 1992 is that right yes that is correct and you were a director at butler and young until may 2005 when you retired yes thank you now if i can turn to your training and focusing
00:04:09 focusing on the education and relevant training section of your cv over the course of your career did you receive any training on british or european standards relating to lifts
00:04:22 i received training and instruction at various seminars that were held when there was perhaps a new standard coming out of one being enhanced but generally
00:04:34 out of one being enhanced but generally your training was as when you required you would be reading up on the standard to
00:04:40 to for whatever might be applicable to that particular problem so self-directed learning in relation to particular projects primarily now looking at the period 2003 and 2004
00:04:52 now looking at the period 2003 and 2004 in particular had you received any training on the principles and requirements of bs55085 1991 entitled fire precautions in the design
00:05:02 design construction and use of buildings part five code of practice for firefighting stairs and lifts
00:05:09 i cannot in all certainty say that i had received specific training in that nonetheless would you have considered yourself familiar with the requirements of that standard yeah yes i would have done at that time and
00:05:21 yes i would have done at that time and did you have access to the the standard itself and hard copy form or otherwise at that time i did yes have you received any training on the principles and requirements of bs
00:05:32 requirements of bs en 8172 published in 2003 which concerns safety rules for the construction and installation of lifts particular applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts
00:05:43 and goods passenger lifts firefighter lifts i would have received but i can't say exactly when nonetheless would you have described yourself as familiar with the requirements of that standard yes i would um had you received any
00:05:56 yes i would um had you received any training on the substantive changes brought in by the revision to bs5508-5 1991
00:06:04 1991 to the standard published in november 2004.
00:06:11 i would i would believe that i did did receive training but i cannot honestly say when or in what form but would you have considered yourself familiar with the requirements of the revised code of
00:06:23 requirements of the revised code of practice
00:06:23 practice yes again would you have had ready access
00:06:27 access at the time to the standard yourself um have you heard of approved document b
00:06:38 i cannot recall i cannot recall
00:06:43 in relation to the specific question of firefighting lifts did you receive any other specific training on the design requirements of that type of lift
00:06:55 i cannot recall receiving specific training this would have been self-taught by the reading of the various standards at that time now um turning to butler and young
00:07:06 now um turning to butler and young itself
00:07:07 itself um am i right in understanding that it was a lift consultancy that's correct yes and in broad terms what services did it provide to clients
00:07:19 survey reports into the primarily actioned on refurbishments survey reports into existing lifts analyzing
00:07:30 analyzing problems with the lifts the type of equipment there was and doing offering proposals that might be done to eradicate those particular problems then onto
00:07:43 those particular problems then onto writing feasibility studies specifications tendering action um then support of the project after the selected tender was
00:07:54 selected tender was uh nominated by whoever the [Music]
00:07:58 [Music] the the client may be running the projects right the way through we also provided assistance in maintenance investigations
00:08:10 assistance in maintenance investigations and in preparing fully comprehensive maintenance contracts and then administering those contracts thank you and as as managing director to what extent would you generally be involved in the detail of particular projects
00:08:23 detail of particular projects i was i was quite involved in the detail of the projects that i i was involved in if you follow not every single project within the practice but i
00:08:34 single project within the practice but i was aware of most projects within the practice
00:08:37 practice um would butlin young also be involved in the design of particular lifts yes very much and did you have the requisite knowledge and expertise to design the firefighting
00:08:48 expertise to design the firefighting lift for example
00:08:52 yes i believe that we did should that be necessary and would you have felt able and confident to draft a specification for a firefighting lift yes um before the grenfell project in
00:09:03 yes um before the grenfell project in 2003 what other experience did you have of lift projects in high-rise residential buildings
00:09:10 uh if by high-rise you mean over 18 meters yes quite considerable and can you give the panel a broad summary
00:09:23 panel a broad summary of that experience
00:09:30 barbican estate there were numerous lifts there that exceeded that height in travel
00:09:37 [Music] once with barrow council we had various projects that exceeded that height of travel
00:09:51 exceeded that height of travel well um how many of the projects involved the lift upgrade uh from say fireman's lifts to firefighting lifts none of the projects
00:10:01 had you had any experience of upgrade projects to for example enhance a fireman's lift to a firefighting lift it has never been necessary
00:10:11 and was it never been necessary because the client would uh say that he did not require that to
00:10:22 uh say that he did not require that to be done now am i right and that before the grenfell tower project button butler and young had carried out five or six lift modernizations for rbkc tmo
00:10:33 lift modernizations for rbkc tmo yes that's correct were any of those projects
00:10:36 projects in high-rise residential dwellings no
00:10:41 no we don't need to go to it but in the first sentence of paragraph a12 little c of your first witness statement which can be found at but quadruple zero double zero two three
00:10:52 quadruple zero double zero two three forward slash six you say the tmo's project brief for the refurbishment was quotes developed in part with considerable lift knowledge and in paragraph eight of your
00:11:03 knowledge and in paragraph eight of your second witness statement which can be found at but quadruple zero double zero five four forward slash four you note that virtually all local authorities had their own lift department
00:11:14 department who would handle maintenance and in terms of lift modernizations would act as a watching brief you comment that the lift engineers employed in these departments would be experienced and familiar with the relevant codes and
00:11:25 and familiar with the relevant codes and standards
00:11:26 standards now dealing first with the tmo um who had that
00:11:30 had that degree of knowledge was mr steppel one of them yes mr steppel was the uh he was the senior lift engineer and then subsequently promoted to the building services manager and how would you characterize the depth
00:11:43 and how would you characterize the depth of his knowledge of the relevant standards and requirements uh very good he had been a lift engineer for many years had had experience of an awful lot of projects and
00:11:54 projects and that would obviously uh his knowledge will be enhanced by that and was mr kalan one of those people who had
00:12:02 had knowledge of the relevant standards yes not to the same extent as david steppel but yes he would was there anyone else with whom you had dealings at the tmo you had detailed knowledge of the
00:12:13 you had detailed knowledge of the relevant standards
00:12:18 john rogers would have had knowledge of the the standards uh from those imparted to him by david steffel
00:12:27 steffel and myself in our discussions um had butler and young worked with apex before
00:12:34 before the grenfell tower project yes they were on our approved tender list and on how many occasions can you remember now
00:12:44 as if i say a lot i'd say a lot yes and can you remember now whether any of those projects involve high-rise residential buildings
00:12:56 yes yes that is correct yes they would now at the time of the project with which were concerned project one in your view did the relevant standards or any other legislation or guidance
00:13:08 or any other legislation or guidance require the installation of firefighting lifts in existing buildings
00:13:18 uh
00:13:28 i do not believe that they required that that at that time in existing buildings
00:13:36 buildings did you consider that it was an industry good practice to at least consider at the development and design stage whether as many of the features of a full firefighting lift
00:13:47 full firefighting lift could be installed in lifts and tall buildings such as grenfell to be considered yes
00:13:55 now in view of the inquiries expert that's mr roger howkins he said a paragraph 248 of his report which can be found at rho quadruple zero
00:14:06 which can be found at rho quadruple zero treble zero three forward slash one one eight he said this and i quote regardless of whether the lips were considered new or modernized
00:14:17 considered new or modernized good practice would have been to consider if the lifts could be fully upgraded to the firefighting standard so far as was reasonably practicable would you agree or disagree with that
00:14:28 would you agree or disagree with that view
00:14:30 view i believe that one would have considered that
00:14:34 that but not necessarily have gone forward with that
00:14:38 with that what would have been the factors that would have inhibited or impeded going forward with either enhancing for example a fireman's lift to a full firefighting lift or including such features of a
00:14:50 or including such features of a firefighting lift as were reasonably practical
00:14:56 in considering the various uh matches to do with firefighting lifts that will be discussed with in this case david steppel and uh they were discussed with david steppel at
00:15:08 were discussed with david steppel at varying times and it will be his decision on whether he wanted to proceed with those or when i say his decision the final decision would have been john rogers as the project manager but the the two of them would make the
00:15:20 but the the two of them would make the final decision thank you now we'll come on to the project
00:15:25 project the detail the project and due course but first of all could we um discuss the scale of the project itself
00:15:32 itself now if we can go to your first statement which is at but quadruple zero double zero two forward slash 5 and paragraph a 12
00:15:43 forward slash 5 and paragraph a 12 a which is at the very bottom of that page
00:15:46 page you say this butler and young did not consider the lifts to be new lifts but to be refurbished lifts all in accordance with the project brief and the rbkc
00:15:57 and the rbkc approved specification issued to tenderers by rbkc now the first question which arises is why did you consider the lifts to be refurbished and not new
00:16:09 refurbished and not new our interpretation of the standards at that time
00:16:13 that time is both myself and david steffel that was that
00:16:16 was that the lifts were to be refurbished we were retaining
00:16:19 retaining uh the guides guide bracketry and initially we were going to retain more equipment than that but as the feasibility study progressed
00:16:30 feasibility study progressed uh with surveys making things more evident to us it was it was maintained that they would be
00:16:37 be refurbished i.e modernized not new and it's the guides is that the factor that weighs most heavily with you when deciding whether a lift is new or refurbished whether they're
00:16:49 new or refurbished whether they're retained or not in this instance it was it wouldn't be in all all instances now could i ask us to go to paragraph 223 of mr hauken's report
00:17:00 223 of mr hauken's report and that can be found at rho quadruple zero treble zero three forward slash one one one
00:17:11 now you'll see at paragraph two two three there it's in the bottom half of the page
00:17:16 the page i'll just let you refresh your memory if you've read it before just read it and before i ask you any questions on it
00:17:38 now there he says that bs five six double five 11 2005 in which a new lift is defined was done as either where the lift is totally replaced or where only the guide
00:17:50 totally replaced or where only the guide rails are retained would you agree that that was the applicable definition of a new lift in 2003-2004
00:18:00 yes that's correct now looking at the nature of the project could i summarize it thus and if you disagree please shout first of all it was an increase of lift capacity from 8 to 12 people
00:18:12 capacity from 8 to 12 people secondly an increase of lift speed and thirdly
00:18:15 thirdly an improvement in reliability of the lifts yes
00:18:19 lifts yes and that work required the replacement of most the components of the lift apparatus if i call it that is that fair yes and if i i took mr ellis through this but it'd be
00:18:30 i took mr ellis through this but it'd be useful to go through this exercise with you
00:18:32 you the work required the replacement of the complete lift car is that right yes that's correct the counterweight yes the castling and platform yes the safety
00:18:43 the castling and platform yes the safety gear
00:18:43 gear yes the door operator yes car doors yes landing doors yes landing control system yes lift pit buffers yes electrical wiring
00:18:57 lift pit buffers yes electrical wiring yes lift controller yes and the lift motor gearbox yes and just to um remind us if we go to the
00:19:08 and just to um remind us if we go to the specification at but quadruple zero double zero double four forward slash twelve
00:19:21 and paragraph one point three point one at the top sets out the retained equipment and so everything else we've discussed was removed
00:19:29 removed but these two items were retained namely guides and single riser cargo car guide brackets and the landing back boxes is that accord with your recollection that does
00:19:40 accord with your recollection that does um am i also right in understanding that the car guides were retained but they were relocated to accommodate uh the larger car size
00:19:51 uh the larger car size one of the car yes they they were and so at least to my lay eye it looks as if the vast majority of the component parts of the lift apparatus
00:20:02 component parts of the lift apparatus were new
00:20:03 were new is that a fair observation yes that is now given the extent of the components that were removed the limited extent of what was retained i set out in
00:20:15 extent of what was retained i set out in the spec
00:20:16 the spec would you accept that the lifts were in fact new rather than refurbished applying the stand the definition contained in the standard no our interpretation of the standards
00:20:27 no our interpretation of the standards at that time and what was being replaced and retained was that the list will remain as modernisations and for the avoidance of doubt it was
00:20:39 and for the avoidance of doubt it was the retention of the guides that were an important factor in that evaluation very much so
00:20:45 much so can i just ask we see these references to landing back boxes which were retained
00:20:51 retained what's their function and how important are they
00:20:54 are they uh removal of the landing block boxes would have involved a certain amount of structural work cutting them out from the
00:21:01 the the concrete um uh so they were part and parcel of being retained
00:21:09 retained okay to accommodate the new fixtures and fittings for call these were push buttons and indicators on the landings all right yes thank you okay thank you sir
00:21:20 sir now you explain i want to turn on now to butler and young's initial involvement in the project at grenfell and did you explain in your first statement at paragraph a2 we don't need to go to it but it can be
00:21:31 we don't need to go to it but it can be found at but quadruple zero double zero two three four slash two that butter and young were appointed by the tmo for a full lift consultancy service
00:21:41 service in accordance with the project brief is that a fair summary that's correct yes and you also explain at paragraph a3 that your role was contract administrator ensuring full lift consultancy services
00:21:53 ensuring full lift consultancy services and adherence to the brief is that a fair summary that is correct yes
00:21:57 yes can you help us as to what your particular your precise duties and responsibilities were in relation to your role
00:22:06 uh i undertook the feasibility study the the surveys the on-site the practical side of matters uh i have considerable experience on the
00:22:17 i have considerable experience on the practical side of running other projects i
00:22:20 i i investigated what was necessary in order to come up with the various options on the feasibility study to attending the the meetings to communicating with david steffer or john
00:22:32 communicating with david steffer or john rogers where necessary or any clarification was required for any matter on then being issued with instructions uh that the option 3a would be proceeded
00:22:45 uh that the option 3a would be proceeded with
00:22:45 with um and the contractor being awarded the contract i then uh carried on writing my projects i then wrote the specification of and went out
00:22:57 wrote the specification of and went out to tender
00:22:59 to tender once that specification was approved by rbkc they issued it for tender i then received the tenders back i undertook the tender investigations the
00:23:11 undertook the tender investigations the analysis
00:23:12 analysis and uh recommended uh for contractor board uh to rbkc after contract award to rb
00:23:23 my apologies my apologies um i then uh uh administered the contract from that point um with assistance of
00:23:35 from that point um with assistance of steve alice who's here this morning thank you now can we go to the client brief and that can be found at tmo double zero eight five three seven eight three
00:23:46 eight five three seven eight three forward slash twelve now am i right in assuming you've seen this before if some time ago yes that is correct yes
00:23:57 if some time ago yes that is correct yes now if we can go um to paragraph 1.1 you'll see there it says this the tenant management organization and the lancaster west estate management
00:24:09 and the lancaster west estate management board require a condition and feasibility report on the two traction passenger lifts serving grenfell tower and the single hydraulic passenger lifts serving the adjacent offices did
00:24:21 lifts serving the adjacent offices did the feasibility report address matters such as cost length of project and building design amongst other things it did now turning back to
00:24:31 back to paragraph 1.1 the next sentence of this paragraph says this the report shall address the client's concerns and respect to the immediate and medium-term maintenance viability of the existing installations
00:24:43 the existing installations given current levels of failures availability of replacement parts compliance the latest british standards and energy conservation now looking at the last element of that quotation which concerns compliance with
00:24:55 quotation which concerns compliance with british standards on its faced at least it seems from the project brief that the tmo wanted your feasibility report to address compliance of the lifts
00:25:04 lifts with british standards is that a fair reading of that paragraph of the client brief
00:25:12 that that is yes that is it's uh um where applicable i i would add to that yes and in your second statement
00:25:23 statement you say section 3.3 sorry you state that section 3.3 of the brief which identified problems with the current lifts including size and unreliability
00:25:34 unreliability was the primary focus the refurbishment is that again a fair summary
00:25:40 yes yes that they they were they were major concerns but not all of the concerns
00:25:48 concerns and uh you also note in your second statement of paragraph 19. it may be useful if we go to it at but quadruple zero double zero five four
00:25:59 quadruple zero double zero five four forward slash seven
00:26:04 thank you you'll see a paragraph 19 you say that at paragraph 4.10 of the brief in the section entitled standards the following
00:26:12 following is noted
00:26:17 the installation shall comply with bs en 81 1998 safety rules for the construction installation of lifts part one
00:26:25 one electric lifts the health and safety strat statutory instrument number 831 the lift regulations and electromagnetic compatibility and ieee regulations and then the brief
00:26:37 and ieee regulations and then the brief then went on to say however given the dimensional constraints associated with an existing building
00:26:44 building the report shall identify any area where the new installation cannot meet recommend cannot meet current recommendations or legislation and make recommendations to reduce any potential risks
00:26:56 to reduce any potential risks would you agree therefore the brief required the consultant to identify in the feasibility report where the new installation could not meet current standards and make recommendations to reduce any
00:27:07 and make recommendations to reduce any risks arising
00:27:15 to a certain degree i would yes so if we go to
00:27:22 tm00853783 forward slash one five
00:27:30 and if we look at 410 and we look at b
00:27:36 i'll let you just refresh your memory of
00:27:46 it
00:27:51 yes on its face at least it appears to require the feasibility study to advise where the new installation couldn't meet current standards i mean refresh your
00:28:03 current standards i mean refresh your memory is that a fair reading of subparagraph b
00:28:13 the feasibility study did not advise all areas where the lifts did not meet current standards
00:28:24 really looking at the previous question though to that the expectation was that it would
00:28:29 it would would you accept that but the fact is the feasibility study didn't deal with all respects in respect of the installation not meeting not all respects no and if we stay on this page but look at
00:28:41 and if we stay on this page but look at little c
00:28:42 little c and it says this given the height of grenfell tower together with the existing physical building constraints the report should shall address the issues of firefighting and evacuation lift requirements
00:28:53 lift requirements and how they affect the proposed works now would you agree with me that it's clear that the brief required the consultant's feasibility report to address the issue of firefighting and evacuation lift requirements
00:29:04 evacuation lift requirements and how they affected the proposed works we did address that matter and that was put to david steppel on various occasions
00:29:14 occasions about firefighting lifts his requirement was at a sub at a meeting that we were not to
00:29:23 not to include consideration of firefighting lifts
00:29:26 lifts okay in within the report and that's really that it's really what i wanted to do though first of all we'll come on to what was discussed with mr steppel but just looking at what the client brief required
00:29:37 brief required yes first of all and then move on to what happened after the two separate stages just looking at this stage which is what the client brief said would you accept that the report at
00:29:49 would you accept that the report at least according to the brief required you to address the issues of firefighting the evacuation lift requirements initially that is correct and now we'll come on to what happened right
00:30:00 come on to what happened right now there was a meeting on the 8th of may 2003 it wasn't there of the left refurbishment yes now if we go to the minutes which can be found at but
00:30:12 found at but quadruple zero double zero one zero there we go and we can see your name
00:30:24 there we go and we can see your name there identified as an attendee yes just at the bottom and that if we scroll down to item two
00:30:35 and we see there the project objective and at point 2.2 it notes that uh the objective was to have button young to undertake feasibility study and
00:30:47 young to undertake feasibility study and evaluate options for refurbishment of the lifts and that that study would address the full requirements of the brief and the following issues in particular including compliance to current standards
00:30:58 standards would you agree that's what set out there yes that is correct now would you assume that compliance with current standards would include firefighting lift
00:31:10 would include firefighting lift standards as they applied as at may 2003 yes that's correct now in your second statement and it's a paragraph 21 and 22 you say that there was a later meeting
00:31:22 you say that there was a later meeting on that day to discuss the tier modes requirements in broad terms is that a fair summary of the position yes as if we can take it step by step yes as far as i can recall it was later that
00:31:35 far as i can recall it was later that day
00:31:35 day uh this is a long long time ago uh um uh there was i was requested to attend another meeting with uh with john rogers and david steppel i i do
00:31:46 steppel i i do think it was following this meeting and so um
00:31:50 so um irrespective of the date the further meeting followed soon after this yes that is correct yes and
00:31:57 and who were the people who attended was it just you
00:32:01 just you stepple on rogers was anyone else there no
00:32:04 no it was just the three of us and it was it mr steppel who invited you to that meeting
00:32:11 meeting it was mr stepper law mr rogers it was one of the two can you remember now who initiated a consideration of whether the lifts should be enhanced
00:32:23 of whether the lifts should be enhanced to fire fighting lifts or not
00:32:28 or not i had already discussed firefighting lifts
00:32:32 lifts uh in in phone calls with david steppel and stopping and stopping there yes what was his response to you raising firefighting lifts as a
00:32:45 to you raising firefighting lifts as a general topic the general topic that they did meet did not meet tmo their standards and during this meeting what discussion was there
00:32:57 meeting what discussion was there of firefighting lifts and their appropriateness for this project
00:33:03 uh the well david steppel said that he did not wish to have
00:33:10 to have firefighting lifts considered or remarked upon within the feasibility study at fire fireman's lifts would be proceeded with in accordance with
00:33:21 in accordance with the um the appendix i of the project brief was there much of a discussion about that or was david steppel giving you
00:33:32 steppel giving you your marching orders as it were um there was not a lot of discussion around it because he was quite emphatic that fireman's
00:33:44 he was quite emphatic that fireman's lifts were what was what were required uh and the appendix a i can't recall the clause off the top of my head specifically states fire fires control and that was what was
00:33:57 fire fires control and that was what was to be
00:33:58 to be applied when mr steppel gave you your instructions did you proffer him any advice as to for example the advisability of enhanced safety features provided by a
00:34:10 enhanced safety features provided by a firefighting lift or such features as could be reasonably practically uh incorporated yes i i offer consideration of that because we had already
00:34:20 already viewed that ourselves in undertaking our initial surveys on the project now when you were first asked about this by the inquiry you said that you had no recollection of
00:34:33 you said that you had no recollection of any discussions regarding these matters but in your second statement you have a recollection of this meeting can you help the panel as to why when you prepared your first statement
00:34:44 you prepared your first statement you couldn't remember this detail and some months later when you provided your second statement you could
00:34:52 when i've received my first request to provide
00:34:56 provide a statement i had been retired for some 16 years
00:35:01 16 years they were referring to matters that were 18 years old and with the passage of time i had no recollection of anything to do with grenfell
00:35:09 grenfell that's just one of those unfortunate things i had no recollection of that at all
00:35:15 all the comments made in this my initial statement
00:35:19 statement were what i could possibly remember at that time and from the paperwork that i have received from butler and young that's really
00:35:30 butler and young that's really the the summation of the matter at that stage
00:35:34 stage subsequent to that we received roger halkin's lift report and that gave me further i shall put it further through food for thought on many matters
00:35:47 food for thought on many matters and uh i think with uh that plus the late availability of the project brief which i had not seen
00:35:57 seen up until i think two months ago two and a half months ago just before my second
00:36:05 second statement that field in an awful lot of the gaps
00:36:09 the gaps in my memory not all of them because as i say
00:36:12 i say it's still a long long time ago i i'm i'm clutching at straws on a lot of things in that respect don't thank you for that miss morehouse now is it also right that you didn't make any notes of mr steppel's
00:36:24 make any notes of mr steppel's instruction at the time and it wasn't in any other way recorded in writing whether in the forms of a letter a minute or a file note i did make notes my project files were full of copious
00:36:36 my project files were full of copious notes relating to telephone calls meetings that were ad hoc meetings rather than official meetings
00:36:45 meetings and my project files recorded everything that was done and calls the dates what was discussed but these were all handwritten notes the project file also included
00:36:56 project file also included anything inwards from the client and subsequently from others but from the client emails or faxes or whatever there might be but
00:37:07 be but no i didn't have any of that information as i've said that was all destroyed in march
00:37:14 march 2016. so i had no notes and i did not confirm in writing our discussion i was not required to and i do not believe that mr steppel wrote
00:37:26 i do not believe that mr steppel wrote to me
00:37:26 to me confirming that instruction thank you now out of fairness could i put you um an extract from mr haukin's report so you can answer it and if we go to paragraph 259 of that
00:37:37 and if we go to paragraph 259 of that report
00:37:38 report which could be found at rho treble zero quadruple zero three forward slash one two one
00:37:52 and if we could amplify paragraph two five
00:37:56 five nine
00:38:00 and it's really um four lines up from the bottom of that paragraph mr hurricane said this as part of these discussions i.e around the project brief i would have
00:38:12 around the project brief i would have expected butrun young to have drawn tmo's attention to the relevant british standards for firefighting lifts their applicability and the feasibility of achieving compliance with the
00:38:23 of achieving compliance with the standards
00:38:24 standards this includes advising tmo that tall buildings should have a firefighting lift
00:38:29 lift now do you disagree or agree with that statement
00:38:33 statement i agree with that statement
00:38:40 and is your evidence therefore that you provided such advice to mr steppel i did and what was his response to that advice as i've already stated
00:38:52 as i've already stated he advised me that i was proceed with fireman's lips did you discuss the substance of the meeting and indeed mr steppel's instruction with mr ellis
00:39:06 uh yes yes the the substance yes no no not ev well possibly every detail this is
00:39:13 is again a long time ago i cannot recall how much i i discussed with them but i'm sure i i advised
00:39:19 advised uh mr ellis most matters that were discussed
00:39:23 discussed including the fireman's lifts that's the particular thing maybe i should have asked you more directly did you advise him that the instruction was there would be no firefighting lifts that's correct yes
00:39:36 did he raise any concerns or questions about the instruction that had been given by mr steppel uh i cannot recall uh specific concerns
00:39:47 uh i cannot recall uh specific concerns we both discussed the matter and whilst it wasn't perhaps what one would have expected we accepted that was the client's instruction mr kalan took over the role of
00:39:59 mr kalan took over the role of monitoring the project on a day-to-day basis i think from july 2003 onwards right thereafter did he ever raise the question of firefighting lifts with you never
00:40:15 to the best of your knowledge and mindful of these are events some nearly 20 years ago were you aware or did you sense that mr colon was aware of the of the meeting and what
00:40:26 the meeting and what mr steppel's instruction
00:40:30 i'm not aware of him being him being aware
00:40:33 aware no stepping away slightly from the substance of the instruction itself were there any structural or other constraints on installing full firefighting lifts at grenfell
00:40:45 firefighting lifts at grenfell if so what were they
00:40:48 i do not know any i do not know the structural constraints this was a building that was directed in the 1970s i do
00:40:59 in the 1970s i do know that from the project brief it makes that statement and it advises there could be possible structural constraints and i do know from david steppel that there were possible construction
00:41:11 there were possible construction structural constraints but i don't know exactly what they refer to because that was a natural fact outside of the lift it may have been referring to corridors or the landings whatever can we take it
00:41:23 the landings whatever can we take it from that that you yourself were not involved in any discussions with any structural engineers retained either by you
00:41:28 you or by tmo no not involved my apologies we did have our own structural engineer but not relating to that he wasn't involved
00:41:41 not relating to that he wasn't involved in this not in that
00:41:45 you referred to um or there is reference elsewhere in the evidence to other constraints on installing full fighter for firefighting lifts i.e other than structural ones
00:41:56 structural ones um could you help us to what those other constraints might have been
00:42:05 can you remember mr steppel raising anything
00:42:09 well only the fact that he wished to have five have fireman's lips he did not wish to have the other features of fire fighting lifts there were already a considerable amount of features that
00:42:21 considerable amount of features that were
00:42:21 were addressed by both types of lift thank you can we now turn to the feasibility study and that can be found at but quadruple zero
00:42:32 zero trouble zero two
00:42:36 as we'll see from the bottom left hand corner that's dated july 2003 am i right and assuming you've seen this document before correct who drafted it i did and was anyone else
00:42:49 who drafted it i did and was anyone else involved in either drafting or the review of the draft stephen ellis would have been there uh i essentially to proofread what i have written
00:43:00 written with any document that went out there whether it was uh uh feasibility study or specification or tender analysis it would always be proof read by another member of utm
00:43:12 member of utm and if we could look um at page five within this document in section 1.2
00:43:21 and there it deals with the principal areas to be covered by the study and looking in particular at subparagraph 2 it says their compliance with current health and safety at work requirements the recommendations of british standards
00:43:32 the recommendations of british standards and en 81 forward slash 1. would you agree that the feasibility study nowhere records uh the instruction from mr steppel
00:43:43 the instruction from mr steppel that firefighting lifts were not to be installed
00:43:46 installed not at all that was his requirement yeah but this feasibility study doesn't mention that at all no exactly that's not
00:43:52 not can you help us to why what appears to be a fairly significant departure from the client brief was not recorded here in the feasibility study he did not want it recorded he gave you
00:44:04 he did not want it recorded he gave you that
00:44:04 that express instruction yes that's correct when he gave you that instruction uh what was your response
00:44:16 i accepted the instruction that was that was his requirement that we were to follow the fireman's lift
00:44:27 now again just to give you the opportunity of answering a point that's made
00:44:30 made against butler and young could i ask us to go to mr harkin's report at paragraph 261 which can be found at rho quadruple zero treble zero three
00:44:41 quadruple zero treble zero three forward slash one two two
00:44:47 and rather than read it out again uh might i invite you to read paragraph 264.
00:45:03 yes and if i asked you why doesn't the report deal with the matters there your answer presumably is the one you've already given because mr steppel told you not to yes i think
00:45:15 mr steppel told you not to yes i think most of these matters were discussed considered but they were i won't say rejected but they
00:45:25 they were not required because david steppel wanted no reference to firefighting lifts and four farmers lives to be the lift that we proceeded with in any of the discussions surrounding the
00:45:37 any of the discussions surrounding the feasibility report were there any discussions concerning the feasibility of incorporating if not all of the features of a firefighting
00:45:49 features of a firefighting than at least some of them
00:45:53 in the discussions reference the feasibility study we i put forward to david stable and to john rogers my various thoughts i was
00:46:05 my various thoughts i was i was told to proceed as originally instructed when the feasibility report was complete it
00:46:13 it was then passed to members of the team for consideration and there wasn't
00:46:24 consideration and there wasn't there was never any question about firefighting this it wasn't raised at all by any member of the team thank you um could we turn now to a memo which you may never have seen before
00:46:35 which you may never have seen before um dated the 16th of december 2003 um sent by john rogers to a man called paul mch
00:46:43 paul mch the reference is at tmo double zero eight six nine seven two zero forward slash one zero nine
00:46:56 forward slash one zero nine now i'll just invite you to read the first
00:46:59 first three paragraphs of that memo
00:47:21 yes first of all can you help us do you know who paul mch is no
00:47:28 who had advised john rogers or put i should rephrase that did you advise john rogers that the lift works would not bring the lift service up to current standards
00:47:40 in my discussions uh in the meeting where i was instructed to proceed with harm's list i'm sure that that was discussed well i cannot say 100
00:47:52 cannot say 100 but i'm sure that was discussed
00:48:04 could i now turn to the specification itself
00:48:08 itself which can be found at but quadruple zero double zero double four which hopefully should reveal the specification for lift works at grenfell tower dated april 2004.
00:48:20 2004. and if we can look at the bottom left-hand corner you see the date april 2004
00:48:25 2004 yes
00:48:29 putting that into its full context again can you remember who wrote the specification i did and again did mr ellis help you in terms of the drafting on technical sides or peer review it yes
00:48:41 on technical sides or peer review it yes yes
00:48:45 what's the specification written explicitly for the project at grenfell yes or put differently was it a specification that had been used for
00:48:56 specification that had been used for previous jobs and had been repurposed for the grantful job no there are elements of any specification that are drawn from other specifications
00:49:07 other specifications but much of this project it was a very complex project much of it was specific to grenfell that there were standard paragraphs and
00:49:18 that there were standard paragraphs and clauses that one would inject uh that would have been used elsewhere undoubtedly can i ask us to go to page 20 in this document and paragraph 28.01
00:49:32 and we see there
00:49:37 in the fifth paragraph down should anything be emitted from the specification which is fitting and usually considered necessary for due and proper completion of the work the tendra shall verbally bring this to
00:49:49 the tendra shall verbally bring this to the attention of the esso supervising officer yes prior to tender submission with confirmation and letter prior to submitting the tender return now
00:50:02 the tender return now did any tenderers bring the absence of firefighting lift features in the specification to your attention none at all if we can now turn to page 22
00:50:16 and if we can look at paragraph 28.05 under the heading regulations it says this it shall be understood that the equipment specified and that the characteristics of the site
00:50:28 and that the characteristics of the site particularly dimensions and clearances may not fully comply with current british and european standards and these shall be qualified by the tender in the tender return now do you agree that the
00:50:41 tender return now do you agree that the specification required the lift installation to comply as far as was reasonably practicable to harmonize european standards first of all
00:50:51 as far as reasonably practical yes in accordance with the project brief as an ended
00:50:58 an ended now absent any exception would you accept that firefighting lift standards were included in the reference to harmonized european standards yes that's correct
00:51:11 standards yes that's correct now the specification refers to quotes existing
00:51:14 existing structural constraints close quotes preventing full compliance with standards
00:51:19 standards at this stage do you remember what was meant by existing structural constraints i i cannot recall can we turn over the page to page 23
00:51:30 page to page 23 and halfway down that page to paragraph
00:51:34 2a06 you'll see there under the heading design standards
00:51:40 and it says this and apologies for reading it out again the equipment and installation shall conform to this specification and to the relevant british standards including code to practice and in particular british standards 5655
00:51:54 and in particular british standards 5655 7255 and en 81-1 where the specification differs from those standards and codes the provision of this specification shall prevail
00:52:05 shall prevail references to british standards and codes of practice shall mean the addition
00:52:09 addition current three months prior to the date for return of tenders a certificate of compliance with the relevant british standards shall be provided
00:52:16 provided to the supervising officer on request any changes during the course the contract
00:52:21 contract and the relevant bridge standards and codes of practice shall be brought to the attention of the supervising officer by the contractor it shall be understood that the existing characteristics
00:52:32 that the existing characteristics particularly dimensions and clearances may not comply with current british standards and these shall be qualified in the tender return now apologies that is a long run up to a
00:52:43 now apologies that is a long run up to a simple question which is was a certificate of compliance with relevant british standards ever provided to you in your capacity as a supervising officer
00:52:53 officer i cannot recall and i do not have any documentary evidence all tender returns were destroyed in march 2016. can i now
00:53:04 march 2016. can i now leave uh the specification but turn to the tmo's contribution to the specification did the tmo have the opportunity to review the before it was published and provide
00:53:15 before it was published and provide comments
00:53:17 comments yes and uh am i right in understanding that robin kalan at least provided detailed comments on the substance of the specification as i understand it from the uh the live
00:53:29 as i understand it from the uh the live report
00:53:30 report that could also say that the specification was issued to all members of the
00:53:34 of the uh team or any comment when you say the team who you talking about uh damien donnelly and that the the the rest of the people that were
00:53:45 the the rest of the people that were attending the monthly meetings all received a copy of the specification as they did the feasibility study now um if we could go just as of an example go to tmo double zero
00:53:57 example go to tmo double zero eight five three seven eight zero which should be an email from you dated the 12th of may 2004
00:54:08 if that could be expanded
00:54:12 again you there refer that considerable discussion between yourselves steve ellis and robin kalan regarding the specification is that a fair summary of the intensity and degree of discussions that were
00:54:23 and degree of discussions that were taking place regarding the substance of the spec
00:54:26 the spec at that time [Music]
00:54:31 [Music] well i must assume so because that's what i have confirmed by email do you remember discussing the contents of the specification with janice ray not at all
00:54:47 can we go to tm00853 trouble seven
00:54:57 if we could expand the email at the top of this chain here
00:55:04 we see the reference to damian donnelly who you referred to earlier robin kallan and john rogers has been copied in and janice ray has a number of comments there about the specification
00:55:15 there about the specification can you remember whether there was anything above and beyond what is set out in this email
00:55:41 not that i recall no thank you now can we turn to a separate topic which is to discuss particular features of the firefighting lifts and see
00:55:51 see and consider the feasibility of their inclusion
00:55:54 inclusion in the lifts at grenfell tower now first of all
00:55:57 of all the trapdoor would that have been in your view
00:56:01 your view feasible would have been reasonably practicable to have installed the trapdoor
00:56:05 trapdoor in the lifts of grenfell tower
00:56:11 it would have been feasible by practical practicable um but not advisable and why would
00:56:23 um but not advisable and why would why wouldn't they have been advisable i believe that they present a security problem to uh to the lift
00:56:34 uh to the lift that they can be misused and abused by people
00:56:37 people unauthorized people gaining access to the building and there were considerable amount of
00:56:42 amount of unauthorized people that gained access to the building um they could open that trapdoor from inside the lift uh or if they had used the euro key they
00:56:54 uh or if they had used the euro key they could open it from on top of the lift and so i would not have agreed to that had it been put to me put crudely and apologize i apologize to
00:57:05 put crudely and apologize i apologize to you if
00:57:05 you if it is too crude but effectively security considerations trumped such safety advantages as a trapdoor would bring i believe one had to advise on that i think that if particularly the
00:57:17 on that i think that if particularly the public were put at risk then security was uh what was the main cause of concern um what water protection is another feature of a
00:57:29 protection is another feature of a firefighting lift would it have been feasible to have included water protection as part of the work on the lifts at grenfell
00:57:39 it would have been feasible there would be a considerable amount of work that would be necessary to do such a thing but it did not form part of david steppel's instruction which was that the further features of
00:57:50 that the further features of firefighting lifts would not be included a secondary power supply is another component of a firefighting lift again would it have been feasible to install the secondary power supply
00:58:02 install the secondary power supply exactly the same as my previous answer and would the works in addition to being considerable is it fair to assume they would also have been expensive very are you able to give the panels
00:58:14 very are you able to give the panels difficult now nearly 20 years after the event back in the day
00:58:19 the day you're giving a very rough and ready idea yes
00:58:22 idea yes can you give the panel some idea yes however caveated about how expensive that would have been i cannot recall the exact amount at that time but i would in looking at the matter as i have done
00:58:34 in looking at the matter as i have done subsequent to receiving uh the report and the
00:58:37 and the the project brief i would i would estimate perhaps guesstimate would be the right term here but that would be between 75 and 100 000 pounds and and one has to consider
00:58:48 000 pounds and and one has to consider also that this project had already escalated from two hundred and twenty thousand pounds to six hundred thousand pounds and to suddenly impose a further figure of
00:58:59 suddenly impose a further figure of sixty five seventy five to a hundred thousand pounds would have been very very difficult to justify as as far as
00:59:07 as as far as kent and chelsea are concerned because every penny has to count and so the 75 to 100 000 pound figure is respect of both lifts yes that's correct yes now turning to a fire service communication system
00:59:18 fire service communication system would it have been feasible to have installed one of those i'm sorry could you repeat that yes would it have been feasible to have installed a fire service communication system
00:59:28 system it would have been possible if requested would that have been expensive it was an individual item i cannot tell you now no i think if i'm right missed from this
00:59:40 i think if i'm right missed from this morning's evidence mr ellis said two or three thousand pounds i think he said does that sound about right or if you can't help say so probably in that region yes
00:59:51 probably in that region yes um fire resistance landing doors were fire resistance landing doors provided yes can i now turn to the separate subject
01:00:02 can i now turn to the separate subject of the fire control switch and could i go to the specification for this purpose which is but
01:00:08 but quadruple zero double zero double four forward slash six zero
01:00:18 here we go paragraph two a point seventy and that deals with what's called the fireman's control switch there first of all i'm right i hope in
01:00:29 first of all i'm right i hope in thinking that the switch was to be installed on the ground floor of grenfell tower is that right that is correct
01:00:35 correct and i'm right in understanding that uh one switch can operate two lifts that is correct also and that the fireman's control switch set out in the specification
01:00:47 switch set out in the specification is designed to be operated with an express drop release key is that right the anti-vandal drop key yes and was that an express requirement of the tmo
01:00:59 the tmo very much so and again can you explain to the panel why that was very much to use your words a consideration on the part of the tma the the bs
01:01:12 the the bs and european standard was for a euro key uh
01:01:16 uh the triangular euro key was very simply available it could be purchased on ebay or amazon it was very very simple for a miscreant to obtain
01:01:28 miscreant to obtain and uh then use it for their own benefit the express drop release key was a a specifically designed
01:01:35 designed key of very very um specialist dimensions that was manufactured by the express lift company and was only
01:01:46 by the express lift company and was only available through one source of supply it was used by a very large amount of local authorities as a secure key for both landing locks and for farmer service and i think i
01:01:59 and for farmer service and i think i think
01:02:00 think in some places it was even used as an access by the fire service into uh areas within a building secure areas now one thing which has
01:02:12 secure areas now one thing which has emerged
01:02:13 emerged from evidence is that express keys were also
01:02:16 also obtainable on ebay and other such sites indeed one fireman mentioned that he bought three uh during the course of his career off ebay was that phenomenon something about
01:02:27 was that phenomenon something about which you were aware uh i i was not aware of that but could i just say that that was considerably after our involvement with the project
01:02:38 after our involvement with the project at the time of the project the key was only available from express lift company and they they in turn made it available through a company called lcl
01:02:51 company called lcl but i do remember that simple simple her reference um that was the only source of supply
01:03:00 supply if it i believe again it's out outside uh
01:03:05 uh our involvement that the these keys were manufactured elsewhere thank you can i now turn to a completely different topic which is the relationship between apex and butter and young
01:03:16 and butter and young yes no apex were appointed lift contractors for the lift works at grenfell is that right correct now if we go to apx
01:03:28 correct now if we go to apx quadruple zero double five double nine
01:03:37 all right just ask for that to be expanded and i'll just invite you to refresh your memory
01:03:55 yes now that email suggests that you approached mr jenchner at apex to inform him of the project and to encourage him uh to submit a tender
01:04:03 tender is that a fair reading
01:04:07 uh no i didn't invite him to uh uh submit a tender i
01:04:14 yes that is correct um i was uh requested by the uh the project team to provide them with the uh the names of
01:04:26 to provide them with the uh the names of the companies that i might approach with an ojec notice um that and that was quite specific because it was relative to the size of the project and their previous experience in analyzing and saying
01:04:36 saying this company could approach this project that company can't you from your tender approved tender list
01:04:45 list you would select a given number of people
01:04:48 people and had apex and butter and young work a lot with each other before this project
01:04:55 project a considerable amount in the same as the others within our tenderness this is wasn't a huge tender list it was seven or eight companies that out of goodness no i i can't even think
01:05:06 out of goodness no i i can't even think of how many lift companies there were there these were companies that we knew and trusted and had experience in this sort of work um can i now ask us to go to apx quadruple zero
01:05:18 ask us to go to apx quadruple zero five six one nine
01:05:27 now it's headed contract documentation for the refurbishment of two electric passenger lifts and replacement one iphone passenger lift at grenfell you'll see in the bottom left-hand corner it's dated october 2004.
01:05:41 corner it's dated october 2004. now this is first of all do you remember seeing this document
01:05:52 do you want to scroll further i'll contract documentation um
01:06:01 well i must have but i don't actually recall it if you don't precise moment no don't worry um
01:06:09 in essence you take it from me in essence it replicates the specification right um would a contract with the lift contractor usually simply replicate the specification and that
01:06:21 replicate the specification and that would be
01:06:22 would be the basis of their instructions about the scope of work to be carried out
01:06:29 well the contract the contract for the project was issued by rbkc and they would attach to it any other relevant paperwork or
01:06:40 any other relevant paperwork or documentation they believe necessary including the contract terms and conditions and anything else that they thought suitable now by the time apex were appointed in october 2000 yes
01:06:52 apex were appointed in october 2000 yes as reflected there and the specification had been written in april 2004. did you advise apex about the tmo's instruction that firefighting lifts will not be installed
01:07:06 i didn't advise them of that the specification would have made it clear that it wasn't required did apex have any role in relation to the design of the lifts whatsoever did apex ever raise concerns
01:07:18 whatsoever did apex ever raise concerns as to whether the list lifts should be designed as a firefighting lifts no
01:07:25 now mr jenchner who's the managing director of apex lifts um said in his first statement of the inquiry we can go to that it's at apx quadruple zero eight double seven four
01:07:36 quadruple zero eight double seven four four
01:07:40 five
01:07:45 and if we look fourth paragraph down from the top he says this the preparation of the contract and therefore the specification of the work was the responsibility of butler and young on the instruction of their client
01:07:59 young on the instruction of their client once completed and disseminated to apex there would be no scope for apex to enter into any discussions regarding changes to the proposed work design issues and suggestion for alternative plans
01:08:10 alternative plans now holding that paragraph there and it might be useful to keep it on the screen and put
01:08:15 and put another one up which is his supplementary statement which can be found at apx quadruple 0-8783
01:08:23 0-8783 forward slash two
01:08:35 and uh jensen clarified that once apex had been awarded the contract and attended pre-start site meetings that any issues could have
01:08:46 site meetings that any issues could have been raised at that point but he maintained his views that issues of compliance with standards were for butter and young to consider now bearing in mind what mr jenchiner has said there
01:08:57 has said there would you agree that once the specification had been prepared and apex awarded the contract as lift contractor they could have raised any issues with you regarding the specification at
01:09:08 you regarding the specification at pre-start
01:09:09 pre-start site meetings
01:09:23 they could have raised matters that gave them concern but that would have been a tender stage really not once we were on
01:09:34 tender stage really not once we were on site
01:09:35 site but they may they may have made a suggestion that they thought may enhance the project uh in their installation but not the specification itself
01:09:45 itself and the reality is apex raised no such concerns is that right no not to my knowledge would you agree that the issue of compliance with british and european standards was ultimately a matter for butter and
01:09:56 was ultimately a matter for butter and young to consider rather than apex yes now
01:10:09 could we turn to the project itself and just a few questions regarding in respect of that um first of all in respect to the project did you supervise the works that were carried out
01:10:20 the works that were carried out by apex when you say you mean me personally you personally i was involved to um a certain extent uh but
01:10:32 to um a certain extent uh but once the project had been awarded then stephen ellis started to take over the project even more so and once it was on site he took the whole project over that was
01:10:43 he took the whole project over that was his role on many many projects that we dealt with
01:10:50 uh mr morehouse i have reached the end of
01:10:53 of my prepared questions um so might i have uh the usual 10 minutes to check whether i've missed out anything which i
01:11:01 which i ought to ask yes in view of the time and the
01:11:06 the fact that last time 10 minutes turned out to be a little less than what was actually required i think we might give ourselves a little bit more time this time um mr moorhouse well we were going to
01:11:17 um mr moorhouse well we were going to have a break during the afternoon around about this time anyway but we if council's reached the end of his questions we usually have a break just to give him a chance to make sure he hasn't overlooked anything okay
01:11:28 sure he hasn't overlooked anything okay and also to give others who are following the proceedings from other places the chance to make suggestions about questions as well so what we'll do is to break now we'll come back at half our
01:11:40 break now we'll come back at half our three
01:11:41 three and then we'll see at that stage if there are any more questions for you exactly all right and i have to ask you please as i have everyone else while you're out of the room please don't discuss your evidence no no or
01:11:52 don't discuss your evidence no no or anything to do with anyone else okay all right would you like to go to the usher please
01:11:59 thank you very much
01:12:29 all right mr cleaner well a quarter not ought to give you enough time if you need more time just let us know thank you thanks good i've heard thank you
01:32:14 yes would you ask mr moore has to come back in please
01:32:24 thank you
01:32:39 thank you all right mr morgan thank you we'll see if there are any more questions for you thank you miss morehouse there are no further questions oh disappointing isn't it after you've got back into
01:32:50 got back into all that journey i could think of something
01:32:53 something but miss morehouse the final thing i really do want to say thank you very much for attending today as much thank you and i'd like to thank you very much on behalf of all those of us on the on the panel uh i i
01:33:05 those of us on the on the panel uh i i can understand so i said to mr ellis what a shock it must be to be asked to remember what they did 15 or nearly 20 years ago yes very much um we're very grateful to you for making the effort to go over
01:33:18 to you for making the effort to go over this and to tell us what you can remember thank you it's very helpful and it's been good to listen to you and to hear what you have to say so thank you very much indeed for coming to help us thank you
01:33:29 help us thank you thank you now you can make your way off again thank you thank you very much indeed there's no rush you take your time
01:33:36 time thank you
01:34:01 well thank you very much mr kinnear now any more for today no that concludes the evidence for uh today and indeed this week um on monday you will be hearing from three more
01:34:12 three more lift related witnesses right good well thank you all very much um we'll conclude there for today and we'll resume
01:34:20 resume at 10 o'clock on monday of next week i'm crystal thanks thank you very much
01:34:32 thank you very much you